|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 04, 2021, 05:14:40 AM

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
  2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Minnesota
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12]
Author Topic: 2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Minnesota  (Read 8284 times)
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,185
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #275 on: February 23, 2021, 05:29:35 PM »

I find it utterly hilarious how much of this thread is devoted to the idea of pairing Minneapolis and St Paul together...when that is never going to happen under any scenario.
Woke: pairing Minneapolis and ST Paul
Broke: pairing Minneapolis and Dulutch
Bespoke: pairing greater Minnesota with the twin cities

Isn't this illegal? I thought at-large districts in states with multiple representatives were made illegal in 1967.
It's just temporary until a new map is drawn. The 1967 law can also be repealed by Congress.

It seems like they should have plenty of time to draw a map for 2022. The primary is not until Aug 9, 2022. Assuming the data is available by Sep 30, 2021 they could take six months to draw a map and battle in court and still have four months to get petitions and ballots ready for the primary.
Here is the complaint. This links to the Carver County District Court and will be available for about 30 days. I'm guessing it will get kicked up to the Minnesota Supreme Court at some time.

Wattson v Simon complaint (PDF)

You will be interested in an Appendix that includes a proposal for a redistricting commission, though I don't think can be voted on until 2022.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,862


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #276 on: February 23, 2021, 07:13:07 PM »

Here is the complaint. This links to the Carver County District Court and will be available for about 30 days. I'm guessing it will get kicked up to the Minnesota Supreme Court at some time.

Wattson v Simon complaint (PDF)

You will be interested in an Appendix that includes a proposal for a redistricting commission, though I don't think can be voted on until 2022.

I am a personal acquaintance of the plaintiff and very familiar with his views on redistricting law and reform. He's a national expert with few peers.

I haven't spoken to him about this, but I know he is very familiar with the inability of a divided MN legislature to pass a map in a timely fashion. He is also aware that the state justices went to a third party to create the current map. I think he's putting down a marker to be that third party or how that third party should operate.

I'm not sure why the tweet focused on large elections for congress, since that was more a passing comment as to one possible outcome. The outcome he would like seems to be a commission along the lines in the appendix. More importantly he has created plans using the criteria in the model legislation and asks that they be used absent a legislature-created plan.

One challenge for this thread might be to draw 7 CD plans using the criteria proposed for the commission in the complaint. It would be interesting to see how they compare to the map they drew.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,862


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #277 on: February 23, 2021, 07:50:42 PM »

Here are the principles in the complaint:
Quote
1. Application. The principles in this section apply to congressional and legislative districts.
2. Population equality.
(a) Congressional districts must be as nearly equal in total population as practicable without dividing a precinct into more than one district.
(b) Legislative districts must be substantially equal in total population. The population of a
legislative district must not deviate from the ideal by more than one percent, plus or minus, or two percent, if the plan does not split a precinct.
3. Minority representation. Districts must not be drawn with the intent or effect to deny or abridge the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice.
4. Convenience and contiguity. The districts must be composed of convenient contiguous territory that allows for easy travel throughout the district. Contiguity by water is sufficient if the water is not a serious obstacle to travel within the district. Districts with areas that touch only at a point are not contiguous.
5. Political subdivisions. A county, city, town, or precinct must not be divided into more than one district except as necessary to meet equal population requirements or to form districts that are composed of convenient, 1 contiguous, and compact territory. When a county, city, town, or precinct must be divided into more than one district, it must be divided into as few districts as possible.
6. Compactness. Districts must be reasonably compact as determined by more than one measure of compactness that is accepted in political science and statistics literature.
7. American Indian reservations. A federally recognized American Indian reservation must not be divided into more than one district except as necessary to meet equal population requirements or to form districts that are composed of convenient, contiguous, and compact territory. When a federally recognized American Indian reservation must be divided into more than one district, it must be divided into as few districts as possible.
8. Communities of interest. Districts should attempt to preserve identifiable communities of interest. A community of interest may include an ethnic or language group or any group with shared experiences and concerns, including but not limited to geographic, governmental, regional, social, cultural, historic, socioeconomic, occupational, trade, or transportation interests. Communities of interest do not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.
9. Incumbents. A district or plan must not be drawn with the intent to protect or defeat an incumbent.
10. Partisanship. A district or plan must not be drawn with the intent or effect to unduly favor or disfavor a political party. The commission must use judicial standards and the best available scientific and statistical methods, including more than one measure of partisan effect, to assess compliance with this principle.
11. Competition. Districts should be drawn to encourage electoral competition. A district is competitive if the plurality of the winning political party in the territory encompassed by the district, based on statewide state and federal partisan general election results during the last ten years, has historically been no more than eight percent.
12. Numbering.
(a) Congressional district numbers must begin with district one in the southeast corner of the state and end with the district with the highest number in the northeast corner of the state.
(b) Legislative district numbers must begin with house district 1A in the northwest corner of the state and proceed across the state from west to east, north to south. In a county or city that includes more than one whole senate district, the whole districts must be numbered consecutively.
13. Priority of principles. Where it is not possible to fully comply with the principles in this section, a redistricting plan must give priority to those principles in the order in which they are listed, except to the extent that doing so would violate federal law.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,185
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #278 on: February 24, 2021, 10:17:39 PM »

Looking through the Minnesota Constitution it appears that there is no limit on the number or legislators. There is a nesting requirement, but no set nesting ratio, nor a requirement that House districts be single member. In this case, it is similar to Washington's constitution.

Electing two members by position in Washington is just a tradition.

But what if we wanted to provide differentiation between the two chambers in Minnesota. 67 senators and 134 representatives is just two large mobs with little differentiation. The two representatives are just waiting for the Senator (likely of the same party) to retire. There will be a few representatives stuck in the House because of the partisan alignments of the two House districts.

So let's switch to Senate district coterminous with House districts electing multiple members using STV. If we keep the total number of legislators around 201.

Then we might have 33 legislative districts electing 5 representatives each for a total of 33 + 165 = 198 legislators. Or 29 legislative districts electing 6 representatives each for a total of 29 + 174 = 203 representatives.

The Senate would become a more deliberate big picture body. The House would have minority political representation from almost everywhere, and minority racial and ethnic representatives from many places where it is is somewhat unusual.
Logged
THE SPIRIT OF WAYNE MESSAM
Abdullah
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 256
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.68, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #279 on: February 25, 2021, 08:51:26 AM »

Everyone chill out a little. None of you are thinking properly and rationally.

Allow me to present the best Minnesota map (cuz who cares about municipalities and historical districts lol?):



Here's what it'd look like seriously:

2008 Presidential election: 3 Solid Democrat, 1 Solid Republican, 3 Swing (margin of under 5%)

2016 Presidential election: 2 Solid Democrat, 3 Solid Republican, 2 Swing (margin of under 5%)

2018 Gubernatorial election: 4 Solid Democrat, 1 Solid Republican, 2 Swing (margin of under 5%)
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 39,208
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #280 on: February 25, 2021, 09:39:46 AM »

Never a dull moment in the redistricting world I must say. NY needs such a lawsuit, although given the state of NYS courts in general, I would suggest using the federal courts if possible.

The COI prong of the list of principles basically can mean anything, since it includes everything but the kitchen sink. Granted it is lower down the list than compactness or chops. There does not seem much teeth in hewing to metro area lines - to wit nothing about the pack and cover standard, and the map drawn for CD's reflects that as a couple of CD's stretch out into the hinterlands, particularly that CD that stretches south along the Mississippi River.
Logged
Southern Delegate Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,527
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #281 on: February 25, 2021, 06:00:14 PM »

Looking through the Minnesota Constitution it appears that there is no limit on the number or legislators. There is a nesting requirement, but no set nesting ratio, nor a requirement that House districts be single member. In this case, it is similar to Washington's constitution.

Electing two members by position in Washington is just a tradition.

But what if we wanted to provide differentiation between the two chambers in Minnesota. 67 senators and 134 representatives is just two large mobs with little differentiation. The two representatives are just waiting for the Senator (likely of the same party) to retire. There will be a few representatives stuck in the House because of the partisan alignments of the two House districts.

So let's switch to Senate district coterminous with House districts electing multiple members using STV. If we keep the total number of legislators around 201.

Then we might have 33 legislative districts electing 5 representatives each for a total of 33 + 165 = 198 legislators. Or 29 legislative districts electing 6 representatives each for a total of 29 + 174 = 203 representatives.

The Senate would become a more deliberate big picture body. The House would have minority political representation from almost everywhere, and minority racial and ethnic representatives from many places where it is is somewhat unusual.
Would this gel well with county-based House districts?
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,185
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #282 on: February 25, 2021, 08:14:51 PM »

Never a dull moment in the redistricting world I must say. NY needs such a lawsuit, although given the state of NYS courts in general, I would suggest using the federal courts if possible.

The COI prong of the list of principles basically can mean anything, since it includes everything but the kitchen sink. Granted it is lower down the list than compactness or chops. There does not seem much teeth in hewing to metro area lines - to wit nothing about the pack and cover standard, and the map drawn for CD's reflects that as a couple of CD's stretch out into the hinterlands, particularly that CD that stretches south along the Mississippi River.
The plaintiff is obviously a crank. He describes himself as a "retired, itinerant, redistricting aficionado"

The complaint is very serious. Peter Wattson is well known in redistricting circles, particularly in Minnesota. The second lead plaintiff Joseph Mansky prepared Governor Jesse Ventura's congressional map in 2001. It was that plan that successfully argued for the 5:3 plan that was adopted. In his submission he argued that the Metro Area had far beyond half of the population, and with inclusion of St.Cloud could reach 5/8.

His plan was adopted, after the 5-judge panel rejected the hackish plans from the DFL and R. Don't if Ventura did anything else while he was governor, but this was a Good Thing. It also forms the basis of my proposed 4:3 map, which regardless of how the Metro Area is divided, should be adopted for the three outstate districts.

The attorney is a former Supreme Court Justice, who was appointed by Arne Carlson.

The COI definition appears to be quite similar to that used in California. You may recall that the original commission applied only to the legislature. This was likely because they knew that the DNC and RNC would go all in against anything that might reduce their power.

At the 2010 election they added Congress, and also the COI. Those opposed to argued that COI = Jim Crow.

http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2010/general/pdf/english/20-title-summ-analysis.pdf

http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2010/general/pdf/english/20-arg-rebuttals.pdf

(see in particular second PDF page).

The commission for 2010 had already been selected, and they just added congressional redistricting to their duties.

When it came time to define COI, the commission was advised by their attorneys that they should defer to the judgment of the citizenry who formed these communities, since they had familiarity. This was one of the ways the commission was manipulated.

One of the better features of the California plan is that the outgoing commission recommends changes for the next cycle. That is why the dates for the commission were moved forward so they could have more time to deliberate on communities of interest.

If a "community of interest" exists then it exists now, and not only when someone wants a line to be drawn here.

In Florida, the reason that the courts found that the maps were a partisan gerrymander is that Republicans would figure out where they wanted a line drawn. Citizen Joe Sockpuppet would make a suggestion at a public hearing: "Wombat-lovers form a unique community of interest, and they are prevalent as far east as Route 123". A senator would forward the suggestion to the mapdrawers, and low and behold when they tried it, the population numbers worked out. When the senator was presenting the map to the senator, he would say, "District 27 includes the whole of the wombat-lover community of interest as presented in suggestion 673", demonstrating that the legislature was responsive to citizen input.

You probably remember American Bandstand. Remember when they would say, "It's got a good beat and you can litigate to it?"
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,185
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #283 on: February 25, 2021, 09:58:03 PM »

Looking through the Minnesota Constitution it appears that there is no limit on the number or legislators. There is a nesting requirement, but no set nesting ratio, nor a requirement that House districts be single member. In this case, it is similar to Washington's constitution.

Electing two members by position in Washington is just a tradition.

But what if we wanted to provide differentiation between the two chambers in Minnesota. 67 senators and 134 representatives is just two large mobs with little differentiation. The two representatives are just waiting for the Senator (likely of the same party) to retire. There will be a few representatives stuck in the House because of the partisan alignments of the two House districts.

So let's switch to Senate district coterminous with House districts electing multiple members using STV. If we keep the total number of legislators around 201.

Then we might have 33 legislative districts electing 5 representatives each for a total of 33 + 165 = 198 legislators. Or 29 legislative districts electing 6 representatives each for a total of 29 + 174 = 203 representatives.

The Senate would become a more deliberate big picture body. The House would have minority political representation from almost everywhere, and minority racial and ethnic representatives from many places where it is is somewhat unusual.
Would this gel well with county-based House districts?
Equal protection still applies to the House districts.

Quote from: Article IV Section 2 and 3
Sec. 2. Apportionment of members.

The number of members who compose the senate and house of representatives shall be prescribed by law. The representation in both houses shall be apportioned equally throughout the different sections of the state in proportion to the population thereof.

Sec. 3. Census enumeration apportionment; congressional and legislative district boundaries; senate districts.

At its first session after each enumeration of the inhabitants of this state made by the authority of the United States, the legislature shall have the power to prescribe the bounds of congressional and legislative districts. Senators shall be chosen by single districts of convenient contiguous territory. No representative district shall be divided in the formation of a senate district. The senate districts shall be numbered in a regular series.
Washington has similar language, but also has limits on the number of senators. Minnesota had a quite liberal limit (no more senators than one per 5000 persons, no more representative than one per 2000). This would cap senators at around 1100 and representatives at around 2800). These limits were removed as a general cleanup of the Constitution in 1974. Technically, this eliminated the upper limits, so that now there could be more than 2800 representatives.

I think Washington also had county restrictions. I couldn't find any in Minnesota, but old maps appear to show that they did. In Washington through the mid-20th Century as Seattle became dominant, there were attempts to provide balance by giving more House districts to Seattle Area senate districts, and limiting rural senate districts to one representative. Thus the House was more proportional than the senate.

It appears that Minnesota had a similar pattern, but I could only find history of legislators rather than history of districts.

This shows the number of senators and representatives over the years. It is only fairly recent that the number of representatives was exactly twice the number of senators. However a ratio of 2:1 and around 200 legislators was establish by the end of the 19th Century. I don't know if there was any apportionment between 1919 and 1962. Conceivably they could have adjusted the apportionment of representatives per senate district.

68th - current    1973 - present    134    67    201
63rd - 67th    1963 - 1972    135    67    202
41st - 62nd    1919 - 1962    131    67    198
39th - 40th    1915 - 1918    130    67    197
37th - 38th    1911 - 1914    120    63    183
31st - 36th    1899 - 1910    119    63    182
Logged
Southern Delegate Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,527
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #284 on: February 25, 2021, 11:04:36 PM »

Looking through the Minnesota Constitution it appears that there is no limit on the number or legislators. There is a nesting requirement, but no set nesting ratio, nor a requirement that House districts be single member. In this case, it is similar to Washington's constitution.

Electing two members by position in Washington is just a tradition.

But what if we wanted to provide differentiation between the two chambers in Minnesota. 67 senators and 134 representatives is just two large mobs with little differentiation. The two representatives are just waiting for the Senator (likely of the same party) to retire. There will be a few representatives stuck in the House because of the partisan alignments of the two House districts.

So let's switch to Senate district coterminous with House districts electing multiple members using STV. If we keep the total number of legislators around 201.

Then we might have 33 legislative districts electing 5 representatives each for a total of 33 + 165 = 198 legislators. Or 29 legislative districts electing 6 representatives each for a total of 29 + 174 = 203 representatives.

The Senate would become a more deliberate big picture body. The House would have minority political representation from almost everywhere, and minority racial and ethnic representatives from many places where it is is somewhat unusual.
Would this gel well with county-based House districts?
Equal protection still applies to the House districts.

Quote from: Article IV Section 2 and 3
Sec. 2. Apportionment of members.

The number of members who compose the senate and house of representatives shall be prescribed by law. The representation in both houses shall be apportioned equally throughout the different sections of the state in proportion to the population thereof.

Sec. 3. Census enumeration apportionment; congressional and legislative district boundaries; senate districts.

At its first session after each enumeration of the inhabitants of this state made by the authority of the United States, the legislature shall have the power to prescribe the bounds of congressional and legislative districts. Senators shall be chosen by single districts of convenient contiguous territory. No representative district shall be divided in the formation of a senate district. The senate districts shall be numbered in a regular series.
Washington has similar language, but also has limits on the number of senators. Minnesota had a quite liberal limit (no more senators than one per 5000 persons, no more representative than one per 2000). This would cap senators at around 1100 and representatives at around 2800). These limits were removed as a general cleanup of the Constitution in 1974. Technically, this eliminated the upper limits, so that now there could be more than 2800 representatives.

I think Washington also had county restrictions. I couldn't find any in Minnesota, but old maps appear to show that they did. In Washington through the mid-20th Century as Seattle became dominant, there were attempts to provide balance by giving more House districts to Seattle Area senate districts, and limiting rural senate districts to one representative. Thus the House was more proportional than the senate.

It appears that Minnesota had a similar pattern, but I could only find history of legislators rather than history of districts.

This shows the number of senators and representatives over the years. It is only fairly recent that the number of representatives was exactly twice the number of senators. However a ratio of 2:1 and around 200 legislators was establish by the end of the 19th Century. I don't know if there was any apportionment between 1919 and 1962. Conceivably they could have adjusted the apportionment of representatives per senate district.

68th - current 1973 - present 134 67 201
63rd - 67th 1963 - 1972 135 67 202
41st - 62nd 1919 - 1962 131 67 198
39th - 40th 1915 - 1918 130 67 197
37th - 38th 1911 - 1914 120 63 183
31st - 36th 1899 - 1910 119 63 182

I wonder if it is possible to, say, set a quota of around 40,000 per house member (on 2018 numbers), draw a bunch of county-based House districts on that basis, and have them double as Senate districts whenever possible.
Logged
RussFeingoldWasRobbed
Progress96
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,594
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #285 on: February 25, 2021, 11:13:35 PM »

Stop feeding the troll people. Just ignore him. We all know the map will be a d courtmander.
Logged
Southern Delegate Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,527
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #286 on: February 25, 2021, 11:24:05 PM »

Cook+Lake+St.Louis+Carlton (251,500) 6 house, 3 senate
Roseau+Kittson+Marshall+Pennington+Red Lake+Polk (78,974) 2 house, 1 senate
Lake of the Woods+Koochiching+Itasca+Beltrami+Clearwater+Hubbard+Cass (166,469) 4 house, 2 senate
Mahnomen+Clay+Wilkin+Norman (81,209) 2 house, 1 senate
Becker+Otter Tail+Wadena+Todd+Douglas (167,054) 4 house, 2 senate
Crow Wing+Aitkin (79,689) 2 house, 1 senate

And so on
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,185
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #287 on: February 26, 2021, 11:33:09 AM »

Cook+Lake+St.Louis+Carlton (251,500) 6 house, 3 senate
Roseau+Kittson+Marshall+Pennington+Red Lake+Polk (78,974) 2 house, 1 senate
Lake of the Woods+Koochiching+Itasca+Beltrami+Clearwater+Hubbard+Cass (166,469) 4 house, 2 senate
Mahnomen+Clay+Wilkin+Norman (81,209) 2 house, 1 senate
Becker+Otter Tail+Wadena+Todd+Douglas (167,054) 4 house, 2 senate
Crow Wing+Aitkin (79,689) 2 house, 1 senate

And so on
These are my maps for senate apportionment.



Senate districts have to be single member.

So there will be Cook, Lake, St. Louis(part); Carlton, St. Louis(part); and St. Louis(part).

It would be possible to elect two representatives from each senate district, or to divide the senate district into two house districts. There might be a preference for division, since that would give Carlton most of a house district.

41 senate districts contained in a single county.
10 senate districts made up of whole counties.
16 senate districts include parts of counties.
Logged
Southern Delegate Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,527
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #288 on: February 26, 2021, 01:26:08 PM »

Cook+Lake+St.Louis+Carlton (251,500) 6 house, 3 senate
Roseau+Kittson+Marshall+Pennington+Red Lake+Polk (78,974) 2 house, 1 senate
Lake of the Woods+Koochiching+Itasca+Beltrami+Clearwater+Hubbard+Cass (166,469) 4 house, 2 senate
Mahnomen+Clay+Wilkin+Norman (81,209) 2 house, 1 senate
Becker+Otter Tail+Wadena+Todd+Douglas (167,054) 4 house, 2 senate
Crow Wing+Aitkin (79,689) 2 house, 1 senate

And so on
These are my maps for senate apportionment.



Senate districts have to be single member.

So there will be Cook, Lake, St. Louis(part); Carlton, St. Louis(part); and St. Louis(part).

It would be possible to elect two representatives from each senate district, or to divide the senate district into two house districts. There might be a preference for division, since that would give Carlton most of a house district.

41 senate districts contained in a single county.
10 senate districts made up of whole counties.
16 senate districts include parts of counties.
Looks decent for purpose of this exercise.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,185
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #289 on: February 27, 2021, 03:01:10 PM »

Here are the 15 Hennepin Senate Districts.


 
Minneapolis5.19153.81%
Bloomington1.00610.57%
Edina-Richfield1.06016.03%
Brooklyn Park0.9871-1.29%
North1.9362-3.18%
Plymouth0.9561-4.36%
Brooklyn Center1.05315.26%
St. Louis Park0.8391-16.14%
Southwest2.04222.12%

This will need some touch up.

Bloomington; Brooklyn Park (plus Osseo); and Plymouth (plus Medicine Lake) are complete districts.

Minneapolis (plus St. Anthony) will be divided into 5 districts. Minneapolis has a well-defined system of neighborhoods that should be observed. Possible districts: (1) east of river; (2) North(west); (3) Southwest along river; (4) Southwest; and (5) South.

The St.Louis Park district is underpopulated. It will take a little bit from the inner ring suburbs to the north and south (about 7000 from each).

The southwest area forms too district. Eden Prairie and Hopkins will be linked via a corridor through Minnetonka. The bulk of Minnetonka will be joined with the cities around Lake Minnetonka.

It is nearly impossible to create separate districts for both Maple Grove and Champlin that are in Hennepin County - the one possibility would have a district winding its way from Champlin to Wayzata, and cause an obscene entanglement of the legs of two districts in the southwest part of the county.

So instead Champlin and most of Maple Grove will place in one district, and the other district formed in the western part of the county. Dayton might be included with the Maple Grove-Champlin district, improving its compactness. This would move more of Maple Grove into the western district. My general preference when splitting cities would be to place most of the city in a single district. This is consistent with a policy of creating as many whole districts as possible within a larger city.

Of course if I were King Sven, there would be no problem with Maple Grove forming a single district, or Maple Grove-Champlin-Dayton, or Eden Prairie.
Logged
Nyvin
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,820
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #290 on: February 27, 2021, 09:59:23 PM »

Here's the districts I'd see Democrats winning more often than not after redistricting (Lean D or better in other words) -

14 of 15 in Hennepin
11 of 14 between Anoka, Ramsey, Washington
4 of 5 in Dakota
2 Iron Range
1 Rochester
1 Mankato
1 St Cloud

That's 34 seats, a bare majority.   The second Iron Range seat might be iffy in the future, and didn't include the Fargo seat.   There's seats in the Twin Cities that'll be competitive, and if Scott and Carver continue to trend D then Democrats might form a solid majority (1 seat a piece).
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,185
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #291 on: March 01, 2021, 10:01:00 AM »

These are my Senate districts for Ramsey, Anoka, and Washington.

The counties are entitled to 6.547, 4.245, and 3.127 districts respectively. Neither Ramsey or Anoka could have whole districts within them and be within deviation range. Washington could barely have 3, but they would average a 4.2% deviation. When you are so close to an outer range of 5% deviation there is less flexibility in drawing the individual districts.

So instead there will be 14 districts drawn in the three counties (average deviation -0.6%), 6 wholly within Ramsey, 4 wholly within Anoka, and 3 wholly within Washington, and one at the juncture of the three counties.



RAW0.9621-3.80%
Shoreview1.08017.95%
St.Paul4.19444.85%
Maplewood0.7601-24.02%
Coon Rapids0.9541-4.62%
Blaine1.9912-0.43%
Andover0.9891-1.11%
Cottage Grove0.9981-0.21%
Woodbury0.9821-1.83%
Stillwater1.00910.92%

The district at the juncture of Ramsey, Anoka, and Washington removes enough excess from each county, and if you weren't aware of where the county lines were appears to be a reasonable COI.

Ramsey

St. Paul is entitled to 3.665 districts, and combining with either of its largest neighbors will be significantly over 4 districts. This map shows St.Paul combined with Roseville, Lauderdale, and Falcon Heights.

But the northern district (Shoreview) has an excess of around 7000 persons (0.080). This will require moving St.Anthony and part of New Brighton into the Roseville district. This split reduces the cut of New Brighton. (Note, I am not averse to treating cities that cross county boundaries as being treated as being in one county, so long as the decisions is made prior to the beginning of the redistricting process - and is made by the city council involved).

The Maplewood district is quite underpopulated, so around 25,000 persons in eastern St. Paul along the Maplewood panhandle will be added to the district. Meanwhile about 35,000 persons south of Roseville will be added to Roseville and other cities. The remainder of St. Paul will form three districts.

Anoka

The Anoka panhandle doesn't have enough population to form a district, but has too much to be combined with either Blaine or Coon Rapids. Coon Rapids can be paired with the city of Anoka, so that the panhandle will be combined with Blaine and the northeast part of the county in two districts. Most of Blaine will be placed in the northeastern district where ti will form a majority of the district population.

The Anoka panhandle, southern Blaine, Lexington, and Circle Pines will form the other district.

The northwestern part of the county, with about 3/4 of the district in Andover and Ramsey will form the fourth district.

Washington

The three districts were drawn to balance population. The southern district is shown with corner connectivity Afton and Lake Elmo. A portion of West Lakeland will be taken to provide a solid connection.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,185
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #292 on: March 02, 2021, 04:11:12 AM »

Dakota is entitled to five senate districts.



Inver Grove Height1.05015.02%
Eagan3.01930.65%
Rosemount1.03213.18%

The cluster of Eagan, Burnsville, Apple Valley, and Lakeville can't be combined in single districts. Apple Valley and Lakeville could be combined with smaller townships and cities, but that would eliminate the more rural district, and still leave a problem with Eagan and Burnsville.

So the four cities will be combined into three districts. The area south of Lakeville along I-35 is included in order to get the more rural district within 5% deviation. Eagan and part of Burnsville will form one district. Lakeville, and points south, and part of Apple Valley will form another district.

The remaining district will be the remainder of Burnsville and Apple Valley.

The older communities in the northern bend of the county are barely (about 20 people) over the 5% threshold.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,185
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #293 on: March 02, 2021, 09:52:40 PM »

Scott is entitled to 1.781 districts, Carver to 1.257 districts, together 3.037 or 3 districts. One will wholly in Scott, one wholly in Carver, and one shared with about 3/4 in Scott.


Scott-Carver1.03213.23%
Carver1.01811.84%
Scott0.9871-1.29%

Almost 90% of the Scott district is Shakopee and Savage with other areas attached to reach population balance. About 75% of the Carver district is in Chaska, Chanhassen, and Victoria.
Logged
Coastal Elitist
Tea Party Hater
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,657
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.71, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #294 on: March 03, 2021, 11:38:18 PM »
« Edited: March 03, 2021, 11:46:48 PM by Coastal Elitist »

Here's my Minnesota map. I don't really understand why the twin cities shouldn't go together but it's whatever I separated them anyways. I'm not sure about the 3rd and 4th but I was able to calculate how the rest voted in 2020 since county splits are minimal in my map.



MN-1: Biden+32
MN-2: Trump+12
MN-5: Biden+0.5
MN-6: Trump+25
MN-7: Trump+18

2012-2016 PVI
MN-1: D+12
MN-2: R+6
MN-3: D+24
MN-4: R+2
MN-5: R+5
MN-6: R+11
MN-7: R+6
Logged
Southern Delegate Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,527
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #295 on: March 03, 2021, 11:48:45 PM »

Here's my Minnesota map. I don't really understand why the twin cities shouldn't go together but it's whatever I separated them anyways. I'm not sure about the 3rd and 4th but I was able to calculate how the rest voted in 2020 since county splits are minimal in my map.



MN-1: Biden+32
MN-2: Trump+12
MN-5: Biden+0.5
MN-6: Trump+25
MN-7: Trump+18

2012-2016 PVI
MN-1: D+12
MN-2: R+6
MN-3: D+24
MN-4: R+2
MN-5: R+5
MN-6: R+11
MN-7: R+6
Interesting choices. This is the first map in the thread that really eliminates the 6th as opposed to the 7th.
Logged
Coastal Elitist
Tea Party Hater
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,657
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.71, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #296 on: Today at 12:16:01 AM »

Here's my Minnesota map. I don't really understand why the twin cities shouldn't go together but it's whatever I separated them anyways. I'm not sure about the 3rd and 4th but I was able to calculate how the rest voted in 2020 since county splits are minimal in my map.



MN-1: Biden+32
MN-2: Trump+12
MN-5: Biden+0.5
MN-6: Trump+25
MN-7: Trump+18

2012-2016 PVI
MN-1: D+12
MN-2: R+6
MN-3: D+24
MN-4: R+2
MN-5: R+5
MN-6: R+11
MN-7: R+6
Interesting choices. This is the first map in the thread that really eliminates the 6th as opposed to the 7th.
The way I looked at it was I took the seven major metropolitan counties and made districts out of them (added Wright since it's part of the metro) and then I looked up regions of Minnesota and put together the map based on those.
Logged
Southern Delegate Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,527
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #297 on: Today at 12:34:36 AM »

Here's my Minnesota map. I don't really understand why the twin cities shouldn't go together but it's whatever I separated them anyways. I'm not sure about the 3rd and 4th but I was able to calculate how the rest voted in 2020 since county splits are minimal in my map.



MN-1: Biden+32
MN-2: Trump+12
MN-5: Biden+0.5
MN-6: Trump+25
MN-7: Trump+18

2012-2016 PVI
MN-1: D+12
MN-2: R+6
MN-3: D+24
MN-4: R+2
MN-5: R+5
MN-6: R+11
MN-7: R+6
Interesting choices. This is the first map in the thread that really eliminates the 6th as opposed to the 7th.
The way I looked at it was I took the seven major metropolitan counties and made districts out of them (added Wright since it's part of the metro) and then I looked up regions of Minnesota and put together the map based on those.

Well, it's not that bad of a map.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12]  
« previous next »
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 0.077 seconds with 12 queries.