METHODOLOGY

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 | ||
| Highly competitive | ||
| Proportionally partisan | ||
| Compact (borders) | ||
| Compact (algorithmic) | ||
| Majority minority | ||
| Current | ||
| 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 | 0% |
| Compact (algorithmic) | D+1% |
| Compact (borders) | R+7% |
| Competitive | D+9% |
| Majority minority | R+9% |
| Dem. gerrymander | D+16% |
| Current | R+23% |
| GOP gerrymander | R+24% |
| Competitive | 10 |
| Compact (algorithmic) | 5 |
| Proportional | 2 |
| Majority minority | 1 |
| Compact (borders) | 1 |
| Current | 0 |
| GOP gerrymander | 0 |
| Dem. gerrymander | 0 |
| Majority minority | 3 |
| Current | 2 |
| GOP gerrymander | 2 |
| Dem. gerrymander | 2 |
| Proportional | 1 |
| Compact (borders) | 1 |
| Compact (algorithmic) | 0 |
| Competitive | 0 |
| Compact (borders) | 11 |
| Proportional | 12 |
| Current | 13 |
| Competitive | 19 |
| Dem. gerrymander | 33 |
| GOP gerrymander | 36 |
| Majority minority | 41 |
| Compact (algorithmic) | 56 |
| Compact (borders) | 1 |
| Proportional | 2 |
| Compact (algorithmic) | 3 |
| Competitive | 4 |
| Current | 5 |
| 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
| 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 | Minority coalition | 74% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
| 2nd | White | 6% | 10% | 90% | ||||||
| 3rd | White | 6% | 2% | 98% | ||||||
| 4th | White | 18% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
| 5th | White | 3% | 5% | 95% | ||||||
| 6th | White | 6% | 7% | 93% | ||||||
| 7th | White | 6% | 5% | 95% | ||||||
| 8th | White | 8% | 8% | 92% | ||||||
| 9th | White | 13% | 9% | 91% | ||||||
| 10th | White | 2% | 2% | 98% | ||||||
| 11th | White | <1% | 1% | 99% | ||||||
| 12th | Minority coalition | 54% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
| 13th | White | 7% | 15% | 85% | ||||||
Comments