If you were appointed the drawer all the congressional districts for 2022...

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Maximum compactness. Keep densely-populated areas intact whenever possible. Take no information into account except those two considerations.

[Thank you for being a friend...]

Maximum compactness. Keep densely-populated areas intact whenever possible. Take no information into account except those two considerations.

I approve!

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The last one, for the reasons Virginia laid out.

I'd do a D-tilting(but not strongly) map with a lot of competitive seats. The idea would be not allowing either caucus to go crazy(which hyper-aggressive gerrymandering usually assists) and punishing then harshly if they do.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

VRA will not be used. 

 

Maximum compactness. Keep densely-populated areas intact whenever possible. Take no information into account except those two considerations.

I approve!

I like this.

[KingSweden]

Maximum compactness. Keep densely-populated areas intact whenever possible. Take no information into account except those two considerations.

I approve!

Me too. If this is the standard, I truly believe everything else will work itself out.

[smoltchanov]

VRA will not be used.  

 

Maximum compactness. Keep densely-populated areas intact whenever possible. Take no information into account except those two considerations.

I approve!

I like this.

Me too. And i absolutely dislike VRA. IMHO - Democrats in the South lost 2-3 districts to ultraconservative Republicans for each VRA-district, being it in House or state legislatures. And an example of Mississippi's legislative district, which elected Black Democrat in 2007 (SD-04), and almost reelected him in 2011 whole neing about 95% white, on one side,  and number of congressional examples (Ellison and Cleaver are routinely reelected in 65% whote districts, while Steve Cohen just as easily wins 64% Black district) show me that good candidate can win almost everywhere. After all, not especially "racially progressive" South Carolina elects black Senator, and Utah (where LDS church discriminated blacks until 1970th) elects black woman to House. "Artificial means" usually bring more harm, then good, even when initial intention were noble.

P.S. Note that i am even more strongly oppose ANY gerrymandering, so "Republicans could gerrymander districts so there would be no Blacks elected from the South" will not convince me in this matter. If I would be a drawer - no such gerrymandering would be possible, and first 2 criteria for me would be compactness (i hate "tentacles" in many present districts) and COI...

[Dr. MB]

We should just have computer-generated districts that are as compact as possible. No racial and partisan gerrymandering.

Both parties are guilty of this. Look at Maryland and Pennsylvania.

[Rjjr77]

I'd remove minority majority districts, as well as draw based on voting aged citizens, not census population

[Thank you for being a friend...]

I guess it really is a trade off with the deliberate drawing of these majority-minority districts-

Have more black members of Congress OR elect more Democrats who will then put in place policies that most black people approve of

Georgia, for example, could be drawn with the black population really spread out so much so you get an extra 2-3 Democratic districts.  Does John Lewis really need to win with 84% of the vote?  Couldn't he win with like 61% of the vote?

Since Democratic votes are heavily concentrated in condensed areas (urban cores), it's very easy to just draw a district for that city and that's it.

I've seen Pennsylvania's districts.  They take the cake of the most ridiculous looking districts in the country.

[Crumpets]

I'd gerrymander intentionally bad districts that do stuff like massively favor the minority party in every state, so that we might band together and destroy the current district drawing system.

[muon2]

Option 4 is good, except that ignoring racial information would violate the VRA, as it should (for a host of reasons). So all the options are a fail.

Not necessarily.  Non partisan drawings of boundaries are usually based on geography and communities of interest, so the 'communities of interest' part might ensure majority minority districts.

Of course, the VRA has been abused by Republicans to make districts far more majority minority than they need to be in order to pack the minorities into as few districts as possible, unfortunately, frequently with the consent (and sometimes the assistance) of the Democratic Representatives of those districts.

The option 4 says you don't have any racial information, and many contiguous minority communities span jurisdictional lines, so as I say, it is a fail. You draw minority CD's when otherwise required by law, and do so in a way that otherwise hews to good redistricting principles. See the Muon2 rules for details. As a practical political matter, more minority CD's will be drawn than required by law, and the way to do that, is draw the additional minority CD's, if, and only if, both major parties agree to do so, and again, it is done in a way that otherwise hews to the maximum extent possible to good redistricting principles.

Fair point.  Option four is still the best option of those presented but clearly 'communities of interest' can not be determined if the racial make up of the communities aren't known.

See also my analysis of my neutral geographic plan for WI house districts, that keeps the required VRA districts in place. Those districts do cost some Dem votes elsewhere, but they don't have to be that costly in terms of the overall make up of a body. They do insure minority representation which otherwise might be diluted to achieve other goals.

[Virginiá]

I'd remove minority majority districts, as well as draw based on voting aged citizens, not census population

What about children and other people likely to become eligible to vote in that period of time? Why ignore this part of the electorate, which will progressively become the electorate? Ten year intervals with only voting aged citizens (at the time) considered leaves a whole lot of future voters out in the cold.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Do the people who support the removal of Minority majority districts have any reasoning other then wanting to reduce minority representation?

[Rjjr77]

Do the people who support the removal of Minority majority districts have any reasoning other then wanting to reduce minority representation?

It creates gerrymandering and moves away from compact and fair districts.

[Rjjr77]

I'd remove minority majority districts, as well as draw based on voting aged citizens, not census population

What about children and other people likely to become eligible to vote in that period of time? Why ignore this part of the electorate, which will progressively become the electorate? Ten year intervals with only voting aged citizens (at the time) considered leaves a whole lot of future voters out in the cold.

What about people who move after the census? Does that not affect them in the same way? We shouldn't be drawing districts based on population, we should be drawing them on equitable representation

[Virginiá]

I'd remove minority majority districts, as well as draw based on voting aged citizens, not census population

What about children and other people likely to become eligible to vote in that period of time? Why ignore this part of the electorate, which will progressively become the electorate? Ten year intervals with only voting aged citizens (at the time) considered leaves a whole lot of future voters out in the cold.

What about people who move after the census? Does that not affect them in the same way? We shouldn't be drawing districts based on population, we should be drawing them on equitable representation

Because we know by the simple passage of time that those teenagers will be eligible to vote (if they are citizens), and knowing their age, we know when they will become eligible. Whether they are move or not is much more ambiguous, and is not guaranteed. Aging and the transition to adulthood is a permanent and significant fixture in our society, and it seems ridiculous to design our districts without factoring that in. Redrawing districts every 10 years is inevitably going to lead to imbalances, but with age we at least know definitively what will happen after x amount of time.

Another argument I might have is that these representatives are there to represent the people, even if they are not all eligible to vote. Just because there are classes of people not able to weigh in on the election of these representatives shouldn't mean that they be excluded from all parts of consideration in our elections. After all, the decisions made by these politicians will not always just affect eligible voters.

[muon2]

Do the people who support the removal of Minority majority districts have any reasoning other then wanting to reduce minority representation?

It creates gerrymandering and moves away from compact and fair districts.

Minority districts can be based on compact minority populations. The Gingles test requires that there be a large enough population in a compact area in order to require the district, so there's usually no need to gerrymander the shape. Minority districts are often gerrymandered to achieve other political goals in parallel with the creation of the minority district. In VA the court struck down VA-3 precisely because of that gerrymandering and replaced it with a less gerrymandered alternative that still provided minority representation.

[Rjjr77]

I'd remove minority majority districts, as well as draw based on voting aged citizens, not census population

What about children and other people likely to become eligible to vote in that period of time? Why ignore this part of the electorate, which will progressively become the electorate? Ten year intervals with only voting aged citizens (at the time) considered leaves a whole lot of future voters out in the cold.

What about people who move after the census? Does that not affect them in the same way? We shouldn't be drawing districts based on population, we should be drawing them on equitable representation

Because we know by the simple passage of time that those teenagers will be eligible to vote (if they are citizens), and knowing their age, we know when they will become eligible. Whether they are move or not is much more ambiguous, and is not guaranteed. Aging and the transition to adulthood is a permanent and significant fixture in our society, and it seems ridiculous to design our districts without factoring that in. Redrawing districts every 10 years is inevitably going to lead to imbalances, but with age we at least know definitively what will happen after x amount of time.

Another argument I might have is that these representatives are there to represent the people, even if they are not all eligible to vote. Just because there are classes of people not able to weigh in on the election of these representatives shouldn't mean that they be excluded from all parts of consideration in our elections. After all, the decisions made by these politicians will not always just affect eligible voters.

Who's to say those who age will turn 18 in that district, we see so much motion. Districts should be drawn around voting aged citizens, non citizens do not vote, states should not receive disproportionate representatives based on non-citizens

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Do the people who support the removal of Minority majority districts have any reasoning other then wanting to reduce minority representation?

It creates gerrymandering and moves away from compact and fair districts.

Minority districts can be based on compact minority populations. The Gingles test requires that there be a large enough population in a compact area in order to require the district, so there's usually no need to gerrymander the shape. Minority districts are often gerrymandered to achieve other political goals in parallel with the creation of the minority district. In VA the court struck down VA-3 precisely because of that gerrymandering and replaced it with a less gerrymandered alternative that still provided minority representation.

We are talking more about situations like IL-4 than situations like IL-1.

[muon2]

Do the people who support the removal of Minority majority districts have any reasoning other then wanting to reduce minority representation?

It creates gerrymandering and moves away from compact and fair districts.

Minority districts can be based on compact minority populations. The Gingles test requires that there be a large enough population in a compact area in order to require the district, so there's usually no need to gerrymander the shape. Minority districts are often gerrymandered to achieve other political goals in parallel with the creation of the minority district. In VA the court struck down VA-3 precisely because of that gerrymandering and replaced it with a less gerrymandered alternative that still provided minority representation.

We are talking more about situations like IL-4 than situations like IL-1.

IL-4 was a rare exception when it was created in 1991. The court found that a compact district with a Latino majority would have split IL-7 and denied a required black district. By 2011 a compact Latino district could have been made on the SW side of Chicago without cutting IL-7, but that had political ramifications the Dems didn't want so they kept the old shape. In the 2011 lawsuit the court said that without a showing that IL-4 denied Latinos of a second district the shape was a political choice and therefore legal.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Do the people who support the removal of Minority majority districts have any reasoning other then wanting to reduce minority representation?

It creates gerrymandering and moves away from compact and fair districts.

Compactness is a stupid measure of fairness.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Uh, NOTA? I would draw the districts so there is a roughly equal (when adjusted for the recent election) number of Democratic and Republican districts, and a number of swing districts, so that each state sends roughly the "correct" number of Reps from each party based on how it voted in 2020, while allowing for enough swing to reflect the national/state mood if there's a wave.

This, but if forced to choose between the options given, 3.

[Rjjr77]

Do the people who support the removal of Minority majority districts have any reasoning other then wanting to reduce minority representation?

It creates gerrymandering and moves away from compact and fair districts.

Compactness is a stupid measure of fairness.

Compact and fair. Smaller, localized districts with fairer split would create the closest thing to fair districts.

[Rjjr77]

I'd remove minority majority districts, as well as draw based on voting aged citizens, not census population

What about children and other people likely to become eligible to vote in that period of time? Why ignore this part of the electorate, which will progressively become the electorate? Ten year intervals with only voting aged citizens (at the time) considered leaves a whole lot of future voters out in the cold.

What about people who move after the census? Does that not affect them in the same way? We shouldn't be drawing districts based on population, we should be drawing them on equitable representation

Because we know by the simple passage of time that those teenagers will be eligible to vote (if they are citizens), and knowing their age, we know when they will become eligible. Whether they are move or not is much more ambiguous, and is not guaranteed. Aging and the transition to adulthood is a permanent and significant fixture in our society, and it seems ridiculous to design our districts without factoring that in. Redrawing districts every 10 years is inevitably going to lead to imbalances, but with age we at least know definitively what will happen after x amount of time.

Another argument I might have is that these representatives are there to represent the people, even if they are not all eligible to vote. Just because there are classes of people not able to weigh in on the election of these representatives shouldn't mean that they be excluded from all parts of consideration in our elections. After all, the decisions made by these politicians will not always just affect eligible voters.

We have no idea if teenagers will turn 18, we have no idea if they will reside in said district at 18. We can predict population migration trends fairly well, why shouldn't we draw based on those?

As for your second part it isn't fair, those individuals get their representatives. It doesn't change that, but California 40 has more non-voters than voters in it. And half as many voters as other congressional districts, why should voters there have a more important vote? That's not how democratic republics are to work.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Its funny democrats complaining about gerrymandering ,when they gerrymandered the house for 40 years.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1102/1102gerrymandering.htm