Forum Redistricting Commission

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Sounds good to me, I'm game!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

My vote would be to start with a small state although Virginia would also be interesting for the reason Muon mentioned (also I'm a Democrat, I only have a G-OK avatar until Mecha is unbanned).

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

1. Wisconsin
2. Virginia
3. Kentucky
4. Indiana

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I approve of the three items; and commend the excellent work on the part of angrygreatness!  Btw, Electionsguy should probably be added to the commission since I believe Dixie (a Republican commissioner) said he was leaving the forum permanently last night.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Here's my initial Virginia map.

District 1 (Blue)

• Deviation: 290
• Election 2008: John McCain - 54.4%, Barack Obama - 44.7%
• Racial Breakdown: 73% White, 15.3% Black, 6.2% Hispanic

District 2 (Green)

• Deviation: -422
• Election 2008: Barack Obama - 49.8%, John McCain - 49.4%
• Racial Breakdown: 62.6% White, 23.3% Black, 5.9% Hispanic

District 3 (Purple)

• Deviation: -30
• Election 2008: Barack Obama - 64%, John McCain - 35.2%
• Racial Breakdown: 48.8% White, 35.2% Black, 5.9% Hispanic

District 4 (Red)

• Deviation: 83
• Election 2008: Barack Obama - 67.6%, John McCain - 31.7%
• Racial Breakdown: 51.8% Black, 39.3% White, 5.2% Hispanic

District 5 (Yellow)

• Deviation: -903
• Election 2008: John McCain - 51.2%, Barack Obama - 47.8%
• Racial Breakdown: 71.7% White, 21.5% Black

District 6 (Teal)

• Deviation: 586
• Election 2008: John McCain - 56.4%, Barack Obama - 42.5%
• Racial Breakdown: 83.9% White, 7.9% Black, 5.1% Hispanic

District 7 (Silver)

• Deviation: 352
• Election 2008: John McCain - 57.9%, Barack Obama - 41.3%
• Racial Breakdown: 76.2% White, 13.1% Black

District 8 (Slate Blue)

• Deviation: 384
• Election 2008: Barack Obama - 68.2%, John McCain - 30.9%
• Racial Breakdown: 52.8% White, 12.9% Black, 18.2% Hispanic 19.7%, 11.5% Asian

District 9 (Light Blue)

• Deviation: 501
• Election 2008: John McCain - 59.5%, Barack Obama - 39.1%
• Racial Breakdown: 91.8% White

District 10 (Pink)

• Deviation: -219
• Election 2008: Barack Obama - 57.4%, John McCain - 41.9%
• Racial Breakdown: 61.4% White, 6.2% Black, 11.6% Hispanic, 17.3% Asian

District 11 (Light Green)

• Deviation: -624
• Election 2008: Barack Obama - 58%, John McCain - 41.3%
• Racial Breakdown: 51.3% White, 14.8% Black, 18.2% Hispanic, 12% Asian

-Clean Majority-Minority district (VA-03), along with a black majority district (VA-04)

Why don't your racial percentages don't total to 100%?

He's probably leaving out groups that account for less than 5% of the districts' populations'.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I vote for items four and five

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Since no commissioners have weighed in on the items before the commission, I'm not sure how to proceed. The process will drag out, and there will probably be a lack of interest if things don't keep moving. Commissioners morgieb, Miles, Del Tachi, and ElectionsGuy have all posted to the Atlas since Items 4 and 5 were posted, but not on those items. Only Fuzzybigfoot has been off since 11/26, and that's why there are two alternates: X and SLCValleyMan. Any feedback into how to get this on track is welcomed.

If the Virginia commission were operating under the terms of the Florida constitution, items 4 and 5 would be outlawed since they are politically-based.

The current litigation in Florida was whether or not the legislature was indirectly influenced to make political decisions.   The problem in Florida is that the legislature is a political body, and you would hope that they would be susceptible to political arguments.

In Britain, where the boundary commissions are independent, public representations by political parties are quite acceptable and ordinary, but they have to be cast in terms that the commission can recognize, such as communities of interest.

I would suggest that items 4 and 5 not be used directly by the commission, but that we (the forum community) use them as metrics for the process as a whole.

I included them as measures since political data is explicitly required by the AZ commission and were part of the proposal for an OH commission. Good government groups I've spoken with are divided as to the need to use or forbid the use of the political measures of a plan. Personally, I think that clever mappers will find a way to gain a political advantage even with extensive neutral rules (see MI). Political measures provide one means to determine if the rules have been gamed.

However, it is because of the political nature of this data that I placed SKEW and POLARIZATION as after-the-fact measures in Item 3. They can not be used to exclude a plan, but can be used to guide the commission's final selection. I also believe that commissioners will have inherent biases towards certain plans and the political data simply provides a check on those inherent biases.

In Arizona, the use of the rule may have led to skewing of the results.  With so much of the population in a few counties, it is unlikely that but for that measure the competitive seats would tend to be underpopulated.

And it may be contrary to good representation.   Putting Cuyahoga and Holmes counties into a single district does not lead to good representative, even if it somehow led to a competitive race.  The representative can not be representative of the district, nor effectively represent the district since its interests are so disparate.  The initial redistricting initiative in Ohio may have failed because of the maps  that were produced showing you can get a long way from Cleveland without splitting counties.

The Ohio thing failed because of the wording of the description Husted forced the measure to use at a point so close to the printing of the ballots that there wasn't time for any sort of legal challenge, IIRC.  He forced it to use wording that left most voters confused about what it would actually do.  I think we can all agree that 99.99% of voters didn't vote for or against that measure because of concerns about what type of district you could draw for Cuyahoga County without splitting counties.  As for Arizona, while the map was basically a pretty fair map.  Four safe Republican seats, two safe Democratic seats, one competitive seat that has a small Democratic tilt, and two competitive seats with a slight Republican tilt seems like about what you'd expect from a fair Arizona map.  It just happened that a fair map benefited Democrats more in Arizona just as it would have benefited Republicans more had their been a truly independent redistricting commission in Illinois. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The Ohio thing failed because of the wording of the description Husted forced the measure to use at a point so close to the printing of the ballots that there wasn't time for any sort of legal challenge, IIRC.  He forced it to use wording that left most voters confused about what it would actually do.  I think we can all agree that 99.99% of voters didn't vote for or against that measure because of concerns about what type of district you could draw for Cuyahoga County without splitting counties.  As for Arizona, while the map was basically a pretty fair map.  Four safe Republican seats, two safe Democratic seats, one competitive seat that has a small Democratic tilt, and two competitive seats with a slight Republican tilt seems like about what you'd expect from a fair Arizona map.  It just happened that a fair map benefited Democrats more in Arizona just as it would have benefited Republicans more had their been a truly independent redistricting commission in Illinois. 

Husted was not Secretary of State in 2005.

It failed because the proponents produced a map which had "competitive" districts running across the state.   These maps were published in editorials by newspapers opposing the measure.

Ah, we were referring to different redistricting reform measures.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I vote aye on item six.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I don't totally understand item 7, could you explain it a little more please, Muon?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The discussion/voting period for 6, 7 and 8 have passed. Item 6 has four votes in favor from Morgieb, X, Miles and fuzzy, so it is adopted. Item 7 only has one vote in favor from Morgieb, so votes are needed from other commissioners (or alternates) before it is adopted, rejected, or amended. Item 8 has no votes or discussion from the commission, so perhaps an extension of the discussion/voting period is in order.

Would it help if I move the approved items into a separate thread, so one doesn't have to scroll back through multiple pages?

Yeah, that'd be very helpful!  Aye on 7, btw.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Nay on item 9

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Hate to say it, but this is getting into really wanky territory. It makes it hard for us commissioners to understand.

Seconded.

Thirded

Regarding number nine, my issue was with its application to scoring.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I vote for 8C