METHODOLOGY
Get more FiveThirtyEight
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
Proportionally partisan | ||
Democratic gerrymander | ||
Highly competitive | ||
Compact (algorithmic) | ||
Compact (borders) | ||
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
Dem. gerrymander | D+2% |
Proportional | D+2% |
Competitive | D+6% |
Compact (borders) | R+9% |
Compact (algorithmic) | R+11% |
Majority minority | R+12% |
Current | R+18% |
GOP gerrymander | R+21% |
Competitive | 12 |
Current | 6 |
Compact (algorithmic) | 4 |
Majority minority | 4 |
Compact (borders) | 4 |
Proportional | 2 |
Dem. gerrymander | 2 |
GOP gerrymander | 0 |
Current | 2 |
Compact (algorithmic) | 2 |
Majority minority | 2 |
GOP gerrymander | 2 |
Competitive | 2 |
Proportional | 1 |
Dem. gerrymander | 1 |
Compact (borders) | 1 |
Compact (borders) | 17 |
Majority minority | 22 |
GOP gerrymander | 30 |
Current | 39 |
Competitive | 40 |
Dem. gerrymander | 46 |
Proportional | 46 |
Compact (algorithmic) | 72 |
Compact (borders) | 1 |
Majority minority | 2 |
Compact (algorithmic) | 3 |
GOP gerrymander | 4 |
Competitive | 5 |
Dem. gerrymander | 6 |
Proportional | 6 |
Current | 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 | 58% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
2nd | African-American | 96% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
3rd | White | <1% | 3% | 97% | ||||||
4th | White | 1% | 3% | 97% | ||||||
5th | White | <1% | 2% | 98% | ||||||
6th | White | 1% | 35% | 65% | ||||||
7th | White | 1% | 40% | 60% | ||||||
8th | White | 1% | 38% | 62% | ||||||
9th | White | <1% | <1% | >99% | ||||||
10th | White | <1% | <1% | >99% | ||||||
11th | White | <1% | 4% | 96% | ||||||
12th | White | <1% | 3% | 97% | ||||||
13th | White | 10% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
14th | White | 13% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
15th | White | 2% | 22% | 78% | ||||||
16th | White | 3% | 18% | 82% | ||||||
17th | White | 2% | 42% | 58% | ||||||
18th | White | <1% | 4% | 96% |
Comments