2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Michigan

[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.

[Sol]

I don't think those maps are really too bad? There are other ways to make it more competitive of course--and like a lot of commission maps this cycle they're all sort of untidy--but tbh those maps aren't totally nonsensical wrt:CoI.

Actually I'd argue that the 4th is the worst, not just because of the noncontiguity but also because tbh imo Muskegon+GR is a Dem gerrymander. Kent and Ottawa are the most obvious county combo in existence.

[Sol]

Kalamazoo-GR is so dumb.

[Sol]

Isn't a lot of the stuff with the Grand Rapids area the result of really aggressive lobbying by folks from Ottawa County?

[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.

[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).

[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.