2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Michigan
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:33:09 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Michigan
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 30
Author Topic: 2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Michigan  (Read 40826 times)
Oryxslayer
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,725


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: February 07, 2020, 04:36:26 PM »

Guess it's my job as thread OP to get us back on track. Posted this on my twitter a while back. 5/5 safer, 3 competitive. Whitmer won 9, Snyder '14 won 8 because he of course bombed in Flint.



Neither AA seat is >50% but both are plurality AA in 2016 data. MI-12 tries to get all the big arab communities together. I prefer cutting as few counties as possible, so someone (Isabella) drew the short straw. Would have liked to keep the Lansing region together, but needed to get an equitable distribution statewide.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: February 07, 2020, 05:20:35 PM »

Well since everyone here seems intent on drawing a partisan map that would be unlikely to get support from the Republican commissioners it needs for passage, I'll get in on the game too.  Here's a 9R-4D map where Trump wins all the red districts by 10 or more.  Very clean and decent on COIs.  Interesting how it's less brazenly partisan than the current map yet better for Republicans at the same time.  I have to thank you guys for the idea of shoving the VRA districts deep into the suburbs, that's how I could make this map, just shoving them into different suburbs ofc.  This shows how the vra districts are a double edged sword that can be used as a weapon by either party with respect to shoving them into the northern suburbs.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/5184cd9e-e518-41f5-9a1f-8eab1fa5412a

Yeah, because Battle Creek is clearly a COI with southern Wayne, and putting Lansing and Ann Arbor together wouldn't make either upset.

And the Thumb to Saginaw to Eaton district...yeah.
I made the map to make a point
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: February 07, 2020, 05:28:24 PM »

Guess it's my job as thread OP to get us back on track. Posted this on my twitter a while back. 5/5 safer, 3 competitive. Whitmer won 9, Snyder '14 won 8 because he of course bombed in Flint.



Neither AA seat is >50% but both are plurality AA in 2016 data. MI-12 tries to get all the big arab communities together. I prefer cutting as few counties as possible, so someone (Isabella) drew the short straw. Would have liked to keep the Lansing region together, but needed to get an equitable distribution statewide.
You can still keep Lansing together and get a Clinton seat, like I did on my map. https://davesredistricting.org/join/1d117936-4d28-4a7a-9dfe-529e010bef54 
Also a lot of those county breaks seem a but random, you could clean it up a bit without losing a 7-6 breakdown.  And what did Isabella county ever do to you? HAHAHA
Logged
dpmapper
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 442
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: February 07, 2020, 06:18:19 PM »
« Edited: February 07, 2020, 06:23:07 PM by dpmapper »



The three core Detroit counties (Oakland, Macomb, Wayne) are slightly over 5 districts.  There should be one solely in Macomb and one solely in Oakland.  One AA district can take the excess Macomb population and the other can take Southfield, leaving one district to take the southern and western tier of Wayne, plus most of the rest of Oakland.  

The 10 counties in the Detroit CSA are just shy of 7 districts, which logically means one district from Monroe to Washtenaw and then one district from Flint to St Clair, splitting Livingston between them.  It's pretty perfect, actually.  

The rest falls into place pretty naturally: a Grand Rapids district including suburbs in Ottawa, a Lake Michigan district, a Kalamazoo-Battle Creek-Jackson district, a Lansing-centered district, a Midland-Saginaw-Bay City-thumb district centered on Saginaw Bay, and the north.  

This map has 5 Clinton districts (the 4 in Wayne/Oakland + the Ann Arbor district) but the Lansing district is only Trump +2 and is more Democratic downballot, and the Flint district is Trump +10 but is basically even if you add 2012 to 2016.  
Logged
Oryxslayer
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,725


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: February 07, 2020, 06:28:50 PM »
« Edited: February 07, 2020, 06:33:31 PM by Oryxslayer »

Guess it's my job as thread OP to get us back on track. Posted this on my twitter a while back. 5/5 safer, 3 competitive. Whitmer won 9, Snyder '14 won 8 because he of course bombed in Flint.


Neither AA seat is >50% but both are plurality AA in 2016 data. MI-12 tries to get all the big arab communities together. I prefer cutting as few counties as possible, so someone (Isabella) drew the short straw. Would have liked to keep the Lansing region together, but needed to get an equitable distribution statewide.
You can still keep Lansing together and get a Clinton seat, like I did on my map. https://davesredistricting.org/join/1d117936-4d28-4a7a-9dfe-529e010bef54  
Also a lot of those county breaks seem a but random, you could clean it up a bit without losing a 7-6 breakdown.  And what did Isabella county ever do to you? HAHAHA

We have already had this discussion at length elsewhere but it comes down to personal preference over cuts. Is cutting three counties once better than cutting one county three times? In my opinion, no, because you carve up three easily defendable COIs, when you could only carve up one. However, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on that matter. I would say a map that cuts only six counties to achieve pop equity, 3 of which need to be cut because they are overpopulated, therefore does a  good job.

Of course you should also try and observe other COIs while you are at it, stuff like pairing Flint with the northern suburbs doesn't make cultural sense even though it might pop-wise. In that regard, I only failed Lansing, since the map needs true partisan equity (safe R = Safe D) for a even state.
Logged
OBD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,575
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: February 07, 2020, 08:03:13 PM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/75dbead5-5961-4005-b824-7ec359d690ca

Comments on this map? I tried to keep cities and counties whole while being as nonpartisan as possible. That said, I'm not knowledgeable on Michigan COIs, so there could be a major mistake here. It's a 7-6 R map with 3 competitive R-leaning districts (3, 4, and 6) and 1 competitive D-leaning district (7).
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: February 07, 2020, 08:06:53 PM »

Guess it's my job as thread OP to get us back on track. Posted this on my twitter a while back. 5/5 safer, 3 competitive. Whitmer won 9, Snyder '14 won 8 because he of course bombed in Flint.


Neither AA seat is >50% but both are plurality AA in 2016 data. MI-12 tries to get all the big arab communities together. I prefer cutting as few counties as possible, so someone (Isabella) drew the short straw. Would have liked to keep the Lansing region together, but needed to get an equitable distribution statewide.
You can still keep Lansing together and get a Clinton seat, like I did on my map. https://davesredistricting.org/join/1d117936-4d28-4a7a-9dfe-529e010bef54  
Also a lot of those county breaks seem a but random, you could clean it up a bit without losing a 7-6 breakdown.  And what did Isabella county ever do to you? HAHAHA

We have already had this discussion at length elsewhere but it comes down to personal preference over cuts. Is cutting three counties once better than cutting one county three times? In my opinion, no, because you carve up three easily defendable COIs, when you could only carve up one. However, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on that matter. I would say a map that cuts only six counties to achieve pop equity, 3 of which need to be cut because they are overpopulated, therefore does a  good job.

Of course you should also try and observe other COIs while you are at it, stuff like pairing Flint with the northern suburbs doesn't make cultural sense even though it might pop-wise. In that regard, I only failed Lansing, since the map needs true partisan equity (safe R = Safe D) for a even state.
I would say small cuts into 3 counties are better than cutting 1 county into 4.  Also, Isabella county isn't Wayne or Oakland, keeping it whole is easy.  I did not pair Flint with the suburbs on my map, I agree it doesn't make sense culturally.   As for partisan fairness, it isn't explicitly defined relating to specific criteria, just one of many factors.  Basically the point is so the commission doesn't draw a blatant partisan gerrymander, doesn't mean 1 safe seat has to always be matched by another safe seat.  It is obvious you are compensating for Dem's geographic disadvantage since you are drawing a tilt dem map, like you always do.  Many factors go into drawing a map and the commission may decide COIs are more important.  Not saying they'll draw a R gerrymander, but the map might reflect the geographic reality of the state.  If I were a republican commissioner I wouldn't try to draw an unfair map, but I'd reject any dem attempt to draw lines to benefit them without a concession given to me.  With commissions like this it's all about give and take.  If I'm a commissioner maybe I agree to a Lansing to Kalamazoo district, then you agree to keeping Macomb whole.  Something like that.
Logged
Oryxslayer
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,725


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: February 07, 2020, 08:19:19 PM »
« Edited: February 07, 2020, 08:44:10 PM by Oryxslayer »

Guess it's my job as thread OP to get us back on track. Posted this on my twitter a while back. 5/5 safer, 3 competitive. Whitmer won 9, Snyder '14 won 8 because he of course bombed in Flint.


Neither AA seat is >50% but both are plurality AA in 2016 data. MI-12 tries to get all the big arab communities together. I prefer cutting as few counties as possible, so someone (Isabella) drew the short straw. Would have liked to keep the Lansing region together, but needed to get an equitable distribution statewide.
You can still keep Lansing together and get a Clinton seat, like I did on my map. https://davesredistricting.org/join/1d117936-4d28-4a7a-9dfe-529e010bef54  
Also a lot of those county breaks seem a but random, you could clean it up a bit without losing a 7-6 breakdown.  And what did Isabella county ever do to you? HAHAHA

We have already had this discussion at length elsewhere but it comes down to personal preference over cuts. Is cutting three counties once better than cutting one county three times? In my opinion, no, because you carve up three easily defendable COIs, when you could only carve up one. However, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on that matter. I would say a map that cuts only six counties to achieve pop equity, 3 of which need to be cut because they are overpopulated, therefore does a  good job.

Of course you should also try and observe other COIs while you are at it, stuff like pairing Flint with the northern suburbs doesn't make cultural sense even though it might pop-wise. In that regard, I only failed Lansing, since the map needs true partisan equity (safe R = Safe D) for a even state.
I would say small cuts into 3 counties are better than cutting 1 county into 4.  Also, Isabella county isn't Wayne or Oakland, keeping it whole is easy.  I did not pair Flint with the suburbs on my map, I agree it doesn't make sense culturally.   As for partisan fairness, it isn't explicitly defined relating to specific criteria, just one of many factors.  Basically the point is so the commission doesn't draw a blatant partisan gerrymander, doesn't mean 1 safe seat has to always be matched by another safe seat.  It is obvious you are compensating for Dem's geographic disadvantage since you are drawing a tilt dem map, like you always do.  Many factors go into drawing a map and the commission may decide COIs are more important.  Not saying they'll draw a R gerrymander, but the map might reflect the geographic reality of the state.  If I were a republican commissioner I wouldn't try to draw an unfair map, but I'd reject any dem attempt to draw lines to benefit them without a concession given to me.  With commissions like this it's all about give and take.  If I'm a commissioner maybe I agree to a Lansing to Kalamazoo district, then you agree to keeping Macomb whole.  Something like that.

This  is basically a Macomb whole district, I just tend to think the grosse pointes belong in with Macomb, and they are hardly paragons of Dem partisanship, plus it allows one to nest the 8th. I wasn't attacking you with Flint, just giving an example.

Also If you think I draw Dem tilting maps...oh baby. I take fault with Stephan Wolf because I think he draws Dem tilting maps. I will concede that most of my write-ups so far have been in states where things will either get better for Dems or the fundamentals of the game favor them, so that might give the impression. If we were to get a thread going on Wisconsin, Florida, South Carolina, or prod me in Ohio, you would see my other side. Hell, you already saw the 4-way cut in Tennessee, the 8-1 in Indiana, and you can go on my Twitter for things like my Oklahoma City spiral. Remember, I'm the only guy who also expects the GA02 cut.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: February 07, 2020, 08:22:52 PM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/75dbead5-5961-4005-b824-7ec359d690ca

Comments on this map? I tried to keep cities and counties whole while being as nonpartisan as possible. That said, I'm not knowledgeable on Michigan COIs, so there could be a major mistake here. It's a 7-6 R map with 3 competitive R-leaning districts (3, 4, and 6) and 1 competitive D-leaning district (7).
Good except for cracking republican areas in Oakland and Macomb.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: February 07, 2020, 08:56:50 PM »



The three core Detroit counties (Oakland, Macomb, Wayne) are slightly over 5 districts.  There should be one solely in Macomb and one solely in Oakland.  One AA district can take the excess Macomb population and the other can take Southfield, leaving one district to take the southern and western tier of Wayne, plus most of the rest of Oakland.  

The 10 counties in the Detroit CSA are just shy of 7 districts, which logically means one district from Monroe to Washtenaw and then one district from Flint to St Clair, splitting Livingston between them.  It's pretty perfect, actually.  

The rest falls into place pretty naturally: a Grand Rapids district including suburbs in Ottawa, a Lake Michigan district, a Kalamazoo-Battle Creek-Jackson district, a Lansing-centered district, a Midland-Saginaw-Bay City-thumb district centered on Saginaw Bay, and the north.  

This map has 5 Clinton districts (the 4 in Wayne/Oakland + the Ann Arbor district) but the Lansing district is only Trump +2 and is more Democratic downballot, and the Flint district is Trump +10 but is basically even if you add 2012 to 2016.  

Flint really belongs with Saginaw, maybe not Midland and Bay, but at least it should have Saginaw in with it.  If there's 1 real COI on the whole map outside the Detroit metro, it would be Flint with the Tri-Cities area.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: February 07, 2020, 09:43:47 PM »



The three core Detroit counties (Oakland, Macomb, Wayne) are slightly over 5 districts.  There should be one solely in Macomb and one solely in Oakland.  One AA district can take the excess Macomb population and the other can take Southfield, leaving one district to take the southern and western tier of Wayne, plus most of the rest of Oakland.  

The 10 counties in the Detroit CSA are just shy of 7 districts, which logically means one district from Monroe to Washtenaw and then one district from Flint to St Clair, splitting Livingston between them.  It's pretty perfect, actually.  

The rest falls into place pretty naturally: a Grand Rapids district including suburbs in Ottawa, a Lake Michigan district, a Kalamazoo-Battle Creek-Jackson district, a Lansing-centered district, a Midland-Saginaw-Bay City-thumb district centered on Saginaw Bay, and the north.  

This map has 5 Clinton districts (the 4 in Wayne/Oakland + the Ann Arbor district) but the Lansing district is only Trump +2 and is more Democratic downballot, and the Flint district is Trump +10 but is basically even if you add 2012 to 2016.  

Flint really belongs with Saginaw, maybe not Midland and Bay, but at least it should have Saginaw in with it.  If there's 1 real COI on the whole map outside the Detroit metro, it would be Flint with the Tri-Cities area.
not really.  You just want them together so the seat doesn't vote Trump.  Saginaw and Flint are different cities, not a single COI.  Now if I'm a Republican on the commission, I might still agree to a Flint-Saginaw district, it's a small concession.  But the other side would need to cooperate in other areas.  It's inevitable some districts will be drawn in a way that disproportionately favor one party, but the whole map can't be drawn with subtle decisions that all happen to favor 1 party.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: February 07, 2020, 09:48:23 PM »

Guess it's my job as thread OP to get us back on track. Posted this on my twitter a while back. 5/5 safer, 3 competitive. Whitmer won 9, Snyder '14 won 8 because he of course bombed in Flint.


Neither AA seat is >50% but both are plurality AA in 2016 data. MI-12 tries to get all the big arab communities together. I prefer cutting as few counties as possible, so someone (Isabella) drew the short straw. Would have liked to keep the Lansing region together, but needed to get an equitable distribution statewide.
You can still keep Lansing together and get a Clinton seat, like I did on my map. https://davesredistricting.org/join/1d117936-4d28-4a7a-9dfe-529e010bef54  
Also a lot of those county breaks seem a but random, you could clean it up a bit without losing a 7-6 breakdown.  And what did Isabella county ever do to you? HAHAHA

We have already had this discussion at length elsewhere but it comes down to personal preference over cuts. Is cutting three counties once better than cutting one county three times? In my opinion, no, because you carve up three easily defendable COIs, when you could only carve up one. However, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on that matter. I would say a map that cuts only six counties to achieve pop equity, 3 of which need to be cut because they are overpopulated, therefore does a  good job.

Of course you should also try and observe other COIs while you are at it, stuff like pairing Flint with the northern suburbs doesn't make cultural sense even though it might pop-wise. In that regard, I only failed Lansing, since the map needs true partisan equity (safe R = Safe D) for a even state.
I would say small cuts into 3 counties are better than cutting 1 county into 4.  Also, Isabella county isn't Wayne or Oakland, keeping it whole is easy.  I did not pair Flint with the suburbs on my map, I agree it doesn't make sense culturally.   As for partisan fairness, it isn't explicitly defined relating to specific criteria, just one of many factors.  Basically the point is so the commission doesn't draw a blatant partisan gerrymander, doesn't mean 1 safe seat has to always be matched by another safe seat.  It is obvious you are compensating for Dem's geographic disadvantage since you are drawing a tilt dem map, like you always do.  Many factors go into drawing a map and the commission may decide COIs are more important.  Not saying they'll draw a R gerrymander, but the map might reflect the geographic reality of the state.  If I were a republican commissioner I wouldn't try to draw an unfair map, but I'd reject any dem attempt to draw lines to benefit them without a concession given to me.  With commissions like this it's all about give and take.  If I'm a commissioner maybe I agree to a Lansing to Kalamazoo district, then you agree to keeping Macomb whole.  Something like that.

This  is basically a Macomb whole district, I just tend to think the grosse pointes belong in with Macomb, and they are hardly paragons of Dem partisanship, plus it allows one to nest the 8th. I wasn't attacking you with Flint, just giving an example.

Also If you think I draw Dem tilting maps...oh baby. I take fault with Stephan Wolf because I think he draws Dem tilting maps. I will concede that most of my write-ups so far have been in states where things will either get better for Dems or the fundamentals of the game favor them, so that might give the impression. If we were to get a thread going on Wisconsin, Florida, South Carolina, or prod me in Ohio, you would see my other side. Hell, you already saw the 4-way cut in Tennessee, the 8-1 in Indiana, and you can go on my Twitter for things like my Oklahoma City spiral. Remember, I'm the only guy who also expects the GA02 cut.
I'm not saying you are the most biased, but in your "fair" maps have some subtle bias.  On your map the tipping point district is in Macomb, and Macomb leans more dem downballot, you know this.  Your map would likely be 7D-6R.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: February 07, 2020, 09:48:51 PM »



The three core Detroit counties (Oakland, Macomb, Wayne) are slightly over 5 districts.  There should be one solely in Macomb and one solely in Oakland.  One AA district can take the excess Macomb population and the other can take Southfield, leaving one district to take the southern and western tier of Wayne, plus most of the rest of Oakland.  

The 10 counties in the Detroit CSA are just shy of 7 districts, which logically means one district from Monroe to Washtenaw and then one district from Flint to St Clair, splitting Livingston between them.  It's pretty perfect, actually.  

The rest falls into place pretty naturally: a Grand Rapids district including suburbs in Ottawa, a Lake Michigan district, a Kalamazoo-Battle Creek-Jackson district, a Lansing-centered district, a Midland-Saginaw-Bay City-thumb district centered on Saginaw Bay, and the north.  

This map has 5 Clinton districts (the 4 in Wayne/Oakland + the Ann Arbor district) but the Lansing district is only Trump +2 and is more Democratic downballot, and the Flint district is Trump +10 but is basically even if you add 2012 to 2016.  

Flint really belongs with Saginaw, maybe not Midland and Bay, but at least it should have Saginaw in with it.  If there's 1 real COI on the whole map outside the Detroit metro, it would be Flint with the Tri-Cities area.
not really.  You just want them together so the seat doesn't vote Trump.  Saginaw and Flint are different cities, not a single COI.  Now if I'm a Republican on the commission, I might still agree to a Flint-Saginaw district, it's a small concession.  But the other side would need to cooperate in other areas.  It's inevitable some districts will be drawn in a way that disproportionately favor one party, but the whole map can't be drawn with subtle decisions that all happen to favor 1 party.

That's ridiculous.  Putting Flint with Saginaw isn't a concession.   The two urban areas are extremely similar.   They both even have significant Black populations.   If that's how Republicans are going to be than the commission is doomed to fail.   You have to agree to basic level COI guidelines,  not just making sure no line benefits Democrats without concessions.

This isn't warfare.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: February 07, 2020, 10:02:20 PM »



The three core Detroit counties (Oakland, Macomb, Wayne) are slightly over 5 districts.  There should be one solely in Macomb and one solely in Oakland.  One AA district can take the excess Macomb population and the other can take Southfield, leaving one district to take the southern and western tier of Wayne, plus most of the rest of Oakland.  

The 10 counties in the Detroit CSA are just shy of 7 districts, which logically means one district from Monroe to Washtenaw and then one district from Flint to St Clair, splitting Livingston between them.  It's pretty perfect, actually.  

The rest falls into place pretty naturally: a Grand Rapids district including suburbs in Ottawa, a Lake Michigan district, a Kalamazoo-Battle Creek-Jackson district, a Lansing-centered district, a Midland-Saginaw-Bay City-thumb district centered on Saginaw Bay, and the north.  

This map has 5 Clinton districts (the 4 in Wayne/Oakland + the Ann Arbor district) but the Lansing district is only Trump +2 and is more Democratic downballot, and the Flint district is Trump +10 but is basically even if you add 2012 to 2016.  

Flint really belongs with Saginaw, maybe not Midland and Bay, but at least it should have Saginaw in with it.  If there's 1 real COI on the whole map outside the Detroit metro, it would be Flint with the Tri-Cities area.
not really.  You just want them together so the seat doesn't vote Trump.  Saginaw and Flint are different cities, not a single COI.  Now if I'm a Republican on the commission, I might still agree to a Flint-Saginaw district, it's a small concession.  But the other side would need to cooperate in other areas.  It's inevitable some districts will be drawn in a way that disproportionately favor one party, but the whole map can't be drawn with subtle decisions that all happen to favor 1 party.

That's ridiculous.  Putting Flint with Saginaw isn't a concession.   The two urban areas are extremely similar.   They both even have significant Black populations.   If that's how Republicans are going to be than the commission is doomed to fail.   You have to agree to basic level COI guidelines,  not just making sure no line benefits Democrats without concessions.

This isn't warfare.
2 separate metros that happen to be similar doesn't make a COI.  That's not how COIs work.  With that logic Flint and Lansing could be a COI too.  I'd be fine with that, you wouldn't.  My point is that I'd be fine with a Flint-Saginaw district, but the rest of the map can't all be drawn to favor dems as well.
Logged
Oryxslayer
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,725


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: February 07, 2020, 10:03:35 PM »
« Edited: February 07, 2020, 10:38:46 PM by Oryxslayer »

Guess it's my job as thread OP to get us back on track. Posted this on my twitter a while back. 5/5 safer, 3 competitive. Whitmer won 9, Snyder '14 won 8 because he of course bombed in Flint.


Neither AA seat is >50% but both are plurality AA in 2016 data. MI-12 tries to get all the big arab communities together. I prefer cutting as few counties as possible, so someone (Isabella) drew the short straw. Would have liked to keep the Lansing region together, but needed to get an equitable distribution statewide.
You can still keep Lansing together and get a Clinton seat, like I did on my map. https://davesredistricting.org/join/1d117936-4d28-4a7a-9dfe-529e010bef54  
Also a lot of those county breaks seem a but random, you could clean it up a bit without losing a 7-6 breakdown.  And what did Isabella county ever do to you? HAHAHA

We have already had this discussion at length elsewhere but it comes down to personal preference over cuts. Is cutting three counties once better than cutting one county three times? In my opinion, no, because you carve up three easily defendable COIs, when you could only carve up one. However, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on that matter. I would say a map that cuts only six counties to achieve pop equity, 3 of which need to be cut because they are overpopulated, therefore does a  good job.

Of course you should also try and observe other COIs while you are at it, stuff like pairing Flint with the northern suburbs doesn't make cultural sense even though it might pop-wise. In that regard, I only failed Lansing, since the map needs true partisan equity (safe R = Safe D) for a even state.
I would say small cuts into 3 counties are better than cutting 1 county into 4.  Also, Isabella county isn't Wayne or Oakland, keeping it whole is easy.  I did not pair Flint with the suburbs on my map, I agree it doesn't make sense culturally.   As for partisan fairness, it isn't explicitly defined relating to specific criteria, just one of many factors.  Basically the point is so the commission doesn't draw a blatant partisan gerrymander, doesn't mean 1 safe seat has to always be matched by another safe seat.  It is obvious you are compensating for Dem's geographic disadvantage since you are drawing a tilt dem map, like you always do.  Many factors go into drawing a map and the commission may decide COIs are more important.  Not saying they'll draw a R gerrymander, but the map might reflect the geographic reality of the state.  If I were a republican commissioner I wouldn't try to draw an unfair map, but I'd reject any dem attempt to draw lines to benefit them without a concession given to me.  With commissions like this it's all about give and take.  If I'm a commissioner maybe I agree to a Lansing to Kalamazoo district, then you agree to keeping Macomb whole.  Something like that.

This  is basically a Macomb whole district, I just tend to think the grosse pointes belong in with Macomb, and they are hardly paragons of Dem partisanship, plus it allows one to nest the 8th. I wasn't attacking you with Flint, just giving an example.

Also If you think I draw Dem tilting maps...oh baby. I take fault with Stephan Wolf because I think he draws Dem tilting maps. I will concede that most of my write-ups so far have been in states where things will either get better for Dems or the fundamentals of the game favor them, so that might give the impression. If we were to get a thread going on Wisconsin, Florida, South Carolina, or prod me in Ohio, you would see my other side. Hell, you already saw the 4-way cut in Tennessee, the 8-1 in Indiana, and you can go on my Twitter for things like my Oklahoma City spiral. Remember, I'm the only guy who also expects the GA02 cut.
I'm not saying you are the most biased, but in your "fair" maps have some subtle bias.  On your map the tipping point district is in Macomb, and Macomb leans more dem downballot, you know this.  Your map would likely be 7D-6R.


I believe two things, both in regards to 2020 and next decade:

1) The presidential topline is absolute. It may just take 4-8 years for the opposition and govt to switch and then see the opposition take all their lined up gains. Marginal presidential seats will be marginal presidentially, Safe seats will be safe, and seats that have moved between categories will move.

2) Strong or reoccurring trends are going to continue to influence the future.

This also may make my maps seem 'favorable' to the D's or R's depending on whose perspective I take. I almost always believe that a D/R pack and R/D pack is better than two/three D/R seats closer to the median. The twin packs will survive all ten years while the cracks may flip depending on the environment. This includes regions moving hard towards the left/right, they deserve to be packed just as well as the established regions.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: February 07, 2020, 10:20:23 PM »



The three core Detroit counties (Oakland, Macomb, Wayne) are slightly over 5 districts.  There should be one solely in Macomb and one solely in Oakland.  One AA district can take the excess Macomb population and the other can take Southfield, leaving one district to take the southern and western tier of Wayne, plus most of the rest of Oakland.  

The 10 counties in the Detroit CSA are just shy of 7 districts, which logically means one district from Monroe to Washtenaw and then one district from Flint to St Clair, splitting Livingston between them.  It's pretty perfect, actually.  

The rest falls into place pretty naturally: a Grand Rapids district including suburbs in Ottawa, a Lake Michigan district, a Kalamazoo-Battle Creek-Jackson district, a Lansing-centered district, a Midland-Saginaw-Bay City-thumb district centered on Saginaw Bay, and the north.  

This map has 5 Clinton districts (the 4 in Wayne/Oakland + the Ann Arbor district) but the Lansing district is only Trump +2 and is more Democratic downballot, and the Flint district is Trump +10 but is basically even if you add 2012 to 2016.  

Flint really belongs with Saginaw, maybe not Midland and Bay, but at least it should have Saginaw in with it.  If there's 1 real COI on the whole map outside the Detroit metro, it would be Flint with the Tri-Cities area.
not really.  You just want them together so the seat doesn't vote Trump.  Saginaw and Flint are different cities, not a single COI.  Now if I'm a Republican on the commission, I might still agree to a Flint-Saginaw district, it's a small concession.  But the other side would need to cooperate in other areas.  It's inevitable some districts will be drawn in a way that disproportionately favor one party, but the whole map can't be drawn with subtle decisions that all happen to favor 1 party.

That's ridiculous.  Putting Flint with Saginaw isn't a concession.   The two urban areas are extremely similar.   They both even have significant Black populations.   If that's how Republicans are going to be than the commission is doomed to fail.   You have to agree to basic level COI guidelines,  not just making sure no line benefits Democrats without concessions.

This isn't warfare.
2 separate metros that happen to be similar doesn't make a COI.  That's not how COIs work.  With that logic Flint and Lansing could be a COI too.  I'd be fine with that, you wouldn't.  My point is that I'd be fine with a Flint-Saginaw district, but the rest of the map can't all be drawn to favor dems as well.

Genesee's median income is $39,000,  Saginaw's is $41,000,  Ingham (Lansing) is $54,000.

Also Genesee is 20.7% Black, Saginaw is 18.8% Black, Ingham is 11.8% black.

From 2010 to 2018,  Genesee and Saginaw have both declined in population by 4.4% and 4.7% respectively.   Ingham has grown 4.2%.

I could go on and on here, but the point is clear.

Flint and Saginaw are both urban, and have way more in common with each other than the rural counties around them (or Lansing).   If there's going to be any discussion at all about "COI's" (like you've brought up dozens of times in this thread) then there has to be some sort of framework to go by on what that is and what the goal is to be,  otherwise any district drawn anywhere can be considered a partisan gerrymander.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: February 07, 2020, 10:26:34 PM »



The three core Detroit counties (Oakland, Macomb, Wayne) are slightly over 5 districts.  There should be one solely in Macomb and one solely in Oakland.  One AA district can take the excess Macomb population and the other can take Southfield, leaving one district to take the southern and western tier of Wayne, plus most of the rest of Oakland.  

The 10 counties in the Detroit CSA are just shy of 7 districts, which logically means one district from Monroe to Washtenaw and then one district from Flint to St Clair, splitting Livingston between them.  It's pretty perfect, actually.  

The rest falls into place pretty naturally: a Grand Rapids district including suburbs in Ottawa, a Lake Michigan district, a Kalamazoo-Battle Creek-Jackson district, a Lansing-centered district, a Midland-Saginaw-Bay City-thumb district centered on Saginaw Bay, and the north.  

This map has 5 Clinton districts (the 4 in Wayne/Oakland + the Ann Arbor district) but the Lansing district is only Trump +2 and is more Democratic downballot, and the Flint district is Trump +10 but is basically even if you add 2012 to 2016.  

Flint really belongs with Saginaw, maybe not Midland and Bay, but at least it should have Saginaw in with it.  If there's 1 real COI on the whole map outside the Detroit metro, it would be Flint with the Tri-Cities area.
not really.  You just want them together so the seat doesn't vote Trump.  Saginaw and Flint are different cities, not a single COI.  Now if I'm a Republican on the commission, I might still agree to a Flint-Saginaw district, it's a small concession.  But the other side would need to cooperate in other areas.  It's inevitable some districts will be drawn in a way that disproportionately favor one party, but the whole map can't be drawn with subtle decisions that all happen to favor 1 party.

That's ridiculous.  Putting Flint with Saginaw isn't a concession.   The two urban areas are extremely similar.   They both even have significant Black populations.   If that's how Republicans are going to be than the commission is doomed to fail.   You have to agree to basic level COI guidelines,  not just making sure no line benefits Democrats without concessions.

This isn't warfare.
2 separate metros that happen to be similar doesn't make a COI.  That's not how COIs work.  With that logic Flint and Lansing could be a COI too.  I'd be fine with that, you wouldn't.  My point is that I'd be fine with a Flint-Saginaw district, but the rest of the map can't all be drawn to favor dems as well.

Genesee's median income is $39,000,  Saginaw's is $41,000,  Ingham (Lansing) is $54,000.

Also Genesee is 20.7% Black, Saginaw is 18.8% Black, Ingham is 11.8% black.

From 2010 to 2018,  Genesee and Saginaw have both declined in population by 4.4% and 4.7% respectively.   Ingham has grown 4.2%.

I could go on and on here, but the point is clear.

Flint and Saginaw are both urban, and have way more in common with each other than the rural counties around them (or Lansing).   If there's going to be any discussion at all about "COI's" (like you've brought up dozens of times in this thread) then there has to be some sort of framework to go by on what that is and what the goal is to be,  otherwise any district drawn anywhere can be considered a partisan gerrymander.
Nice stats on 3 cities!  Doesn't make a coi.  Again I wasn't arguing Flint and Lansing are a coi, just used that as an example of how you line of thinking could be used against you. 
Logged
dpmapper
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 442
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: February 08, 2020, 12:08:47 AM »


Flint really belongs with Saginaw, maybe not Midland and Bay, but at least it should have Saginaw in with it.  If there's 1 real COI on the whole map outside the Detroit metro, it would be Flint with the Tri-Cities area.



The Detroit CSA is an objective measure of COI, but if you insist, here's a version with Genesee + Saginaw + Genesee-adjacent leftovers from neighboring districts.  It's Trump +2.  
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: February 08, 2020, 02:26:18 AM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/878acdf9-d9e1-49cb-840a-fc56c0e492b8
here's a competitive map that slightly favors republicans.  While dems would win about half of the seats in a year like 2018 maybe a majority, a decent r year could be a slaughter.
Logged
AustralianSwingVoter
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: February 08, 2020, 04:55:10 AM »
« Edited: February 08, 2020, 07:37:58 PM by AustralianSwingVoter »

not really.  You just want them together so the seat doesn't vote Trump.  Saginaw and Flint are different cities, not a single COI.  Now if I'm a Republican on the commission, I might still agree to a Flint-Saginaw district, it's a small concession.  But the other side would need to cooperate in other areas.  It's inevitable some districts will be drawn in a way that disproportionately favor one party, but the whole map can't be drawn with subtle decisions that all happen to favor 1 party.

The commission isn't made up of political apparatchiks or rabid party hacks. All the members are selected at random from a pool of independent applicants. And to serve on the commission you can't actually have any political ties whatsoever (no position within a party, staffer, lobbyist, consultant etc), merely that you registered as a member of a party on voter rolls. Just look at the Arizona commission for what the membership will be like. All lawyers, most with doctorates and additional degrees, and with no actual political links.
The aim of the commission is not to draw a bipartisan gerrymander. It's to draw a fair map that prioritises COIs while making sure it doesn't advantage either party (and yes that means adjusting for the geographic disadvantage).
Logged
Oryxslayer
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,725


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: February 08, 2020, 10:01:54 AM »
« Edited: February 08, 2020, 10:04:55 AM by Oryxslayer »

not really.  You just want them together so the seat doesn't vote Trump.  Saginaw and Flint are different cities, not a single COI.  Now if I'm a Republican on the commission, I might still agree to a Flint-Saginaw district, it's a small concession.  But the other side would need to cooperate in other areas.  It's inevitable some districts will be drawn in a way that disproportionately favor one party, but the whole map can't be drawn with subtle decisions that all happen to favor 1 party.

The commission isn't made up of political apparatchiks or rabid party hacks. All the members are selected at random from a pool of independent applicants. And to serve on the commission you can't actually have any political ties whatsoever (no position within a party, staffer, lobbyist, consultant etc), merely that you registered as a member of a party on voter rolls. Just look at the Arizona commission for what the membership will be like. All lawyers, most with doctorates and additional degrees, and with no actual political links.
The aim of the commission is not to draw a bipartisan gerrymander. It's to draw a fair map that prioritises COIs while making sure it doesn't advantage either party (and yes that means adjusting for the geographic disadvantage).

Yes, I thought I covered this well in the breakdown, but I guess it deserves to be repeated. This isn't a NJ style commission where the commissioners have constant chats with the party in question, leading to wheeling and dealing. A commission like this listens to public input and then passes off their idea of approximate COIs to a chosen mapping firm. Once preliminary maps are presented, the commissioners may haggle over smaller details, however the core plan was selected by the people (or whomever decides to try and make an argument before the commission in their public hearings) and the demographics of the state. This is what happened in CA, and MIs commission is a mirror version of CAs.
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,567


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: February 08, 2020, 10:17:54 AM »

Flint and Saginaw are a natural combination, as they're both manufacturing cities with similar sets of economic issues.

However, if you choose not to pair them, then there's one possible combination nobody else has tried yet, namely a Lansing-Saginaw district.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/fd58f3f7-afcc-4211-b3ce-3bb4d1df620a

It's not a particularly natural pairing, but it works better than a Flint-Lansing district, as Saginaw is small enough for them to room for both it and Eaton and Clinton counties.

Flint then goes with either the Thumb counties or with Pontiac and northern Oakland (I think the latter is slightly better, as Pontiac is similar enough even if northern Oakland isn't, but reasonable minds can disagree on this.)

The Thumb then goes with northern and eastern Macomb and the 9th and 11th are neatened from their current iterations but not wildly different. The two Detroit districts can be characterised as one covering the East side, Downtown and Downriver, and one covering the West side and inner suburbs to the north and west.

Livingston, Washtenaw and Monroe aren't exactly a natural community, but it is at least a coherent district based on counties on the edge of the metro area, and I think the Kalamazoo-Battle Creek-Jackson district works rather nicely.

That then forces Ottawa into the 6th and the 3rd compacts into an essentially rectangular shape. I opted to split the rest of the Lower Peninsula on roughly east-west lines, but some might prefer a north-south split.

So the Flint and Saginaw districts are both a bit awkward, but everything else works out surprisingly neatly. Trump won 7 of those districts, but in the case of the 5th his margin was only 0.9% and it practice it would probably return seven Democrats most years.
Logged
dpmapper
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 442
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: February 08, 2020, 10:33:00 AM »


The aim of the commission is not to draw a bipartisan gerrymander. It's to draw a fair map that prioritises COIs while making sure it doesn't advantage either party (and yes that means adjusting for the geographic disadvantage).

COIs yes, but I don't see why adjusting for the geographic disadvantage is a necessary part of the commission's responsibilities.  I'm sure some on the commission would think so, but not all. 
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: February 08, 2020, 02:11:02 PM »
« Edited: February 08, 2020, 02:35:33 PM by Idaho Conservative »


The aim of the commission is not to draw a bipartisan gerrymander. It's to draw a fair map that prioritises COIs while making sure it doesn't advantage either party (and yes that means adjusting for the geographic disadvantage).

COIs yes, but I don't see why adjusting for the geographic disadvantage is a necessary part of the commission's responsibilities.  I'm sure some on the commission would think so, but not all.  
The instructions for the commission say partisan fairness is one of many criteria included.  Certainly different commissioners will have different ideas about what a fair map would actually look like, but folks here suggesting partisan fairness automatically means drawing lines with an intent to help out Democrats are kidding themselves and don't understand the first thing about partisan fairness.  There is no specific formula or criteria included in the law to define partisan fairness, for good reason.  The intent of the law wasn't to create a map that elects a delegation that exactly matches the statewide popular vote, it was to ensure neither side draws a map that was clearly biased, even it it follows the other criteria.  The current map is like that, it favors the republican party and it's clear that was the rationale behind every part of the map.  The commission has Republicans, Independents, and Democrats, people from each side have to agree.  Democrats could try to make the case that a fair map means drawing lines with intent to help them, but I doubt it would be very convincing to the republicans who need to agree on the map.  The map needs to be fair, sensible, and bipartisan.  If the commission works like it's supposed to, you'll see a map that is't obviously drawn to favor one party.  Here is a good starting point for a fair map.  Ik it has 14 districts, but it could be worked with https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/michigan/#Compact
https://davesredistricting.org/join/7a9f5f27-c686-4b38-b432-85ae3efe10e4
Logged
Tintrlvr
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,285


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: February 08, 2020, 02:38:13 PM »

Flint and Saginaw are a natural combination, as they're both manufacturing cities with similar sets of economic issues.

However, if you choose not to pair them, then there's one possible combination nobody else has tried yet, namely a Lansing-Saginaw district.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/fd58f3f7-afcc-4211-b3ce-3bb4d1df620a

It's not a particularly natural pairing, but it works better than a Flint-Lansing district, as Saginaw is small enough for them to room for both it and Eaton and Clinton counties.

Flint then goes with either the Thumb counties or with Pontiac and northern Oakland (I think the latter is slightly better, as Pontiac is similar enough even if northern Oakland isn't, but reasonable minds can disagree on this.)

The Thumb then goes with northern and eastern Macomb and the 9th and 11th are neatened from their current iterations but not wildly different. The two Detroit districts can be characterised as one covering the East side, Downtown and Downriver, and one covering the West side and inner suburbs to the north and west.

Livingston, Washtenaw and Monroe aren't exactly a natural community, but it is at least a coherent district based on counties on the edge of the metro area, and I think the Kalamazoo-Battle Creek-Jackson district works rather nicely.

That then forces Ottawa into the 6th and the 3rd compacts into an essentially rectangular shape. I opted to split the rest of the Lower Peninsula on roughly east-west lines, but some might prefer a north-south split.

So the Flint and Saginaw districts are both a bit awkward, but everything else works out surprisingly neatly. Trump won 7 of those districts, but in the case of the 5th his margin was only 0.9% and it practice it would probably return seven Democrats most years.

I really like this map, and this does seem realistic. The only place I would try to change for fairness is the Bay City area; if it's possible to put the split in a rural county instead, I think that's better. (I generally prefer splitting rural counties to urban ones because you're affecting fewer people that way.)
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 30  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.096 seconds with 12 queries.