Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 21, 2017, 02:36:27 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1328
1  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Michigan: The urban-rural divide writ large on: February 20, 2017, 11:28:59 pm
Based on the 2015 county census estimates and projecting the same rate of change forward through 4-1-2020, as we always do. Obviously the rate of change varies within counties, so that would affect any map. But that data is not available, or if it is, too much trouble to manipulate. Outside of the ultimate shape of the two black CD's, and to a lessor extent in Oakland County, the effect will be rather magical in any event as it pertains to Michigan. In part that is due to just how rare the chops are. Smiley
2  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Michigan: The urban-rural divide writ large on: February 20, 2017, 11:08:09 pm
Jimrtexís suggestions for a revised Michigan map are clearly a winner.  It loses two chops from my effort, including a macro chop in Wayne County, so it also has a much better erosity score (which it probably does even without the lost macro-chop).  I still take a pack penalty in the Grand Rapids urban cluster, to avoid a macro-chop.  I learned from Muon2 that in most cases, one takes a pack penalty to lose a macro-chop, because it tanks the erosity score.  There may be a higher scoring map that the uber computer can find, but I tend to doubt it. The population array worked to make this map a winner. When I did that rectangle in Oakland County for MI-11, and the population fit perfectly, I was just amazed. It was like winning a lottery ticket. Well done Jimrtex!

I also like the chaos that it does from a partisan standpoint, including a host of potentially marginal CDís, but I digress. It also shows that while the Trump coalition may be disaster for Congressional Pubs in CA, the reverse is true in Michigan. With this map, the Dems are down to but two safe seats Ė the two black seats. Everywhere else, the Dems will have to sweat. But then, then there are seats the Pubs will need to sweat in too Ė like in four of the CDís they currently hold rather safely. And that is the way it should be.  And oh yes, the incumbent politicians will hate this map.  Good! ☺

 
 
 
3  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Margaret Thatcher vs Winston Churchill on: February 20, 2017, 08:14:20 pm
Churchill saved Europe from the dark ages. The end.
4  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Are there posters from the opposite party/ideology that you would vote for... on: February 20, 2017, 08:11:14 pm
Yeah, probably around half the time actually. Who knew?  Tongue
5  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Michigan: The urban-rural divide writ large on: February 20, 2017, 08:04:30 pm
That Detroit gets 2 CDs instead of 1 is my major problem with the Muon2 rules.  If I were to re-write the rules, cities would have to remain intact if their population merits it, and breaking cities up would be considered a macro chop of the first order.  Why?  Keeping cities intact stops the problem in states like Illinois where Chicago has a disproportionate number of seats through bacon strip districts.  With a population of 689,000 Detroit doesn't deserve 2 seats in Congress.

A single district in Detroit would be like ~80% Black.   That wouldn't comply with the VRA.

If/when in the not-so-distant future the BVAP in SE Michigan falls below that which can support two CDs, the VRA won't be a barrier to the city Detroit getting the proportionate representation that it deserves, instead of the outsized representation that it doesn't.  Suburban interests deserve representation, too.

You still have the packing issue.  I am not sure there is an on point case on this. The precise legal issue is whether minority packing can be deemed legal where the rationale is that it keeps a subdivision whole, in this case Detroit.  In other words, say if Detroit were kept whole, the CBVAP of that CD is 70%, with the adjacent CD 15%, in lieu of say 50% CBVAP and 35%. In the context of a contiguous minority population crossing county or subdivision lines, even though it will entail additional chops, do you need to unpack a CD, in order to create a second adjacent CD with a substantial minority influence, that is the question. Maybe Muon2 has some knowledge on this matter. The law is in flux in this area. That much I know.

For the 2020 census, there probably will be enough contiguous blacks to still have 2 CD's able to elect candidates of their choice, perhaps 45% CBVAP in each CD. In that context, the odds are think are pretty high (at least more likely than not), that the courts will not be happy with a packed CD using the excuse that it keeps Detroit whole. That would certainly be the case, if it were possible to draw two 50% CBVAP CD's, but that will not be the case after the 2020 census. It will be closer to 45% CBVAP for each CD, maybe a tad higher, but not much.

The courts wouldn't just look at Detroit alone, there is also Black populations in places like Pontiac, Southfield, Oak Park, Inkster, River Rouge, etc.   Drawing two 50% BVAP districts in the greater Detroit area will continue to be easy as cake for the long term future.  

No, it's not actually. In fact, based on the 2010 census it is barely possible. Given the declining black population in the minority zone, and the declining Detroit population, along with some black dispersal into areas that are mostly white, by 2020, it might be around 45%-47% BVAP each for two CD's (the higher figure more along the lines of CBVAP), and maybe a bit less, unless you gerrymander to grab the non contiguous black population in Pontiac, which I doubt a court would require, although it would certainly tolerate that.

It is figures that are on the cusp like this, where there is no bright line 50% BVAP figure in play, but probably enough to elect to black congresspersons of the minority's choice, but just how low the figures can go, without putting that in play as well (if the two CD's don't divide the black population evenly, to avoid chops or whatever), that put the whole matter into the twilight zone of current court jurisprudence. Maybe some interesting court cases will ensue, alleging the Goldilocks solution has not been implemented. Then the parties argue what Goldilocks would want. Fun stuff!  Smiley
6  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Michigan: The urban-rural divide writ large on: February 20, 2017, 09:49:17 am
That Detroit gets 2 CDs instead of 1 is my major problem with the Muon2 rules.  If I were to re-write the rules, cities would have to remain intact if their population merits it, and breaking cities up would be considered a macro chop of the first order.  Why?  Keeping cities intact stops the problem in states like Illinois where Chicago has a disproportionate number of seats through bacon strip districts.  With a population of 689,000 Detroit doesn't deserve 2 seats in Congress.

A single district in Detroit would be like ~80% Black.   That wouldn't comply with the VRA.

If/when in the not-so-distant future the BVAP in SE Michigan falls below that which can support two CDs, the VRA won't be a barrier to the city Detroit getting the proportionate representation that it deserves, instead of the outsized representation that it doesn't.  Suburban interests deserve representation, too.

You still have the packing issue.  I am not sure there is an on point case on this. The precise legal issue is whether minority packing can be deemed legal where the rationale is that it keeps a subdivision whole, in this case Detroit.  In other words, say if Detroit were kept whole, the CBVAP of that CD is 70%, with the adjacent CD 15%, in lieu of say 50% CBVAP and 35%. In the context of a contiguous minority population crossing county or subdivision lines, even though it will entail additional chops, do you need to unpack a CD, in order to create a second adjacent CD with a substantial minority influence, that is the question. Maybe Muon2 has some knowledge on this matter. The law is in flux in this area. That much I know.

For the 2020 census, there probably will be enough contiguous blacks to still have 2 CD's able to elect candidates of their choice, perhaps 45% CBVAP in each CD. In that context, the odds are think are pretty high (at least more likely than not), that the courts will not be happy with a packed CD using the excuse that it keeps Detroit whole. That would certainly be the case, if it were possible to draw two 50% CBVAP CD's, but that will not be the case after the 2020 census. It will be closer to 45% CBVAP for each CD, maybe a tad higher, but not much.
7  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: How would you describe the previous poster's ideology? on: February 19, 2017, 06:11:06 pm
Iconoclastic anomie. It often happens around his age for awhile. And then they fall in love. Smiley
8  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Michigan: The urban-rural divide writ large on: February 19, 2017, 06:02:11 pm
"I would shift MI-2 eastward to include all of Saginaw and the thumb. The Michigan and Huron shoreline  are distinct and it is no longer possible to create two districts in Northern Michigan.

'This would mean coming north into Flint rather than west into Ann Arbor to get the extra half a district."

That sounds like you are reverting back to subjective COI criteria.  
Huh

We agree the Detroit UCC has the population for 5.5 districts. What is the difference between adding Genesee or adding Washtenaw, to get to 6?

It gets a lower Muon2 score in all probability. And putting aside that the map will probably have a higher erosity penalty score, and without seeing how it upsets the apple cart elsewhere, particularly with respect to the Lansing metro area, because adding Washtenaw is an exact fit generating no chop, while Genesee is not an exact fit and thus adds a chop, per se out of the box a chop will need to be lost elsewhere to make that up, meaning MI-05 will need to not have a chop, or MI-02 or MI-06 will need to have one less chop.
9  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Should the MSP airport Charles Lindbergh Terminal be renamed? on: February 19, 2017, 03:13:15 pm
This thread is a nice exhibit as to why naming stuff after people is a mistake. But yes, I have a low opinion of Lindbergh.
10  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Michigan: The urban-rural divide writ large on: February 19, 2017, 03:07:30 pm
It's all about chops (including chops of metro areas as defined) and erosity. Nothing else matters much, and if it did along the lines you suggest, we are back into the subjectivity quicksand pit, and the whole exercise falls apart.
11  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Does anybody agree with these moderating decisions? on: February 19, 2017, 02:25:22 pm
Who care if we agree?  Please don't whine here unless you've PM'd the moderators who deleted them first.  Kthxbye.



-Yeah, but how do I know which moderators deleted them first? I'd have done so if I knew.

PM all of the mods on the subject board where you have a beef with the decision. The one who did the deletion should respond. I certainly would if it were me.
12  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Michigan: The urban-rural divide writ large on: February 19, 2017, 02:23:40 pm
"I would shift MI-2 eastward to include all of Saginaw and the thumb. The Michigan and Huron shoreline  are distinct and it is no longer possible to create two districts in Northern Michigan.

'This would mean coming north into Flint rather than west into Ann Arbor to get the extra half a district."

That sounds like you are reverting back to subjective COI criteria. 
13  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Michigan: The urban-rural divide writ large on: February 19, 2017, 01:08:11 pm
That Detroit gets 2 CDs instead of 1 is my major problem with the Muon2 rules.  If I were to re-write the rules, cities would have to remain intact if their population merits it, and breaking cities up would be considered a macro chop of the first order.  Why?  Keeping cities intact stops the problem in states like Illinois where Chicago has a disproportionate number of seats through bacon strip districts.  With a population of 689,000 Detroit doesn't deserve 2 seats in Congress.

Detroit needs to be split to have two CD's that will elect black congresspersons.  After the next census, it is probably true that there are not two CD's out there with 50% BVAP (which would require the chop), but it may be that there are two CD's with 50% CBVAP. In any event, the political reality is that there need to be two black CD's.  Ideally, if more minority CD's are to be drawn than legally required while following the redistricting rules, it should require the consent of both parties. In this instance, such consent would probably be secured, because MI-11 is now a swing CD, and may slide towards a lean Dem CD. So it is not that costly for the Dems to avoid having the black politicians get angry at them.
14  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Michigan: The urban-rural divide writ large on: February 19, 2017, 11:41:16 am

 
 

As some of you know, the Muon2 redistricting rules include a component that rewards drawing districts that are either nested within metro areas, or outside them, rather than including both. For larger metro areas, that metric tends to drive where the lines on the map go.

So, in drawing up Michigan after the 2020 census, putting aside exorcising gerrymandering, the CDís tend to hew more closely to following the urban-rural divide than they do now.  And consequently, the partisan stats of the map below highlights well the urban cosmopolitans going one way, and the rest of the nation going another, at least when it comes to white voters.

The PVI chart below is organized based on the swing to Trump from Romney. Putting aside the Macomb County anomaly (big metro area white voters swinging to Trump to the same degree as their rural and smaller city compatriots), one can see that the swings to Trump that are smallest (or away from him), are within the zone of the big three metro areas (Detroit, Grand Rapids, and Lansing).  Everything outside that zone, swung massively to Trump (plus Macomb County).

As to the partisan effect of this map, as compared to the existing Pub gerrymander, it depends whether you think Trump is the future, Trump is half the future, or Trump is an anomaly, and in due course, his impact on politics will disappear as if he never existed.

If Trump is the future, then the Dems take the hit for the seat Michigan loses (the old MI-09, which disappeared, and is now the number for the old MI-14),  while the GOP drops MI-11 to the Dems, but picks up from them MI-05 (who knew that a Flint-Saginaw based CD would now be a Pub CD?!). 

If the future is Trump lite, with the PVI figures using the Cook method of average the PVIís for the last two election cycles, then each party shares the loss of Michiganís CD, each losing half a seat. MI-04 and 11 go swing from safe Pub (for a net loss of one seat), but for the Pubs MI-05 goes swing from Dem, leaving each party with a half seat loss (the Dems lose MI-09, with MI-05 going swing, but MI-11 and 4 go swing to them in exchange, also netting out to half a seat loss for the Dems). 

If Trump is an anomaly, and a mere vagrant on the waters of the public square, then the map does more what would be expected: the Pubs lose two seats (MI-04 as the Lansing seat is created for the Dems, rather than being gerrymandered away, plus MI-11 as that gerrymandered object d'art is also tossed out), for a net gain of 1 Dem seat as the the old Dem MI-09  disappears from the map.

You choose as to what the future may hold. My guess, is Trump lite, lite, when it comes to more upscale precincts that used to have a Pub lean, and Trump lite for the balance, leaving the Pubs with a true swing seat with MI-11, with MI-04 tilt Dem, but within striking distance, and MI-05 lean Dem (with the incumbent needing to work hard, and have political skill to avoid becoming vulnerable in what is potentially a highly volatile CD now).
15  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of the word "deconstruct" on: February 19, 2017, 08:53:49 am
It sucks.
16  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Are you a fighter for a Judeo-Christian Europe? on: February 19, 2017, 08:46:31 am
Inasmuch as Europe's Christians seem to have largely deemphasized religion in their lives, to the extent it has any role in their lives at all these days (wandering around a host of churches in Rome, even on a Sunday they were largely empty, with sometimes at a service maybe 15 folks in the pews), I interpret this comment as making an ethnic preference inquiry, so the answer is no.

What I do prefer is a skills based approach to immigration, along with letting in folks planning to invest a bunch of money in a business, or to retire, and pay a lot of taxes into the treasury.
17  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: February 2017 Federal Election on: February 19, 2017, 08:32:47 am
President and Vice President:
[1] dfwlibertylover/Goldwater
[3] Winfield/Poirot
[2] Maxwell/smilo
[4] NeverAgain/Southern Gothic

House of Representatives:
[3] Heisenberg
[1] North Carolina Yankee
[4] Potus2036
[2] tedbessell
[5] Enduro
[6] Cashew
[7] 1184AZ
[8] lwp2004
[9] OneJ_
[10] simossad
[11] Peebs
18  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Should illegal immigrants be able to buy guns? on: February 15, 2017, 09:31:42 am
excellent question

Seems to me that if you think they should be able to get driver's licenses and health insurance and what not then you pretty much have to think they should be able to own guns.  If you don't think they should have those things then you have to think they should not be allowed to own guns.  But I could be convinced otherwise by a good argument I think.

Personally I'm torn it, leaning to the "no, they can't" side.  There are very good arguments on both sides.

There are strong policy arguments for illegals having driver's licenses, and certainly health insurance (e.g., infectious disease control), that do not exist when it comes to gun ownership. The best policy argument that I can think of, assuming everybody must register the guns they own (which I strongly favor), is that more guns used in crimes will be traceable than would be the case without gun registration, and that would apply to illegal aliens owning guns as well.

Putting aside their status crime, is there any evidence that illegals are more likely to commit crimes, than those illegally here of similar SES status? I tend to doubt that, but I am curious to know the answer. If not, than that argument would not be as play as much as a policy reason to deny guns to illegals.
19  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / MOVED: Should the House UnAmerican Activities Committee be reinstated? on: February 15, 2017, 06:54:05 am
This topic has been moved to Individual Politics.

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=250194.0
20  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Should the House UnAmerican Activities Committee be reinstated? on: February 15, 2017, 06:53:24 am
BRTD

...

This is f'cking stupid

And you know the House is under Republican control, right?

(And this should be under Individual Politics)

Good idea.
21  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: What's your accent? on: February 15, 2017, 06:19:35 am
While everybody else may have an accent, I don't.
22  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: The Missouri Miracle Ė and a Celebration of the Muon2 Redistricting Rules on: February 15, 2017, 06:17:19 am
I would treat all chops equal. If there are two small counties that have a reservation across the border and they were a CC, then splitting the reservation along the county line would be a chop. keeping the reservation together, but splitting one of the counties would also be a chop. Neither is favored.

OK. Reservations have a higher standing than cities, but OK.

I think a Jackson +KC would be a mess given the shape of KC up north. The more likely split is to put all of the UCC plus the Jackson part of KC in a district, then attach the rest of Jackson to something else. That's not a penalized bridge chop in my current formulation.

I appreciate in this instance, keeping KC together is a no go, but the principle stands. One gets no credit (the preference thing that you reject) for keeping KC together, even if the cost of doing so, swamps the credit. That does not make sense to me. And yes, I agree that counties should have a higher standing than cities, if one must choose.
23  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: The Missouri Miracle Ė and a Celebration of the Muon2 Redistricting Rules on: February 14, 2017, 11:06:49 am
OK, well that does not help where there are overlaps, as with KC, or Indian Reservations, so it is not a universal principle.

Within a MO county there are no overlaps between cities. That's the point of a hierarchy, I don't look at objects outside of a county in dealing with chops. In WA we used municipalities and school districts outside of munis, and together they formed sets that spanned each county. If reservations need a special status the best choice within the system is to create a county cluster that includes the reservation and use the UCC rules with it. It's not unlike the Black Belt cluster we looked at in analyzing maps of AL.

Well we have been around this before, but that does not reward a map that both avoids a county and a reservation chop. In your system, you would ignore the county chop, if there were one. Ditto for a map that manages to both keep KC whole, and Jackson County whole, as opposed to treating a map that chops KC as just as good as one that does not, all other things being equal. It is another example of elegance over, well, what makes sense. Smiley
24  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: The Missouri Miracle Ė and a Celebration of the Muon2 Redistricting Rules on: February 14, 2017, 10:22:36 am
OK, well that does not help where there are overlaps, as with KC, or Indian Reservations, so it is not a universal principle.
25  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: What would a radical Islamist version of BRTD be like? on: February 14, 2017, 09:19:45 am
Senator Scott has some skill at lyrics. Who knew? Well done. Smiley

Now, BRTD, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to try to match your interlocutor's high standards. I know, it will be difficult - very difficult, but hey, not as difficult as converting me to hipster evangelical yet otherwise politically correct Christianity. So perhaps there is some hope for you. Good luck!
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1328


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines