2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Michigan

[lfromnj]

Ok, here's my counterproposal. Fairly similar to my earlier map, but with a more compact Detroit area. Not in love with the boundary between the 1st and 2nd but not sure of the best way to improve it.


Sorry for the absence of images, not able to screenshot presently.

You probably should try to avoid a West to East MI district in central north. Trade between 1 and 2.

[Torie]

Ok, here's my counterproposal. Fairly similar to my earlier map, but with a more compact Detroit area. Not in love with the boundary between the 1st and 2nd but not sure of the best way to improve it.


Sorry for the absence of images, not able to screenshot presently.

Thank you.

[Sol]

Ok, here's my counterproposal. Fairly similar to my earlier map, but with a more compact Detroit area. Not in love with the boundary between the 1st and 2nd but not sure of the best way to improve it.


Sorry for the absence of images, not able to screenshot presently.

You probably should try to avoid a West to East MI district in central north. Trade between 1 and 2.

Yeah that makes sense. Doing a full on Traverse City-Holland district is pretty dang sensible, but I felt weird about putting the UP with the Huron shore--probably not justified, but it looks awfully odd.

Plus I think I was a bit tired after endlessly massaging the Detroit area seats to avoid municipal splits.

[EastAnglianLefty]

For that 7th, is it possible to swap St. Joseph County for bits of Calhoun outside Battle Creek?

[Sol]

For that 7th, is it possible to swap St. Joseph County for bits of Calhoun outside Battle Creek?

I think so but it cuts a little tight.

[Former President tack50]

For fun, here is my guess for a bipartisan incumbent protection plan; the kind that could have been drawn if there was no comission. I did this hoping that, for the most part, trends would stick. Admittedly this is a version that is quite favourable to Dems, but still it does its job for "incumbent protection" though I think some of the R representatives get screwed so not ideal for them.

Names indicate the representative the district is intended for, the one whose home is inside the district. Since Michigan is losing a district, 2 representatives will have to share one.



https://davesredistricting.org/join/6982f03d-e958-4756-94a9-7f078b471b0e

MI-01 (Bergman): Trump+23, R+10
MI-02 (Huizenga): Trump+12, R+6
MI-03 (Moolenar): Trump+10, R+4
MI-04 (Meljer + Kildee): Trump+1, EVEN
MI-05 (Upton): Trump+18, R+9
MI-06 (Walberg): Trump+18, R+8
MI-07 (Slotkin): Clinton+3, D+1
MI-08 (Levin): Clinton+6, D+5
MI-09 (McClain): Trump+32, R+12
MI-10 (Stevens): Clinton+1, EVEN
MI-11 (Dingell): Clinton+15, D+10
MI-12 (Tlaib): Clinton+52, D+28 (49% black)
MI-13 (Lawrence): Clinton+40, D+19 (47% black)

My thoughts in terms of the changes were basically that the successor to Amash, with low seniority and in a D trending area, should be combined with the MI-05 district, in an R trending area and which is a D gerrymander. This creates a perfectly fair fight district that is EVEN in PVI and voted Trump by only 1%.

The 2 Dems that won in 2018 get versions that are more democratic than their current versions, though they are still plenty winable for Republicans.

As for the rest I just took the residences and tried to make safe districts out of them that resembled their old district. Tbh the Grand Rapids area gets completely screwed in this map with a 4 way cut, and the 2 resulting districts aren't the greatest or the safest but it is good enough I suppose. Like I said the map is probably a bid Dem leaning.

[Torie]

Nice piece of art work!

[Sol]

Does this look better?

[Nyvin]

Does this look better?

I guess the Macomb/Oakland split district does make the rest of the map fit together a lot better

[Torie]

Does this look better?

You did a fine map, and clearly put a lot of effort in it. I don't prefer your deep jut into Oakland County, which has the effect of unnecessarily packing the black vote as well, depriving them of a third black influence CD, and the extension way out into the Thumb of a metro Detroit CD is not ideal, but on the other hand, the Flint, Saginaw, Bay City and Midland CD is nice, along with creating a CD of working and lower middle class whites by and large in Wayne and Monroe. So I acknowledge the map's compensating virtues.

[cvparty]

Does this look better?

i’m curious, how would you draw a map without the second VRA district going north of southfield?

[Sol]

Does this look better?

i’m curious, how would you draw a map without the second VRA district going north of southfield?

not sure yet, but have been playing with this.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Did a fair Michigan map where I murdered county lines in pursuit of COIs and compactness. Barring a landslide, it's 6R-5D-2S. Dingell and Moolenar both lose their districts (they could challenge Tlaib and Kildee, respectively) and an open Lansing-Kalamazoo district is created.

[palandio]

As I stated before, all seats have to be seen together and most Ann Arbor seats will be not ideal from a CoI point of view, so there has to be a discount for that.

The Lansing-Kalamazoo district looks like a deliberate choice that can be justified by "pairing two mid-sized metros with an orientation towards science and education" or something like that. It's not perfectly compact and gives vibes of partisan linedrawing but altogether it's probably defensible.

The Jackson-Southern Wayne district needs a very good explanation. What CoI is that seat supposed to represent? It's not particularly compact either if you define compactness by minimizing distances between people in the same district.

As is said every map will have its weak points and these can be weighed up if the rest of the map is particularly nice, but I wanted to point out where explanation would be needed, particularly when explicitly drawing a "CoI-driven" map.

[EastAnglianLefty]

It looks like the 2nd is also open in that map, as I think Huizenga lives in Ottawa County. Eyeballing it, it looks like there's a chance it takes more electors from the current 4th than the current 2nd.

[Torie]

I decided to put Midland in with Bay City, and made more precise the equalization of populations, and played around with how to round out the Grand Rapids CD. FWIW, I am absolutely convinced that the two black CD's are performing. They are around 44.0% and 45.4% BCVAP. That is enough in a Dem primary.

[lfromnj]

Its legal if under the VRA. The current map has it.

[Sol]

Gotta say, I'm not a big fan of tossing Midland and Bay City into a district with the UP. Ideally they'd go with Saginaw since they seem to be a common region, but I understand that isn't always feasible. A little more questionable to me is linking Midland and Bay City to the UP--it's a bit odd IMO to put industrial and urban Bay City with some of the most rural territory in the lower 48.

Also don't love the split of Kalamazoo.

[Sol]

In any case, sorry for being so persnickety. I know I keep on nitpicking others' maps--just trying to move closer to the Ideal Map. Apologies however if I'm causing offense.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

The Lansing-Kalamazoo district looks like a deliberate choice that can be justified by "pairing two mid-sized metros with an orientation towards science and education" or something like that. It's not perfectly compact and gives vibes of partisan linedrawing but altogether it's probably defensible.

The Jackson-Southern Wayne district needs a very good explanation. What CoI is that seat supposed to represent? It's not particularly compact either if you define compactness by minimizing distances between people in the same district.

To understand how this map turned out, you have to consider where I started. I initially drew the Flint-Saginaw-Bay City and Thumb-Exurban Detroit seats. After slotting in the Oakland, Macomb, and Detroit seats, Downriver Wayne and Monroe had an annoying population that wouldn't pair with Washtenaw without an annoying split, caused by my choice to put Southfield in with Detroit to push both VRA seats above 45% AA. Thus, I chose to pair it with Jackson and some rurals to avoid splitting up a natural Ann Arbor COI, even though there's not much inherently linking the two areas.

As for Lansing and Kalamazoo, it's pretty simple. I didn't want to split the Grand Rapids and Southwest Michigan COIs so the only option without splitting Lansing and/or Kalamazoo-Battle Creek (a no-go in my opinion) was to pair the two.

I also think pairing Ann Arbor with Livingston and outer Oakland is probably the best choice from a COI perspective, so I'm happy with how that turned out.

[Torie]

In any case, sorry for being so persnickety. I know I keep on nitpicking others' maps--just trying to move closer to the Ideal Map. Apologies however if I'm causing offense.

No, not at all. You have been polite and reasonable in all of my interactions with you, and are certainly entitled to your own opinions, particularly when you explain you reasoning, which is well, reasonable. Unfortunately, as you well know, there is no way to get all that one wants, and I certainly don't disagree that having Bay City and Saginaw in the same CD is a plus factor in a map.

One thing I look at with county chops is their size, along with the size of the chop of any municipality. In the case of Kalamazoo County, the size of the chop is about 22,600 people, or about 8% of  the population of the county. In other words, the chop is of a quite rural area, and does impinge on the City of Kalamazoo or its nearby suburbs, so it does not bother me that much personally.

[palandio]

The Lansing-Kalamazoo district looks like a deliberate choice that can be justified by "pairing two mid-sized metros with an orientation towards science and education" or something like that. It's not perfectly compact and gives vibes of partisan linedrawing but altogether it's probably defensible.

The Jackson-Southern Wayne district needs a very good explanation. What CoI is that seat supposed to represent? It's not particularly compact either if you define compactness by minimizing distances between people in the same district.

To understand how this map turned out, you have to consider where I started. I initially drew the Flint-Saginaw-Bay City and Thumb-Exurban Detroit seats. After slotting in the Oakland, Macomb, and Detroit seats, Downriver Wayne and Monroe had an annoying population that wouldn't pair with Washtenaw without an annoying split, caused by my choice to put Southfield in with Detroit to push both VRA seats above 45% AA. Thus, I chose to pair it with Jackson and some rurals to avoid splitting up a natural Ann Arbor COI, even though there's not much inherently linking the two areas.

As for Lansing and Kalamazoo, it's pretty simple. I didn't want to split the Grand Rapids and Southwest Michigan COIs so the only option without splitting Lansing and/or Kalamazoo-Battle Creek (a no-go in my opinion) was to pair the two.

I also think pairing Ann Arbor with Livingston and outer Oakland is probably the best choice from a COI perspective, so I'm happy with how that turned out.

Yes, the problem is quite clear after all:

You start by creating the Flint-Saginaw-Bay City district, which blocks any possibility to shift around seats north of Livingston/Oakland.
St. Clair + Lapeer + Tuscola + Sanilac + Huron is slightly less than half a district quota (0.488 to be precise).
Wayne + Oakland + Macomb is 5.067 quotas, if you add Livingston, Washtenaw and Monroe you arrive at 5.986 quotas which is quite good. If you then add the Thumb you get 6.474 quotas and that's the problem. The best solution could be to take out Washtenaw (0.478 quotas) because then you're left with 5.996 quotas which is near perfection and Washtenaw would be difficult CoI-wise anyways.

Or you have the balls to do this and draw a Flint-Saginaw-Bay City district and a Huron Shore district that doesn't go to far into metro Detroit:

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

The Lansing-Kalamazoo district looks like a deliberate choice that can be justified by "pairing two mid-sized metros with an orientation towards science and education" or something like that. It's not perfectly compact and gives vibes of partisan linedrawing but altogether it's probably defensible.

The Jackson-Southern Wayne district needs a very good explanation. What CoI is that seat supposed to represent? It's not particularly compact either if you define compactness by minimizing distances between people in the same district.

To understand how this map turned out, you have to consider where I started. I initially drew the Flint-Saginaw-Bay City and Thumb-Exurban Detroit seats. After slotting in the Oakland, Macomb, and Detroit seats, Downriver Wayne and Monroe had an annoying population that wouldn't pair with Washtenaw without an annoying split, caused by my choice to put Southfield in with Detroit to push both VRA seats above 45% AA. Thus, I chose to pair it with Jackson and some rurals to avoid splitting up a natural Ann Arbor COI, even though there's not much inherently linking the two areas.

As for Lansing and Kalamazoo, it's pretty simple. I didn't want to split the Grand Rapids and Southwest Michigan COIs so the only option without splitting Lansing and/or Kalamazoo-Battle Creek (a no-go in my opinion) was to pair the two.

I also think pairing Ann Arbor with Livingston and outer Oakland is probably the best choice from a COI perspective, so I'm happy with how that turned out.

Yes, the problem is quite clear after all:

You start by creating the Flint-Saginaw-Bay City district, which blocks any possibility to shift around seats north of Livingston/Oakland.
St. Clair + Lapeer + Tuscola + Sanilac + Huron is slightly less than half a district quota (0.488 to be precise).
Wayne + Oakland + Macomb is 5.067 quotas, if you add Livingston, Washtenaw and Monroe you arrive at 5.986 quotas which is quite good. If you then add the Thumb you get 6.474 quotas and that's the problem. The best solution could be to take out Washtenaw (0.478 quotas) because then you're left with 5.996 quotas which is near perfection and Washtenaw would be difficult CoI-wise anyways.

Or you have the balls to do this and draw a Flint-Saginaw-Bay City district and a Huron Shore district that doesn't go to far into metro Detroit:

Right. But I don't like either of those options so I cut Monroe and Downriver Wayne instead. Very early in the map-making process you have to choose whether to:

1. Do the ugly Thumb/Huron shore thing
2. Cut Midland/Bay City from Saginaw/Flint
3. Pair Washtenaw with Western Michigan
4. Pair Monroe/Downriver Wayne with Western Michigan.

I think 2 and 4 are the best options, and I picked the latter.

[Sol]

1. Do the ugly Thumb/Huron shore thing
2. Cut Midland/Bay City from Saginaw/Flint
3. Pair Washtenaw with Western Michigan
4. Pair Monroe/Downriver Wayne with Western Michigan.

I think 2 and 4 are the best options, and I picked the latter.

I personally think option 3 is the best, since Ann Arbor is a bit of a separate thing from the rest of the metro. But since there seems to be some interest in doing 2 in particular I decided to try my hand at it.

Here's the link.

Btw, is the Fenton area an exurban Detroit section? If not, I can switch it for some areas in St. Clair.

[Sol]

Right. But I don't like either of those options so I cut Monroe and Downriver Wayne instead. Very early in the map-making process you have to choose whether to:

1. Do the ugly Thumb/Huron shore thing
2. Cut Midland/Bay City from Saginaw/Flint
3. Pair Washtenaw with Western Michigan
4. Pair Monroe/Downriver Wayne with Western Michigan.

I think 2 and 4 are the best options, and I picked the latter.

Also, I'm somewhat curious why you prefer 4 as well. Monroe I get since it's sort of its own thing (IIRC not in the Detroit metro?) but downriver Wayne is still pretty close to the heart of metro Detroit.