Talk:REDMAP

Before REDMAP section should be deleted

I previously deleted this section, but my edit was quickly undone. This section is riddled with falsehoods, and merely including the disclaimer at the top is insufficient. The idea that Democrats had an advantage prior to REDMAP is not something anyone who studies American politics seriously would agree with. Democrats did have a persistent majority from 1955 to 1995, but that was because the Democratic caucus included anti-civil rights southern Democrats. Those seats were all replaced by Republicans during the southern realignment, ending that era. The claim that Democrats held this majority and held a persistent advantage due to the VRA is an embarrassing falsehood. At most, the VRA prohibits screwing Democrats in a particular way, but even with VRA protections, it is Democrats who have a disadvantage, due to the natural packing of Democratic voters in urban areas. I'm not going to keep deleting this section, but as someone who works as an analyst of congressional elections, I'll just point out here that its inclusion remains an utter embarrassment to this article and to Wikipedia more generally. Banyan (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about deleted, but it's not clear why some of it is DUE or has WEIGHT. for a section titled "Before REDMAP".

I don't see any references to REDMAP here...

• The minority vote protections in the Voting Rights Act resulted in a situation where the party that elected minorities also had an advantage in the House of Representatives.

or here...

• Democrats championed the process, redrawing districts to maintain minority populations.

or here...

• Due in part to this, Democrats largely controlled Congress for 40 years, from 1955 to 1995. Democrats are increasingly winning the majority of the votes in densely populated but small geographic, mostly urban, areas. These urban districts are very hard to gerrymander.

I don't see citations or mention of REDMAP, or, exactly how it pertains to "Before REDMAP"...

• This is because most local governments want House districts that respect local boundaries and that local politicians can defend in the polls, while Democratic city governments can influence Democratic state legislators who might otherwise be tempted to gerrymander.
• GOP drawn boundaries have been seen to overcrowd districts created by Democrats with disproportionate amounts of minority populations. By increasing numbers in a safe Democratic district, Republicans reduce the influence of the liberal voting bloc in both state politics and congressional elections. Republicans controlled the US House from 1995 until 2007.

No mention of REDMAP, and this appears to be a blog piece (opinion by a regular commentator Peter Roff?)

• However, the Republican party regained its power in state legislatures following the losses by the Democrats in the 2010 mid-terms. The Democrats were unpopular with voters at this time, allowing Republicans to implement a political effort called REDMAP that enabled them to redraw favorable maps with the 2010 Census data.

This could be pure opinion from a non-expert that may be UNDUE...

Cheers. DN (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree, the "Before REDMAP does not adhere to standards of impartiality. ~2026-25223-71 (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. This section is needless and seems to be pure commentary. It ought to be removed. ~2026-27233-08 (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Why mention the 2018 midterms

Hey, it's very strange to mention the part about the 2018 midterms, specifically the senate. REDMAP is entirely non-germane to the Senate as far as I know. The sentence reads as a bit like its trying to justify something, I'm going to take it out if no one responds here. Aurora _{(User:Horkak)} (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Articel Quite Short

Hey, I also wanted to note that the article is quite short for how significant it is, when I have the time I would like to expand it a bit, and otherwise see it expanded. Aurora _{(User:Horkak)} (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interest edit request: clarify Maptitude wording in lead

Disclosure: I have a professional affiliation with Caliper Corporation / Maptitude, so I am not making this edit directly. I am requesting review by an uninvolved editor.

Summary of request: Please revise the article's wording about redistricting software. The current lead describes Caliper Corporation's Maptitude as "previously unavailable" mapping software used by REDMAP. That phrasing is unsupported, over-specific for the lead, and misleading in context. Independent sources describe Maptitude for Redistricting as a widely used redistricting platform, including by state legislatures, political parties, government bodies, commissions, and nonpartisan redistricting projects. A more neutral summary would describe the role of voter data, computerized models, and redistricting software generally in the lead, with a more precise, sourced discussion of Maptitude in the body.

Requested change 1: Lead

Please replace this sentence in the lead:

"The project has made effective use of partisan gerrymandering by relying on previously unavailable mapping software, such as Caliper Corporation's Maptitude to improve the precision with which district lines are strategically drawn."

with:

"The project has made effective use of partisan gerrymandering following Republican gains in state legislatures during the 2010 elections, which gave the party control over post-Census redistricting in key states. Advances in voter data, computerized redistricting models, and redistricting software allowed mapmakers to draw districts with greater precision."

Requested change 2: Effects section

Please replace this sentence in the Effects section:

"They then used sophisticated software such as Maptitude for Redistricting, the software used by most entities, independent commissions, and political parties involved in redistricting, to devise districts favorable to the Republican party, for example by clustering Democratic voters into a handful of districts and ensuring the rest were drawn to include Republican majorities."

with:

"They then used computerized redistricting models and redistricting software, including Maptitude for Redistricting, to devise districts favorable to the Republican Party, for example by clustering Democratic voters into a handful of districts and ensuring the rest were drawn to include Republican majorities. Maptitude for Redistricting was also widely used outside REDMAP; Roll Call described it as dominant in the redistricting software market, with users including a majority of state legislatures, national party committees, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, and the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. The Redistricting Data Hub, a nonpartisan redistricting data project, has also listed Maptitude among the redistricting software used by numerous states. Maptitude was also used in nonpartisan redistricting work, including Columbia Law School's DrawCongress.org project, which sought to create nonpartisan congressional maps for all 435 congressional districts."

Reason: The current wording says REDMAP relied on "previously unavailable" mapping software, naming Maptitude in the lead. That phrasing is not supported by the sources and gives undue emphasis to one software product in the article summary. The better-supported lead point is broader: after the 2010 elections, Republicans controlled redistricting in key states, and modern voter data, computerized models, and redistricting software made district drawing more precise.

The Maptitude-specific point is better handled in the Effects section, where it can be described with independent sources. The Guardian reports that Caliper rolled out its first version of Maptitude for redistricting in the 1990s, so "previously unavailable" is not an accurate description of the software in the 2010 redistricting cycle. Roll Call describes Maptitude for Redistricting as dominant in the redistricting software market and identifies users including a majority of state legislatures, national party committees, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, and the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. The Redistricting Data Hub lists Maptitude as software used by many state redistricting bodies. The University of Chicago Library documents use of Maptitude for Columbia Law School's nonpartisan DrawCongress.org project. The U.S. News sources support the surrounding REDMAP context, including the use of computerized models after 2010 and the fact that users can plug their own data into Maptitude.

These changes preserve the article's point that REDMAP benefited from technology-assisted redistricting, while avoiding an unsupported implication that Maptitude was newly available, unique to REDMAP, or inherently partisan.

References to add or update:

Thank you. ~2026-28869-53 (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2026 (UTC) ~2026-28869-53 (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

So one of these sources may be problematic, or worth finding substitutions for if any exist.

• - opinion WP:RS

Seeing as this may be considered a COIN edit, you might have more luck with this request at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

References