|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 04, 2020, 06:56:10 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
  2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Michigan
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 Print
Author Topic: 2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Michigan  (Read 4522 times)
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 597
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.00, S: 4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #125 on: February 11, 2020, 07:32:26 pm »

Anyway here's the results of my investigation into the Wayne non-AA seat style map. Like the others upthread discovered, this leads to the rotation of districts around that state. Now I didn't intend for it to become a D-Gerry/D-Favoring map at the start. However, once I saw how the Detroit Metro seats (first drawn) basically favored the Democrats to an unfair degree, I kinda made that unfairness part of the map. I do not endorse this plan, and I think it should show why an anchored Wayne  non-AA seat is probably asking the data to provide something that isn't available.






Districts 11, 12, 13 are Safe D (The Wayne Seat is right there is a D gift)

District 9 is probably Likely D (Clinton+10, D+4 CPVI, Sunk Livingston is growing just like Ann Arbor)

Districts 3 and 10 are marginal Clinton with D+1 CPVI's, but they are both moving towards the Dems

District 5 is marginal Clinton with D+4 CPVI, but it is moving towards the GOP (yep Clinton won a majority of seats...)

District 7 is marginal Trump with a R+1 CPVI, but moving towards the Dems

Districts 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 are safe GOP, all with CPVI's above R+8 and an average Trump win of 58% - 37% (one seat a bit above that trump win, one seat a bit below that).
how do you put photos directly in?  When I put them in it on ImgBB just becomes a link
Logged
Oregon Blue Dog
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,032
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: -3.30


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #126 on: February 11, 2020, 08:42:14 pm »

how do you put photos directly in?  When I put them in it on ImgBB just becomes a link
Have you tried this?
- right-click on image
- hit the 'open image in new tab' button
- there'll be a new link, use that
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 597
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.00, S: 4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #127 on: February 11, 2020, 09:25:17 pm »

how do you put photos directly in?  When I put them in it on ImgBB just becomes a link
Have you tried this?
- right-click on image
- hit the 'open image in new tab' button
- there'll be a new link, use that
THANKS
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 597
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.00, S: 4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #128 on: February 11, 2020, 09:34:04 pm »




This proves a non AA Wayne seat doesn't have to necessarily help Dems.  Besides there's an argument Ann Arbor does better paired with educated parts of Oakland rather than western Wayne.
Logged
AustralianSwingVoter
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,505
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #129 on: February 12, 2020, 06:22:47 am »


https://davesredistricting.org/join/ee18ca89-11d7-4635-9684-3dfb273592b1
1 - R+11
2 - R+12
3 - D+5
4 - D+6
5 - R+15
6 - D+6
7 - D+5
8 - R+14
9 - D+6
10 - D+6
11 - D+6
12 - D+14 (47% Black)
13 - D+11 (47% Black)
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Rookie
**
Posts: 234


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #130 on: February 12, 2020, 11:42:55 am »

Michigan's House of Representatives map is much less gerrymandered than its congressional or State Senate maps, because at this scale minimising splits of counties and municipalities means there's much less room to put a thumb on the scales. There are areas where it's clearly drawn to favour Republicans, but equally there are plenty of areas where you can more or less maintain the present alignments, once you've accounted for population shifts.

Once again, I worked with 2018 population estimates and tried to make sure that as much as possible seats were not right at the upper or lower limits of the allowable range. I tried to keep similar areas together, which probably promotes more safe seats, and I tried to draw as many seats winnable by minority candidates as possible, which definitely promotes safe seats. However, there are still a fair few marginals and I think it's clear that the House is a much easier target for Michigan Democrats than the State Senate.

In a few places (primarily Macomb, Grand Rapids, Lansing and Jackson) there looked to be two viable solutions, so I drew two maps. This is the first:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/90a2f6be-8fcf-4293-9b92-1a6b6a9c3d4b

  • This map has 10 black majority districts (8 in Detroit, one in Southfield, one in Flint); 1 Hispanic plurality district in Detroit (although that's probably more likely to elect a black candidate as it stands); a black-plurality district based on Pontiac; a majority-minority district in Grand Rapids; two districts where the Democratic primary is probably plurality-black (the Inkster-Romulus district and the Saginaw City district) and several other districts where the white percentage is below 60% and which might be viable coalition districts either now or by 2030. Except for the Inkster-Romulus district, these are all pretty clean. Sadly, the latest update to DRA seems to have screwed up the display of electorate data and is now only showing white and Hispanic populations, so you may just have to take me at my word.
  • Wayne and Monroe combine for 21 districts, which is one fewer than they presently have. It's mathematically possible to give Wayne 19 large districts on its own, but then Monroe lacks a convenient partner and there's nothing terribly wrong with a cross-county district there so I left it be.
  • In Macomb, I went for a least-change plan as much as possible. Warren and Clinton need to be chopped due to size and there's an extra chop in Sterling Heights. Macomb Township is now large enough for its own district.
  • In Oakland, you can mostly leave things be in the south-east. I tried to create a black-opportunity district based on Oak Park, but the numbers aren't quite there. Rochester Hills is now large enough for its own district, but Troy and Clawson are too large so Troy gets a chop. The county could theoretically stand alone for 14 seats, but Livingston is too large for two so I stuck in a cross-county seat.
  • In St. Clair, I undid the current gerrymander to create one rural district shared with Sanilac and one district focused on the St. Clair river towns. This might have been a swing district in 2008, but isn't now.
  • At the moment, Jackson County is sliced and diced to try to dilute the votes of Jackson itself. This map undoes that and creates a swing seat. Similarly, I've simplified the lines in Calhoun County. On the flipside, Shiawassee County gets carved in two.
  • Kent County is cracked quite hard at the moment. I've undone and given it seven seats of its own, which ought to usually split 4-3 Republican, with the Wyoming district possibly on the path to becoming competitive.
  • I tried a lot of options, but I don't think there are any plausible solutions in the UP that let you keep Marquette whole. That makes it even harder for Democrats to hold down a seat there than it already is.

Overall, Clinton won 42 districts to Trump's 68, but several of Trump's victories were extremely narrow and in several more Democrats tend to overperform downballot, so it would be competitive in good Democratic years.

I will post the second map either later tonight or tomorrow.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 597
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.00, S: 4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #131 on: February 12, 2020, 03:14:24 pm »

Michigan's House of Representatives map is much less gerrymandered than its congressional or State Senate maps, because at this scale minimising splits of counties and municipalities means there's much less room to put a thumb on the scales. There are areas where it's clearly drawn to favour Republicans, but equally there are plenty of areas where you can more or less maintain the present alignments, once you've accounted for population shifts.

Once again, I worked with 2018 population estimates and tried to make sure that as much as possible seats were not right at the upper or lower limits of the allowable range. I tried to keep similar areas together, which probably promotes more safe seats, and I tried to draw as many seats winnable by minority candidates as possible, which definitely promotes safe seats. However, there are still a fair few marginals and I think it's clear that the House is a much easier target for Michigan Democrats than the State Senate.

In a few places (primarily Macomb, Grand Rapids, Lansing and Jackson) there looked to be two viable solutions, so I drew two maps. This is the first:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/90a2f6be-8fcf-4293-9b92-1a6b6a9c3d4b

  • This map has 10 black majority districts (8 in Detroit, one in Southfield, one in Flint); 1 Hispanic plurality district in Detroit (although that's probably more likely to elect a black candidate as it stands); a black-plurality district based on Pontiac; a majority-minority district in Grand Rapids; two districts where the Democratic primary is probably plurality-black (the Inkster-Romulus district and the Saginaw City district) and several other districts where the white percentage is below 60% and which might be viable coalition districts either now or by 2030. Except for the Inkster-Romulus district, these are all pretty clean. Sadly, the latest update to DRA seems to have screwed up the display of electorate data and is now only showing white and Hispanic populations, so you may just have to take me at my word.
  • Wayne and Monroe combine for 21 districts, which is one fewer than they presently have. It's mathematically possible to give Wayne 19 large districts on its own, but then Monroe lacks a convenient partner and there's nothing terribly wrong with a cross-county district there so I left it be.
  • In Macomb, I went for a least-change plan as much as possible. Warren and Clinton need to be chopped due to size and there's an extra chop in Sterling Heights. Macomb Township is now large enough for its own district.
  • In Oakland, you can mostly leave things be in the south-east. I tried to create a black-opportunity district based on Oak Park, but the numbers aren't quite there. Rochester Hills is now large enough for its own district, but Troy and Clawson are too large so Troy gets a chop. The county could theoretically stand alone for 14 seats, but Livingston is too large for two so I stuck in a cross-county seat.
  • In St. Clair, I undid the current gerrymander to create one rural district shared with Sanilac and one district focused on the St. Clair river towns. This might have been a swing district in 2008, but isn't now.
  • At the moment, Jackson County is sliced and diced to try to dilute the votes of Jackson itself. This map undoes that and creates a swing seat. Similarly, I've simplified the lines in Calhoun County. On the flipside, Shiawassee County gets carved in two.
  • Kent County is cracked quite hard at the moment. I've undone and given it seven seats of its own, which ought to usually split 4-3 Republican, with the Wyoming district possibly on the path to becoming competitive.
  • I tried a lot of options, but I don't think there are any plausible solutions in the UP that let you keep Marquette whole. That makes it even harder for Democrats to hold down a seat there than it already is.

Overall, Clinton won 42 districts to Trump's 68, but several of Trump's victories were extremely narrow and in several more Democrats tend to overperform downballot, so it would be competitive in good Democratic years.

I will post the second map either later tonight or tomorrow.
Wow, interesting how a fair house map favors Rs so much.  Rs should be thankful for the rules which limited them last time.
Logged
Southern Speaker Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,803
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #132 on: February 12, 2020, 03:54:33 pm »


https://davesredistricting.org/join/1a8fff1c-a5dc-4bf1-82aa-cd22367f05c1
my take on a "Washtenaw paired with Southern Oakland" arrangement paired with a Wayne non-AA seat. I tried to make it balanced but Rs still have a verrry slight advantage on this map.
Two black seats were possible even when only one of them crossed into southern Oakland AND Macomb has a CD to itself starting north from 8 Mile Road.
Clinton won the Washtenaw-southern Oakland seat by 24 points in 2016.
Dem-leaning seat can be created from northern Oakland and Genesee, but it's not safe.
Multiple whole county CDs can be formed.
Even with the inclusion of Saginaw, the Bay-Thumb district is very hard for Dems, measuring up to be R+9.
Only 4 Clinton districts. Ouch. The Washtenaw-southern Oakland seat reallly hurts here.
Tipping point seats are Lansing (R+1.71) and Macomb (R+1.93). Lansing is most likely to be marginal here due to Livingston having to end up somewhere. Lansing is the most natural place for it to go.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 597
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.00, S: 4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #133 on: February 12, 2020, 04:30:20 pm »


9-4 map with Trump winning all 9 by at least 10.  Amazing how it doesn't take an egregious map.  I can get a better map out of MI than TX and it looks better.  TX is 8-9 pts to the right of MI.
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Rookie
**
Posts: 234


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #134 on: February 13, 2020, 05:34:06 am »

This is the second map I drew: https://davesredistricting.org/join/a2f88c52-cda9-4396-bc78-2c16f33c5600

Changes from the first map:

  • The Inkster district (16) is significantly more compact and there are two fewer municipality cuts as a result. This drops the black percentage from 40% to 33%. However, that's still probably an improvement from what it is at present and it's represented by a black candidate, so it's probably functioning. The partisan ramifications are pretty limited.
  • There's a totally different arrangement in Macomb County. Whereas in the first map I left the 18th district unchanged as a combination of Eastpointe and St. Clair Shores, in this one I combined Eastpointe with southern Warren in an attempt to create a black opportunity district. It's only 34% black at the moment, but diversifying fast and probably already black-majority in the primary.
  • The knock-on consequences mean more compact lines in northern Macomb and one less split to Sterling Heights, but Shelby township gets cut and there's also a small nick in to Clinton Township (although that may be avoidable, depending on population shifts.) I probably prefer this option, but it is more disruptive.
  • Rather than pairing Eaton and Clinton for two districts, I stuck Eaton in with Shiawassee and Genesee and Clinton in with the Lansing group. This flips district 71 and arguably better respects community identities round Lansing, but it's uglier in Jackson.
  • There's a slight re-jig in Kent in an attempt to create a purely suburban district wrapping round Grand Rapids to the north and east. Only partially successful, I think it's fair to say.
  • Slightly re-jigged lines in Ottawa, switching from a East/South/West orientation to an East/South-West/North-West one. Also minor tweaks to Muskegon, no great partisan effect in either case.
  • A slight re-jig to the lines in Saginaw, making district 95 slightly more effective as a black opportunity district.
Logged
Water Hazard
Rookie
**
Posts: 34


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #135 on: February 13, 2020, 01:42:34 pm »



Here's a Detroit metro arrangement I like. Two districts over 50% AA and each of Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb gets its own non-VRA district. Of course, it'd result in an Ann Arbor/Rural pairing and no Flint to Saginaw Bay district like the current CD 5.
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Rookie
**
Posts: 234


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #136 on: February 14, 2020, 04:21:32 am »

What does the rest of the map look like? Presumably the numbers would work for putting Livingston in with Washtenaw, which is a better fit than more rural counties.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 597
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.00, S: 4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #137 on: February 14, 2020, 05:16:59 pm »



Here's a Detroit metro arrangement I like. Two districts over 50% AA and each of Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb gets its own non-VRA district. Of course, it'd result in an Ann Arbor/Rural pairing and no Flint to Saginaw Bay district like the current CD 5.
looks good
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 597
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.00, S: 4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #138 on: February 14, 2020, 07:12:50 pm »


I made a map based on yours.  Not ideal for either party but favors Rs a bit.  Livingston county is challenging, pairing it with Flint or Lansing is definitely unfavorable to Dems.  I'd say pairing Livingston with exurban Oakland is the most sensible (and fair) way to draw the map, but then you might not get a 100% Oakland district.   
Logged
dpmapper
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 327
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #139 on: February 14, 2020, 09:16:12 pm »




My latest version, which solves the Livingston problem by pairing with Washtenaw and Oakland in a coherent D+1.66 district that is quickly trending more D.  Oakland, Macomb and Wayne each have a district entirely within them.  The-Oakland only district is D+0.76 but Clinton won by 5.  The white parts of Wayne are reasonably paired with Monroe; it's basically a tossup district (DRA says R+0.61).  Flint/Saginaw and Lansing/Isabella districts are D+3 and D+0.15 but Trump very narrowly won both. 

Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 597
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.00, S: 4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #140 on: February 15, 2020, 04:26:52 am »




My latest version, which solves the Livingston problem by pairing with Washtenaw and Oakland in a coherent D+1.66 district that is quickly trending more D.  Oakland, Macomb and Wayne each have a district entirely within them.  The-Oakland only district is D+0.76 but Clinton won by 5.  The white parts of Wayne are reasonably paired with Monroe; it's basically a tossup district (DRA says R+0.61).  Flint/Saginaw and Lansing/Isabella districts are D+3 and D+0.15 but Trump very narrowly won both. 


I'd say good map but Rs will hate all those suburban swing seats and Dems will be sweating since  Clinton won only 4 seats!  Of course it is a citizen's commission.  If they prioritize competitiveness we could see something like this.  But I predict they'll focus more on keeping boundaries unbroken and COIs.
Logged
AustralianSwingVoter
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,505
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #141 on: February 15, 2020, 07:10:18 am »

My latest version, which solves the Livingston problem by pairing with Washtenaw and Oakland in a coherent D+1.66 district that is quickly trending more D.  Oakland, Macomb and Wayne each have a district entirely within them.  The-Oakland only district is D+0.76 but Clinton won by 5.  The white parts of Wayne are reasonably paired with Monroe; it's basically a tossup district (DRA says R+0.61).  Flint/Saginaw and Lansing/Isabella districts are D+3 and D+0.15 but Trump very narrowly won both.  
I'd say good map but Rs will hate all those suburban swing seats and Dems will be sweating since  Clinton won only 4 seats!  Of course it is a citizen's commission.  If they prioritize competitiveness we could see something like this.  But I predict they'll focus more on keeping boundaries unbroken and COIs.
Well given the political parties have literally no input into the commission it doesn't really matter what they think. It'll be whatever 13 random citizens with no political links who are probably lawyers think best fits the criteria they follow.
And it should be noted that respecting COIs is completely different from keeping Counties intact. And the commission is bound by law to prioritise respecting COIs and competitive elections over county and municipality integrity.
Logged
Oryxslayer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,992


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #142 on: February 15, 2020, 08:36:41 am »
« Edited: February 15, 2020, 08:40:15 am by Oryxslayer »

My latest version, which solves the Livingston problem by pairing with Washtenaw and Oakland in a coherent D+1.66 district that is quickly trending more D.  Oakland, Macomb and Wayne each have a district entirely within them.  The-Oakland only district is D+0.76 but Clinton won by 5.  The white parts of Wayne are reasonably paired with Monroe; it's basically a tossup district (DRA says R+0.61).  Flint/Saginaw and Lansing/Isabella districts are D+3 and D+0.15 but Trump very narrowly won both.  
I'd say good map but Rs will hate all those suburban swing seats and Dems will be sweating since  Clinton won only 4 seats!  Of course it is a citizen's commission.  If they prioritize competitiveness we could see something like this.  But I predict they'll focus more on keeping boundaries unbroken and COIs.
Well given the political parties have literally no input into the commission it doesn't really matter what they think. It'll be whatever 13 random citizens with no political links who are probably lawyers think best fits the criteria they follow.
And it should be noted that respecting COIs is completely different from keeping Counties intact. And the commission is bound by law to prioritise respecting COIs and competitive elections over county and municipality integrity.

But in the absence of other COIs, a county works just fine. In the past, true commissions were limited to the west, where huge, unnatural, counties are destined to be cut. Michigan on the other hand has more rational county breakdowns. At the congressional level with only 13 seats, it's very likely COI discussions will focus on which counties should be paired with which other counties (Saginaw+Flint for instance) - except in several obvious situations usually within one of the metro areas. On lower level maps these cross-county COIs will be more imperative.
Logged
Nyvin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,887
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #143 on: February 15, 2020, 09:05:15 am »

This will probably be my final take on it -





https://davesredistricting.org/join/86c3575b-47c5-455b-bdef-ba4557967108

6 Clinton seats, 7 Trump seats.   Seat in Macomb and Oakland, 2 AA seats.  Keeps most communities together.   Overall a good fit.

MI-5 (Flint/Saginaw) won by Clinton but trending R.

MI-3 (Grand Rapids) won by Trump but trending D.

I'd expect those two to flip by 2022 or maybe 2024.

The Oakland district was barely won by Clinton but it's trending D too.

Other than that the rest are pretty much all safe for either party.
Logged
dpmapper
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 327
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #144 on: February 15, 2020, 10:24:48 am »

Oakland to Newaygo and Wayne to St. Joseph just aren't good districts. 

I particularly like my latest map because the district shapes are incredibly compact -- 3 of them are basically perfect rectangles, and the Flint, Washtenaw and Lansing districts are really good shapes as well (in addition to being decent COIs).  I might swap Newaygo for Barry in the Grand Rapids district; that's the only real annoyance I have. 
Logged
Nyvin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,887
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #145 on: February 15, 2020, 10:33:09 am »

Oakland to Newaygo and Wayne to St. Joseph just aren't good districts. 

I particularly like my latest map because the district shapes are incredibly compact -- 3 of them are basically perfect rectangles, and the Flint, Washtenaw and Lansing districts are really good shapes as well (in addition to being decent COIs).  I might swap Newaygo for Barry in the Grand Rapids district; that's the only real annoyance I have. 

The Oakland to Newaygo district is actually a really good collection of all the Metro's Exurban areas around them, from Grand Rapids to Detroit.   They actually do have a lot in common.   It isn't compact sure, but if CoI > Compactness then it's a very solid district.
Logged
Water Hazard
Rookie
**
Posts: 34


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #146 on: February 15, 2020, 10:39:18 am »

What does the rest of the map look like? Presumably the numbers would work for putting Livingston in with Washtenaw, which is a better fit than more rural counties.

There's a lot of ways you could draw the state outside of the metro; here I wanted to get the whole Lansing area in one district. You could swap territory between 7 and 8 and get a Livingston/Washtenaw/Monroe district that doesn't look too bad. Not great from a COI standpoint either IMO but it's a hard area to deal with.

I do agree with Idaho Conservative that the best fit for Livingston is probably pairing it with exurban Oakland, but that requires a different arrangement for most of the metro. I've also been playing with Washtenaw/Ingham, though that does sort of tilt the rest of the map in Republicans' favor.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 597
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.00, S: 4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #147 on: February 15, 2020, 02:53:54 pm »

What does the rest of the map look like? Presumably the numbers would work for putting Livingston in with Washtenaw, which is a better fit than more rural counties.

There's a lot of ways you could draw the state outside of the metro; here I wanted to get the whole Lansing area in one district. You could swap territory between 7 and 8 and get a Livingston/Washtenaw/Monroe district that doesn't look too bad. Not great from a COI standpoint either IMO but it's a hard area to deal with.

I do agree with Idaho Conservative that the best fit for Livingston is probably pairing it with exurban Oakland, but that requires a different arrangement for most of the metro. I've also been playing with Washtenaw/Ingham, though that does sort of tilt the rest of the map in Republicans' favor.
While Livingston being paired with Lansing isn't ideal, your map is better than most I've seen here due to compact.  The three counties which make up Lansing are a COI and that's good they were kept together.  I would also say Washtenaw is a better match for Wayne but again, I get that changes stuff elsewhere.
Logged
Dad
HCP
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,192
Azerbaijan



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #148 on: February 15, 2020, 04:00:14 pm »


Competitive map, I guess;

12 is 50.3% black, 13 is 49.8% black. Both, along with 7 (Clinton +8.1) and 8 (Clinton +13.3%) are Safe D.

9 is Clinton +7.2, so safe for now, but will probably shift closer through the decade. Likely D.

10 is Clinton +1. Tossup/Lean D.

3 is Trump +4.4 and 6 is Trump +6. Lean R. 6 was probably won by Whitmer; 3 definitely.

The rest (1,2,4,5,11) are safe R, with the closest being 11 at Trump +19.

Seems like it would be 7R, 6D but with the realistic chances of going 8R-5D or 8D-5R.
Logged
Tintrlvr
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,355


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #149 on: February 15, 2020, 04:20:24 pm »
« Edited: February 15, 2020, 04:40:46 pm by Tintrlvr »

I just drew a new version of a MI map, and I'm extremely satisfied with it. The goal was to keep very close to the rule of minimizing county and municipal splits while keeping COIs together, and I think this map does an excellent job of both while also coming out with a very fair partisan balance of 6-6-1. It also has two seats that are majority or nearly majority black (and you could fiddle around with the edges to get them both to majority black, such as by switching Hamtramck). The UP-Traverse City district has no county splits at all (!!!), and the Lansing and Flint-Saginaw districts share a de minimis county split but have no splits with any other districts. The Detroit metro has two majority/near-majority black Detroit+ districts, one district entirely in Wayne, one district entirely in Oakland, one district covering the exurban parts of Oakland and Macomb and one district containing the western/southern exurbs+Ann Arbor, which I think is the best possible COI arrangement in the Detroit area. The three counties of the Lansing metro are also kept together without combining them with any other major metro (no combination with Flint, Saginaw, Livingston County, Kalamazoo, etc.)

Without further ado, the map:




MI-01 (Upper Peninsula, Traverse City): 37-59 Trump, Safe R
MI-02 (Holland, Muskegon): 37-57 Trump, Safe R
MI-03 (Grand Rapids): 41-52 Trump, Likely R
MI-04 (Bay City, Port Huron): 32-63 Trump, Safe R
MI-05 (Kalamazoo, Benton Harbor): 42-52 Trump, Likely R
MI-06 (Lansing, Battle Creek, Jackson): 48-46 Clinton, Lean D
MI-07 (Flint, Saginaw, Midland): 48-47 Clinton, Toss-up
MI-08 (Ann Arbor, Monroe, Howell): 50-45 Clinton, Likely D
MI-09 (Pontiac, Royal Oak, Novi): 53-42 Clinton, Safe D
MI-10 (Oxford, Sterling Heights, New Baltimore): 36-59 Trump, Safe R
MI-11 (Dearborn, Livonia, Romulus): 51-44 Clinton, Likely D
MI-12 (Detroit West, Southfield, Inkster): 78-19 Clinton, Safe D (51% black)
MI-13 (Detroit East, Warren, Mount Clemens): 69-28 Clinton, Safe D (49% black)

Total: 6R (4 Safe, 2 Likely), 6D (3 Safe, 2 Likely, 1 Lean), 1 Toss-up

https://davesredistricting.org/join/28069751-857c-44d0-8e44-8abde1dc2f25

Edit: I realized I had an unintentional extra municipal split in Macomb County. I've fixed that on the DRA version, and it actually increased the black percentage in MI-13 just a hair (nearly to the point of rounding up to 50%!).
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines