2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Michigan

[lfromnj]

Again we just saw Andy Levin do the same, why would we expect Huizenga to do any different?

[😥]

Again we just saw Andy Levin do the same, why would we expect Huizenga to do any different?

Huizenga probably will run in the district where he has a better chance of winning. And, yes, most likely you are right, and he will run in the new MI-04, because Upton is easier to beat than Meijer and MI-04 is far easier to hold in the general election than MI-03

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

What are the odds Meijer runs in the Grand Rapids districts and becomes a Katko like figure

[😥]

What are the odds Meijer runs in the Grand Rapids districts and becomes a Katko like figure

I think that probability of his reelection campaign is very high, he amost certainly is running again. The only problem for him is the primary, but I don't think he will lose to MAGA candidate. And I think there's a pretty good chance that he'll win and be like Katko/Fitzpatrick.

[Oryxslayer]

What are the odds Meijer runs in the Grand Rapids districts and becomes a Katko like figure

Well he is running in Grand Rapids. To get to the latter position he would first have to survive a GOP primary base eager for his scalp, and then a overall electorate that has consistently favored the Dems for all of the past decade, a lot of which is new as noted. The district is also more Blue than PA-01 or NY-24 were when the D's made attempts for them - and getting Bluer - so one would still expect a competitive race even if he gets more crossover support in future cycles.

[lfromnj]

People realize that he only did like 2.5 points better than Trump in a very ancestrally Republican area? John James only lost it by 2, although I have a hunch some of it was a media market advantage? No other reason for James to win Muskegon .

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

People realize that he only did like 2.5 points better than Trump in a very ancestrally Republican area? John James only lost it by 2, although I have a hunch some of it was a media market advantage? No other reason for James to win Muskegon .

That was before he got to congress and voted to impeach Trump. That will cause the moderate suburbanites to salivate over him

[lfromnj]

People realize that he only did like 2.5 points better than Trump in a very ancestrally Republican area? John James only lost it by 2, although I have a hunch some of it was a media market advantage? No other reason for James to win Muskegon .

That was before he got to congress and voted to impeach Trump. That will cause the moderate suburbanites to salivate over him

I mean he really should have done better consider his name sounds like a gold tier name. Just seems like he's a weak candidate.

[Tekken_Guy]

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

If Moolenaar choses to run against Kildee then Huizenga will probably run in the 2nd.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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

If Moolenaar choses to run against Kildee then Huizenga will probably run in the 2nd.

Welcome to: Musical Chairs, Michigan Version!

[😥]

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

If Moolenaar choses to run against Kildee then Huizenga will probably run in the 2nd.

Moolenaar declared that he will run in MI-02

[Tekken_Guy]

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

If Moolenaar choses to run against Kildee then Huizenga will probably run in the 2nd.

Moolenaar declared that he will run in MI-02

Oh, I didn't know that.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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

If Moolenaar choses to run against Kildee then Huizenga will probably run in the 2nd.

Moolenaar declared that he will run in MI-02

Oh, I didn't know that.

Well, at least that clears things up.

[Virginiá]

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.

Yeah, I don't see what is controversial about this. If you ask the vast majority of voters whether the party that wins the most votes for a legislature should get to govern, they'd very likely say yes. That is really all that should matter here. I get on a forum regarding drawing maps in the current system might take issue with what it takes to create those results, but at the most fundamental level, the legislature has to be responsive to the will of the people, even if those people are asymmetrically clustered for one party. If the people keep voting for one party to control the legislature but the party that gets fewer votes keeps winning majorities, like in Michigan, that is a dysfunctional democracy at best and corrupt at worst. Trying to talk to people about communities of interest isn't likely to placate their concerns that the majority's votes effectively don't matter. Perhaps urban voters will walk away with the belief that the communities of interest of rural and exurban Michigan matter much more than them. Perhaps the ideal compromise in our current system is one where COI matters but up to a point.

I guess at the heart of this conversation is what kind of system we hold elections under, which is fine. I vote we start with a system that actually responds to the will of the people like they expect.

[patzer]

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

If Moolenaar choses to run against Kildee then Huizenga will probably run in the 2nd.

Moolenaar declared that he will run in MI-02

Odd, doesn’t he live in the 8th? Guess he’s just moving to a safer seat then.

[Torie]

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.

Yeah, I don't see what is controversial about this. If you ask the vast majority of voters whether the party that wins the most votes for a legislature should get to govern, they'd very likely say yes. That is really all that should matter here. I get on a forum regarding drawing maps in the current system might take issue with what it takes to create those results, but at the most fundamental level, the legislature has to be responsive to the will of the people, even if those people are asymmetrically clustered for one party. If the people keep voting for one party to control the legislature but the party that gets fewer votes keeps winning majorities, like in Michigan, that is a dysfunctional democracy at best and corrupt at worst. Trying to talk to people about communities of interest isn't likely to placate their concerns that the majority's votes effectively don't matter. Perhaps urban voters will walk away with the belief that the communities of interest of rural and exurban Michigan matter much more than them. Perhaps the ideal compromise in our current system is one where COI matters but up to a point.

I guess at the heart of this conversation is what kind of system we hold elections under, which is fine. I vote we start with a system that actually responds to the will of the people like they expect.

Is your preference state by state? If so, you would support a Pub gerrymander in CA, because the Pubs are getting like 8 out of 52 seats, when they "should" be getting about a third of the pie. And it would be pretty gross to boot. Your whole system of trying to make it fair breaks down in states that are not quite closely balanced politically. And gerrymandering for fairness should really focus on the overall national result since these days with the polarized parties that is almost the only thing that matters. If you gerrymander for one party in one state, you probably will need to effectively gerrymander for the other party in another state, to make it "fair" overall. You are probably well on your way to opening a Pandora's Box.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Meh. Not the map I would have chosen, and the whole Stevens-Levin situation is a real headache. Birch seemed cleaner all around. Still, can't complain too much.

If 2022 goes really badly, Dems could end up with just 4 seats, but I guess that was probably hard to avoid.

[Brittain33]

Is your preference state by state?...

I do think her argument is about state legislatures for state government, not Congress. There are a number of threads here but the context is the Michigan State Senate map. Not that Congress is "fixed" but it's a different problem with different solutions.  

[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.

lfromnj, I just noticed that the State House map has more Trump seats than Biden seats, even though Trump lost the state. Were you aware of this and if so, why didn't you mention it when decrying how unfair the Senate map was? It seems to be that two maps that are both quite close to parity, but biased in different directions, would cancel each other out in an elegant way. It would mean that any election that is close to 50-50 is likely to result in a split legislature and you need to get (pulling a random number) 53% or more to get unified government.

[Torie]

Is your preference state by state?...

I do think her argument is about state legislatures for state government, not Congress. There are a number of threads here but the context is the Michigan State Senate map. Not that Congress is "fixed" but it's a different problem with different solutions.  

Fair enough. The problem still obtains, but you do not have the offsetting state issue. In states that are reasonably closely balanced, you probably want to have a bunch of closely balanced seats of different types, so if they trend, the trends might cancel each other out. What you don't want is for one party to be totally shut out of power if the vote totals are close overall. And then there is the issue of a two thirds majority issue in states less closely balanced, which often can matter quite a bit with veto overrides and other instances of supra majority requirements.

[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.

lfromnj, I just noticed that the State House map has more Trump seats than Biden seats, even though Trump lost the state. Were you aware of this and if so, why didn't you mention it when decrying how unfair the Senate map was? It seems to be that two maps that are both quite close to parity, but biased in different directions, would cancel each other out in an elegant way. It would mean that any election that is close to 50-50 is likely to result in a split legislature and you need to get (pulling a random number) 53% or more to get unified government.

Because as I stated the Michigan state senate went above and beyond the gerrymander for partisan fairness. The ann arbor split is unnecessary  yet was still done. So I dont see why people are defending this as a pinnacle of fairness. The state house is not as strongly focused on partisan fairness and a bit closer to what naturally happens ? The state house map is still pretty garbage.  That 7 way split of Washentaw to begin with . The Monroe downriver triple split(which actually helps the Trump #s but is still garbage) 5 way split of grand rapids and Lansing Democrats basically getting to draw their own map.
I actually don't see that much wrong with a 21 17 split on paper. Its just they gerrymandered further than required if one even cares about partisan fairness.

Overall the Monroe Downriver split just shows the silliness of drawing in that manner. Trends change and go. Communities generally don't within 10 years(exceptions lie to areas like Loudoun county or similar)

[Bojack Horseman]

The fact that Flint is going to have a Republican congressman now with everything that city has gone through in the last 8 years is a slap in the face.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The fact that Flint is going to have a Republican congressman now with everything that city has gone through in the last 8 years is a slap in the face.

Is it? Or are we assuming the 5th (what I'm assuming the district number of the Bay City-Midland-Flint CD is) is unwinnable for Ds in 2022?
I don't see Kildee running anywhere else. With his incumbency, Ds have a very good shot here. Even if he retired, the seat is still winnable. Also, unlike some other incumbents, Kildee actually has the vast majority of his territory retained.

[Bojack Horseman]

The fact that Flint is going to have a Republican congressman now with everything that city has gone through in the last 8 years is a slap in the face.

Is it? Or are we assuming the 5th (what I'm assuming the district number of the Bay City-Midland-Flint CD is) is unwinnable for Ds in 2022?
I don't see Kildee running anywhere else. With his incumbency, Ds have a very good shot here. Even if he retired, the seat is still winnable. Also, unlike some other incumbents, Kildee actually has the vast majority of his territory retained.

Saginaw and Bay City will soon be as red as Macomb County is. Especially if 2022 is the red wave everyone is expecting, Flint by itself may not be enough to save Kildee.

[Virginiá]

Is your preference state by state? If so, you would support a Pub gerrymander in CA, because the Pubs are getting like 8 out of 52 seats, when they "should" be getting about a third of the pie. And it would be pretty gross to boot. Your whole system of trying to make it fair breaks down in states that are not quite closely balanced politically. And gerrymandering for fairness should really focus on the overall national result since these days with the polarized parties that is almost the only thing that matters. If you gerrymander for one party in one state, you probably will need to effectively gerrymander for the other party in another state, to make it "fair" overall. You are probably well on your way to opening a Pandora's Box.

I don't really support the current system, so yeah. Democrats have a slightly better record on gerrymandering reform, but it's still atrocious what they have and haven't done. FPTP in single member districts drawn by the lawmakers themselves has done nothing but ruin both government and faith in government. You have entire decades in some states where the only thing keeping the majority party in power is the fact that at some point years prior they got to draw the lines, and drew them just well enough to cling to power even when they got less votes, and in some cases this level of control perpetuated itself through multiple redistricting cycles.. I can't blame voters for losing faith in the government's ability to do anything when the allocation of power frequently does not match up with the votes.

The bizarre system in this country is nearly impossible to change, too. It requires the buy-in of many lawmakers who are only office because of this system and the control it affords them, so I'm all for other, more sympathetic lawmakers and judges re-balancing the system in a more equitable way, when possible. I don't see any other way forward for change at the moment.