The Redistricting Conundrum

The conventional wisdom in New York will redistrict so that one Republican seat upstate and one Democrat downstate loses their seats. I suppose this is the conventional wisdom because each losing one seems "fair."

Republicans hold 7 seats to the Democrats' 22 seats. So each losing one wouldn't be proportional at all. It'd be asking the poor party to pay the same amount as the rich one and we know Democrats don't like the idea of the poor giving up as much as the rich.

What we do know is that both parties have to approve redistricting and if they don't agree it'll go to a court. Court drawn maps are unpredictable, but most draw the maps to make sense geographically without gerrymandering for party vote. So the base line for each party should be what they know they're guaranteed if a court does it. I drew two maps using DRA and came up with the following:

When I brought this up in a discussion board, some people were of the opinion that they'd rather have the higher guarantee with a lower ceiling. If you're a pessimist and imagine the worst I guess that makes sense.

To me this is a no brainer. If all I'll get is 6 with a shot at 2 more, I'll take the 4 with a shot at 8 more. I should end up even or ahead in all but the worst years. I'll risk 2 for a shot at 4 more.

I noticed a similar scenario in Nevada. People were saying that the new maps would have two safe Democratic districts and two lean/likely Republican districts. A court will decide it now. When I mapped it out to comply with the VRA and not worry about partisanship I ended up with 1 safe Democratic, 1 lean/likely Republican, and 2 toss-up districts.

Again, I'll take my chances on that map.