bq. A common definition of a competitive seat is one that falls between a five-point registration advantage for Republicans and a ten-point advantage for Democrats (reflecting the fact that Democrats are more likely to cross party lines). By this measure, the new districts are more competitive than the old ones. There are an additional seven competitive seats in the California Assembly (16 vs. 9), six seats in the California Senate (9 vs. 3) and five in the U.S. House of Representatives (9 vs. 4). For reference, the Democrats have an average registration advantage of 13 points for the state as a whole, so a certain number of uncompetitive districts cannot be avoided.
The last sentence is important. There are limitations on what this redistricting can accomplish. People have made hay of the fact that the Democrats might pick up 5 U.S. seats under this plan, but the effects of the plan at the state legislative level are more muted. Here is McGhee again:
bq. The number of districts that at least lean Democratic in terms of registration is about the same in the Assembly (55 after vs. 53 before) and Senate (29 after vs. 28 before)…
For more, see Jennifer Steen, who writes:
bq. In sum, if California’s goal is reduced partisanship and more competition, then all of this adds up to a pretty self-contradictory effort. It’s like saying you want a more comfortable house, but you don’t want it to have electricity, a roof, or running water.