2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Michigan

[Brittain33]

It's looking like these midwestern states will be democracies heading into 2022: MI, MN, IA, OH (pending Supreme Court ruling)
These states will not be functioning democracies: IL, IN, WI

IA and OH assume that Republicans have an overwhelming advantage but will win based on fair maps.

This is an improvement with MI and OH potentially both upgrading their degree of democratic government over 2021. 

[lfromnj]

It's looking like these midwestern states will be democracies heading into 2022: MI, MN, IA, OH (pending Supreme Court ruling)
These states will not be functioning democracies: IL, IN, WI

IA and OH assume that Republicans have an overwhelming advantage but will win based on fair maps.

How exactly is Michigan a Democracy but Indiana not?

Michigan splits East Lansing and Lansing in the senate and Indiana splits West and Lafayette in the senate. If you are going to complain about Indiana 05, the GR Muskegon seat is pretty damn bad as well.

The Indiana state house map is also pretty damn good on COI's from what Ive seen athough the state senate did keep the gerrymander.

[Brittain33]

It's looking like these midwestern states will be democracies heading into 2022: MI, MN, IA, OH (pending Supreme Court ruling)
These states will not be functioning democracies: IL, IN, WI

IA and OH assume that Republicans have an overwhelming advantage but will win based on fair maps.

How exactly is Michigan a Democracy but Indiana not?

Michigan splits East Lansing and Lansing in the senate and Indiana splits West and Lafayette in the senate. If you are going to complain about Indiana 05, the GR Muskegon seat is pretty damn bad as well.

The Indiana state house map is also pretty damn good on COI's from what Ive seen athough the state senate did keep the gerrymander.
Michigan has some of the worst legislative maps in the entire midwest.

Michigan drew a map where if Republicans win a majority of the vote, they're probably winning the legislature, and vice versa for the Dems. That's what I mean by a functioning democracy. In Wisconsin, Democrats can win majority after majority of voters and still never get close to government.

[lfromnj]

It's looking like these midwestern states will be democracies heading into 2022: MI, MN, IA, OH (pending Supreme Court ruling)
These states will not be functioning democracies: IL, IN, WI

IA and OH assume that Republicans have an overwhelming advantage but will win based on fair maps.

How exactly is Michigan a Democracy but Indiana not?

Michigan splits East Lansing and Lansing in the senate and Indiana splits West and Lafayette in the senate. If you are going to complain about Indiana 05, the GR Muskegon seat is pretty damn bad as well.

The Indiana state house map is also pretty damn good on COI's from what Ive seen athough the state senate did keep the gerrymander.
Michigan has some of the worst legislative maps in the entire midwest.

Michigan drew a map where if Republicans win a majority of the vote, they're probably winning the legislature, and vice versa for the Dems. That's what I mean by a functioning democracy. In Wisconsin, Democrats can win majority after majority of voters and still never get close to government.

Why should Indiana Republicans be forced to draw a Democratic gerrymander before they can be called a Democracy?

What exactly is fair about Biden winning 55% of senate seats for partisan fairness? And yes I don't see anything wrong with that # but the Ann Arbor area is an explicit gerrymander so there was no reason to draw it like that.

[Brittain33]

Why should Indiana Republicans be forced to draw a Democratic gerrymander before they can be called a Democracy?

Why did they need to draw a Republican gerrymander given that they're easily the majority party in the state any way?

[lfromnj]

Why should Indiana Republicans be forced to draw a Democratic gerrymander before they can be called a Democracy?

Why did they need to draw a Republican gerrymander given that they're easily the majority party in the state any way?

The state senate wanted to save their incumbents. It seems the state house didn't feel like that and drew a quite fair map that is probably the best legislative map in the Midwest other than maybe what MN will have. (It does have a few excessive unnecesary county splits IMO)




The MI senate map does this in Lansing/East Lansing. What exactly is the difference? You can't defend the MI state senate on partisan fairness grounds as it gives Biden 55% of seats so I don't really see the difference between Indiana vs Michigan's state senate maps while the Indiana state house map is infinitely superior (it has some mild incumbent protection in Hamilton County but it just involved in the new seat there being a Dem sink.)

[Sol]

Lfromnj is totally right--correcting for geographic concentration is still disgusting gerrymandering.

Michigan Democrats should actually try to win over rural voters rather than forcing silly things cracking Ann Arbor.

[Brittain33]

What exactly is fair about Biden winning 55% of senate seats for partisan fairness? And yes I don't see anything wrong with that # but the Ann Arbor area is an explicit gerrymander so there was no reason to draw it like that.

What's unfair about it? Biden won 51%, and there are only 38 Senators, so that's quite close. If Biden won one fewer seat, you'd be an exact match.

[lfromnj]

What exactly is fair about Biden winning 55% of senate seats for partisan fairness? And yes I don't see anything wrong with that # but the Ann Arbor area is an explicit gerrymander so there was no reason to draw it like that.

What's unfair about it? Biden won 51%, and there are only 38 Senators, so that's quite close. If Biden won one fewer seat, you'd be an exact match.

So why does the Ann Arbor or Lansing crack need to be done? Its clearly a gerrymander and there's no other justification other than partisan fairness but it doesn't even fill that goal. If you are going to attack Indiana as a non functioning Democracy than so is Michigan. I don't have a problem with Biden getting 55% of seats if it was natural, I have a issue with it being done through an independent commission and people trying to claim its a fair map. It also clearly goes beyond partisan fairness so they further gerrymandered than required to be "fair"

Also let's not forget the disgustingness of the VRA seats. People can complain about the current state house maps having the packed seats but the MI GOP created 5 black majority state senate seats that are not overpacked while still not splitting any city other than Detroit. (And no Wayne isn't gerrymandered, Oakland and Macomb are but wayne is drawn pretty fairly while still preserving COI's/city lines while working with the VRA)

[Sol]

What exactly is fair about Biden winning 55% of senate seats for partisan fairness? And yes I don't see anything wrong with that # but the Ann Arbor area is an explicit gerrymander so there was no reason to draw it like that.

What's unfair about it? Biden won 51%, and there are only 38 Senators, so that's quite close. If Biden won one fewer seat, you'd be an exact match.

In a first past the post system, fairness shouldn't be measured by proportionality in results, because in theory the system is about representing distinct geographical communities rather than the combined preferences of all voters.

(I suspect we agree that that's pretty dumb--PR is obviously a better system--but if we are choosing to do FPTP we should actually do it in a way which is most sensible, rather than attempting a proportional map which likely won't stay that way all decade given trends and swings).

[Brittain33]

What exactly is fair about Biden winning 55% of senate seats for partisan fairness? And yes I don't see anything wrong with that # but the Ann Arbor area is an explicit gerrymander so there was no reason to draw it like that.

What's unfair about it? Biden won 51%, and there are only 38 Senators, so that's quite close. If Biden won one fewer seat, you'd be an exact match.

So why does the Ann Arbor or Lansing crack need to be done? Its clearly a gerrymander and there's no other justification other than partisan fairness but it doesn't even fill that goal. If you are going to attack Indiana as a non functioning Democracy than so is Michigan. I don't have a problem with Biden getting 55% of seats if it was natural, I have a issue with it being done through an independent commission and people trying to claim its a fair map.

If what you are saying is that 1 additional crack more than necessary was done in the State Senate than if you wanted to match exactly to the Biden/Trump results, ok, it sounds like you've made that case.

What were the Trump/Clinton numbers on the new Senate map, BTW?

[Brittain33]

What exactly is fair about Biden winning 55% of senate seats for partisan fairness? And yes I don't see anything wrong with that # but the Ann Arbor area is an explicit gerrymander so there was no reason to draw it like that.

What's unfair about it? Biden won 51%, and there are only 38 Senators, so that's quite close. If Biden won one fewer seat, you'd be an exact match.

In a first past the post system, fairness shouldn't be measured by proportionality in results, because in theory the system is about representing distinct geographical communities rather than the combined preferences of all voters.

(I suspect we agree that that's pretty dumb--PR is obviously a better system--but if we are choosing to do FPTP we should actually do it in a way which is most sensible, rather than attempting a proportional map which likely won't stay that way all decade given trends and swings).

You are getting at the heart of this issue here, and I think a problem is that people never chose the FPTP system because it's something we inherited from a long time ago before proportional systems were feasible. And we've seen in recent years how either independently or deliberately, it's used to disenfranchise minorities. When used in conjunction with entrenched racial segregation (WI), it's not far off what we had in the South before the 1960s.

[Brittain33]

Lfromnj is totally right--correcting for geographic concentration is still disgusting gerrymandering.

I would argue that drawing maps to correct for undemocratic results because of residential patterns is not the same, not "disgusting", like drawing maps to exacerbate undemocratic results.

[lfromnj]

What exactly is fair about Biden winning 55% of senate seats for partisan fairness? And yes I don't see anything wrong with that # but the Ann Arbor area is an explicit gerrymander so there was no reason to draw it like that.

What's unfair about it? Biden won 51%, and there are only 38 Senators, so that's quite close. If Biden won one fewer seat, you'd be an exact match.

In a first past the post system, fairness shouldn't be measured by proportionality in results, because in theory the system is about representing distinct geographical communities rather than the combined preferences of all voters.

(I suspect we agree that that's pretty dumb--PR is obviously a better system--but if we are choosing to do FPTP we should actually do it in a way which is most sensible, rather than attempting a proportional map which likely won't stay that way all decade given trends and swings).

You are getting at the heart of this issue here, and I think a problem is that people never chose the FPTP system because it's something we inherited from a long time ago before proportional systems were feasible. And we've seen in recent years how either independently or deliberately, it's used to disenfranchise minorities. When used in conjunction with entrenched racial segregation (WI), it's not far off what we had in the South before the 1960s.

Wisconsin is not a good example.

Wisconsin clearly had functioning use of district representation. Paul Ryan won 60-70% of the vote in a swing SE wisconsin district. Tammy Baldwin struggled to win a Madison district. Democrats nearly won the Waukesha portion of a South Milwaukee Waukesha district in 2000.   It's pretty clear until very recently people in Wisconsin were clearly choosing for someone rather than a party to represent their district. PR makes little sense in this situation. Even if Paul Ryan is a far right hack the people of Southern Wisconsin chose him

Even then looking at racial segregation is a weak argument for Wisconsin even if Milwaukee is very segregated. In 2012 in the Milwaukee region you had super D arguably "packed" areas in Milwaukee. Then you had swingy suburban regions in the rest of the county . After that you had nearly as R areas that were higher turnout in WOW. It clearly cancels out.  The rest of the state had the strongly D Madison area and then a bunch of swingy rurals or small cities.

Now what happens:
A few inner ring suburbs flip near Milwaukee. WOW gets much less red but it doesn't matter.
The inner part of the Strongly D Madison area gets even more D but the surrounding rurals don't really change. The rest of the state gets more R. Milwaukee actually loses population and turnout crashes overall.

Segregation patterns didn't change. Voting patterns did.

[Sol]

Lfromnj is totally right--correcting for geographic concentration is still disgusting gerrymandering.

I would argue that drawing maps to correct for undemocratic results because of residential patterns is not the same, not "disgusting", like drawing maps to exacerbate undemocratic results.

The problem is is that FPTP doesn't actually solve that problem. A map which neatly approximates today's partisan divide has no guarantee of continuing to do so throughout the decade, and can actually end up acting as a partisan gerrymander.

[Brittain33]

Lfromnj is totally right--correcting for geographic concentration is still disgusting gerrymandering.

I would argue that drawing maps to correct for undemocratic results because of residential patterns is not the same, not "disgusting", like drawing maps to exacerbate undemocratic results.

The problem is is that FPTP doesn't actually solve that problem. A map which neatly approximates today's partisan divide has no guarantee of continuing to do so throughout the decade, and can actually end up acting as a partisan gerrymander.

Oh, I agree. It's a hack at best. But a hack with a better chance of producing democratic results than a map drawn by one party.

[Torie]

This cycle of line drawing has let it all hang out, and this thread does it in a raw and  brutal but candid manner, so KUDOS for that. The only way out is the German system. Absent that, the self righteous from both sides will flagellate  themselves and each other with no surcease, long after no one still living has any idea that i was ever on this planet,  with less impact than a fart in a windstorm.

[😥]

I placed a new district on DRA, taking into account the boundaries of the former districts. That's what I got as a result

The new 11th district includes
349,572 people from the former 11th district (Stevens)
233,676 people from the former 14th district (Lawrence)
192,254 people from the former 9th district (Levin)

[lfromnj]

I placed a new district on DRA, taking into account the boundaries of the former districts. That's what I got as a result

The new 11th district includes
349,572 people from the former 11th district (Stevens)
233,676 people from the former 14th district (Lawrence)
192,254 people from the former 9th district (Levin)

One thing to note is that other than Levin's home the parts from Levin's district is the Dem primary base .

[Oryxslayer]

I placed a new district on DRA, taking into account the boundaries of the former districts. That's what I got as a result

The new 11th district includes
349,572 people from the former 11th district (Stevens)
233,676 people from the former 14th district (Lawrence)
192,254 people from the former 9th district (Levin)

One thing to note is that other than Levin's home the parts from Levin's district is the Dem primary base .

Yes, but you can't exactly outmath a 2:3 ratio, roughly.

https://twitter.com/MassJumbo/status/1475977221521252353?s=20

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I placed a new district on DRA, taking into account the boundaries of the former districts. That's what I got as a result

The new 11th district includes
349,572 people from the former 11th district (Stevens)
233,676 people from the former 14th district (Lawrence)
192,254 people from the former 9th district (Levin)

I forgot how heavily Lawrence's seat went into Oakland. I certainly didn't expect her seat to have more territory within the new 11th than Levin's did.

[lfromnj]

I placed a new district on DRA, taking into account the boundaries of the former districts. That's what I got as a result

The new 11th district includes
349,572 people from the former 11th district (Stevens)
233,676 people from the former 14th district (Lawrence)
192,254 people from the former 9th district (Levin)

One thing to note is that other than Levin's home the parts from Levin's district is the Dem primary base .

Yes, but you can't exactly outmath a 2:3 ratio, roughly.

https://twitter.com/MassJumbo/status/1475977221521252353?s=20

Oh yeah of course, I knew that Steven's would have more Biden voters but it does help Levin out.

Also by the way Stevens moved to Waterford. It really is funny how Stevens is from Waterford while Levin is from Bloomfield .

[😥]

I placed a new district on DRA, taking into account the boundaries of the former districts. That's what I got as a result

The new 11th district includes
349,572 people from the former 11th district (Stevens)
233,676 people from the former 14th district (Lawrence)
192,254 people from the former 9th district (Levin)

Also did the same for MI-03. New MI-03 includes more people (443,012) from the Huizenga's district than from Meijer's district (386,991).

So, I wouldn't be surprised to see Huizenga running against Meijer and winning with Trump's endorsement and establishment support

[lfromnj]

I placed a new district on DRA, taking into account the boundaries of the former districts. That's what I got as a result

The new 11th district includes
349,572 people from the former 11th district (Stevens)
233,676 people from the former 14th district (Lawrence)
192,254 people from the former 9th district (Levin)

Also did the same for MI-03. New MI-03 includes more people (443,012) from the Huizenga's district than from Meijer's district (386,991).

So, I wouldn't be surprised to see Huizenga running against Meijer and winning with Trump's endorsement and establishment support

Why would he want to primary Meijer over Upton?

Use the Andy Levin rule .

[😥]

Yeah, maybe you're right. Upton's seat is more Republican-friedly and Huizenga may force Upton to retire, but also Meijer's district contains far more of former district of Huizenga than Upton's district