Atlas Redistricting Commission

[AustralianSwingVoter]

I'd still love to participate.

2. Each 'bloc' (Democrats, Republicans, Independents) has a set amount of votes divided equally among its members. For instance, if there were 10 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 6 Independents, each bloc will get 5 votes, meaning each Democrat gets 0.5 votes, each Republican gets 1 vote, and each Independent gets 0.83 votes or something like that.

I definitely think this is the best way of doing it, so we can let everyone who wants to get involved participate without forcing Democrats to try (and fail) to pretend to be Republicans.

[Thunder98 🇮🇱 🤝 🇵🇸]

Okay, so here are my thoughts on this.

Obviously, I think it's very important that we have equal representation between Democrats and Republicans for the sake of realisticity. I personally don't see the number of independents as a huge issue, it's more padding GOP representation for obvious reasons. There's two ways we can do this -

1. Find as many GOPers as possible and use this as a guideline for the commission size. I'd like to open this to as many people as possible so if theoretically 6 Republicans joined we could have a 6-6-some number of independents commission. While it's more than there are in IRL commissions not everyone has to draw maps - folks can just vote up and down or comment on existing maps.

2. Each 'bloc' (Democrats, Republicans, Independents) has a set amount of votes divided equally among its members. For instance, if there were 10 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 6 Independents, each bloc will get 5 votes, meaning each Democrat gets 0.5 votes, each Republican gets 1 vote, and each Independent gets 0.83 votes or something like that.

If we need to thin the pool of candidates, I can run a lottery, with the losers filling the roles of public commenters or litigators (or perhaps rotating out for different states?). Additionally, people RPing as the opposite party or an Independent could be useful but ideally that won't have to be the case.

As for other mechanics, here are my thoughts:

1) I think it would be cool to have the commission potentially set guidelines/procedures for itself after it is selected (e.g. goals like compactness, partisan balance, county splitting, etc.). This would be by majority vote. Also opens up the door for rules like a member of each party must approve a map for it to be passed or no partisan data can be considered to be passed by the commission.

2) We'd have to select states - probably no bigger than Illinois/Pennsylvania for accessibility? - and with some modicum of interesting district drawing (i.e. no Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Tennessee). Not sure if there's appetite for multiple states but I could set up a poll for that when the time comes.

3) Emphasizing that not everyone has to draw maps for this to work. Maybe every commissioner interested in bringing a map for a state can draw one, or the three factions could each come up with a map.

Anyone else have anything to add?

I hope we don't do Ohio due to how much of a damn nightmare Franklin County is for map making.

Some medium sized states that I suggest we could chose are AZ, GA, MN, NC or WI.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Okay, so here are my thoughts on this.

Obviously, I think it's very important that we have equal representation between Democrats and Republicans for the sake of realisticity. I personally don't see the number of independents as a huge issue, it's more padding GOP representation for obvious reasons. There's two ways we can do this -

1. Find as many GOPers as possible and use this as a guideline for the commission size. I'd like to open this to as many people as possible so if theoretically 6 Republicans joined we could have a 6-6-some number of independents commission. While it's more than there are in IRL commissions not everyone has to draw maps - folks can just vote up and down or comment on existing maps.

2. Each 'bloc' (Democrats, Republicans, Independents) has a set amount of votes divided equally among its members. For instance, if there were 10 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 6 Independents, each bloc will get 5 votes, meaning each Democrat gets 0.5 votes, each Republican gets 1 vote, and each Independent gets 0.83 votes or something like that.

If we need to thin the pool of candidates, I can run a lottery, with the losers filling the roles of public commenters or litigators (or perhaps rotating out for different states?). Additionally, people RPing as the opposite party or an Independent could be useful but ideally that won't have to be the case.

As for other mechanics, here are my thoughts:

1) I think it would be cool to have the commission potentially set guidelines/procedures for itself after it is selected (e.g. goals like compactness, partisan balance, county splitting, etc.). This would be by majority vote. Also opens up the door for rules like a member of each party must approve a map for it to be passed or no partisan data can be considered to be passed by the commission.

2) We'd have to select states - probably no bigger than Illinois/Pennsylvania for accessibility? - and with some modicum of interesting district drawing (i.e. no Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Tennessee). Not sure if there's appetite for multiple states but I could set up a poll for that when the time comes.

3) Emphasizing that not everyone has to draw maps for this to work. Maybe every commissioner interested in bringing a map for a state can draw one, or the three factions could each come up with a map.

Anyone else have anything to add?

I prefer 1 over 2. Roleplaying sounds like fun.
Commission setting goals sounds interesting but I also suggest that once it's set it should not actually be religiously followed. I think we should loosely try to follow the model of, say, a AZ-style commission.
3 is very important to stress.
I like the thought of a lottery.

[Sol]

I do think that it's better to have more participants than less in doing this sort of thing. Cvparty organized one of these a few years ago and it was sometimes difficult because there were relatively few people so if someone got busy or burnt out there weren't enough maps submitted.

[Left Wing]

I could join as whatever role is necessary for the partisan balance

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

I can join to demand for more minority district in every state .

(But seriously if I have time I’d love to participate)

[palandio]

I'm interested.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

My inclination is that we should just rotate out who does different states and pass maps for all 50 (well, excluding single-district states.) It would be such a shame to exclude NY/FL/TX/CA--that's where redistricting gets complicated enough to be interesting.

I also think the map-drawing process should--somehow--be collaborative rather than individuals bringing different maps for a simple up-down vote. Somehow, multiple ideas should be synthesized rather than seeing each map proposal as final and immutable.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

I am interested in joining the commission as one of the Republican members.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

My inclination is that we should just rotate out who does different states and pass maps for all 50 (well, excluding single-district states.) It would be such a shame to exclude NY/FL/TX/CA--that's where redistricting gets complicated enough to be interesting.

I also think the map-drawing process should--somehow--be collaborative rather than individuals bringing different maps for a simple up-down vote. Somehow, multiple ideas should be synthesized rather than seeing each map proposal as final and immutable.

Perhaps we could establish a criteria and required to make maps from there (like Michigan does with its commission). We as a body establish certain hard line criteria (no splitting X City, X many minority districts, X Urban Seats) and so on?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

My inclination is that we should just rotate out who does different states and pass maps for all 50 (well, excluding single-district states.) It would be such a shame to exclude NY/FL/TX/CA--that's where redistricting gets complicated enough to be interesting.

I also think the map-drawing process should--somehow--be collaborative rather than individuals bringing different maps for a simple up-down vote. Somehow, multiple ideas should be synthesized rather than seeing each map proposal as final and immutable.

Perhaps we could establish a criteria and required to make maps from there (like Michigan does with its commission). We as a body establish certain hard line criteria (no splitting X City, X many minority districts, X Urban Seats) and so on?

That sounds unworkable as an idea (even if it is presumed to be a good idea on the merits), given how what is possible varies from state to state.

[Thunder98 🇮🇱 🤝 🇵🇸]

My inclination is that we should just rotate out who does different states and pass maps for all 50 (well, excluding single-district states.) It would be such a shame to exclude NY/FL/TX/CA--that's where redistricting gets complicated enough to be interesting.

I also think the map-drawing process should--somehow--be collaborative rather than individuals bringing different maps for a simple up-down vote. Somehow, multiple ideas should be synthesized rather than seeing each map proposal as final and immutable.

Perhaps we could establish a criteria and required to make maps from there (like Michigan does with its commission). We as a body establish certain hard line criteria (no splitting X City, X many minority districts, X Urban Seats) and so on?

That sounds unworkable as an idea (even if it is presumed to be a good idea on the merits), given how what is possible varies from state to state.

Yeah, I agree with Phil.

A lot of cities have utterly horrible city lines and that can cause districts to be non contiguous. You have no choice to split some cities up or your above the 0.75% pop threshold. I like how New England organize their cities.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

My inclination is that we should just rotate out who does different states and pass maps for all 50 (well, excluding single-district states.) It would be such a shame to exclude NY/FL/TX/CA--that's where redistricting gets complicated enough to be interesting.

I also think the map-drawing process should--somehow--be collaborative rather than individuals bringing different maps for a simple up-down vote. Somehow, multiple ideas should be synthesized rather than seeing each map proposal as final and immutable.

Perhaps we could establish a criteria and required to make maps from there (like Michigan does with its commission). We as a body establish certain hard line criteria (no splitting X City, X many minority districts, X Urban Seats) and so on?

That sounds unworkable as an idea (even if it is presumed to be a good idea on the merits), given how what is possible varies from state to state.

Yeah, I agree with Phil.

A lot of cities have utterly horrible city lines and that can cause districts to be non contiguous. You have no choice to split some cities up or your above the 0.75% pop threshold. I like how New England organize their cities.

Me too. Any rules established beforehand would be arbitrary. I would say each state's commission should be allowed to agree on some general rules/principles on its own for its own purposes if it wants to, however. Of course, the commission can always change its mind and adjust its rules (or ignore/waive them) if it runs into some unforeseen circumstances. For example, the Texas state commission might set up a rule that "wherever possible, we will try to draw Hispanic opportunity districts between 65-80% Hispanic population." But if you end up with one that is 81% or 64%, that wouldn't necessarily have to be changed to fit the rule if the 64% or 81% district does the job.

[Continential]

My inclination is that we should just rotate out who does different states and pass maps for all 50 (well, excluding single-district states.) It would be such a shame to exclude NY/FL/TX/CA--that's where redistricting gets complicated enough to be interesting.

The problem with some of the big states (California especially), is that some computers can't run a DRA California map.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I think I will switch to being a Republican member of the Commission outright.

[OBD]

Thanks for everyone who has shown interest!

 I'm starting to like the balance a bit more, so here's my idea - flexible weighted votes. This means that each bloc (Democratic, Republican, Independent) will get a set number of votes, and the number of people from each bloc who vote on a measure will determine how much votes each person gets. For instance, if the vote division is 10 Democrats, 10 Republicans, and 5 Independents, then if 8 Democrats and 5 Republicans vote on a particular proposal each Democrat will get 1.25 votes and each Republican will get 2 votes. This both balances partisanship and ensures that the balance of partisanship is not affected by votes.

However, I should also mention that 'sleeper agents' (i.e. Republican commissioners who will act as independents or Democrats) kind of ruin this experiment, so if you're not going to RP as a Republican accurately then please step over the aisle now.

Regarding states and rules, here are my thoughts - doing every state is definitely a daunting task, but I'm willing to if other people are down. My other idea was to have a Commission A and Commission B - Democrats would be split between the commissions, while Republicans and indies would serve on both commissions. Each commission would draw the maps for randomly selected states with roughly equal district counts. This could make it easier to cover every state. Alternatively, we could select one or a few medium sized states to do. For rules, I definitely agree that while we should pass guidelines they should not be set in stone (i.e. feel free to interpret them in ways favorable to your party and try to argue these points to the commission). For map drawing, it's possible that first draft duties are split evenly between members - and, I concur that a decent period for revisions, both within factions and among the greater commission, will greatly add to the experience.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I think we should do all states. Even California.
We don't have to do them all at once. And for the biggest states we can have a list of those who volunteer to draw proposed maps for them. Obviously that won't include everyone of course.

[OBD]

https://www.270towin.com/maps/eJnPL

If we do split the commission into two (haven't got feedback on this idea yet) here is a randomly generated division we could use. I did divide it in such a way that each commission would get 22 states and a roughly equal number of districts to draw.

[Sestak]

I think we should do all states. Even California.
We don't have to do them all at once. And for the biggest states we can have a list of those who volunteer to draw proposed maps for them. Obviously that won't include everyone of course.

We can get to those, eventually, if this still has enough steam that long. But I think it’s only sensible to start with states of manageable size.


To the point about size, I think the two commissions thing will be annoying for people in both to keep track of. Feels better to me that just a certain mark (majority? 60%?) of each of the three blocs should be required, allowing them to vary in size.

[OBD]

I think we should do all states. Even California.
We don't have to do them all at once. And for the biggest states we can have a list of those who volunteer to draw proposed maps for them. Obviously that won't include everyone of course.

We can get to those, eventually, if this still has enough steam that long. But I think it’s only sensible to start with states of manageable size.


To the point about size, I think the two commissions thing will be annoying for people in both to keep track of. Feels better to me that just a certain mark (majority? 60%?) of each of the three blocs should be required, allowing them to vary in size.

So a majority of every bloc must consent to the plan for it to pass?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I think we should do all states. Even California.
We don't have to do them all at once. And for the biggest states we can have a list of those who volunteer to draw proposed maps for them. Obviously that won't include everyone of course.

We can get to those, eventually, if this still has enough steam that long. But I think it’s only sensible to start with states of manageable size.


To the point about size, I think the two commissions thing will be annoying for people in both to keep track of. Feels better to me that just a certain mark (majority? 60%?) of each of the three blocs should be required, allowing them to vary in size.

Oh, I don't disagree.
Also, I don't think I favor two commissions either.
I don't think we even need a threshold of any sort to ensure the map has majority support among all blocks. Let it simply be a matter of majority support among the commission as a whole.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I think we should do all states. Even California.
We don't have to do them all at once. And for the biggest states we can have a list of those who volunteer to draw proposed maps for them. Obviously that won't include everyone of course.

We can get to those, eventually, if this still has enough steam that long. But I think it’s only sensible to start with states of manageable size.


To the point about size, I think the two commissions thing will be annoying for people in both to keep track of. Feels better to me that just a certain mark (majority? 60%?) of each of the three blocs should be required, allowing them to vary in size.

So a majority of every bloc must consent to the plan for it to pass?

Requiring a majority of every bloc would complicate things too much. Let it be a matter of a simple majority with weighted voting along the lines you suggested.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Whenever I mess around with maps I start with the smallest state as those are the easiest and work up, that or alphabetically

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Regarding states and rules, here are my thoughts - doing every state is definitely a daunting task, but I'm willing to if other people are down. My other idea was to have a Commission A and Commission B - Democrats would be split between the commissions, while Republicans and indies would serve on both commissions. Each commission would draw the maps for randomly selected states with roughly equal district counts. This could make it easier to cover every state. Alternatively, we could select one or a few medium sized states to do. For rules, I definitely agree that while we should pass guidelines they should not be set in stone (i.e. feel free to interpret them in ways favorable to your party and try to argue these points to the commission). For map drawing, it's possible that first draft duties are split evenly between members - and, I concur that a decent period for revisions, both within factions and among the greater commission, will greatly add to the experience.

I like option two, especially to get through every state. Last time around, there were like 30 interested participants. Why not split that down into several groups of 4-6 people to discuss and pass maps for all 50 states? Divide the states into groups and let people choose the group of states that interests them most. Maybe use weighted voting for every participant to have a final up/down vote on every map or send back to committee.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Thanks for everyone who has shown interest!

 I'm starting to like the balance a bit more, so here's my idea - flexible weighted votes. This means that each bloc (Democratic, Republican, Independent) will get a set number of votes, and the number of people from each bloc who vote on a measure will determine how much votes each person gets. For instance, if the vote division is 10 Democrats, 10 Republicans, and 5 Independents, then if 8 Democrats and 5 Republicans vote on a particular proposal each Democrat will get 1.25 votes and each Republican will get 2 votes. This both balances partisanship and ensures that the balance of partisanship is not affected by votes.

However, I should also mention that 'sleeper agents' (i.e. Republican commissioners who will act as independents or Democrats) kind of ruin this experiment, so if you're not going to RP as a Republican accurately then please step over the aisle now.

Regarding states and rules, here are my thoughts - doing every state is definitely a daunting task, but I'm willing to if other people are down. My other idea was to have a Commission A and Commission B - Democrats would be split between the commissions, while Republicans and indies would serve on both commissions. Each commission would draw the maps for randomly selected states with roughly equal district counts. This could make it easier to cover every state. Alternatively, we could select one or a few medium sized states to do. For rules, I definitely agree that while we should pass guidelines they should not be set in stone (i.e. feel free to interpret them in ways favorable to your party and try to argue these points to the commission). For map drawing, it's possible that first draft duties are split evenly between members - and, I concur that a decent period for revisions, both within factions and among the greater commission, will greatly add to the experience.

What if it were 2 competing commissions; both make national maps, and then atlas chooses which map they like better. General rules could be established, as well as a final deadlines, but commissions in themselves can choose what criteria and such they want.