2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Michigan

[EastAnglianLefty]

Going into Bay was mostly a legacy effect - initially I wanted to get Bay City in (on the basis that southern Bay is fairly distinct from much more rural northern Bay) but then I found that based off 2018 population estimates it's not quite big enough. That will probably still be the case on the census figures, but it might be possible to take most of Midland instead (just leaving off the rural fringes.)

[Idaho Conservative]

Going into Bay was mostly a legacy effect - initially I wanted to get Bay City in (on the basis that southern Bay is fairly distinct from much more rural northern Bay) but then I found that based off 2018 population estimates it's not quite big enough. That will probably still be the case on the census figures, but it might be possible to take most of Midland instead (just leaving off the rural fringes.)

While your map doesn't really favor one party,  you split Oakland 5 ways heavily diluting their voice.  It is possible to only split it once, with one district entirely within it (probably a Dem seat) and exurban areas going elsewhere.  Also some dems might be nervous about all those Clinton+5 or less seats.  They are all trending R.

[Idaho Conservative]

https://imgur.com/a/pQIkR45
https://imgur.com/7d7Ddl7
6-1-6 map
4 county breaks

[cvparty]

https://imgur.com/a/pQIkR45
https://imgur.com/7d7Ddl7
6-1-6 map
4 county breaks

that looks more like 7 splits. also your number of splits definitely has any significance with regard to redistricting

[Idaho Conservative]

https://imgur.com/a/pQIkR45
https://imgur.com/7d7Ddl7
6-1-6 map
4 county breaks

that looks more like 7 splits. also your number of splits definitely has any significance with regard to redistricting

I only counted a split when a county that could in theory be kept whole wasn't.  Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb will be split no matter what, unles Baker v Carr is overturned.  But regardless let's not get stuck in the weeds.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/b89d1b54-490e-4440-b3b6-29d27d0081dd
1 - R+11
2 - R+7
3 - R+7
4 - R+4
5 - R+5
6 - R+5
7 - R+4
8 - R+5
9 - R+6
10 - R+6
11 - D+18
12 - D+28
13 - D+32
The Michigan GOP would like to introduce you to this totally fair map which definitely has no ulterior motives.

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/b89d1b54-490e-4440-b3b6-29d27d0081dd
1 - R+11
2 - R+7
3 - R+7
4 - R+4
5 - R+5
6 - R+5
7 - R+4
8 - R+5
9 - R+6
10 - R+6
11 - D+18
12 - D+28
13 - D+32
The Michigan GOP would like to introduce you to this totally fair map which definitely has no ulterior motives.

how do u directly upload a pic like that?
but it's amazing u could draw a map that lopsided that clean looking.  The only obvious give away is arm reaching into Pontiac.

[lfromnj]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/b89d1b54-490e-4440-b3b6-29d27d0081dd
1 - R+11
2 - R+7
3 - R+7
4 - R+4
5 - R+5
6 - R+5
7 - R+4
8 - R+5
9 - R+6
10 - R+6
11 - D+18
12 - D+28
13 - D+32
The Michigan GOP would like to introduce you to this totally fair map which definitely has no ulterior motives.

how do u directly upload a pic like that?
but it's amazing u could draw a map that lopsided that clean looking.  The only obvious give away is arm reaching into Pontiac.

I copy and paste into discord and use that link here.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/b89d1b54-490e-4440-b3b6-29d27d0081dd
1 - R+11
2 - R+7
3 - R+7
4 - R+4
5 - R+5
6 - R+5
7 - R+4
8 - R+5
9 - R+6
10 - R+6
11 - D+18
12 - D+28
13 - D+32
The Michigan GOP would like to introduce you to this totally fair map which definitely has no ulterior motives.

how do u directly upload a pic like that?
but it's amazing u could draw a map that lopsided that clean looking.  The only obvious give away is arm reaching into Pontiac.

And the arm reaching to Pontiac can be justified under the VRA without too much effort.
And it's a reminder that just because a map that looks clean doesn't mean it's at all fair. That's why Independent Commissions take into account partisan fairness.

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/b89d1b54-490e-4440-b3b6-29d27d0081dd
1 - R+11
2 - R+7
3 - R+7
4 - R+4
5 - R+5
6 - R+5
7 - R+4
8 - R+5
9 - R+6
10 - R+6
11 - D+18
12 - D+28
13 - D+32
The Michigan GOP would like to introduce you to this totally fair map which definitely has no ulterior motives.

how do u directly upload a pic like that?
but it's amazing u could draw a map that lopsided that clean looking.  The only obvious give away is arm reaching into Pontiac.

And the arm reaching to Pontiac can be justified under the VRA without too much effort.
And it's a reminder that just because a map that looks clean doesn't mean it's at all fair. That's why Independent Commissions take into account partisan fairness.

The arm into Pontiac isn't needed to fufill the vra tho, 2 roughly half black districts can be created with limited intrusion into Wayne.  It can be legally justified (but there is an argument it is using race as a predominate factor which isn't legal)  but courts have not struck down a district similar to that so who knows.  My point was that the arm is the one part of your map that looks gerrymandered to the average voter.  How did you upload the photo?

[EastAnglianLefty]

Going into Bay was mostly a legacy effect - initially I wanted to get Bay City in (on the basis that southern Bay is fairly distinct from much more rural northern Bay) but then I found that based off 2018 population estimates it's not quite big enough. That will probably still be the case on the census figures, but it might be possible to take most of Midland instead (just leaving off the rural fringes.)

While your map doesn't really favor one party,  you split Oakland 5 ways heavily diluting their voice.  It is possible to only split it once, with one district entirely within it (probably a Dem seat) and exurban areas going elsewhere.  Also some dems might be nervous about all those Clinton+5 or less seats.  They are all trending R.

a) Oakland isn't a single thing - it's a huge county ranging from core bits of the Detroit urban area in the SE, to suburbs in the middle to rural areas in the north. 9 and 11 split the suburban bits and you can reasonably argue that it's better to unit them and then have one district solely in Macomb, but otherwise the map matches up to the different COIs in the county reasonable well.

b) Those seats aren't trending R. The northern bits of 4 are trending R, but the southern bits are trending D and there's more population in the south of the seat (and the south is growing and the north isn't). Also, Saginaw County has a significant non-white population, so there are limits to how much further it can swing unless it goes full Kentucky (in which case Democrats are screwed whatever happens.)

In 8, Washtenaw has about half the electorate and is trending D (although they may be close to tapped out in the east of the county and it's not clear whether the same will happen in the west too.) Livingston is also trending D, so it's only Monroe which is the issue and that's only about a fifth of the electorate.

In 9, most of the Macomb bits are swinging R, but the minority population in south Macomb is growing rapidly, which ought to take the edge off that. In Oakland, the trend is towards Democrats. That said, if you swapped St. Clair Shores for Mt. Clemens and part of Clinton Township (which looks cleaner on a map but splits more townships) then it probably would be an issue.

[Idaho Conservative]

Going into Bay was mostly a legacy effect - initially I wanted to get Bay City in (on the basis that southern Bay is fairly distinct from much more rural northern Bay) but then I found that based off 2018 population estimates it's not quite big enough. That will probably still be the case on the census figures, but it might be possible to take most of Midland instead (just leaving off the rural fringes.)

While your map doesn't really favor one party,  you split Oakland 5 ways heavily diluting their voice.  It is possible to only split it once, with one district entirely within it (probably a Dem seat) and exurban areas going elsewhere.  Also some dems might be nervous about all those Clinton+5 or less seats.  They are all trending R.

a) Oakland isn't a single thing - it's a huge county ranging from core bits of the Detroit urban area in the SE, to suburbs in the middle to rural areas in the north. 9 and 11 split the suburban bits and you can reasonably argue that it's better to unit them and then have one district solely in Macomb, but otherwise the map matches up to the different COIs in the county reasonable well.

b) Those seats aren't trending R. The northern bits of 4 are trending R, but the southern bits are trending D and there's more population in the south of the seat (and the south is growing and the north isn't). Also, Saginaw County has a significant non-white population, so there are limits to how much further it can swing unless it goes full Kentucky (in which case Democrats are screwed whatever happens.)

In 8, Washtenaw has about half the electorate and is trending D (although they may be close to tapped out in the east of the county and it's not clear whether the same will happen in the west too.) Livingston is also trending D, so it's only Monroe which is the issue and that's only about a fifth of the electorate.

In 9, most of the Macomb bits are swinging R, but the minority population in south Macomb is growing rapidly, which ought to take the edge off that. In Oakland, the trend is towards Democrats. That said, if you swapped St. Clair Shores for Mt. Clemens and part of Clinton Township (which looks cleaner on a map but splits more townships) then it probably would be an issue.

ok, you can keep kidding yourself.  Sure maybe the massive trends from 2012 to 2016 will stay frozen while d trending areas stay trending D For now those Clinton+4 seats might be somewhat safe but in a Dem midterm your map collapses.  It is clear you spread dems incredibly thin so they still have a chance at winning 7 seats, but your map is too partisan for republicans, funky for independants, and risky for dems.  This is a better alternative in every way: https://imgur.com/a/pQIkR45

[EastAnglianLefty]

You seem to have the idea that everybody else is biased, whereas you are fair. The former may be true, the latter is frankly delusional. You're just much better at seeing other people's biases than admitting your own.

I would agree it's not necessarily a plan that is likely to be drawn, but that wasn't the point. It was just an experiment to see what happens if you draw a Lansing-Saginaw district. Answer: the Flint and Lansing districts are a bit odd, everything else makes sense in isolation but you split a few more counties than you necessarily need to.

A lot of the decisions on the map seem to come down to how Flint, Saginaw and the Thumb get treated. If you put Flint with the Thumb, you're drawing a Republican gerrymander. If you put Flint and Saginaw in the same district and extend it to the Huron coast, you're going to produce a strong Democratic map around Detroit (as you soak up heavily Republican bits of northern Macomb and/or Oakland, allowing Democratic strongholds in the south of those counties to outvote lean-Republican areas further north.) If you put Flint and Saginaw in the same district but let the Thumb district head north via Bay, it's more mixed but tends to benefit Republicans as they're going to be favoured to win the Macomb district.

[Idaho Conservative]

You seem to have the idea that everybody else is biased, whereas you are fair. The former may be true, the latter is frankly delusional. You're just much better at seeing other people's biases than admitting your own.

I would agree it's not necessarily a plan that is likely to be drawn, but that wasn't the point. It was just an experiment to see what happens if you draw a Lansing-Saginaw district. Answer: the Flint and Lansing districts are a bit odd, everything else makes sense in isolation but you split a few more counties than you necessarily need to.

A lot of the decisions on the map seem to come down to how Flint, Saginaw and the Thumb get treated. If you put Flint with the Thumb, you're drawing a Republican gerrymander. If you put Flint and Saginaw in the same district and extend it to the Huron coast, you're going to produce a strong Democratic map around Detroit (as you soak up heavily Republican bits of northern Macomb and/or Oakland, allowing Democratic strongholds in the south of those counties to outvote lean-Republican areas further north.) If you put Flint and Saginaw in the same district but let the Thumb district head north via Bay, it's more mixed but tends to benefit Republicans as they're going to be favoured to win the Macomb district.

I never claimed not to have biases, but on this map https://imgur.com/a/pQIkR45 I turned off partisan data and based it on 538's map keeping counties whole as much as possible.  Not every map I've drawn is fair but that one is as the data shows https://imgur.com/7d7Ddl7 6D, 6R, 1 even.    Also I don't think you can get a Flint-Saginaw district all the way to northern Macomb unless you make a weird tendril which the commission isn't doing.  You can get a Flint district to the Huron coast, only if you drop Saginaw.  I think the most fair and straightforward way to divide up the northern suburbs is a solid R district that includes Livingston county, northern and western Oakland, and northern Macomb.  Then a solid D district in the remainder of Oakland, and a tossup in the remainder of Macomb.  The one potential alteration is having a black seat go into southern Oakland to get more black voters, but that doesn't really change the partisan makeup because the Oakland seat still solidly votes Clinton due to Pontiac and places like Royal Oak.  1D-1T-1R is a fair breakdown of the Macomb-Oakland-Livingston area.  Those counties combined voted Trump narrowly and Obama narrowly. 

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

You seem to have the idea that everybody else is biased, whereas you are fair. The former may be true, the latter is frankly delusional. You're just much better at seeing other people's biases than admitting your own.

I would agree it's not necessarily a plan that is likely to be drawn, but that wasn't the point. It was just an experiment to see what happens if you draw a Lansing-Saginaw district. Answer: the Flint and Lansing districts are a bit odd, everything else makes sense in isolation but you split a few more counties than you necessarily need to.

A lot of the decisions on the map seem to come down to how Flint, Saginaw and the Thumb get treated. If you put Flint with the Thumb, you're drawing a Republican gerrymander. If you put Flint and Saginaw in the same district and extend it to the Huron coast, you're going to produce a strong Democratic map around Detroit (as you soak up heavily Republican bits of northern Macomb and/or Oakland, allowing Democratic strongholds in the south of those counties to outvote lean-Republican areas further north.) If you put Flint and Saginaw in the same district but let the Thumb district head north via Bay, it's more mixed but tends to benefit Republicans as they're going to be favoured to win the Macomb district.

I never claimed not to have biases, but on this map https://imgur.com/a/pQIkR45 I turned off partisan data and based it on 538's map keeping counties whole as much as possible.  Not every map I've drawn is fair but that one is as the data shows https://imgur.com/7d7Ddl7 6D, 6R, 1 even.    Also I don't think you can get a Flint-Saginaw district all the way to northern Macomb unless you make a weird tendril which the commission isn't doing.  You can get a Flint district to the Huron coast, only if you drop Saginaw.  I think the most fair and straightforward way to divide up the northern suburbs is a solid R district that includes Livingston county, northern and western Oakland, and northern Macomb.  Then a solid D district in the remainder of Oakland, and a tossup in the remainder of Macomb.  The one potential alteration is having a black seat go into southern Oakland to get more black voters, but that doesn't really change the partisan makeup because the Oakland seat still solidly votes Clinton due to Pontiac and places like Royal Oak.  1D-1T-1R is a fair breakdown of the Macomb-Oakland-Livingston area.  Those counties combined voted Trump narrowly and Obama narrowly. 

could you link me the map plz?

[Idaho Conservative]

You seem to have the idea that everybody else is biased, whereas you are fair. The former may be true, the latter is frankly delusional. You're just much better at seeing other people's biases than admitting your own.

I would agree it's not necessarily a plan that is likely to be drawn, but that wasn't the point. It was just an experiment to see what happens if you draw a Lansing-Saginaw district. Answer: the Flint and Lansing districts are a bit odd, everything else makes sense in isolation but you split a few more counties than you necessarily need to.

A lot of the decisions on the map seem to come down to how Flint, Saginaw and the Thumb get treated. If you put Flint with the Thumb, you're drawing a Republican gerrymander. If you put Flint and Saginaw in the same district and extend it to the Huron coast, you're going to produce a strong Democratic map around Detroit (as you soak up heavily Republican bits of northern Macomb and/or Oakland, allowing Democratic strongholds in the south of those counties to outvote lean-Republican areas further north.) If you put Flint and Saginaw in the same district but let the Thumb district head north via Bay, it's more mixed but tends to benefit Republicans as they're going to be favoured to win the Macomb district.

I never claimed not to have biases, but on this map https://imgur.com/a/pQIkR45 I turned off partisan data and based it on 538's map keeping counties whole as much as possible.  Not every map I've drawn is fair but that one is as the data shows https://imgur.com/7d7Ddl7 6D, 6R, 1 even.    Also I don't think you can get a Flint-Saginaw district all the way to northern Macomb unless you make a weird tendril which the commission isn't doing.  You can get a Flint district to the Huron coast, only if you drop Saginaw.  I think the most fair and straightforward way to divide up the northern suburbs is a solid R district that includes Livingston county, northern and western Oakland, and northern Macomb.  Then a solid D district in the remainder of Oakland, and a tossup in the remainder of Macomb.  The one potential alteration is having a black seat go into southern Oakland to get more black voters, but that doesn't really change the partisan makeup because the Oakland seat still solidly votes Clinton due to Pontiac and places like Royal Oak.  1D-1T-1R is a fair breakdown of the Macomb-Oakland-Livingston area.  Those counties combined voted Trump narrowly and Obama narrowly.  

could you link me the map plz?

https://davesredistricting.org/join/bf7fe969-7260-4079-9fba-713e5eb41629
I looked at presidential results and down-ballot tendencies and it would be like this:
4 safe R (6, 9, 10, 11)
2 lean R (7, 13)
2 tossups (1, 8)
1 lean D (12)
4 safe D (2, 3, 4, 5)
Based on the '12+'16 composite it's 6R-1T-6D
In addition to keeping counties whole, I tried my best to keep metros whole too.  MI has a lot of mid sized metros like Flint, Lansing, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, ect which can all have their own districts.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

You seem to have the idea that everybody else is biased, whereas you are fair. The former may be true, the latter is frankly delusional. You're just much better at seeing other people's biases than admitting your own.

I would agree it's not necessarily a plan that is likely to be drawn, but that wasn't the point. It was just an experiment to see what happens if you draw a Lansing-Saginaw district. Answer: the Flint and Lansing districts are a bit odd, everything else makes sense in isolation but you split a few more counties than you necessarily need to.

A lot of the decisions on the map seem to come down to how Flint, Saginaw and the Thumb get treated. If you put Flint with the Thumb, you're drawing a Republican gerrymander. If you put Flint and Saginaw in the same district and extend it to the Huron coast, you're going to produce a strong Democratic map around Detroit (as you soak up heavily Republican bits of northern Macomb and/or Oakland, allowing Democratic strongholds in the south of those counties to outvote lean-Republican areas further north.) If you put Flint and Saginaw in the same district but let the Thumb district head north via Bay, it's more mixed but tends to benefit Republicans as they're going to be favoured to win the Macomb district.

I never claimed not to have biases, but on this map https://imgur.com/a/pQIkR45 I turned off partisan data and based it on 538's map keeping counties whole as much as possible.  Not every map I've drawn is fair but that one is as the data shows https://imgur.com/7d7Ddl7 6D, 6R, 1 even.    Also I don't think you can get a Flint-Saginaw district all the way to northern Macomb unless you make a weird tendril which the commission isn't doing.  You can get a Flint district to the Huron coast, only if you drop Saginaw.  I think the most fair and straightforward way to divide up the northern suburbs is a solid R district that includes Livingston county, northern and western Oakland, and northern Macomb.  Then a solid D district in the remainder of Oakland, and a tossup in the remainder of Macomb.  The one potential alteration is having a black seat go into southern Oakland to get more black voters, but that doesn't really change the partisan makeup because the Oakland seat still solidly votes Clinton due to Pontiac and places like Royal Oak.  1D-1T-1R is a fair breakdown of the Macomb-Oakland-Livingston area.  Those counties combined voted Trump narrowly and Obama narrowly. 

could you link me the map plz?

https://davesredistricting.org/join/bf7fe969-7260-4079-9fba-713e5eb41629
I looked at presidential results and down-ballot tendencies and it would be like this:
4 safe R (6, 9, 10, 11)
2 lean R (7, 13)
2 tossups (1,
1 lean D (12)
4 safe D (2, 3, 4, 5)
Based on the '12+'16 composite it's 6R-1T-6D
In addition to keeping counties whole, I tried my best to keep metros whole too.  MI has a lot of mid sized metros like Flint, Lansing, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, ect which can all have their own districts.

I quite honestly love your map, my only minor complaint relates to the 1st and 9th and the fact the border is not a straight line, but that's not really a major thing by any stretch.

[EastAnglianLefty]

You seem to have the idea that everybody else is biased, whereas you are fair. The former may be true, the latter is frankly delusional. You're just much better at seeing other people's biases than admitting your own.

I would agree it's not necessarily a plan that is likely to be drawn, but that wasn't the point. It was just an experiment to see what happens if you draw a Lansing-Saginaw district. Answer: the Flint and Lansing districts are a bit odd, everything else makes sense in isolation but you split a few more counties than you necessarily need to.

A lot of the decisions on the map seem to come down to how Flint, Saginaw and the Thumb get treated. If you put Flint with the Thumb, you're drawing a Republican gerrymander. If you put Flint and Saginaw in the same district and extend it to the Huron coast, you're going to produce a strong Democratic map around Detroit (as you soak up heavily Republican bits of northern Macomb and/or Oakland, allowing Democratic strongholds in the south of those counties to outvote lean-Republican areas further north.) If you put Flint and Saginaw in the same district but let the Thumb district head north via Bay, it's more mixed but tends to benefit Republicans as they're going to be favoured to win the Macomb district.

I never claimed not to have biases, but on this map https://imgur.com/a/pQIkR45 I turned off partisan data and based it on 538's map keeping counties whole as much as possible.  Not every map I've drawn is fair but that one is as the data shows https://imgur.com/7d7Ddl7 6D, 6R, 1 even.    Also I don't think you can get a Flint-Saginaw district all the way to northern Macomb unless you make a weird tendril which the commission isn't doing.  You can get a Flint district to the Huron coast, only if you drop Saginaw.  I think the most fair and straightforward way to divide up the northern suburbs is a solid R district that includes Livingston county, northern and western Oakland, and northern Macomb.  Then a solid D district in the remainder of Oakland, and a tossup in the remainder of Macomb.  The one potential alteration is having a black seat go into southern Oakland to get more black voters, but that doesn't really change the partisan makeup because the Oakland seat still solidly votes Clinton due to Pontiac and places like Royal Oak.  1D-1T-1R is a fair breakdown of the Macomb-Oakland-Livingston area.  Those counties combined voted Trump narrowly and Obama narrowly. 

Sorry, I didn't put that clearly - I'm not talking about the Flint-Saginaw district going into Macomb, but about the knock-on consequences. The Thumb has the electorate for half a congressional district and if you don't get the other half from Flint or from the north, then you either have to take it from Oakland or Macomb or both, which creates a Republican pack and means that you're more likely to get Democratic seats in the rest of Oakland and Macomb.

[Oryxslayer]

I have  mentioned before that if I personally tend to think thee thumb belongs with the upper chunk of the state, connected through Bay City of course. Now, I didn't always hold this view, I was converted by talking with various residents and reading the discussions I alluded to in the opener. In general, only really St. Clair is seen as potentially being a good partner to various Detroit Metro seats. The rest are seen as culturally more aligned with those on the other side of the Tri-Cities, itself a recognized region of Michigan by most groups which require regional divisions.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

You seem to have the idea that everybody else is biased, whereas you are fair. The former may be true, the latter is frankly delusional. You're just much better at seeing other people's biases than admitting your own.

I would agree it's not necessarily a plan that is likely to be drawn, but that wasn't the point. It was just an experiment to see what happens if you draw a Lansing-Saginaw district. Answer: the Flint and Lansing districts are a bit odd, everything else makes sense in isolation but you split a few more counties than you necessarily need to.

A lot of the decisions on the map seem to come down to how Flint, Saginaw and the Thumb get treated. If you put Flint with the Thumb, you're drawing a Republican gerrymander. If you put Flint and Saginaw in the same district and extend it to the Huron coast, you're going to produce a strong Democratic map around Detroit (as you soak up heavily Republican bits of northern Macomb and/or Oakland, allowing Democratic strongholds in the south of those counties to outvote lean-Republican areas further north.) If you put Flint and Saginaw in the same district but let the Thumb district head north via Bay, it's more mixed but tends to benefit Republicans as they're going to be favoured to win the Macomb district.

I never claimed not to have biases, but on this map https://imgur.com/a/pQIkR45 I turned off partisan data and based it on 538's map keeping counties whole as much as possible.  Not every map I've drawn is fair but that one is as the data shows https://imgur.com/7d7Ddl7 6D, 6R, 1 even.    Also I don't think you can get a Flint-Saginaw district all the way to northern Macomb unless you make a weird tendril which the commission isn't doing.  You can get a Flint district to the Huron coast, only if you drop Saginaw.  I think the most fair and straightforward way to divide up the northern suburbs is a solid R district that includes Livingston county, northern and western Oakland, and northern Macomb.  Then a solid D district in the remainder of Oakland, and a tossup in the remainder of Macomb.  The one potential alteration is having a black seat go into southern Oakland to get more black voters, but that doesn't really change the partisan makeup because the Oakland seat still solidly votes Clinton due to Pontiac and places like Royal Oak.  1D-1T-1R is a fair breakdown of the Macomb-Oakland-Livingston area.  Those counties combined voted Trump narrowly and Obama narrowly.  

could you link me the map plz?

https://davesredistricting.org/join/bf7fe969-7260-4079-9fba-713e5eb41629
I looked at presidential results and down-ballot tendencies and it would be like this:
4 safe R (6, 9, 10, 11)
2 lean R (7, 13)
2 tossups (1,
1 lean D (12)
4 safe D (2, 3, 4, 5)
Based on the '12+'16 composite it's 6R-1T-6D
In addition to keeping counties whole, I tried my best to keep metros whole too.  MI has a lot of mid sized metros like Flint, Lansing, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, ect which can all have their own districts.

Is it possible to better compactness by putting Oscoda and Crawford counties in the 1st in return for Osceola joining the 9th?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/435dcad3-d0f2-435b-abe8-c5eee7aa8575
In this map we have:
a 1st district more along the lines of the 2000s iteration of the district
a Flint-Thumb district, with Saginaw and Midland thrown in a Lansing district
a nice, neat, compact Grand Rapids seat
1 seat nested entirely within Macomb, another nested solely within Oakland, and 2 nested solely with Wayne, and then 2 seats around those, enveloping them
Kalamazoo and Battle Creek are kept in the same seat
the Macomb CD and Flint CD are the tipping point districts

[Nyvin]

I don't really see the point of Oakland getting it's own district.   It seems...meaningless.  Oakland is huge and very diverse,  both with income and demographics.    It's as though it's making a district simply to follow county lines and literally nothing else. 

It makes the most sense to have southern Oakland cross into either Wayne or Washtenaw,  depending on what communities you want to put together. 

I could understand a Macomb-exclusive district though.   That makes way more sense since it's much more White Working Class and generally is it's own community.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I don't really see the point of Oakland getting it's own district.   It seems...meaningless.  Oakland is huge and very diverse,  both with income and demographics.    It's as though it's making a district simply to follow county lines and literally nothing else.  

It makes the most sense to have southern Oakland cross into either Wayne or Washtenaw,  depending on what communities you want to put together.  

I could understand a Macomb-exclusive district though.   That makes way more sense since it's much more White Working Class and generally is it's own community.

An all-Oakland seat is logical especially because 8 Mile Road is better not crossed if one can help it and/or its not absolutely essential to one's plans elsewhere. The main benefit is not necessarily in a homogenous CoI but better districts elsewhere. There is much reason and much elegance in two exurban districts wrapping around the more urban metro Detroit districts.

[Nyvin]

I don't really see the point of Oakland getting it's own district.   It seems...meaningless.  Oakland is huge and very diverse,  both with income and demographics.    It's as though it's making a district simply to follow county lines and literally nothing else.  

It makes the most sense to have southern Oakland cross into either Wayne or Washtenaw,  depending on what communities you want to put together.  

I could understand a Macomb-exclusive district though.   That makes way more sense since it's much more White Working Class and generally is it's own community.

An all-Oakland seat is logical especially because 8 Mile Road is better not crossed if one can help it and/or its not absolutely essential to one's plans elsewhere. The main benefit is not necessarily in a homogenous CoI but better districts elsewhere. There is much reason and much elegance in two exurban districts wrapping around the more urban metro Detroit districts.

The 8 mile rd thing is more for the Macomb-Wayne border than Oakland,  since it's what separates Black Detroit from White Macomb (the difference really is pretty stark).   In Oakland you have Oak Park and Southfield areas to the north of Detroit which are both pretty black, and the difference between the two is minimal further west.

Most of Detroit itself is suburban sprawl, there's extremely little true "Metro" in the sense of what you see in Los Angeles or New York in Detroit.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I don't really see the point of Oakland getting it's own district.   It seems...meaningless.  Oakland is huge and very diverse,  both with income and demographics.    It's as though it's making a district simply to follow county lines and literally nothing else.  

It makes the most sense to have southern Oakland cross into either Wayne or Washtenaw,  depending on what communities you want to put together.  

I could understand a Macomb-exclusive district though.   That makes way more sense since it's much more White Working Class and generally is it's own community.

An all-Oakland seat is logical especially because 8 Mile Road is better not crossed if one can help it and/or its not absolutely essential to one's plans elsewhere. The main benefit is not necessarily in a homogenous CoI but better districts elsewhere. There is much reason and much elegance in two exurban districts wrapping around the more urban metro Detroit districts.

The 8 mile rd thing is more for the Macomb-Wayne border than Oakland,  since it's what separates Black Detroit from White Macomb (the difference really is pretty stark).   In Oakland you have Oak Park and Southfield areas to the north of Detroit which are both pretty black, and the difference between the two is minimal further west.

But you don't have to reach into Oakland for an adequate black district, and the more areas you take from Southern Oakland the more you need to eat into exurban metro Detroit, which is a CoI worth keeping together.
So crossing 8 Mile is still undesirable in most cases.