2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Wisconsin

[Torie]

This is about the best the Dems are going to be able to do I think. Going beyond that makes a mockery of least change, as adjusted to reduce the size and number of chops and erosity (my surmise of the Hagedorn algorithm). Basically WI-01 moves west to absorb WI-02’s excess population, and withdraws from Wauwatosa to the extent necessary, to shed its excess population, with WI-01’s salient into Milwaukee County left unchanged as a least change line that also hews to city boundaries. WI-05 is not going to take in all of Wauwatosa because that creates chop and change issues with WI-06. Trump carries WI-01 as drawn here by 6 points over Biden.

Hagedorn was inviting the Dems to submit a map that helps them by, and only by, reducing the size or number of chops without creating new ones elsewhere, or causing districts to add whole new counties, and less least change, is my guess. The only map that fits the bill that helps the Dems much (but still by not much) over the Pub map is this one. None of the map versions changes WI-03 much. The game is all about WI-01.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/d8ee1cc9-c753-4e12-b4a6-e0ee82eb9c02

[Torie]

The absolutely least, least change map has WI-01 with Trump over Biden by 8.3%, as compared to the "Hagedorn map" above of a 6.3% margin, and the Pub map of 9.1%. So, if the Hagedorn algorithm is as surmised by me, the Pub gambit of defining least change as being what moves the fewest people into WI-01, which is not actually least change for the state as a whole, might cost the Pubs a Pub PVI point for WI-01. One would assume that the Pubs now want to submit a real least change map, but Hagedorn can do that for himself. He understands the Pub gambit already. So, he is saving the Pubs the trouble of doing that. He has DRA on his computer just like the rest of us.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/26a2eb50-d261-4ff9-9b26-5de48eb23cad



Oh and the Pub map, as relevant, which goes for a least change metric for WI-01, as opposed to the state as a whole.



WI Pubmanderers are good at what they do. Yes they are. They hire the best legal minds.  

If the Dems don’t come up with the “Hagedorn map,” themselves still being too greedy, then when whatever the Dems put up comes down, the Pubs should consider filing something attacking that map, attaching perhaps the "Hagedorn map" as an example to their motion.

[lfromnj]

The absolutely least, least change map has WI-01 has Trump over Biden by 8.3%, as compared to the Hagedorn map above of a 6.3% margin, and the Pub map of 9.1%. So, if the Hagedorn algorithm is as surmised by me, the Pub gambit of defining least change as what moves the fewest people into WI-01, which is not actually least change for the state as a whole, might cost it a Pub PVI point for WI-01. One would assume that the Pubs now want to submit a real least change map, but Hagedorn can do that for himself. He understands the Pub gambit already. So, he is saving the Pubs the trouble of doing that. He has DRA on his computer just like the rest of us.



Oh and the Pub map as relevant to a least change metric for WI-01, as opposed to the state as a whole.



WI Pubmanderers are good at what they do. Yes they are. They hire the best legal minds.  

If the Dems don’t come up with the “Hagedorn map,” themselves still too greedy, when whatever the Dems put up comes down, the Pubs should file something attacking that map, attaching perhaps the Hagedorn map as an example to their motion.

Funmily enough their legal mind in 2011 was Hagedorn

[Gass3268]

Wisconsin's State Supreme Court could use a tech upgrade.

https://twitter.com/jdjmke/status/1482043553920528390?s=20

[ProgressiveModerate]

Wisconsin's State Supreme Court could use a tech upgrade.

https://twitter.com/jdjmke/status/1482043553920528390?s=20

I mean the court is 83% Karens

[Gass3268]

Crazy long series of oral arguments today regarding redistributing at the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I’ll post any analysis on the hearing once I find it.

https://twitter.com/byjackkelly/status/1483923260886720520?s=21

[lfromnj]

https://captimes.com/news/government/wisconsin-supreme-court-hears-redistricting-oral-arguments/article_9b5c8300-e76b-53d1-84f3-5d4cb7a4c0c5.html

[Gass3268]

https://captimes.com/news/government/wisconsin-supreme-court-hears-redistricting-oral-arguments/article_9b5c8300-e76b-53d1-84f3-5d4cb7a4c0c5.html

Another good article.

https://twitter.com/sbauerAP/status/1483840759451246592?s=20

[lfromnj]

Any news for when the map is picked ?

[Gass3268]

Any news for when the map is picked ?

They really didn't give a time frame. The fact they are waiting so long makes me wonder if they are drawing their own maps (combining different parts from those proposed that they liked), which they would be allowed to do.

[Sestak]

Any news for when the map is picked ?

They really didn't give a time frame. The fact they are waiting so long makes me wonder if they are drawing their own maps (combining different parts from those proposed that they liked), which they would be allowed to do.

I bet Hagedorn is definetely tempted by combining the WI03 from the GOP proposal but taking Ever's proposal for WI01. I think he leans against that in the end due to his own words about least change and how he doesn't want to be Lucy pulling the football.

Yeah he’s made it pretty clear that something like that is what he believes personally the map “should be”. Whether he’s attached enough to the idea to force it we will see.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There's something of a delay involved here.
I wouldn't be surprised if the court is drawing its own maps.

[lfromnj]

Any news for when the map is picked ?

They really didn't give a time frame. The fact they are waiting so long makes me wonder if they are drawing their own maps (combining different parts from those proposed that they liked), which they would be allowed to do.

I bet Hagedorn is definetely tempted by combining the WI03 from the GOP proposal but taking Ever's proposal for WI01. I think he leans against that in the end due to his own words about least change and how he doesn't want to be Lucy pulling the football.

Yeah he’s made it pretty clear that something like that is what he believes personally the map “should be”. Whether he’s attached enough to the idea to force it we will see.

The issue is he already attached himself to the Least Change principle and said he doesn't want to be Lucy pulling the football away by completely changing his view.

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1491523786096656387?s=20&t=H7yLQl-i...

Maybe this account knows something might be coming later today?

[ProgressiveModerate]

I mean isn’t  WI’s map deadline in like a week? Expecting a 6-2 map, it’s really a question of how winnable districts 1 and 3 (or their equivalents) are, and to a lesser degree 8 for Dems. If a 3rd seat is created, it’d prolly be a 2nd Madison/Diftless district and while it’s not necessary hard to make, it’s certainly not the most natural config and a huge change from the current map.

Milwaukee will def stay packed because of VRA

[lfromnj]

I mean isn’t  WI’s map deadline in like a week? Expecting a 6-2 map, it’s really a question of how winnable districts 1 and 3 (or their equivalents) are, and to a lesser degree 8 for Dems. If a 3rd seat is created, it’d prolly be a 2nd Madison/Diftless district and while it’s not necessary hard to make, it’s certainly not the most natural config and a huge change from the current map.

Milwaukee will def stay packed because of VRA

8 was never going to be winnable. Unfortunately just drawn badly for decades in a manner that now slightly affects Democrats in a harmful manner.

[Schiff for Senate]

Here's a fun experiment I did -  I came up with a scenario where WI gained a 9th district (I know it doesn't have the requisite population, but still), and then drew maps for a WI with 9 districts: https://districtr.org/plan/111118. The results are pretty surprising - even though I came with district boundaries arugably cleaner than the current map, it subtly helped the Democrats greatly, giving the GOP only a 5-4 majority (much more representative of the state's overall politics than 6-2). Because a 9th district allowed for Madison and Milwaukee to be split into two Democratic districts each. And I'm sure a 5-4 Democratic map could be produced by making the 1st include some western parts of the Madison metro area (and make the ultra-blue 2nd district some point redder). Another observation from this map is just how few people live in northern Wisconsin - East WI + Madison takes in the vast majority of the population (7/9 districts here), while a large chunk of land in Northern Wisconsin comprises just a single district (the 9th).

[ProgressiveModerate]

Here's a fun experiment I did -  I came up with a scenario where WI gained a 9th district (I know it doesn't have the requisite population, but still), and then drew maps for a WI with 9 districts: https://districtr.org/plan/111118. The results are pretty surprising - even though I came with district boundaries arugably cleaner than the current map, it subtly helped the Democrats greatly, giving the GOP only a 5-4 majority (much more representative of the state's overall politics than 6-2). Because a 9th district allowed for Madison and Milwaukee to be split into two Democratic districts each. And I'm sure a 5-4 Democratic map could be produced by making the 1st include some western parts of the Madison metro area (and make the ultra-blue 2nd district some point redder). Another observation from this map is just how few people live in northern Wisconsin - East WI + Madison takes in the vast majority of the population (7/9 districts here), while a large chunk of land in Northern Wisconsin comprises just a single district (the 9th).

8 seats is def the worse number for Dems. You could go down to 4 and still need D leaning Madison and Milwaukee seats. And any additional 9th district forces the current WI-02 and WI-04 to properly pack Madison and Milwaukee

[Schiff for Senate]

Here's a fun experiment I did -  I came up with a scenario where WI gained a 9th district (I know it doesn't have the requisite population, but still), and then drew maps for a WI with 9 districts: https://districtr.org/plan/111118. The results are pretty surprising - even though I came with district boundaries arugably cleaner than the current map, it subtly helped the Democrats greatly, giving the GOP only a 5-4 majority (much more representative of the state's overall politics than 6-2). Because a 9th district allowed for Madison and Milwaukee to be split into two Democratic districts each. And I'm sure a 5-4 Democratic map could be produced by making the 1st include some western parts of the Madison metro area (and make the ultra-blue 2nd district some point redder). Another observation from this map is just how few people live in northern Wisconsin - East WI + Madison takes in the vast majority of the population (7/9 districts here), while a large chunk of land in Northern Wisconsin comprises just a single district (the 9th).

8 seats is def the worse number for Dems. You could go down to 4 and still need D leaning Madison and Milwaukee seats. And any additional 9th district forces the current WI-02 and WI-04 to properly pack Madison and Milwaukee

Here's a map of WI with just 4 seats - https://districtr.org/plan/111181. There are some holes (not sure if the districts are fully contiguous and there may be some tiny islands), but you're absolutely right. It comes down to 2 pretty red and 2 pretty blue seats - which is fair. And you can also make a 4-4 map with WI as is, but it gets crude. Nonetheless, let's see....

[Sol]

Here's a fun experiment I did -  I came up with a scenario where WI gained a 9th district (I know it doesn't have the requisite population, but still), and then drew maps for a WI with 9 districts: https://districtr.org/plan/111118. The results are pretty surprising - even though I came with district boundaries arugably cleaner than the current map, it subtly helped the Democrats greatly, giving the GOP only a 5-4 majority (much more representative of the state's overall politics than 6-2). Because a 9th district allowed for Madison and Milwaukee to be split into two Democratic districts each. And I'm sure a 5-4 Democratic map could be produced by making the 1st include some western parts of the Madison metro area (and make the ultra-blue 2nd district some point redder). Another observation from this map is just how few people live in northern Wisconsin - East WI + Madison takes in the vast majority of the population (7/9 districts here), while a large chunk of land in Northern Wisconsin comprises just a single district (the 9th).

8 seats is def the worse number for Dems. You could go down to 4 and still need D leaning Madison and Milwaukee seats. And any additional 9th district forces the current WI-02 and WI-04 to properly pack Madison and Milwaukee

Here's a map of WI with just 4 seats - https://districtr.org/plan/111181. There are some holes (not sure if the districts are fully contiguous and there may be some tiny islands), but you're absolutely right. It comes down to 2 pretty red and 2 pretty blue seats - which is fair. And you can also make a 4-4 map with WI as is, but it gets crude. Nonetheless, let's see....

Why do you have those weird tongs on yellow?

[Schiff for Senate]

Here's a fun experiment I did -  I came up with a scenario where WI gained a 9th district (I know it doesn't have the requisite population, but still), and then drew maps for a WI with 9 districts: https://districtr.org/plan/111118. The results are pretty surprising - even though I came with district boundaries arugably cleaner than the current map, it subtly helped the Democrats greatly, giving the GOP only a 5-4 majority (much more representative of the state's overall politics than 6-2). Because a 9th district allowed for Madison and Milwaukee to be split into two Democratic districts each. And I'm sure a 5-4 Democratic map could be produced by making the 1st include some western parts of the Madison metro area (and make the ultra-blue 2nd district some point redder). Another observation from this map is just how few people live in northern Wisconsin - East WI + Madison takes in the vast majority of the population (7/9 districts here), while a large chunk of land in Northern Wisconsin comprises just a single district (the 9th).

8 seats is def the worse number for Dems. You could go down to 4 and still need D leaning Madison and Milwaukee seats. And any additional 9th district forces the current WI-02 and WI-04 to properly pack Madison and Milwaukee

Here's a map of WI with just 4 seats - https://districtr.org/plan/111181. There are some holes (not sure if the districts are fully contiguous and there may be some tiny islands), but you're absolutely right. It comes down to 2 pretty red and 2 pretty blue seats - which is fair. And you can also make a 4-4 map with WI as is, but it gets crude. Nonetheless, let's see....

Yep, it is possible: https://districtr.org/plan/111206

[Schiff for Senate]

Here's a fun experiment I did -  I came up with a scenario where WI gained a 9th district (I know it doesn't have the requisite population, but still), and then drew maps for a WI with 9 districts: https://districtr.org/plan/111118. The results are pretty surprising - even though I came with district boundaries arugably cleaner than the current map, it subtly helped the Democrats greatly, giving the GOP only a 5-4 majority (much more representative of the state's overall politics than 6-2). Because a 9th district allowed for Madison and Milwaukee to be split into two Democratic districts each. And I'm sure a 5-4 Democratic map could be produced by making the 1st include some western parts of the Madison metro area (and make the ultra-blue 2nd district some point redder). Another observation from this map is just how few people live in northern Wisconsin - East WI + Madison takes in the vast majority of the population (7/9 districts here), while a large chunk of land in Northern Wisconsin comprises just a single district (the 9th).

8 seats is def the worse number for Dems. You could go down to 4 and still need D leaning Madison and Milwaukee seats. And any additional 9th district forces the current WI-02 and WI-04 to properly pack Madison and Milwaukee

Here's a map of WI with just 4 seats - https://districtr.org/plan/111181. There are some holes (not sure if the districts are fully contiguous and there may be some tiny islands), but you're absolutely right. It comes down to 2 pretty red and 2 pretty blue seats - which is fair. And you can also make a 4-4 map with WI as is, but it gets crude. Nonetheless, let's see....

Why do you have those weird tongs on yellow?

No particular reason. I cleaned it up, here's a cleaner version of the map with the Wisconsin Rapids back in the 1st district: https://districtr.org/plan/111207

[lfromnj]

1. "reasonably compact" reminds me of your "fair map" Dane County split. You're not fooling anyone by describing your maps incorrectly (and why are you trying to? This is an internet forum). Call a spade a spade and say that you drew a tendril 4 way-Hennepin split.

This is an obvious pizzamander and isn't compact at all.

No, I know it's not compact on the whole at all. What I meant was, it is comparatively compact using Discovolante's district as a point of reference (shown below). Obviously I can't say any of those 6 seats are really compact at all, but they are most certainly more compact than the map below, and that is what I was talking about (though I can see why it might be confusing/unclear).

(Also, to NC Conservative, regarding the Dane County map - give me the link to the map I called fair, and I will tell you exactly why it is. Don't know which map you're talking about until you do, though, because I believe I've shared multiple maps here with Dane County separated.)

With that said, below is the map I was comparing mine to, and that's why I said it was (comparatively) compact:

Why is it so hard to draw 5 democratic CDs in a biden +8 state. The Nevada democrats did it in a biden +2 state

look on my works, ye mighty, and despair



(this still votes right of the state at large and trends are awful outside of Rochester so this would probably be fairly comfortably GOP-held in practice)

2. Use DRA. No one wants to use a clunkier site that lacks recent data.

I don't care for DRA's layout and much prefer that of Districtr's, even if it lacks a lot of information DRA has. Appreciate the advice/command but at least for the moment, I don't intend to switch to DRA.

No map that splits Dane County is fair. Even if you're aiming for proportionality, it is too clear of a community of interest for a split of it to be anything other than an egregious gerrymander.

Again - which map are you discussing? You give me the link of the so-called gerrymander, and I'll give you an explanation as to why splitting Dane County is justified.

No map that splits Dane County is fair. Pick any map as you like -- no map that splits Dane is fair.

I could maybe see some sort of argument if a split of one of the counties in the area was necessary for population equality, but yeah, there's basically zero region to do a split that goes deeper than one or two towns. Cracking Dane County to counteract Democratic packing is a scandalous gerrymander.

I wouldn't call it scandalous as long as it doesn't go into the inner ring

 

Green is probably what would be Madison city limits if it annexed atleast the most inner ring areas.
Say some split like this



It doesn't really make too much sense as it would just make more sense to lop of the furthest end  of Green county so it still is a Dem Favorable map but it isn't really egregious. Splitting the clearly urbanized inner part of Dane is unacceptable as that is such a clear COI. The areas split of Western Dane are obviously more related to Madison than the southern parts of Green but the line is a bit more blurred than splitting Madison in 2 as that's really the only way to get any split of the core Madison area. Obviously most splits of Dane when done for partisan fairness are clearly the latter than just merely the former..

Why did you cut my hometown in half?

Just bringing the discussion to the proper thread on about splitting Dane.  Anyway was just a lazy accident on splitting your hometown.

[ProgressiveModerate]

My attempt at the most literal definition of a least change map if the court kind of does what MN did. The good news for Dems is that WI-01 kinda does have to get slightly bluer, however, outside of that the map is still likely to heavily favour the GOP no matter what

[lfromnj]

It's been 3 months, again if the judges want a least change what the heck is taking so long?