METHODOLOGY
![Methodology](/redistricting-maps/images/gerryinteractivemethod-4x3-transparent.png?v=6b24b4dcaeea1993c3d792e5475696f7)
There’s a lot of complaining about gerrymandering, but what should districts look like? We went back to the drawing board and drew a set of alternative congressional maps for the entire country. Each map has a different goal: One is designed to encourage competitive elections, for example, and another to maximize the number of majority-minority districts. See how changes to district boundaries could radically alter the partisan and racial makeup of the U.S. House — without a single voter moving or switching parties. How we did this »
Show current district boundaries
Gerrymander districts to favor Republicans
Gerrymander districts to favor Democrats
Match partisan breakdown of seats to electorate
Promote highly competitive elections
Maximize number of majority-minority districts
Make district shapes compact (using an algorithm)
Make districts compact while following county borders
← National map
Chance of being represented by either party
Usually Democratic districts | Highly competitive districts | Usually Republican districts | |
---|---|---|---|
Current |
Usually Democratic districts | Highly competitive districts | Usually Republican districts | |
---|---|---|---|
Current |
Party probabilities
Every district by the chance it will be represented by either party
Democratic gerrymander | ||
Current | ||
Compact (borders) | ||
Compact (algorithmic) | ||
Majority minority | ||
Proportionally partisan | ||
Highly competitive | ||
Republican gerrymander |
How the maps compare on district competitiveness, minority makeup, respect for local borders, compactness and the efficiency gap, an attempt to gauge how politically gerrymandered a set of districts is
Proportional | D+2% |
GOP gerrymander | D+12% |
Competitive | D+23% |
Compact (borders) | D+24% |
Compact (algorithmic) | D+24% |
Majority minority | D+24% |
Dem. gerrymander | D+34% |
Current | D+34% |
Majority minority | 3 |
Competitive | 3 |
Current | 2 |
Compact (algorithmic) | 2 |
Proportional | 2 |
GOP gerrymander | 2 |
Compact (borders) | 2 |
Dem. gerrymander | 0 |
Majority minority | 1 |
Current | 0 |
Compact (algorithmic) | 0 |
Proportional | 0 |
GOP gerrymander | 0 |
Dem. gerrymander | 0 |
Competitive | 0 |
Compact (borders) | 0 |
Compact (borders) | 4 |
Competitive | 7 |
Majority minority | 8 |
Dem. gerrymander | 9 |
Proportional | 10 |
Compact (algorithmic) | 10 |
Current | 10 |
GOP gerrymander | 11 |
Compact (borders) | 1 |
Compact (algorithmic) | 2 |
Competitive | 3 |
Majority minority | 4 |
Dem. gerrymander | 5 |
Current | 6 |
GOP gerrymander | 7 |
Proportional | 8 |
The racial or ethnic makeup of each district and each district’s likelihood of being represented by a member of a racial or ethnic minority, based on election results since 2006
Share of population by race | Chance of being represented by a ... | Chance of being represented by a ... | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
District | District | Majority Race | 0% 50% 100% | Minority member | Democrat | Republican | ||||
1st | White | 7% | 97% | 3% | ||||||
2nd | White | 2% | 69% | 31% | ||||||
3rd | White | 5% | 94% | 6% | ||||||
4th | White | 7% | 90% | 10% | ||||||
5th | White | 4% | 62% | 38% |
Comments