Draw a seat with the lowest or highest turnout possible

[bagelman]

go

[Roll Roons]

Lowest possible would definitely be in the Central Valley.

Highest possible turnout district would likely be in Madison, although I could see it being rivaled by one in Minnesota or Colorado.

[kwabbit]

I’ve been drawing some DRA maps with equal numbers of voters instead of equal pop. In Texas the Whiter parts of Austin can produce a district (300k voters) with about 500k people and the Brownsville/McAllen district needs about 1.1 million.

[kwabbit]

Lowest possible would definitely be in the Central Valley.

Highest possible turnout district would likely be in Madison, although I could see it being rivaled by one in Minnesota or Colorado.

The barrio in the Bronx actually had lower turnout than the Central Valley this year. The highest this year was actually the Northern district of Michigan. Scandinavians + rich people in Grand Traverse area + old.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Lowest possible would definitely be in the Central Valley.

Highest possible turnout district would likely be in Madison, although I could see it being rivaled by one in Minnesota or Colorado.

The barrio in the Bronx actually had lower turnout than the Central Valley this year. The highest this year was actually the Northern district of Michigan. Scandinavians + rich people in Grand Traverse area + old.

Guess it's not too surprising, given the NY Dems didn't seriously try this year.

[Aurelius]

Lowest possible would definitely be in the Central Valley.

Highest possible turnout district would likely be in Madison, although I could see it being rivaled by one in Minnesota or Colorado.

The barrio in the Bronx actually had lower turnout than the Central Valley this year. The highest this year was actually the Northern district of Michigan. Scandinavians + rich people in Grand Traverse area + old.

This surprises me since the Upper Peninsula is so downscale.

[kwabbit]

Lowest possible would definitely be in the Central Valley.

Highest possible turnout district would likely be in Madison, although I could see it being rivaled by one in Minnesota or Colorado.

The barrio in the Bronx actually had lower turnout than the Central Valley this year. The highest this year was actually the Northern district of Michigan. Scandinavians + rich people in Grand Traverse area + old.

This surprises me since the Upper Peninsula is so downscale.

Low Hispanic/Asian population means everyone is a citizen, being in population decline means the population is older on average so likelier to vote, Finns have high social trust, I think it has higher historical unionization rates which encourage voting, Michigan has more populous districts because it just lost one. Maybe some unforeseen population increase from people migrating to the beach towns during COVID. All of the upper Midwest has good turnout rates, so most of the other districts had among the highest as well.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Lowest possible would definitely be in the Central Valley.

Highest possible turnout district would likely be in Madison, although I could see it being rivaled by one in Minnesota or Colorado.

The barrio in the Bronx actually had lower turnout than the Central Valley this year. The highest this year was actually the Northern district of Michigan. Scandinavians + rich people in Grand Traverse area + old.

This surprises me since the Upper Peninsula is so downscale.

Low Hispanic/Asian population means everyone is a citizen, being in population decline means the population is older on average so likelier to vote, Finns have high social trust, I think it has higher historical unionization rates which encourage voting, Michigan has more populous districts because it just lost one. Maybe some unforeseen population increase from people migrating to the beach towns during COVID. All of the upper Midwest has good turnout rates, so most of the other districts had among the highest as well.

The presence of a high profile abortion referendum probably boosted turnout as well this year above typical midterm levels. It narrowly passed in the Upper Peninsula, but it is still partisan Republican enough for all the Republican candidates to win there.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Lowest possible would definitely be in the Central Valley.

Highest possible turnout district would likely be in Madison, although I could see it being rivaled by one in Minnesota or Colorado.

The barrio in the Bronx actually had lower turnout than the Central Valley this year. The highest this year was actually the Northern district of Michigan. Scandinavians + rich people in Grand Traverse area + old.

This surprises me since the Upper Peninsula is so downscale.

Low Hispanic/Asian population means everyone is a citizen, being in population decline means the population is older on average so likelier to vote, Finns have high social trust, I think it has higher historical unionization rates which encourage voting, Michigan has more populous districts because it just lost one. Maybe some unforeseen population increase from people migrating to the beach towns during COVID. All of the upper Midwest has good turnout rates, so most of the other districts had among the highest as well.

The presence of a high profile abortion referendum probably boosted turnout as well this year above typical midterm levels. It narrowly passed in the Upper Peninsula, but it is still partisan Republican enough for all the Republican candidates to win there.

Also from what I understand, Dixon spent a disporportionate share of time in the UP for how low population it is. Perhaps that had an impact, even though Whitmer ended up getting some pretty big swings up there?

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Lowest possible would definitely be in the Central Valley.

Highest possible turnout district would likely be in Madison, although I could see it being rivaled by one in Minnesota or Colorado.

The barrio in the Bronx actually had lower turnout than the Central Valley this year. The highest this year was actually the Northern district of Michigan. Scandinavians + rich people in Grand Traverse area + old.

This surprises me since the Upper Peninsula is so downscale.

Low Hispanic/Asian population means everyone is a citizen, being in population decline means the population is older on average so likelier to vote, Finns have high social trust, I think it has higher historical unionization rates which encourage voting, Michigan has more populous districts because it just lost one. Maybe some unforeseen population increase from people migrating to the beach towns during COVID. All of the upper Midwest has good turnout rates, so most of the other districts had among the highest as well.

The presence of a high profile abortion referendum probably boosted turnout as well this year above typical midterm levels. It narrowly passed in the Upper Peninsula, but it is still partisan Republican enough for all the Republican candidates to win there.

Also from what I understand, Dixon spent a disporportionate share of time in the UP for how low population it is. Perhaps that had an impact, even though Whitmer ended up getting some pretty big swings up there?

All counties except for Marquette and Mackinac actually swung towards Dixon. Marquette being a college county and Mackinac having an upscale tourist destination are understandably counties that swung towards Whitmer. I think that the Upper Peninsula is the part of Michigan that reacted against COVID restrictions and probably is the part of the state that perceives Whitmer and Democrats as neglecting the interests of in favor of the urban areas in the lower peninsula.