2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Michigan (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:14:14 AM
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 (search mode)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Author Topic: 2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Michigan  (Read 40836 times)
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

« on: February 06, 2020, 12:58:29 AM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/21a90af8-a1a5-4a7f-b51c-ef28e70cbfe6
https://davesredistricting.org/join/db73d662-b1fc-4fb4-acf6-905ad66fef2a
2 potential maps.  Detroit area gets shifted a lot once drawing a map based on compactness rather than tendrils for partisan reasons.  The only main difference between my 2 maps is whether Flint and Lansing are in the same district.  A decade ago that would've been seen as a Dem pack but looking forward it makes a Clinton+14 (ideal margin, enough to be safe but not so lopsided it wastes Dem votes) seat outside of Detroit metro.  Without combining the 2 cities, it's difficult to create a safe dem district outside of Detroit, due to political geography.  My second map gives Flint and Lansing each their own districts, but both districts are competitive, one leaning R one leaning D.  It is true Trump wins a majority of seats on both maps, but that is basically inevitable due to political geography on any fair map.  Dems are heavily packed into Wayne County (which can't be cracked due to the VRA) and sprinkled out throughput the rest of the state.  Any map where Clinton wins 7 or even 6 seats is probably a Dem gerrymander, compensating for Dem's geographical disadvantage rather than drawing fair lines.  The real debate will on exactly what each side wants to compromise on, and whether each side values more safe seats or more competitive seats. 
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2020, 05:14:12 PM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/21a90af8-a1a5-4a7f-b51c-ef28e70cbfe6
https://davesredistricting.org/join/db73d662-b1fc-4fb4-acf6-905ad66fef2a
2 potential maps.  Detroit area gets shifted a lot once drawing a map based on compactness rather than tendrils for partisan reasons.  The only main difference between my 2 maps is whether Flint and Lansing are in the same district.  A decade ago that would've been seen as a Dem pack but looking forward it makes a Clinton+14 (ideal margin, enough to be safe but not so lopsided it wastes Dem votes) seat outside of Detroit metro.  Without combining the 2 cities, it's difficult to create a safe dem district outside of Detroit, due to political geography.  My second map gives Flint and Lansing each their own districts, but both districts are competitive, one leaning R one leaning D.  It is true Trump wins a majority of seats on both maps, but that is basically inevitable due to political geography on any fair map.  Dems are heavily packed into Wayne County (which can't be cracked due to the VRA) and sprinkled out throughput the rest of the state.  Any map where Clinton wins 7 or even 6 seats is probably a Dem gerrymander, compensating for Dem's geographical disadvantage rather than drawing fair lines.  The real debate will on exactly what each side wants to compromise on, and whether each side values more safe seats or more competitive seats. 

As the Arizona independent commission has proved, independent commissions actually don't draw bipartisan gerrymanders or give any consideration to the political interests of the parties. The Michigan Independent Commission has very clear criteria which they must abide by in this order:
Equal Population, Geographical Contiguity, Communities of Interest, Partisan Fairness, favouring or disfavouring incumbents, respecting county and municipal boundaries and compactness.
And I'll just quote the Michigan Constitution on the fourth criteria
Quote
(d) Districts shall not provide a disproportionate advantage to any political party. A disproportionate advantage to a political party shall be determined using accepted measures of partisan fairness.
The commission will draw a map similar to those the AZ commission draws. Prioritising COIs, Compactness and Partisan Fairness (so an 8-5 map is clearly not acceptable) and not giving any consideration to the concerns and demands of political parties.
[/quote
a map with partisan fairness won't always have a partisan breakdown identical to the state due to political geography.  Ironically doing so could be a gerrymander for one party. 
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2020, 05:19:26 PM »

I tried to make the most "plain" map that I could.  I really didn't favor either party or take PVI into account at all (except I guess the Detroit Metro).  I'd think the commission would go with something close to this, if they favor COI's and not splitting counties and so on.





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

What would actually really help is only drawing one majority AA district in the Detroit metro.   It allows the remaining AA vote to be distributed much more efficiently.   Other than that just a typical map where each major metro gets it's own district.

I actually really like the MI-2 (purple) district here.  I grew up in the area and the west coast area does have it's own community.  It has way more in common than the MI-1 area (dark green), which is more country-bumpkinish.   Both are safe R though.
Illegal map, need 2 AA seats in Detroit.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2020, 05:23:29 PM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/21a90af8-a1a5-4a7f-b51c-ef28e70cbfe6
https://davesredistricting.org/join/db73d662-b1fc-4fb4-acf6-905ad66fef2a
2 potential maps.  Detroit area gets shifted a lot once drawing a map based on compactness rather than tendrils for partisan reasons.  The only main difference between my 2 maps is whether Flint and Lansing are in the same district.  A decade ago that would've been seen as a Dem pack but looking forward it makes a Clinton+14 (ideal margin, enough to be safe but not so lopsided it wastes Dem votes) seat outside of Detroit metro.  Without combining the 2 cities, it's difficult to create a safe dem district outside of Detroit, due to political geography.  My second map gives Flint and Lansing each their own districts, but both districts are competitive, one leaning R one leaning D.  It is true Trump wins a majority of seats on both maps, but that is basically inevitable due to political geography on any fair map.  Dems are heavily packed into Wayne County (which can't be cracked due to the VRA) and sprinkled out throughput the rest of the state.  Any map where Clinton wins 7 or even 6 seats is probably a Dem gerrymander, compensating for Dem's geographical disadvantage rather than drawing fair lines.  The real debate will on exactly what each side wants to compromise on, and whether each side values more safe seats or more competitive seats. 

As the Arizona independent commission has proved, independent commissions actually don't draw bipartisan gerrymanders or give any consideration to the political interests of the parties. The Michigan Independent Commission has very clear criteria which they must abide by in this order:
Equal Population, Geographical Contiguity, Communities of Interest, Partisan Fairness, favouring or disfavouring incumbents, respecting county and municipal boundaries and compactness.
And I'll just quote the Michigan Constitution on the fourth criteria
Quote
(d) Districts shall not provide a disproportionate advantage to any political party. A disproportionate advantage to a political party shall be determined using accepted measures of partisan fairness.
The commission will draw a map similar to those the AZ commission draws. Prioritising COIs, Compactness and Partisan Fairness (so an 8-5 map is clearly not acceptable) and not giving any consideration to the concerns and demands of political parties.
a map with partisan fairness won't always have a partisan breakdown identical to the state due to political geography.  Ironically doing so could be a gerrymander for one party. 
You are talking about drawing a map without consideration of partisanship. Partisan fairness means drawing a map that represents the politics of the state, and it does mean drawing lines to achieve that, as Independent Commissions already do. Trump 7-6 Clinton seems like a reasonable assumption, with one competitive D seat and one or two competitive R seats.
But once you account for COIs, 2 vra seats in Detroit, ect it's difficult to get 6  Clinton seats. It is possible with 4 in Detroit, 1 in Flint, and 1 in Lansing, but it's risky for Dems because margins in the Detroit and Lansing seats would be razor thin.  In order to pass a bipartisan commission, you can't draw a Dem gerrymander.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2020, 05:26:36 PM »
« Edited: February 06, 2020, 06:07:41 PM by Idaho Conservative »

I tried to make the most "plain" map that I could.  I really didn't favor either party or take PVI into account at all (except I guess the Detroit Metro).  I'd think the commission would go with something close to this, if they favor COI's and not splitting counties and so on.




They don't have to be a majority, just in the high 40s so the black candidate of choice is likely to win.  Your map screws black voters in Detroit and Republicans would oppose it as a Dem gerrymander.  

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

What would actually really help is only drawing one majority AA district in the Detroit metro.   It allows the remaining AA vote to be distributed much more efficiently.   Other than that just a typical map where each major metro gets it's own district.

I actually really like the MI-2 (purple) district here.  I grew up in the area and the west coast area does have it's own community.  It has way more in common than the MI-1 area (dark green), which is more country-bumpkinish.   Both are safe R though.
Illegal map, need 2 AA seats in Detroit.

I don't think it'll even be possible to draw two AA majority seats in Detroit anymore,  the numbers aren't there anymore.
doesn't have to be a majority, look at southeast VA.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2020, 05:27:08 PM »
« Edited: February 06, 2020, 05:31:06 PM by Idaho Conservative »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/21a90af8-a1a5-4a7f-b51c-ef28e70cbfe6
https://davesredistricting.org/join/db73d662-b1fc-4fb4-acf6-905ad66fef2a
2 potential maps.  Detroit area gets shifted a lot once drawing a map based on compactness rather than tendrils for partisan reasons.  The only main difference between my 2 maps is whether Flint and Lansing are in the same district.  A decade ago that would've been seen as a Dem pack but looking forward it makes a Clinton+14 (ideal margin, enough to be safe but not so lopsided it wastes Dem votes) seat outside of Detroit metro.  Without combining the 2 cities, it's difficult to create a safe dem district outside of Detroit, due to political geography.  My second map gives Flint and Lansing each their own districts, but both districts are competitive, one leaning R one leaning D.  It is true Trump wins a majority of seats on both maps, but that is basically inevitable due to political geography on any fair map.  Dems are heavily packed into Wayne County (which can't be cracked due to the VRA) and sprinkled out throughput the rest of the state.  Any map where Clinton wins 7 or even 6 seats is probably a Dem gerrymander, compensating for Dem's geographical disadvantage rather than drawing fair lines.  The real debate will on exactly what each side wants to compromise on, and whether each side values more safe seats or more competitive seats.  

As the Arizona independent commission has proved, independent commissions actually don't draw bipartisan gerrymanders or give any consideration to the political interests of the parties. The Michigan Independent Commission has very clear criteria which they must abide by in this order:
Equal Population, Geographical Contiguity, Communities of Interest, Partisan Fairness, favouring or disfavouring incumbents, respecting county and municipal boundaries and compactness.
And I'll just quote the Michigan Constitution on the fourth criteria
Quote
(d) Districts shall not provide a disproportionate advantage to any political party. A disproportionate advantage to a political party shall be determined using accepted measures of partisan fairness.
The commission will draw a map similar to those the AZ commission draws. Prioritising COIs, Compactness and Partisan Fairness (so an 8-5 map is clearly not acceptable) and not giving any consideration to the concerns and demands of political parties.
a map with partisan fairness won't always have a partisan breakdown identical to the state due to political geography.  Ironically doing so could be a gerrymander for one party.  
You are talking about drawing a map without consideration of partisanship. Partisan fairness means drawing a map that represents the politics of the state, and it does mean drawing lines to achieve that, as Independent Commissions already do. Trump 7-6 Clinton seems like a reasonable assumption, with one competitive D seat and one or two competitive R seats.
But once you account for COIs, 2 vra seats in Detroit, ect it's difficult to get 6  Clinton seats. It is possible with 4 in Detroit, 1 in Flint, and 1 in Lansing, but it's risky for Dems because margins in the Detroit and Lansing seats would be razor thin.  In order to pass a bipartisan commission, you can't draw a Dem gerrymander.
Once again, it isn't a bipartisan commission. It's an independent commission. There is a difference between them that you don't seem to understand.
There are members of both parties, and people from each party need to agree on a map.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

« Reply #6 on: February 06, 2020, 05:49:49 PM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/1d117936-4d28-4a7a-9dfe-529e010bef54
Ok I actually was able to make a 7-6 map that isn't a blatant Dem gerrymander (like cracking Macomb) and follows the VRA (unlike a certain other map).  It also maintains COIs well.  Some Dem commission members might not like the Clinton margins in the western MI seats, but with a fair map you can draw either 1 solid dem seat or 2 tilt dem seats in western MI.  In this map I chose the latter.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2020, 10:17:45 PM »

I think this map is perfection:





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

Two AA districts now (I doubt the population numbers by 2020 will be correct though,  probably both very under-populated).

MI-3 (Red) really should go west from Grand Rapids, not east,  the metro itself extends west into Ottawa, makes the most sense.

Love the Flint and Lansing seats, both competitive, both respect COI's in the area.

Tons of competitive seats on the map overall,  only five seats were won by either party by more than 10% (including the two AA ones),  with 3 within 5%.

This is my favorite so far.

Perfect?!?  You unnecessarily pull Grand Rapids out of Kent County severing the suburbs and how you drew Detroit was a blatant Dem gerrymander by cracking republican leaning areas.  You made a 7-6 map and so did I: https://davesredistricting.org/join/1d117936-4d28-4a7a-9dfe-529e010bef54
mine actually respects COIs.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2020, 10:21:10 PM »


https://davesredistricting.org/join/f1e1bee7-6029-41ce-b898-8ba4e67cd46f
1 - R+10
2 - R+3
3 - R+15
4 - D+3
5 - R+2
6 - R+11
7 - D+2
8 - R+13
9 - R+2
10 - D+1
11 - D+10
12 - D+31 (49% Black)
13 - D+24 (49% Black)

If the Commission decides to prioritise partisan fairness and competitiveness. COIs still respected. 6 seats have a D PVI, 7 seats have a R PVI. 6 seats voted Clinton, 7 seats voted Trump. 4 seats are safe R, 3 seats are Safe D, and the remaining 6 are competitive, with 3 leaning left and 3 leaning right. Only 3 townships + Detroit are split.
Why split Kent County?  Also the 3 way cut of Genesee is unnecessary and unfair to the Flint community.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2020, 11:39:13 PM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f1e1bee7-6029-41ce-b898-8ba4e67cd46f
1 - R+10
2 - R+3
3 - R+15
4 - D+3
5 - R+2
6 - R+11
7 - D+2
8 - R+13
9 - R+2
10 - D+1
11 - D+10
12 - D+31 (49% Black)
13 - D+24 (49% Black)

If the Commission decides to prioritise partisan fairness and competitiveness. COIs still respected. 6 seats have a D PVI, 7 seats have a R PVI. 6 seats voted Clinton, 7 seats voted Trump. 4 seats are safe R, 3 seats are Safe D, and the remaining 6 are competitive, with 3 leaning left and 3 leaning right. Only 3 townships + Detroit are split.
Why split Kent County?  Also the 3 way cut of Genesee is unnecessary and unfair to the Flint community.
Why not read the description. This map is merely an example of what a commission could do if they prioritised competitive districts.
Competitive districts can be achieved without dicing up communities.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2020, 11:41:42 PM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f1e1bee7-6029-41ce-b898-8ba4e67cd46f
1 - R+10
2 - R+3
3 - R+15
4 - D+3
5 - R+2
6 - R+11
7 - D+2
8 - R+13
9 - R+2
10 - D+1
11 - D+10
12 - D+31 (49% Black)
13 - D+24 (49% Black)

If the Commission decides to prioritise partisan fairness and competitiveness. COIs still respected. 6 seats have a D PVI, 7 seats have a R PVI. 6 seats voted Clinton, 7 seats voted Trump. 4 seats are safe R, 3 seats are Safe D, and the remaining 6 are competitive, with 3 leaning left and 3 leaning right. Only 3 townships + Detroit are split.
Why split Kent County?  Also the 3 way cut of Genesee is unnecessary and unfair to the Flint community.
Why not read the description. This map is merely an example of what a commission could do if they prioritised competitive districts.
Competitive districts can be achieved without dicing up communities.
The competitive map respects COIs just as much as your map does.
my map respects COIs far better.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

« Reply #11 on: February 06, 2020, 11:48:36 PM »



Perfect?!?  You unnecessarily pull Grand Rapids out of Kent County severing the suburbs and how you drew Detroit was a blatant Dem gerrymander by cracking republican leaning areas.  You made a 7-6 map and so did I: https://davesredistricting.org/join/1d117936-4d28-4a7a-9dfe-529e010bef54
mine actually respects COIs.

If you split Ottawa and Kent, then that's actually breaking up a COI.   The counties east of Kent have very little in common with Grand Rapids, and the metro extends westward into Georgetown/Hudsonville.  

The main focus of the Detroit metro was working around the two AA seats,  nothing else was done deliberately.  

And please - Kalamazoo is a COI with Monroe county?  Or Lapeer with Livingston?  Grand Rapids is better served with Mecosta county? You have county chains/groups in that map that make no sense.

You obviously just packed the Dems into a few Detroit districts and then spread the remaining metros out with Rural areas.
LOL
>"Ottowa and Kent counties being in different districts breaks a COI"
>proceeds to separate Grand Rapids from half its suburbs by unnecessarily breaking Kent in 2.

Also I love how compact districts in Detroit that don't cut 20 miles into the suburbs count as packing.  You literally shred Northern Oakland County for purely political purposes.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2020, 03:51:32 AM »
« Edited: February 07, 2020, 04:32:29 AM by Idaho Conservative »

why not this, compact, 10 county splits, COI preservation and and 7-6 trump

violates the VRA, just reach the second black district into southern Oakland County and you'll get the numbers you need.  A tendril into Pontiac isn't even needed.

here I edited my map for more compactness and evening out the black populations in vra districts.  Still 7 Trump 6 Clinton.  4 safe R (Huron Shore, UP, west coast, Detroit exurbs),  2 likely R(South MI, Macomb), 1 Lean R(Grand Rapids),  2 lean D(Flint, Lansing), 1 likely D(Oakland),  3 safe D(2 Detroit, Ann Arbor).
https://davesredistricting.org/join/1d117936-4d28-4a7a-9dfe-529e010bef54
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

« Reply #13 on: February 07, 2020, 03:07:49 PM »

why not this, compact, 10 county splits, COI preservation and 7-6 trump


MI-01: Trump +23
MI-02: Trump+9
MI-03: Trump +24
MI-04: Trump +21
MI-05: Clinton +1
MI-06: Trump +8
MI-07: Clinton +16
MI-08: Trump +4
MI-09: Clinton +42
MI-10: Trump +31
MI-11: Clinton +3
MI-12: Clinton +9
MI-13: Clinton +54
Non Detroit metro is fine but in Detroit the districts are a bit odd, particularly sending the black districts deep into suburban territory.  One black district can remain entirely in Wayne, the other can go into southern Oakland to get enough blacks to get to 49-50%.  Generally speaking it's good to split counties once if at all.  There should be a Macomb district, it would end up being aswing district since Macomb went Obama in 2012, Trump in 2016, then Dem in 2018 for governor and senate.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2020, 03:59:03 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
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

« Reply #15 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

« Reply #16 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
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

« Reply #17 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
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

« Reply #18 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
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

« Reply #19 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

« Reply #20 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
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

« Reply #21 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
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

« Reply #22 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
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

« Reply #23 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
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

« Reply #24 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
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  
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 0.08 seconds with 10 queries.