There seems to be some confusion about the potential map for Iowa’s Congressional districts that Nathaniel90 posted here yesterday, so I’d like to clarify a few points after the jump.

UPDATE: Nathaniel responds to Krusty in the comments.  

The Bean Walker linked to Nathaniel’s post yesterday using the tag line, “Bleeding Heartland/Daily Kos on Iowa Redistricting.” Todd Dorman characterized the map as an “expert speculation” from “Bleeding Heartland/Daily Kos.” I appreciate the links, but I want to clarify that Nathaniel’s original diary was one of 272 diaries posted yesterday at Daily Kos and not commissioned or approved by that site’s owner. I happened to see the piece and invited the author to cross-post here, because I thought his map and explanation would be of interest to Iowa readers.

Krusty Konservative takes the misunderstanding a step further, accusing this site of “gerrymandering.” Krusty has a few problems with Nathaniel’s map: it supposedly creates districts that are too unequal in population; it is “trying to make an already liberal 2nd District even more difficult for Republicans”; and it is not as compact or attractive as the map he created in January.

I haven’t delved into population estimates for Iowa’s counties and don’t know whether Nathaniel’s map would put too many people in the third district, as Krusty charges. Several of the central Iowa counties have seen significant population growth, and I don’t know where Nathaniel got the population numbers he used to draw his map. We won’t have firm numbers until after the 2010 census.

Nathaniel has been writing a series on redistricting across the country (past diaries are here). His intention is not to draw ridiculous gerrymandered maps. On the contrary, his proposed map for Ohio redistricting (published yesterday in the same piece containing his Iowa map) eliminates one Democratic and one Republican seat, rather than two Republicans. Nathaniel also writes,

it would be far better if all states used nonpartisan redistricting like Arizona, Iowa, Washington, and other locales already do. Nonpartisan redistricting at its best doesn’t ensure competitive elections, but it keeps the boundaries within the realm of logic, and doesn’t value incumbency for incumbency’s sake; rather, it stresses more practical concerns of political categorizing such as communities of interest and pure geography.

I think Krusty owes Nathaniel an apology.

And truly, if I were commissioning a diarist to create a gerrymandered map of Iowa for me, would it make sense to pack more Democrats into IA-02, which is already our best seat in terms of partisan ID? Dave Loebsack’s Republican opponent couldn’t even crack 40 percent in 2008. I’d be more interested in creating a favorable third district.

If anyone’s map looks gerrymandered, it’s Krusty’s. He puts Linn and Johnson counties in different districts, which splits a major metropolitan area. He appears to be trying to pack more Democrats into Bruce Braley’s first district while putting Loebsack “in trouble” (or so he thinks).

I don’t think Krusty’s map is more compact than Nathaniel’s either, but like my Republican father used to say, “Reasonable minds can differ.”

Please share your own thoughts about redistricting Iowa in this thread.