Atlas Redistricting Commission

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

The deviation rule should be set to plus or minus 0.5% in every case, and splitting administrative units to the desired level should be allowed or disallowed on a COI test basis.

[S019]

Bump?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yes, I was aware of this as well and assumed people were losing interest.
I'll be happy if I'm proved wrong.

[palandio]

I'm still interested, but I pulled back because I felt that I was taking over a role of moderator and rule-proposer and commissioner at once and that this was not in the sense of the game. I think that we should solve the deviation issue (Progressive Moderate voted 500, 1000, 250 in a PM), but in the end I don't really care about that, and then we should begin working on MN like Senator OBD proposed and I hope that this is what people are actually interested in and that there will be more activity.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'm still interested, but I pulled back because I felt that I was taking over a role of moderator and rule-proposer and commissioner at once and that this was not in the sense of the game. I think that we should solve the deviation issue (Progressive Moderate voted 500, 1000, 250 in a PM), but in the end I don't really care about that, and then we should begin working on MN like Senator OBD proposed and I hope that this is what people are actually interested in and that there will be more activity.

Let's hope for more activity! I agree.

[palandio]

Ok, so to reanimate this thread a first draft for MN:
https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::e179ae82-fe2a-404b-831d-16ec6e92b9e7

Because the Twin Cities metro is growing faster than the rest of the state, the 1st takes some areas from the 2nd, in particular Northfield, fitting the 1st's "cows and campuses" theme.

The growing 4th cedes areas to both the 2nd and the 6th.

The 5th pulls out of the southermost corner of Anoka Co. and is now entirely within Hennepin Co.

The 3rd moves pulls out Anoka Co. (Coon Rapids) as well and takes in some more exurban areas in Wright Co. and Carver Co.

The 6th becomes something like the 4.5th Twin Cities metro district covering all of Anoka Co. and some exurban counties.

The 8th now covers the entire North. Good from a compactness point of view. On the other hand the old configuration of the 8th corresponded very well to the forest-heavy areas in the NE, wheareas the NW belongs to the Great Plains. I don't know.

St. Cloud moving to the 7th was a logical consequence of how the new 6th and 8th were drawn. Otherwise the 6th and 7th would have been much less compact.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Ok, so to reanimate this thread a first draft for MN:
https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::e179ae82-fe2a-404b-831d-16ec6e92b9e7

Because the Twin Cities metro is growing faster than the rest of the state, the 1st takes some areas from the 2nd, in particular Northfield, fitting the 1st's "cows and campuses" theme.

The growing 4th cedes areas to both the 2nd and the 6th.

The 5th pulls out of the southermost corner of Anoka Co. and is now entirely within Hennepin Co.

The 3rd moves pulls out Anoka Co. (Coon Rapids) as well and takes in some more exurban areas in Wright Co. and Carver Co.

The 6th becomes something like the 4.5th Twin Cities metro district covering all of Anoka Co. and some exurban counties.

The 8th now covers the entire North. Good from a compactness point of view. On the other hand the old configuration of the 8th corresponded very well to the forest-heavy areas in the NE, wheareas the NW belongs to the Great Plains. I don't know.

St. Cloud moving to the 7th was a logical consequence of how the new 6th and 8th were drawn. Otherwise the 6th and 7th would have been much less compact.

While this map is good on deviation and compactness, it fails to reflect the partisanship of the state. For Minnesota I feel its best to have two/three lean/likely democratic seats in addition to the Saint Paul and Minneapolis seats.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/56106bd8-6c22-4acf-884c-44378d7f591d

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/d4a66cc5-78da-49a0-a3d1-11e7381a25cb

My proposal.

I like Paladino's config for MN-4, MN-5, MN-7, and MN-8, however, I feel like his map butchers the Twin City suburbs, grouping them with exurbs and rural areas that don't fit. Furthermore, from a partisan fairness standpoint, that map has a rightwards bias when the median seat test is used.

In my map MN-3 becomes a northern suburban district while MN-2 takes in southern suburbs, shedding basically all rural areas it currently has. MN-6 becomes entirely exurban/rural.

Basically my map has 4 Twin Cities metro seats and 4 rural seats, each with a dedicated purpose.

The first district in this map was designed to be as competative as reasonably possible to help create more partisan fairness.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/d4a66cc5-78da-49a0-a3d1-11e7381a25cb

My proposal.

I like Paladino's config for MN-4, MN-5, MN-7, and MN-8, however, I feel like his map butchers the Twin City suburbs, grouping them with exurbs and rural areas that don't fit. Furthermore, from a partisan fairness standpoint, that map has a rightwards bias when the median seat test is used.

In my map MN-3 becomes a northern suburban district while MN-2 takes in southern suburbs, shedding basically all rural areas it currently has. MN-6 becomes entirely exurban/rural.

Basically my map has 4 Twin Cities metro seats and 4 rural seats, each with a dedicated purpose.

The first district in this map was designed to be as competative as reasonably possible to help create more partisan fairness.

I like this map outside MN-1 which should be a narrowly titling dem district or tossup in my mind

[S019]

I am a fan of both ProgressiveModerate and leecannon's map

For my first map, I sought to try to create a minority access district:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/e08a9ca2-2899-426b-9f5e-913571401b86

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/70a97b18-269c-4904-8f72-467328a13892

A Republican friend of min suggested this map



I personally am conflicted on the minority access seat. In order to be created, you'd have to split several COIs including putting both some of Minneapolis and St Paul in the same district. Furthermore, it is just an access seat but with no clear majority coalition with divides between non-white races. While it is my intent to make sure minorities are fairly represented, I question in this case whether it's worth it to do this much for so little.

[Thunder98 🇮🇱 🤝 🇵🇸]

Here's my attempt at making a GA map that tries to split as few cities as possible.

There's 7R seats, 6D seats and one rapidly Dem trending battleground suburban seat that is tilt R.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/65db418d-d097-429c-964c-78b2713522e0

[palandio]

Well, the thing is that in an 8-seat map the Twin Cities metro is worth about 4.5 seats, so you are always going to have at least one seat that stretches out of the metro. I could have moved my SE district slightly closer to the metro, still stopping "at the gates", which would have moved the district from an R+7.5 PVI to an R+6.2 PVI. Maybe I should do that.

In leecannon's map the "4.5th district" is in the SE. The other districts in the metro are quite ok, although putting Fridley with Minneapolis and Columbia Heights not seems a bit strange and I personally would rather split a city, but that's a matter of taste. The SE district lacks cohesion and I think that for a district artificially created to achieve partisan balance it goes too far. I also think that the non-metro districts would have benefitted from a more compact north-middle-south split.

ProgressiveModerate's proposal pretends that 4 seats are enough for the metro. As a result his SE district basically goes to the gates of the metro with some strange lines in Hastings and Farmington and cutting into the suburbs/exurbs in Chanhassen/Chaska. The two arms to Mankato and Chanhassen are in my opinion only justifiable by partisan criteria. The rest of the map is nice.

S019's map is nice outside of the metro. Inside the metro the distribution of suburbs between the districts feels random. I also seriously doubt the necessity of a specifically drawn minority access seat in a place where Ilhan Omar was elected twice.

The map made by Progressive Moderate's friend (a map with 5 R-leaning seats in a state that leans marginally D and where most maps drawn purely on geographic criteria yield 4 R-leaning seats) is obviously not something a commission like ours should seriously consider.

@ Thunder98: Nice map. I'm just not sure if posting maps for states you like whenever you like is the way to go. It could result in chaos. I posted a map for MN because that was the first state that OBD proposed earlier in the thread. It would be nice though if we arrived at GA soon.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

How long do I have to post an MN map?

[Thunder98 🇮🇱 🤝 🇵🇸]

Well, the thing is that in an 8-seat map the Twin Cities metro is worth about 4.5 seats, so you are always going to have at least one seat that stretches out of the metro. I could have moved my SE district slightly closer to the metro, still stopping "at the gates", which would have moved the district from an R+7.5 PVI to an R+6.2 PVI. Maybe I should do that.

In leecannon's map the "4.5th district" is in the SE. The other districts in the metro are quite ok, although putting Fridley with Minneapolis and Columbia Heights not seems a bit strange and I personally would rather split a city, but that's a matter of taste. The SE district lacks cohesion and I think that for a district artificially created to achieve partisan balance it goes too far. I also think that the non-metro districts would have benefitted from a more compact north-middle-south split.

ProgressiveModerate's proposal pretends that 4 seats are enough for the metro. As a result his SE district basically goes to the gates of the metro with some strange lines in Hastings and Farmington and cutting into the suburbs/exurbs in Chanhassen/Chaska. The two arms to Mankato and Chanhassen are in my opinion only justifiable by partisan criteria. The rest of the map is nice.

S019's map is nice outside of the metro. Inside the metro the distribution of suburbs between the districts feels random. I also seriously doubt the necessity of a specifically drawn minority access seat in a place where Ilhan Omar was elected twice.

The map made by Progressive Moderate's friend (a map with 5 R-leaning seats in a state that leans marginally D and where most maps drawn purely on geographic criteria yield 4 R-leaning seats) is obviously not something a commission like ours should seriously consider.

@ Thunder98: Nice map. I'm just not sure if posting maps for states you like whenever you like is the way to go. It could result in chaos. I posted a map for MN because that was the first state that OBD proposed earlier in the thread. It would be nice though if we arrived at GA soon.

Oops I forgot that we were doing MN first, my bad.  

Anyways here's my MN map. Not a single city/town are split.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/1c6bc84f-fc1b-4318-8dc3-eb2e73ce46be

[OBD]

How long do I have to post an MN map?

Let's be flexible about the time.

I'll give feedback on MN (and maybe post a map) later.

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/32154a52-a470-4460-aaf6-85fde5162cc7

Modified my map a bit based upon the comments I have recieved. Seems like most of us agree on the config for MN-8, but I shifted the Minneapolis seats northwards. This makes MN-1 bluer to make the map more fair from a partisanship standpoint, so solves 2 problems at once. Both MN-1 and MN-3 flip from Trump to Biden under this proposal.

[palandio]

Thunder98's map is mostly a continuity map and, since the old map is a very decent map by US standards, his map is decent, too.

I like ProgressiveModerate's last map, too. I get the point that one district has to straddle areas inside and outside the metro and that competitive districts are generally desirable. To make this into a final map I would avoid splitting Farmington, draw the lines a bit straighter in Eagan and generally work on population equality. But these are really details that can be addressed if the map becomes a candidate map.

I appreciate that several D (and Indy) members of the commission have proposed maps and commented on other people's maps, and I'm looking forward to my fellow Indy and R members to participate in the discussion.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/32154a52-a470-4460-aaf6-85fde5162cc7

Modified my map a bit based upon the comments I have recieved. Seems like most of us agree on the config for MN-8, but I shifted the Minneapolis seats northwards. This makes MN-1 bluer to make the map more fair from a partisanship standpoint, so solves 2 problems at once. Both MN-1 and MN-3 flip from Trump to Biden under this proposal.

I like the generals of this map, but I believe the best way to configure the twin cities is a dem tilting seat, a republican tilting seat, and three safe democrat seats

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

As I had long planned, I am going to be posting an MN map soon, now that the elections in early November are over.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

My submission.
I sought to keep municipalities and counties together, while still respecting other CoI and having compact districts. I was able to achieve a map that split zero municipalities in the entire state.
The urban seats are 4 and 5, the suburban seats are 2 and 3, and rural seats are 1, 7, and 8. 6 is a mix of suburban and rural.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/29e87896-0a99-45d6-8f48-a63aae1875e7

[jimrtex]

My submission.
I sought to keep municipalities and counties together, while still respecting other CoI and having compact districts. I was able to achieve a map that split zero municipalities in the entire state.
The urban seats are 4 and 5, the suburban seats are 2 and 3, and rural seats are 1, 7, and 8. 6 is a mix of suburban and rural.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/29e87896-0a99-45d6-8f48-a63aae1875e7

You might want to keep the current boundary in the north, which is designed to place different reservations in different districts along with associated off-reservation populations, apparently at the desire of the tribal authorities.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

My submission.
I sought to keep municipalities and counties together, while still respecting other CoI and having compact districts. I was able to achieve a map that split zero municipalities in the entire state.
The urban seats are 4 and 5, the suburban seats are 2 and 3, and rural seats are 1, 7, and 8. 6 is a mix of suburban and rural.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/29e87896-0a99-45d6-8f48-a63aae1875e7

You might want to keep the current boundary in the north, which is designed to place different reservations in different districts along with associated off-reservation populations, apparently at the desire of the tribal authorities.

Thoughts on the most recent changes in the DRA link?

[jimrtex]

My submission.
I sought to keep municipalities and counties together, while still respecting other CoI and having compact districts. I was able to achieve a map that split zero municipalities in the entire state.
The urban seats are 4 and 5, the suburban seats are 2 and 3, and rural seats are 1, 7, and 8. 6 is a mix of suburban and rural.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/29e87896-0a99-45d6-8f48-a63aae1875e7

You might want to keep the current boundary in the north, which is designed to place different reservations in different districts along with associated off-reservation populations, apparently at the desire of the tribal authorities.

Thoughts on the most recent changes in the DRA link?

I'd want to avoid the split of St.Cloud. The Twin Cities metro didn't have 5/8 of the state population, but had much more than 4/8. So St.Cloud was added in 2001 when they switched to the 5:3 configuration (thank Jesse Ventura for recognizing that). There really isn't enough population for a whole NE district so it was encroaching into Chisago and Isanti. St.Cloud didn't really belong with the Twin Cities and that is why Stearns was split.

Now the Twin Cities metro (11 counties) is closer to 4/8 so doesn't need St. Cloud, but now St. Cloud is needed to get the NE district up to enough population. St.Cloud is in Stearns, Benton, and Sherburne counties. You've got Benton, so I would include Haven Twp., and the portion of St.Cloud in Sherburne. You might include a couple more townships, but go much further and you're beginning to get into the more Twin Cities-oriented portion of the county. The interstate makes it too easy to commute. Much of the growth in Wright is spillover from Sherburne, rather than due west from Hennepin.

Target is releasing zillions of space in downtown Minneapolis. They found that most of the workers can easily work remotely, but with a hybrid plan where they might come into the office a couple of days per week. They are moving out to Brooklyn Park. If you only need to come into the office two days a week, you start looking to living further out, where new housing is cheaper, it is safer, and the schools are better.

For population I'd put Wadena back in the western district. The concerns I had were further north. Wadena is only about 2% AIAN. Compare with Cass and Beltrami.

I'm not sure about Hubbard. It might have to be split if it includes part of the Leech Lake Reservation, so I'd probably leave it alone. A real commission would get feedback at the hearings in Bemidji and Brainerd.

[Torie]

I don't know the rules of the game here, but does MN state law require that CD's have exactly populations, and if so, does that matter? The exactly equal population metric tanks the ability to zero out muni chops, which is the justification I presume for Tim's map to have that extra county chop into Anoka.

The Muon2 game was fueled by allowing population deviations up to the federal 1% cap, which allowed and drove working within that 1% to lose chops as an important metric.