2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: New Jersey

[Ferguson97]

Anyone who supports a gerrymander and says "Well if Republicans supported fair maps we wouldn't have to do this" obviously does not care about a fair redistricting process in the first place.

I don't agree with this at all. Democrats do support a fair process, there's just no reason for them to unilaterally disarm.

If you support Democratic gerrymandering, then you do not support a fair process. Either you support a fair process, in which you would oppose all gerrymanders, or you support a fair process only when it benefits Democrats and support gerrymandering only when it benefits Democrats.

Supporting fair maps in GOP states and gerrymanders in Dem states just means that you're being a partisan hack. Any thinking that arrives at a different conclusion is delusional.

You are aware of the concept of unilateral disarmament, yeah?

[Sol]

I think Brittain33 is being honest here but national Democrats goals are Pr or efficiency gap in MI and PA and Wi but in states like CA minority seats come foremost. We would never see the south Brooklyn seat because it it probably takes away the north Manhattan seat even though a south Brooklyn seat is both great on COI grounds and great for partisan responsiveness

Based on a "challenge" by Sol, who opined that it seemed difficult to unite Woke White Park Slope with similar hoods in Manhattan, without messing up minority CD's and so forth, I drew a COI map that I think did the job, which just using neutral redistricting metrics and hewing to COI's, turns out to be pretty much of a Pub wet dream, but hey it gives them a proportionate share using the proper metric (1- ((.6076-.5) x 2) +.5) x 26 = 7.4048 seats).

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::fe817ecb-ce7f-405e-8a00-6e2fcc802294

How did I do? 

FWIW, I've come around on a Republican Southern Brooklyn seat.

Why?  There’s no good reason to make one.

It's fairly compact and lets you keep the large Chinese community in the area together.

[kwabbit]

Anyone who supports a gerrymander and says "Well if Republicans supported fair maps we wouldn't have to do this" obviously does not care about a fair redistricting process in the first place.

I don't agree with this at all. Democrats do support a fair process, there's just no reason for them to unilaterally disarm.

If you support Democratic gerrymandering, then you do not support a fair process. Either you support a fair process, in which you would oppose all gerrymanders, or you support a fair process only when it benefits Democrats and support gerrymandering only when it benefits Democrats.

Supporting fair maps in GOP states and gerrymanders in Dem states just means that you're being a partisan hack. Any thinking that arrives at a different conclusion is delusional.

You are aware of the concept of unilateral disarmament, yeah?

Unilateral disarmament is a Dem hack meme. The GOP has disarmed a great deal already, passing on optimal gerrymanders in TX, GA, FL, MO, IN, etc. Their two big gerrymanders in NC and OH have been struck down. The three most egregious maps of the cycle in IL, NY, and MD were all passed by Democrats.

There is no great specter of GOP gerrymander that underpinned the 'we cannot unliterally disarm' sentiment. All that's left is delusional justification that Dem hacks are using to think they still some moral high ground in supporting blatant gerrymandering.

[S019]

Anyone who supports a gerrymander and says "Well if Republicans supported fair maps we wouldn't have to do this" obviously does not care about a fair redistricting process in the first place.

I don't agree with this at all. Democrats do support a fair process, there's just no reason for them to unilaterally disarm.

If you support Democratic gerrymandering, then you do not support a fair process. Either you support a fair process, in which you would oppose all gerrymanders, or you support a fair process only when it benefits Democrats and support gerrymandering only when it benefits Democrats.

Supporting fair maps in GOP states and gerrymanders in Dem states just means that you're being a partisan hack. Any thinking that arrives at a different conclusion is delusional.

You are aware of the concept of unilateral disarmament, yeah?

Unilateral disarmament is a Dem hack meme. The GOP has disarmed a great deal already, passing on optimal gerrymanders in TX, GA, FL, MO, IN, etc. Their two big gerrymanders in NC and OH have been struck down. The three most egregious maps of the cycle in IL, NY, and MD were all passed by Democrats.

There is no great specter of GOP gerrymander that underpinned the 'we cannot unliterally disarm' sentiment. All that's left is delusional justification that Dem hacks are using to think they still some moral high ground in supporting blatant gerrymandering.

You are aware that states like Texas are already pretty maxed out for the GOP right? If they went after TX-32 or TX-07, it would've blown up in their faces, possibly as soon as as 2024. In Florida, they had reasons to not go aggressive (such as state rules), really only MO and IN chose not to crack blue districts on the merits of that decision alone. In any case, there is one party which supports independent redistricting and one that does not. I agree that gerrymandering is bad, which is why I support a bill to establish commissions in all 50 states.

[Sestak]

Apologies for the derailment, but where the f**k are we getting the idea that TX isnt an egregious gerrymander? TX is arguably the second strongest gerrymander in the country right now. Similarly just because MO, FL, and especially GA aren’t “optimal” gerrymanders doesn’t mean they’re not gerrymanders at all.

[kwabbit]

Anyone who supports a gerrymander and says "Well if Republicans supported fair maps we wouldn't have to do this" obviously does not care about a fair redistricting process in the first place.

I don't agree with this at all. Democrats do support a fair process, there's just no reason for them to unilaterally disarm.

If you support Democratic gerrymandering, then you do not support a fair process. Either you support a fair process, in which you would oppose all gerrymanders, or you support a fair process only when it benefits Democrats and support gerrymandering only when it benefits Democrats.

Supporting fair maps in GOP states and gerrymanders in Dem states just means that you're being a partisan hack. Any thinking that arrives at a different conclusion is delusional.

You are aware of the concept of unilateral disarmament, yeah?

Unilateral disarmament is a Dem hack meme. The GOP has disarmed a great deal already, passing on optimal gerrymanders in TX, GA, FL, MO, IN, etc. Their two big gerrymanders in NC and OH have been struck down. The three most egregious maps of the cycle in IL, NY, and MD were all passed by Democrats.

There is no great specter of GOP gerrymander that underpinned the 'we cannot unliterally disarm' sentiment. All that's left is delusional justification that Dem hacks are using to think they still some moral high ground in supporting blatant gerrymandering.

You are aware that states like Texas are already pretty maxed out for the GOP right? If they went after TX-32 or TX-07, it would've blown up in their faces, possibly as soon as as 2024. In Florida, they had reasons to not go aggressive (such as state rules), really only MO and IN chose not to crack blue districts on the merits of that decision alone. In any case, there is one party which supports independent redistricting and one that does not. I agree that gerrymandering is bad, which is why I support a bill to establish commissions in all 50 states.

An Illinois level gerrymander in Texas would've added another few seats. IL Dems were ok with Biden +10 seats, while TX GOP wanted 20+. FL was unquestionably soft (even having Dem friendly decisions in some parts of the state) even within the bounds of the state rules.
How many states did Democrats throw the GOP the bone like the GOP threw Dems bones like in IN, FL, MO? 0!

I don't believe the establish commission in all 50 states support when it's juxtaposed against cheering for Democratic gerrymanders and against anger when commissions don't take favorable routes for Democrats. I believe Torie when he says it, but until other red avs start calling the NY Supreme Court to strike down the recent gerrymander, as GOP friendly courts have done in OH, I'm going to believe that they're just ok with gerrymandering when it's done by Democrats.

[S019]

Anyone who supports a gerrymander and says "Well if Republicans supported fair maps we wouldn't have to do this" obviously does not care about a fair redistricting process in the first place.

I don't agree with this at all. Democrats do support a fair process, there's just no reason for them to unilaterally disarm.

If you support Democratic gerrymandering, then you do not support a fair process. Either you support a fair process, in which you would oppose all gerrymanders, or you support a fair process only when it benefits Democrats and support gerrymandering only when it benefits Democrats.

Supporting fair maps in GOP states and gerrymanders in Dem states just means that you're being a partisan hack. Any thinking that arrives at a different conclusion is delusional.

You are aware of the concept of unilateral disarmament, yeah?

Unilateral disarmament is a Dem hack meme. The GOP has disarmed a great deal already, passing on optimal gerrymanders in TX, GA, FL, MO, IN, etc. Their two big gerrymanders in NC and OH have been struck down. The three most egregious maps of the cycle in IL, NY, and MD were all passed by Democrats.

There is no great specter of GOP gerrymander that underpinned the 'we cannot unliterally disarm' sentiment. All that's left is delusional justification that Dem hacks are using to think they still some moral high ground in supporting blatant gerrymandering.

You are aware that states like Texas are already pretty maxed out for the GOP right? If they went after TX-32 or TX-07, it would've blown up in their faces, possibly as soon as as 2024. In Florida, they had reasons to not go aggressive (such as state rules), really only MO and IN chose not to crack blue districts on the merits of that decision alone. In any case, there is one party which supports independent redistricting and one that does not. I agree that gerrymandering is bad, which is why I support a bill to establish commissions in all 50 states.

An Illinois level gerrymander in Texas would've added another few seats. IL Dems were ok with Biden +10 seats, while TX GOP wanted 20+. FL was unquestionably soft (even having Dem friendly decisions in some parts of the state) even within the bounds of the state rules.
How many states did Democrats throw the GOP the bone like the GOP threw Dems bones like in IN, FL, MO? 0!

I don't believe the establish commission in all 50 states support when it's juxtaposed against cheering for Democratic gerrymanders and against anger when commissions don't take favorable routes for Democrats. I believe Torie when he says it, but until other red avs start calling the NY Supreme Court to strike down the recent gerrymander, as GOP friendly courts have done in NC and OH, I'm going to believe that they're just ok with gerrymandering when it's done by Democrats.

The difference is that other than IL-17, none of those vulnerable seats are rapidly trending away from Democrats. Meanwhile if Texas Republicans reconfigured the 32nd to try to retake it, they would've carved up the Metroplex into a bunch of say Trump+10 or so seats, that was absolutely going to backfire with how fast that region was trending. Also I'd argue Democrats did throw the GOP a bone in MD, by keeping a district that was is winnable for Andy Harris, MD Dems could've easily drawn a secure 8-0. In any case, the NY map is bad, I agree, but my main qualms with it are upstate, which is needlessly ugly. The Staten Island decision, at least is kind of defensible giving it must take in something unrelated. Anyways, I will be glad to root for NY and IL's gerrymanders to be struck down, when TX and GA are drawing true fair maps.

[GALeftist]

An Illinois level gerrymander in Texas would've added another few seats. IL Dems were ok with Biden +10 seats, while TX GOP wanted 20+. FL was unquestionably soft (even having Dem friendly decisions in some parts of the state) even within the bounds of the state rules.
How many states did Democrats throw the GOP the bone like the GOP threw Dems bones like in IN, FL, MO? 0!

I don't believe the establish commission in all 50 states support when it's juxtaposed against cheering for Democratic gerrymanders and against anger when commissions don't take favorable routes for Democrats. I believe Torie when he says it, but until other red avs start calling the NY Supreme Court to strike down the recent gerrymander, as GOP friendly courts have done in OH, I'm going to believe that they're just ok with gerrymandering when it's done by Democrats.

The reason the TXGOP wanted such an aggressive gerrymander is that a number of their districts are trending left at lightning speed. Anyways this is all very dumb because even with all the breaks Democrats caught the median House seat is just going to be very close to the NPV, i.e. the map will be fair. If the Democrats had been less aggressive, well, you do the math; the map would be right leaning.

[S019]

An Illinois level gerrymander in Texas would've added another few seats. IL Dems were ok with Biden +10 seats, while TX GOP wanted 20+. FL was unquestionably soft (even having Dem friendly decisions in some parts of the state) even within the bounds of the state rules.
How many states did Democrats throw the GOP the bone like the GOP threw Dems bones like in IN, FL, MO? 0!

I don't believe the establish commission in all 50 states support when it's juxtaposed against cheering for Democratic gerrymanders and against anger when commissions don't take favorable routes for Democrats. I believe Torie when he says it, but until other red avs start calling the NY Supreme Court to strike down the recent gerrymander, as GOP friendly courts have done in OH, I'm going to believe that they're just ok with gerrymandering when it's done by Democrats.

The reason the TXGOP wanted such an aggressive gerrymander is that a number of their districts are trending left at lightning speed. Anyways this is all very dumb because even with all the breaks Democrats caught the median House seat is just going to be very close to the NPV, i.e. the map will be fair. If the Democrats had been less aggressive, well, you do the math; the map would be right leaning.

Yeah absolutely, Texas is one of the most aggressive gerrymanders in the sense that it is trying to maintain basically the amount of seats that they drew for an R+16 state, that could very well be a neutral state come 2024. Other than TX-15, every Republican seat voted to the right of the state. Had the dam broken in Texas in 2020, yet Republicans still held onto the remapping process, something tells me that people would be seeing Texas as more aggressive (i.e. people intuitively associate aggressive gerrymandering with taking over seats and not simply shoring up seats that you should have no business holding anymore)

[kwabbit]

Anyone who supports a gerrymander and says "Well if Republicans supported fair maps we wouldn't have to do this" obviously does not care about a fair redistricting process in the first place.

I don't agree with this at all. Democrats do support a fair process, there's just no reason for them to unilaterally disarm.

If you support Democratic gerrymandering, then you do not support a fair process. Either you support a fair process, in which you would oppose all gerrymanders, or you support a fair process only when it benefits Democrats and support gerrymandering only when it benefits Democrats.

Supporting fair maps in GOP states and gerrymanders in Dem states just means that you're being a partisan hack. Any thinking that arrives at a different conclusion is delusional.

You are aware of the concept of unilateral disarmament, yeah?

Unilateral disarmament is a Dem hack meme. The GOP has disarmed a great deal already, passing on optimal gerrymanders in TX, GA, FL, MO, IN, etc. Their two big gerrymanders in NC and OH have been struck down. The three most egregious maps of the cycle in IL, NY, and MD were all passed by Democrats.

There is no great specter of GOP gerrymander that underpinned the 'we cannot unliterally disarm' sentiment. All that's left is delusional justification that Dem hacks are using to think they still some moral high ground in supporting blatant gerrymandering.

You are aware that states like Texas are already pretty maxed out for the GOP right? If they went after TX-32 or TX-07, it would've blown up in their faces, possibly as soon as as 2024. In Florida, they had reasons to not go aggressive (such as state rules), really only MO and IN chose not to crack blue districts on the merits of that decision alone. In any case, there is one party which supports independent redistricting and one that does not. I agree that gerrymandering is bad, which is why I support a bill to establish commissions in all 50 states.

An Illinois level gerrymander in Texas would've added another few seats. IL Dems were ok with Biden +10 seats, while TX GOP wanted 20+. FL was unquestionably soft (even having Dem friendly decisions in some parts of the state) even within the bounds of the state rules.
How many states did Democrats throw the GOP the bone like the GOP threw Dems bones like in IN, FL, MO? 0!

I don't believe the establish commission in all 50 states support when it's juxtaposed against cheering for Democratic gerrymanders and against anger when commissions don't take favorable routes for Democrats. I believe Torie when he says it, but until other red avs start calling the NY Supreme Court to strike down the recent gerrymander, as GOP friendly courts have done in NC and OH, I'm going to believe that they're just ok with gerrymandering when it's done by Democrats.

The difference is that other than IL-17, none of those vulnerable seats are rapidly trending away from Democrats. Meanwhile if Texas Republicans reconfigured the 32nd to try to retake it, they would've carved up the Metroplex into a bunch of say Trump+10 or so seats, that was absolutely going to backfire with how fast that region was trending. Also I'd argue Democrats did throw the GOP a bone in MD, by keeping a district that was is winnable for Andy Harris, MD Dems could've easily drawn a secure 8-0. In any case, the NY map is bad, I agree, but my main qualms with it are upstate, which is needlessly ugly. The Staten Island decision, at least is kind of defensible giving it must take in something unrelated. Anyways, I will be glad to root for NY and IL's gerrymanders to be struck down, when TX and GA are drawing true fair maps.

A Trump +10 seat in DFW, would be about Generic R+15. Depends on your perspective, I don't think Dems will be winning Collin County, Tarrant, or similar parts of North Dallas by 10 points against a non-Trump R, which would be necessary to topple a Trump double digits seat. Maybe I'm wrong though, DFW trends have been rapid, I just don't think suburban Southern areas with lower Black populations can achieve that kind of Dem margin, even if they can get them to 50-50.

I just think supporting fair maps means that you should fair mapping everywhere and always. Redistricting is not inherently partisan. Congressional districts are supposed to enfranchise specific geographic areas, not simply serve as vessels of a national party. Adopting a "we'll stop gerrymandering when they stop gerrymandering" attitude is destructive to the redistricting process. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Plenty of commissions and redistricting codes have been adopted since 2010. Progress has been made. But it was wrong for Ohio Republicans to violate their law and wrong for New York Democrats to violate theirs. If your aim is to end gerrymandering, you should decry both. If your aim is to achieve proportionality or a Democratic bias through gerrymandering, then maybe you wouldn't. In the 2010s, a lot of progress was made to curb gerrymandering because the GOP acted in such excess during the 2010 cycle. Democrats were able to support anti-gerrymandering legislation because hadn't practiced it as much. Democrats co-opting gerrymandering to the extent they have in 2020 is incredibly destructive to the eventual goal of universal fair maps.

Now, if Democrats have another slim majority, there is no chance that national legislation would get passed if 15+ members are dependent on gerrymandered maps to guarantee them seats. This is part of the reason 'unilateral disarmament' is flawed. Once you have crazy maps in place, there isn't much an off ramp in place. IL and NY will have to maintain the same extremity of gerrymander because the state party and the representatives won't willingly lose 4 seats in each state. Those representatives won't vote for national legislation that dooms them. House leadership might not push legislation that does that. Now we're stuck in a forever gerrymandered reality.

[GALeftist]

Once you have crazy maps in place, there isn't much an off ramp in place. IL and NY will have to maintain the same extremity of gerrymander because the state party and the representatives won't willingly lose 4 seats in each state. Those representatives won't vote for national legislation that dooms them. House leadership might not push legislation that does that. Now we're stuck in a forever gerrymandered reality.

Yeah. I can't believe the Democrats have caused us to fall from grace in this regard. In a world in which they had not gerrymandered and Republicans had a permanent majority, we had a very clear off ramp and legislation banning partisan gerrymandering was very likely to pass.

Oh, wait.

[kwabbit]

Once you have crazy maps in place, there isn't much an off ramp in place. IL and NY will have to maintain the same extremity of gerrymander because the state party and the representatives won't willingly lose 4 seats in each state. Those representatives won't vote for national legislation that dooms them. House leadership might not push legislation that does that. Now we're stuck in a forever gerrymandered reality.

Yeah. I can't believe the Democrats have caused us to fall from grace in this regard. In a world in which they had not gerrymandered and Republicans had a permanent majority, we had a very clear off ramp and legislation banning partisan gerrymandering was very likely to pass.

Oh, wait.

Obviously the Republicans are the still the bad guys when you consider the wider picture of gerrymandering, I'm just expressing concern that renewed Democratic enthusiasm for gerrymandering will doom the push for national fair maps.

There are some off ramps for gerrymandering. The GOP has been markedly more cautious/less extreme in gerrymandering than in 2010 and Republican judges have shown that they are willing to hurt their party when it comes to litigation. I want to see the NY Court do that, but most Democrats think of themselves as the good guys when it comes to redistricting, when they are clearly just lesser bad guys. Which might not have been so clear last time because they got so thoroughly shellacked in state legislatures and governorships in 2010.

[cvparty]

Apologies for the derailment, but where the f**k are we getting the idea that TX isnt an egregious gerrymander? TX is arguably the second strongest gerrymander in the country right now. Similarly just because MO, FL, and especially GA aren’t “optimal” gerrymanders doesn’t mean they’re not gerrymanders at all.

"GOP has disarmed"

[Oryxslayer]

Additional perpetual reminder that if the GOP decided to go laser-eyes in the southern states, as some on Twitter have desired, these maps would get thrown out in their entirety as racial gerrymanders - and very quickly too. Go a bit softer and you'll likely get no challenges - say like the Florida Senate map - or a limited suit - like in GA right now where Elias and Co. are only going after GA-13 and how there should be a 4th AA/5th Dem seat in the metro.

This is probably the most underdiscussed part of the 2021 redistricting story. Partisan sorting means that the only state that can be said to have a truly mismatched state government from it's statewide lean in New Hampshire. Compare this to 2010 and you see the GOP has lost control over most of the state where they can gerrymander away Democratic White voters, leave the minority seats reasonable and intact, and likely get away with it. The places that can be gerrymandered by the GOP are all almost certain to be sued under Section 2. Meanwhile, the decline of RPV in the north means that often times a dem favoring map expands access for minority groups - the new NY-01 for example.

[lfromnj]

You do realize that nationwide that gives the Dems an advantage right?

I don’t see why that should necessarily be true because of the situation in some of the larger states. There are a number of mid-sized and smaller states where this advantages Republicans, and there are more of them. Beyond that we get the issue that there is a slight Democratic majority in the country so a system favoring proportionality would favor Dems. And also that, given the situation you describe, it may favor Dems but the alternative (legislative rules) would favor Dems even more strongly because of California.

I am just saying what you propose nationwide gives the Dems more than their proportionate share. Other schemes give the Dems more of an excess than yours does.

I have posted this before, but when I write the new US Constitution, we are going to a parliamentary system, probably like the German one, where there are individual seats, but then seats are awarded to achieve proportionality based on the national vote.

In the meantime, I favor the Muon2 rules, where proportionality is a tie breaker between maps that otherwise score pretty equally. The amount of discretion would be minimized, because drawing the lines brings out the worst of the hack in our sadly flawed species.

Here's actually a mini example of what happens with Britainn33 standards. Let's look at 4 states. Let's also just equalize their turnout or whatever.

Oklahoma, Massachussets,Arkansas, and Wisconsin. Combine Arkansas and Oklahoma into 1 state for this purpose. With equalized turnout it's probably pretty close to 50/50


The current maps are 4 Safe R in AR, 5 Safe R in OK, 9 Safe D in MA. 4 Safe R in WI, 1 Lean R and 1 Likely R and 2 Safe D.

My ideal fair map would be 1 tossup in Oklahoma, 4 Safe R, 1 Likely R in AR and 3 Safe R,in WI it would be 3 Safe R, 1 Likely R , 2 Lean R and 2 Safe D.

What would Britainn33 standards result in?

Maybe 1 or 2 Likely D's in MA,  but still 9 very D districts. Oklahoma probably combines Norman and most of Oklahoma county to make a Likely D district.  Arkansas makes a Safe D district with Little Rock and the Delta. Wisconsin would probably be 3 Safe D , 1 Lean D, 1 Lean R and 3 Safe R.
So if we count Lean districts as .75, .25 for their respective parties. I will just count Likely's as a whole 1.

The current scenario has
14.75 R districts  11.25 D districts. We also do have to wait for Wisconsin's actual districts which could end up in 14.5/11.5


My fair map scenario is 14 R, 12 D.

Britain33's scenario is 15 D-11 R which is actually more extreme than the current delegation. Obviously still nothing crazy but still the most biased.

So infact as Torie said your standards/national Democrats standards would result in quite unfavorable maps for the GOP as national Democrats obviously designed it. I don't believe you have the same intent as the national Democrats but if your effects are the same. Just draw geographically good maps and you will get pretty responsive and equal maps nationwide. Small biases can exist but one can just suck it up. Incumbency bias's are probably more likely to result in an unfair result. Trying to muck around with this results in geographically worse districts and may not actually result in more fair maps.


I chose these 4 states because its an interesting exercise in geography. 1 Super Safe D state, 1 Super Safe R(combined) and 1 pure tossup. The very Safe D state has very good D geography while the tossup has very good R geography. Meanwhile the Safe R state has fairly neutral geography. I could also replace the 2 R states with TN but TN isn't nearly as R as these 2 states.

It's either that or just make an actual PR system like Germany does. Now what Democrats want is obviously more seats and maybe PR may result in that in a 2 party system  but they also obviously don't want to completely mess up the system either as PR very likely could end up in a multiparty system. So why not try to create something that not only gives them more seats than PR but doesn't radically change anything.

[Brittain33]

First of all, I didn't lay out a formula. I provided principles.

Secondly, your "fair map" has only 2 Dem districts in Wisconsin and your hypothetical map creates a Likely Dem district in Oklahoma, both of which I disagree with, but that's central to your comparison about which is "extreme."

There may be interesting ideas in your post but the numbers and proof are without value as far as I can tell. 

[lfromnj]

First of all, I didn't lay out a formula. I provided principles.

Secondly, your "fair map" has only 2 Dem districts in Wisconsin and your hypothetical map creates a Likely Dem district in Oklahoma, both of which I disagree with, but that's central to your comparison about which is "extreme."

There may be interesting ideas in your post but the numbers and proof are without value as far as I can tell.  

Maybe its not you specifically but I am certain HR1 would result in a norman OKC district. If Michigan draws a Muksegon Grand Rapids district than HR1 districts would result in a Norman OKC district.

You yourself stated Michigan is a gold standard so I assumed the same applies to Oklahoma.
  So this clearly improves partisan fairness within the state and it's nothing too ugly just like MI03. It still clearly ruins a perfect district that could have been created just like MI-03. So it's either Michigan is a gold standard or maybe it actually does have flaws? Doing my map results in a perfect -0.15% efficiency gap. Ergo it has to be created by HR1. Everyone knows Oklahoma county is a perfect district just like Kent+ eastern Ottowa is a perfect district. Both districts also basically have the exact same partisan history since 2012.

 And yes Wisconsin would have only 2 Safe D districts in my map just like MA would have 9 Safe D. It's pretty widely agreed in any geography based map. The only question is how much the 2 Lean Rs are tossup to Likely and if there should be a Likely R seat in the NE which I do create. There really shouldn't be much argument about this if one was drawing based on geography/metro areas.

[Sol]

First of all, I didn't lay out a formula. I provided principles.

Secondly, your "fair map" has only 2 Dem districts in Wisconsin and your hypothetical map creates a Likely Dem district in Oklahoma, both of which I disagree with, but that's central to your comparison about which is "extreme."

There may be interesting ideas in your post but the numbers and proof are without value as far as I can tell. 

The problem is that drawing anything other than 6-2 in Wisconsin sort of necessitates some ugliness. The best I can do while still making it reasonable within other fair redistricting principles is shoring up WI-03 for Dems slightly by giving it Eau Claire and the Janesville/Beloit area while pushing WI-02 in Jefferson and Dodge.

That's not terrible, but it's not really ideal either--the counties to the north, west, and south of Dane have stronger connections to Madison than Jefferson does, and splitting Eau Claire and Chippewa is splitting up a metro unnecessarily. A map without Rock and Eau Claire counties in WI-03 is way nicer...but that locks in a 6-2.

Following fair redistricting principles means that occasionally vote distributions will be stacked against you due to unfavorable geography--Wisconsin just having 2 Democratic districts sucks, but it's no worse than there being no Republican seats in Connecticut or the Dem over-representation you see in Texas on fair maps.

[CookieDamage]

We want the state leg districts!!!

[Roll Roons]

We want the state leg districts!!!

What time are we expecting to see them?

[CookieDamage]

We want the state leg districts!!!

What time are we expecting to see them?

No idea

[lfromnj]

First of all, I didn't lay out a formula. I provided principles.

Secondly, your "fair map" has only 2 Dem districts in Wisconsin and your hypothetical map creates a Likely Dem district in Oklahoma, both of which I disagree with, but that's central to your comparison about which is "extreme."

There may be interesting ideas in your post but the numbers and proof are without value as far as I can tell. 

The problem is that drawing anything other than 6-2 in Wisconsin sort of necessitates some ugliness. The best I can do while still making it reasonable within other fair redistricting principles is shoring up WI-03 for Dems slightly by giving it Eau Claire and the Janesville/Beloit area while pushing WI-02 in Jefferson and Dodge.

That's not terrible, but it's not really ideal either--the counties to the north, west, and south of Dane have stronger connections to Madison than Jefferson does, and splitting Eau Claire and Chippewa is splitting up a metro unnecessarily. A map without Rock and Eau Claire counties in WI-03 is way nicer...but that locks in a 6-2.

Following fair redistricting principles means that occasionally vote distributions will be stacked against you due to unfavorable geography--Wisconsin just having 2 Democratic districts sucks, but it's no worse than there being no Republican seats in Connecticut or the Dem over-representation you see in Texas on fair maps.

Yeah thanks for backing it up. One thing though, technically speaking a split of Madison could still be pretty clean atleast by compactness standards but just like the OKC/Norman district its clearly not a very good district.

[Brittain33]

There are a million examples here of a compact 3rd Dem district in Wisconsin and none for a competitive Trump district in Mass. What this boils down to is you prioritize compactness and small shapes over proportionality, and I prioritize proportionality over compactness and small shapes. There's no guarantee any one formula will mirror the national popular vote exactly, but a focus on shapes certainly carries a big Republican bias, so I don't accept it as a neutral default.

[Sol]

First of all, I didn't lay out a formula. I provided principles.

Secondly, your "fair map" has only 2 Dem districts in Wisconsin and your hypothetical map creates a Likely Dem district in Oklahoma, both of which I disagree with, but that's central to your comparison about which is "extreme."

There may be interesting ideas in your post but the numbers and proof are without value as far as I can tell. 

The problem is that drawing anything other than 6-2 in Wisconsin sort of necessitates some ugliness. The best I can do while still making it reasonable within other fair redistricting principles is shoring up WI-03 for Dems slightly by giving it Eau Claire and the Janesville/Beloit area while pushing WI-02 in Jefferson and Dodge.

That's not terrible, but it's not really ideal either--the counties to the north, west, and south of Dane have stronger connections to Madison than Jefferson does, and splitting Eau Claire and Chippewa is splitting up a metro unnecessarily. A map without Rock and Eau Claire counties in WI-03 is way nicer...but that locks in a 6-2.

Following fair redistricting principles means that occasionally vote distributions will be stacked against you due to unfavorable geography--Wisconsin just having 2 Democratic districts sucks, but it's no worse than there being no Republican seats in Connecticut or the Dem over-representation you see in Texas on fair maps.

Yeah thanks for backing it up. One thing though, technically speaking a split of Madison could still be pretty clean atleast by compactness standards but just like the OKC/Norman district its clearly not a very good district.

IMO splitting Madison is way worse than OKC/Norman, but yeah, I prefer neither.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

First of all, I didn't lay out a formula. I provided principles.

Secondly, your "fair map" has only 2 Dem districts in Wisconsin and your hypothetical map creates a Likely Dem district in Oklahoma, both of which I disagree with, but that's central to your comparison about which is "extreme."

There may be interesting ideas in your post but the numbers and proof are without value as far as I can tell. 

The problem is that drawing anything other than 6-2 in Wisconsin sort of necessitates some ugliness. The best I can do while still making it reasonable within other fair redistricting principles is shoring up WI-03 for Dems slightly by giving it Eau Claire and the Janesville/Beloit area while pushing WI-02 in Jefferson and Dodge.

That's not terrible, but it's not really ideal either--the counties to the north, west, and south of Dane have stronger connections to Madison than Jefferson does, and splitting Eau Claire and Chippewa is splitting up a metro unnecessarily. A map without Rock and Eau Claire counties in WI-03 is way nicer...but that locks in a 6-2.

Following fair redistricting principles means that occasionally vote distributions will be stacked against you due to unfavorable geography--Wisconsin just having 2 Democratic districts sucks, but it's no worse than there being no Republican seats in Connecticut or the Dem over-representation you see in Texas on fair maps.

Yeah thanks for backing it up. One thing though, technically speaking a split of Madison could still be pretty clean atleast by compactness standards but just like the OKC/Norman district its clearly not a very good district.

IMO splitting Madison is way worse than OKC/Norman, but yeah, I prefer neither.

As proportionality-minded I am, I think splitting Dane is a price too high to pay to advance that. I'd rather pair Dane with heavily R counties nearby to allow WI-01 to take all of Rock County.