METHODOLOGY
Get more FiveThirtyEight
← National map
Chance of being represented by either party
100% D
100% R
| 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 | ||
| Proportionally partisan | ||
| Compact (borders) | ||
| Majority minority | ||
| Highly competitive | ||
| Compact (algorithmic) | ||
| 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
Efficiency gap
A measure of “wasted” votes, by the size of the advantage and which party it favors
| Compact (borders) | R+3% |
| Competitive | R+3% |
| Proportional | R+5% |
| Current | R+5% |
| Dem. gerrymander | D+5% |
| Majority minority | R+6% |
| Compact (algorithmic) | R+8% |
| GOP gerrymander | R+22% |
Competitive districts
Number of districts in which both parties have at least a 1-in-6 chance of winning
| Competitive | 17 |
| Compact (borders) | 9 |
| Compact (algorithmic) | 7 |
| Current | 5 |
| Proportional | 5 |
| Majority minority | 4 |
| GOP gerrymander | 2 |
| Dem. gerrymander | 1 |
Majority-nonwhite districts
Number of districts in which a majority of the voting-age population is nonwhite
| Majority minority | 11 |
| Current | 7 |
| Proportional | 7 |
| GOP gerrymander | 7 |
| Compact (borders) | 7 |
| Compact (algorithmic) | 6 |
| Competitive | 6 |
| Dem. gerrymander | 5 |
County splits
Number of times a map divides counties into different congressional districts
| Compact (borders) | 26 |
| Proportional | 32 |
| Current | 32 |
| Competitive | 40 |
| Majority minority | 42 |
| GOP gerrymander | 43 |
| Dem. gerrymander | 60 |
| Compact (algorithmic) | 71 |
Compactness rank
Rank by the total length of district boundaries, from shortest to longest
| Compact (borders) | 1 |
| Compact (algorithmic) | 2 |
| Competitive | 3 |
| Proportional | 4 |
| Current | 4 |
| GOP gerrymander | 6 |
| Majority minority | 7 |
| Dem. gerrymander | 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
White
African-American
Hispanic/Latino
Asian/Pacific Islander
Other
Minority coalition
| 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 | 2% | <1% | >99% | ||||||
| 2nd | White | 2% | <1% | >99% | ||||||
| 3rd | White | 3% | 5% | 95% | ||||||
| 4th | White | 1% | <1% | >99% | ||||||
| 5th | Minority coalition | 70% | 98% | 2% | ||||||
| 6th | White | 2% | 10% | 90% | ||||||
| 7th | White | 6% | 53% | 47% | ||||||
| 8th | White | 2% | 4% | 96% | ||||||
| 9th | White | 22% | 82% | 18% | ||||||
| 10th | Minority coalition | 25% | 97% | 3% | ||||||
| 11th | White | 1% | 1% | 99% | ||||||
| 12th | White | 1% | 7% | 93% | ||||||
| 13th | White | 3% | 65% | 35% | ||||||
| 14th | White | 19% | 90% | 10% | ||||||
| 15th | White | 5% | 16% | 84% | ||||||
| 16th | White | 2% | 12% | 88% | ||||||
| 17th | White | 2% | 2% | 98% | ||||||
| 18th | White | 3% | 19% | 81% | ||||||
| 19th | White | 2% | 2% | 98% | ||||||
| 20th | Minority coalition | 91% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
| 21st | White | 9% | 94% | 6% | ||||||
| 22nd | White | 7% | 86% | 14% | ||||||
| 23rd | White | 27% | 97% | 3% | ||||||
| 24th | Minority coalition | 92% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
| 25th | Hispanic/ Latino | 86% | 21% | 79% | ||||||
| 26th | Hispanic/ Latino | 87% | 84% | 16% | ||||||
| 27th | Hispanic/ Latino | 85% | 83% | 17% | ||||||
Comments