WI redistricting (was Wisconsin GOP's obstruction of Tony Evers)

[Epaminondas]

There aren't words harsh enough for the way Republicans are sabotaging the core tenets of government.

https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/six-months-after-inauguration-no-confirmation-for-tony-evers-cabinet/article_790d22ff-db75-5452-85e7-d5aaf5adea3a.html

[Epaminondas]

It is really sad. I am getting ready to leave this damn state BEFORE November 2020!

Surely the only chance is for Dem voters to stay for Nov 2020?

[Epaminondas]

Ok draw a 4-4 map with minimal splits

Let's do one better, 5-3 Dem:



That wasn't hard, was it. Just a time machine to before GOP skulduggery.

[Epaminondas]

After some practice, here is a fairly clean 6-2 map, using 2016 numbers.
As few county splits as possible, only Milwaukee, Madison and Green Bay.





It wants improving, naturally, but it's 7-1 using 2012 numbers - I suspect it could be 8-0 with some tweaking.

Do you still insist that "self-sorting" is to blame?

[Epaminondas]

After some practice, here is a fairly clean 6-2 map, using 2016 numbers.
As few county splits as possible, only Milwaukee, Madison and Green Bay.





It wants improving, naturally, but it's 7-1 using 2012 numbers - I suspect it could be 8-0 with some tweaking.

Do you still insist that "self-sorting" is to blame?

You literally divided up one community(Madison 4 times) No "fair" map maker would accept that considering Dane county itself fits into one congressional district. You then divided Milwaukee county three times. Again completely unacceptable but not as egregious.

These districts are compact. Wasn't it Roberts who said gerrymandering should be "visually obvious" (forgot the exact quote)? Redmap didn't even care about that standard, let alone any matter of fairness (see IL-4, IL-17, NC-4, old PA-7, all of Austin TX...)

I'm curious: by what standard are they "egregious"? They're not optimal, granted, but it took me just 30 minutes to show that the statement "Wisconsin is necessarily 5-3 Rep because of self-sorting" is just a Gop talking point.

The real question is: where is the "fairness" of making one district 70-30 Dem and depriving their voters statewide of a "fair" representation on Congress?

[Epaminondas]

They are egregious because they chop Dane County in 4 pieces. It would be extremely difficult to defend that as anything other than an intent to elect more Democrats. If the intent was not partisan, then what criteria were used in determining which counties to split? As a result, almost every district in your map ends up being some rurban thing disconnected from representing any particular community of interest (the exceptions being your WI 5 and 8, the real 3 and 7).

Not that it matters, but it looks like your WI 5 and 6 split both Dane and Columbia Counties, which is an unnecessary extra split. The Shawano split is also unnecessary.

I take your point.

But I sense that the argument of COIs is political-speak aimed at obfuscating the real issue of fair representation.
The argument that urban citizens should vote together in order to better express their desires clashes with the reality: they are swamped out by vast urban area which are given undue advantage under the compact district procedure in place.

A state is an amalgamation of rural and urban areas. Express this combination through mixed CD is much more balanced than ghettoising urban citizens and robbing them of representation under the arbitrary pretense that "these splits are unnecessary".

[Epaminondas]

Also county splits are only supposed to be used to even out population. As you failed to do that your county splits make no sense.

Shifting the goalposts?
It's easy to balance out the populations with a slightly more powerful tool.

That's not the real question: why should we respect the rule of avoiding county splits when they lead to inherently unrepresentative congressional representation?

[Epaminondas]

The argument here is that Wisconsin D's are too self packed in two counties for proportional representation which they are.

Why do splits of arbitrary county lines matter more than proportional representation?

[Epaminondas]

We get it, you like your 5-3 gerrymander.
I imagine the Texas congressional map will suddenly also become morally unacceptable to you after it flips.

4. The reason county splits are used as a measure in fair map making is that they are set as the boundaries intended to allow voters to reasonably be close to the center of each area represented geographically in their district.

Orthodromic distance, how relevant today.

[Epaminondas]

He's a leftist hack who probably doesn't care about any of that. But good points raised. I could see Milwaukee being split into two or three like it is now due to the VRA but there is zero reason to split Dane.

LOL! "Leftist hack", I'm flattered.

It's just hilarious how all these sophisticated arbitrary criteria never matter when it's Team Redmap at the levers.

But yes, ranked ballot voting would solve these problems intrinsic to FPTP. The Irish and Australians use it, and we're not that much more educated than Americans.

[Epaminondas]

Here's a Beauty that even Karl Rove could be proud of. An exercise in map-making.
https://twitter.com/NicolasNevins/status/978752611422793728



Populations near equal (710k-711k)

Green: D +6.51
Red: D +6.51
Purple: D +6.51 (Milwaukee)
Cyan D +6.51
Yellow D +6.55
Grey: D +6.66

Blue: R +16
Mauve: R +18.8

Even splitting it two ways would be illegal in KY. Clearly if it's the law there, it's not arbitrary criteria.

?
What a strange claim. Of course any voting system is arbitrary - and that includes redistricting. When they're smart, they satisfy a majority of their citizens.

In the US on the other hand, it seems pretty maps are deemed superior to letting the majority of voters decide.

[Epaminondas]

PR would break down in smaller states pretty quickly. A state with four Congressional districts like Nevada would be stuck at 2-2 forever, for example.
Even Kansas would be 2-2 most years.

PR would have two opposing effects:
- favour the small parties of major states by providing them "exactly" their share
- punish the large parties of small states by giving them a lower share than under current rules

The GOP is affected by both: they would win 20 seats in Cali, 11 in NY and 8 in Illinois, but also split many small states where they have a stranglehold (Idaho, Kansas, Arkansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, West Virginia...).

In 2018 the effect would probably be a wash, but the benefits would be considerable: proportional vote would greatly foster civic participation over the years, since everyone's vote would count.

Ranked Ballot Vote remains a superior system, however, as it eliminates strategic voting.

[Epaminondas]

The Wisconsin GOP didn't "know" that some man would come in and completely destroy in the rurals while only having modest margins in WOW. This just flat out gives Republicans a major advantage when it comes to Wisconsin

As you said, the candidates' electoral strength of each cycle is unpredictable.
The same goes for 2020. No reason to assume this trend will last.