Atlas Redistricting Commission

[ProgressiveModerate]

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

[ProgressiveModerate]

Can we have a civil rights lawyer?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Yep still here

[ProgressiveModerate]

Here is my submission.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/76f90611-c593-4b67-93f2-e6cc8ffc98dc

Good job at getting the deviations to 0! This comes accross as a least-change map that adjusts for population by pulling MN-02 inwards and making MN-01 more competative in the sake of partisan fairness. While I don't like how 3 stretches into some rural areas that start to lack connection to the metro, I overall think you did a good job at managing the metro. I like how MN-7 just takes in all of the West part of the state which is losing population pretty rapidly. This seems like a good map overall that is least change but deals with population changes well.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Snip

Is there a rule against voting for one's own map?

[ProgressiveModerate]

My vote would be:

1. Torie
2. Tim Turner
3. Mine

[ProgressiveModerate]

I saw it.
1. Abdullah
2. Leecannon
3. Pink Panther

Any chance we could do New York next?

I want to do NY too.