Atlas Redistricting Commission

[OBD]

Just remembered this idea from a while back. Are people still interested?

Some more context - we'd get some people to act like a redistricting commission for one or multiple states and have maps drawn. There'd probably need to be partisan balance, which could be done if enough Republicans participate or if some red avs roleplay as Republicans.

Current Roster

Democrats (11)
OBD
ProgressiveModerate
Blairite
Forumlurker
S019
Discovolante
Stuart98
Ishan
Solid
Falterin
LeeCannon

Independents (6)
Thunder98
Abdullah
Sol
Sestak
Palandio
TimTurner


Republicans (9)
VAR
BoiseBoy
LordDrachir
ASV
TPH
Impartial Spectator
Reagenete
Kwabbit

[OBD]

Yes I’d love to. How do we decide who’s on the commission?

Would probably be balanced by partisanship somehow.

[OBD]

Thanks for all the interest, guys! I’ll lay out more information when I get to a computer 😛 but in the meantime keep looking for Rs and indys.

[OBD]

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?

[OBD]

Also I've included a current roster on the OP. (->) means that the commissioner has indicated willingness to switch over to the GOP, though it's also possible that we might need indy commissioners as well. Future commissioners please specify what is your first choice faction and if you are willing to switch.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[OBD]

Okay obviously waiting for more consensus but I like Sestak's idea the most. Allows for the most flexibility, accounting for differently sized factions and player dropouts as this go on (while also allowing people to RP in their natural political position). For states I would prefer starting with midsize states in case interest declines, starting with small-medium states with interesting line drawing (perhaps Oregon or Colorado? Shameless self-promo I know) before moving upward along the population curve. People can draw maps for states that they have expertise or vested interest in.

[OBD]

So how are we going to draw these maps together?

Way that makes most sense to me is discord calls, at set times.

My thoughts were that people interested in drawing maps for the states would make drafts, then we would propose edits on the forum (e.g. for a Colorado map moving, say, Garfield County from the 3rd to the 2nd) and eventually get to the point where we had an up or down vote. If there's previous Atlas commissions we could also base it off that - would rather keep it accessible for non-Discord folks unless everyone would rather use that medium.

Anyway, I say we move to start soon. To maintain maximum flexibility with faction sizes and activity, I think we should adopt Sestak's system where the consent of a majority of Dems/Reps/Indys is required to advance any proposal. We'd start with outlining guidelines (and rules) for the commission, then we'd move to the first state. I personally think Minnesota (mid-size population, swing state with interesting district choices) is a good starting point for this commission, after which we'd move up along the population curve.

What say you?

[OBD]

I would prefer we have something substantatively different from past commissions. Does the support for that actually exist? Or is that just me.

What would this entail?

[OBD]

I would prefer we have something substantatively different from past commissions. Does the support for that actually exist? Or is that just me.

What would this entail?

I was under the impression that a quasi-partisan hack commission* with roleplay for sure had support, and it also might be very fun doing just that.
I'm not so sure about the former anymore.
*=sort of like a forum-based equivalent of an Arizona-style or New Jersey-style commission, except with more Independents and a wider range of outcomes

I feel like (at least personally) a commission where we actually represent our own ideologies will be most conductive to parity in the map drawing. As others have said it's not great if the people roleplaying as Republicans cannot do so accurately and (in)advertently sabotage their side of the commission.

Just some thoughts and ideas:

1. The creation and choice of maps should follow a certain formalism (this is just my proposal, I'm open for different ideas or maybe we could even vote on that):
a) During the informal negotiation phase plans can be discussed. This can happen partially on discord but since I'm not on discord and I think that some others aren't either, I think that a part of the negotiation should take place on other channels (pm and dedicated threads). Throughout the negotiation phase plans can be proposed on the main thread if they are endorsed by at least three commission members. This plan then has proposal status. An endorsement can be withdrawn. No member can endorse more then one plan at the same time. That means that endorsing a new plan implies the withdrawal of an older endorsement. Plans that are no longer endorsed by at least three members lose proposal status.
b) If a plan reaches a certain threshold of endorsements then a vote (yes/no) can be announced. If over a certain timespan no plan receives the support of a (weighted) majority then a vote between the two most-endorsed plans can be enforced and the one that receives more votes wins.

2. I was also wondering about the dynamics inside the commission:
a) I think that often something like the Median voter theorem would apply: There are one or more tie-breakers ("median voters") and a plan that is designed to find a majority needs to get close to what the tie-breaker wants. This works if the tie-breaker is actually has some concept of what is considered "fair" that isn't complete partisan hackery. Personally I find this interesting particularly when playing as an independent, but I think that there can be more to this game than just talking about tie-breakers or median voters.
b) I would like to see at least sometimes a constellation where a bipartisan gerrymander is competing against a map that follows more abstract principles. This would need the D and R partisans to also take into account issues like incumbent protection and "how many safe seats would my party get" and it would make the game more fun for the non-independents in my opinion because an unholy alliance could win against the independents. Maybe it would even be possible that the rules allow for a shady simultaneous "two-state deal" to be enforced by a majority to e.g. protect incumbents in two already gerrymandered states.
c) The most entertaining would probably be a mix of a) and b).

I think we should adopt the clauses of 1) in conjunction with requiring a majority vote from all factions for a map to pass. Seems like a good way to go about it.

Still interested from a while back, hope there's still enough room.

Perhaps there could be a rotating mini-commission for each state, drafting an initial first map, from which others give input and vote on changes. Each mini-commission could be 2 D 1 I 2 R or something like that.

I don't like the idea of D avs larping as Independent or Republican hacks, especially if they feel the need to larp as hacks, given that their behavior would be predictable/obnoxious. Might as well just 'simulate' an R hack by just adding one vote to the R option, we wouldn't need a person to do that. I would want to be an R on the commission, but drawing hack gerrymanders is neither difficult nor interesting, and I would hope other partisan members would refrain from advocating those.

Agree on the second paragraph, and I think Sestak's solution could work to mitigate that by ensuring every party has a seat at the table. Mini-commissions, though, would probably be too vulnerable to activity swings to be viable.

Anyway, I think we should move officially to open the commission and decide guidelines for the district-drawing to use (e.g. whether county/municipality lines are prioritized, acceptable population deviation, use of partisan data, etc.) before this gets bogged down. Also, if folks have Minnesota maps ready to propose, they could start doing so in the coming days. Maybe post a justification along with your map?

[OBD]

[snip]

[snip]

I think we should adopt the clauses of 1) in conjunction with requiring a majority vote from all factions for a map to pass. Seems like a good way to go about it.
[snip]

But what if the factions can't agree on a map and keep blocking each other?

That probably won't be the case, but if it takes too long we could proceed to a weighted majority vote as described earlier.

[OBD]

I'm ready to roll with whatever.

[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.

[OBD]

I’m here

[OBD]

Do NC state house. Clusters are a ok choice for the state house compared to the state senate anyway and you can just submit cluster by cluster.

There is one really bad cluster that results in screwing Moore county but the rest is fine.

Are we using the IRL clusters or making our own?

[OBD]

I wish to propose two maps to the commission for consideration.

OBD-1: https://davesredistricting.org/join/6ced3693-8539-41b4-a450-88f82df0999d
OBD-2: https://davesredistricting.org/join/677535e9-390d-46e8-b3e7-c948b32bebf3

These maps, I believe, both do a good job of representing communities of interest in Minnesota. Among others, St. Cloud, the Twin Cities, and counties in general are kept whole, as well as dedicated SE and W Minnesota seats.

[OBD]

1. OBD
2. Torie
3. Leecannon

[OBD]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0e935c5b-9b44-4760-8d59-d354dfac13e5

The following is my submission. It prioritizes maintaining city integrity, minority representation, and community interests to craft a delegation that is most representative of New York State.

[OBD]

NEW YORK STATE - RANK TOP THREE

[ 1 ] https://davesredistricting.org/join/0e935c5b-9b44-4760-8d59-d354dfac13e5 - OBD
[ 3 ] https://davesredistricting.org/join/99175b24-01a9-4e9f-9324-dddf14ceb042 - TimTurner
[ 2 ] https://davesredistricting.org/join/e9558d2a-6643-4fa1-8807-bef7129ed197 - Torie

Election begins Right Now and ends March 08, 2022 00:00 UTC


Do not ping me again.