political breakdown of new 10-1 districts (Austin, Post: neighborhood, live, lawsuit)

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by scm53

Interested in how you came to that conclusion about 6, since there wasn't a single voting precinct in there that went over 45% for Obama - and many under 30%. Ten also - highest was 45-50 in maybe three, with many not over 30%. Tough to see how you get to 51% in either.

"No single voting precinct over 45% for Obama", that is hard to reconcile with the City of Austin demographic map that I linked to. It shows numerous areas there in shades of green and blue (50 to 80%).

It is hard to tell for sure about 6, since the portion of it it outside if Travis County is not shown on that CoA voting map. A large part of the portion that is shown is light blue blue (55-65%) and medium blue (65-80)% voted for Obama. But after studying it again I see that the West portion of it is mostly light green (50-55%) and small parts of it are yellow and orange (less then 50%).

[scm53]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

"No single voting precinct over 45% for Obama", that is hard to reconcile with the City of Austin demographic map that I linked to. It shows numerous areas there in shades of green and blue (50 to 80%).

It is hard to tell for sure about 6, since the portion of it it outside if Travis County is not shown on that CoA voting map. A large part of the portion that is shown is light blue blue (55-65%) and medium blue (65-80)% voted for Obama. But after studying it again I see that the West portion of it is mostly light green (50-55%) and small parts of it are yellow and orange (less then 50%).

To use the 2012 presidential election as a proxy for party breakdown is a fool's errand. Everybody that went to the polls knew that the Texas electoral vote was a foregone conclusion.

The one I looked at was from the COA demographer that you also looked to - titled "Travis County's Emerging Political Polarization 2012." It shows 6 & 10 solidly Republican. Turnout will be everything, and since there is no party identification in council races, won't matter anyway. Tildahat's right - impossible to tell. But the new council will certainly reflect different sensibilities than the narrowly focused one we have now.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by scm53

To use the 2012 presidential election as a proxy for party breakdown is a fool's errand. Everybody that went to the polls knew that the Texas electoral vote was a foregone conclusion.

The one I looked at was from the COA demographer that you also looked to - titled "Travis County's Emerging Political Polarization 2012." It shows 6 & 10 solidly Republican. Turnout will be everything, and since there is no party identification in council races, won't matter anyway. Tildahat's right - impossible to tell. But the new council will certainly reflect different sensibilities than the narrowly focused one we have now.

No that is not the one I looked at or linked to. This one is from the actual vote, not the party primaries. http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/def...untry_2012.pdf

[scm53]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

No that is not the one I looked at or linked to. This one is from the actual vote, not the party primaries. http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/def...untry_2012.pdf

I understand that. The presidential election vote, as I said, is a poor indicator of party breakdown because the votes, in Texas in 2012, we're pretty much meaningless.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by scm53

I understand that. The presidential election vote, as I said, is a poor indicator of party breakdown because the votes, in Texas in 2012, we're pretty much meaningless.

So you used the party primary vote, which has a very low turnout, to predict the party breakdown? Obviously the party primary vote was a very poor predictor of how people would actually vote in the election.

[scm53]

Proposed final maps posted.

[scm53]

Most interesting things are:

Five of the seven current members live in the same proposed district
The lone African American doesn't live in the one drawn to elect an African American
The lone Hispanic doesn't live in the district drawn to elect a Hispanic - instead lives in the one drawn for an African American.

All means a bunch of new faces on council - or a bunch of folks moving.

[Austin97]

except for district 5 it seems pretty good.

[gpurcell]

MUCH better than the initial travesty. I'd have preferred to see Town Lake as a dividing line but I can accept District 9 as OK.

The most interesting district to me is District 4. If the Powers That Be don't lean pretty heavily on potential candidates in the west part of that district it won't elect a black council member and the entire council will be Anglo/Hispanic and maybe Asian.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

MUCH better than the initial travesty. I'd have preferred to see Town Lake as a dividing line but I can accept District 9 as OK.

The most interesting district to me is District 4. If the Powers That Be don't lean pretty heavily on potential candidates in the west part of that district it won't elect a black council member and the entire council will be Anglo/Hispanic and maybe Asian.

I think 1 was the district that was drawn to be Afrucan American. The Chronicle had a good point this week - the VRA, and the resultant race driven gerrymandering that was the first consideration in the 10-1 plan - wasn't to elect a given race. The goal is to elect a representative that is the choice of a minority population - of any race.