US House Redistricting: Michigan

[BigSkyBob]

Why wouldn't 6-6-2 be fair (at least from a Republican perspective, not that they would have any interest in that) in a Gore-Kerry-Obama state like Michigan?

Michigan, like much of the rest of the country, has a natural Republican redistricting advantage. The Democrats are concentrated in a few strongholds, such as Detroit, while the vast majority of the people of the state live in areas in which Republican fair better in the typical election than Democrats.

The other reality is that the GOP, currently, won all the swing seats but one, Peters' seat. So, if the current map was something like 5-5-5, the reasonable outcome would be 8-5-toss-up Republican until the next "wave" election.

[BigSkyBob]

5 safe Democratic districts (pink, red, brown, sky blue, yellow), 5 safe Republican districts (teal, green, purple, magenta, light green), 4 swing districts (grey, blue, both light purple districts). County splits are minimized, municipalities are kept intact (except for Detroit, obviously). The only district I'm not really happy with is the grey one, but it's hard to put those counties south of Detroit anywhere logical.

It is a decent example of how to make reasonable choices that favor the Democrats [The finger into central Michigan by the UP district seems tortured, for instance].

[BigSkyBob]

And while it might look in anything but the current setup that Livingston County is getting screwed over, it's entirely unfair when you consider that Livingston isn't just Detroit exurbia, there's no doubt plenty of people who commute from there to Lansing, Flint or Ann Arbor. So it's not quite removal of a "community of interest" to put it in with the latter two. In fact probably the main reason it's so Republican is it ends up as a sort of refuge for Republicans who don't want to live in Lansing, Flint, Ann Arbor but connected to there and don't want to have to commute from the Detroit suburbs.

So if you want to argue Livingston belongs with Lansing, it's possible to keep that triangle of counties that constitute the Lansing area intact, put on Livingston, and fill the remainder with part of Shiawassee County and get an almost pure toss up swing district.

Or, fill it up with Northern Oakland County with its mix of Detroit, Pontiac[?] and Flint commuters, and, you have a district with a Republican tilt.

[BigSkyBob]

How does putting Lansing in with Detroit exurbs make sense for any reason beyond purely partisan ones?

Well, it doesn't fit anywhere else.  Grand Rapids to the West, the Tri-cities/Flint to the North East, and South-central MI to the South.  Each of those areas has its own district that is a pretty good COI, so Lansing gets shafted and shoved with the extra Detroit Burbs.  Its of course drawn in a way to make it an R seat, but its not like they're just trying to spite the city.

Ummm... No? You're being a partisan hack? The Lansing metro (Ingham, Eaton, Shiawassee, Clinton) is much, much clearer community of interest than "random small cities plus parts of Lansing and some suburbs" that MI-07 consists of.

No---Try it.  The way Michigan is drawn demographically, someone has to get screwed---Republicans draw the map so Republicans screw the easiest (and Safest) section.

Take a look at BRTD's map if you want to see what i mean.  Creating a Lansing-district screws over a bunch of other people by sucking up all the extra central MI population.  Its not like Putting Lansing with Livingston is any less odd than putting Livingston with Flint and Suburban Macomb with Bay City.

You don't have to screw either. Yes, BRTD's map is equally illogical, but that does not mean there are not logical maps that can be drawn.

One Lansing area seat (the four counties plus Jackson and a couple of towns in other counties), one Livingston and outer Oakland seat (plus a bit of suburban Wayne), one Ann Arbor, suburban Wayne and Monroe seat, two Wayne black seats, two suburban Oakland-Macomb seats, one exurban Macomb and mitten-thumb seat, one Flint-Saginaw seat, one Bay City and rural areas seat, one Kalamazoo/Battle Creek/southern tier seat, one Lake Michigan coast seat (Benton Harbor-Holland-Muskegon), one Grand Rapids seat and one north-and-UP seat. It all works out nicely.

...if you are a Democrat. You have split the Democratic areas of Michigan so that Democratic areas are in the sweat spot of neither being packed or cracked [except, of course, the VRA seats in Detroit.] In do so, you are assuring that most of the Republican areas are either cracked or packed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

That map seems to make a lot of sense, Verily, though I'd want to see the Detroit-area districts a little closer.

It makes sense if you are a Democrat since it restructures the outstate districts to eliminate a Republican seat in Western Michigan and replace it with a Democratic seat in Central Michigan.

It then maintains a 5-1_1/2 seat of seats in metro Detroit by created an outersuburban pack district to dump as many Republicans as possible. That might make sense to a Democrat.

It fails to cross Eightmile right to add Blacks to the two Detroit districts because they are underpopulated. Drawing districts that are 51% Black rather than 54%/56% might make sense if you are Democrat.


Crossing the Macomb/Oakland county line three times might make sense if you are a Democrat, but, it isn't within the rules.

[BigSkyBob]

That map seems to make a lot of sense, Verily, though I'd want to see the Detroit-area districts a little closer.

It makes sense if you are a Democrat since it restructures the outstate districts to eliminate a Republican seat in Western Michigan and replace it with a Democratic seat in Central Michigan.

Gee, you mean a non-partisanly drawn map gives more Democrat seats than a Republican gerrymander? What a shocker!

His original suggestion constituted the best Democratic arrangement of districts given the constraint that the GOP holds all the outstate seats except the Fifth. So yes, the Democratic partisan map yeilds more Democratic seats than the new map.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just like the Detroit districts are Dem pack seat? It does make sense to draw a district reflecting a community of interest in the outer suburbs that contains a lot of Republicans. [/quote]

Certainly, if you follow that logic, it would make even more sense to draw two outersurburban districts that ring the metro area, rather than one outersuburban district in outer Northwestern outskirts of Detroit. The decision to create only one outer suburban [Republican dumping district] can't be justified rationally.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your theory doesn't make any sense. Either you partition the state along the lines of the current California map, or else, you have districts with a blending of some Republican areas and some Democratic areas. Claiming that Democratic areas are "screwed" if they are outvoted by the Republican areas is claiming that Democrats are entitled to be on the winning side of elections. That entitlement exists only in your imagination.


The basic fact is that Democrats linked Livingston with Lansing, and Pontiac  when the folks in Lansing and Pontiac outvoted ["screwed"] the folks in Livingston. The suburban areas started to grow, and they voted Republican. Now, you are bitching about the justice of linking Lansing with Livingston. Where were you a couple of decades ago?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...and are just as likely to elect blacks. And this would make sense to people of all political stripes when the intention is obvious to preserve county lines. [/quote]


Lowering the Black percentage is lowering the probabiity that a Black wins the seat, and, certainly the probablity that that Black nominee was the prefered candidate of the majority Blacks in the primary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which proves the rules aren't exactly as well-written to prevent gerrymandering as they seem to be thought. Not to mention those splits don't really help the Democrats anymore than just drawing districts within the counties do.
[/quote]

Oh, yes they are. For instance, the GOP could have placed the city of Midland in the Fifth, further stengthening the Fourth.

[BigSkyBob]

And a zoomed in view of the Metro-Detroit area:

What on earth is going on with the 13th?  From Southfield to west Detroit and Inkster, but then bypassing Farmington Hills, Romulus and Westland to drop all the way down to Grosse Ile and northeast Monroe County?!

I'm sure the contest defined the "winner" as the map with the shortest net boundries, or such.

[BigSkyBob]

I'd like to see krazen or BigSkyBob draw a map as to what they'd consider "fair", but they'll probably just argue that the current disgusting GOP gerrymander is a fair map.

The notion that there is one objectively "fair" way to redistrict is there with Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and Bigfoot. The key difference is logic can disprove the existence of "fair redistricting," but, science can only note that no specimens of Yeti have ever been discovered. Redistricting is an inherently political process.

To repeat what I wrote dozens of times,  redistricting involves choices some of which are reasonable, and others that are egregious. In redistricting Michigan, given the current set of incumbents, maps can be drawn that make reasonable choices that result in wildly different outcomes. The winner of the contest made reasonable choices that favored the Democrats and resulted in the highest number of expected Democrats to be elected, and the Republican legislature made another series of reasonable choices that will result in the maximum number of Republicans being elected. No doubt there are reasonable maps that have results that are in between.

I haven't insulted anyone intelligence by writing maps that favor my preferred candidates while trying to pass them off as being the One and True Way to "fairly"  redistrict Michigan.

[BigSkyBob]

Of course it is a valid choice. The major highways such as I-96 run east-west, and the historical nature of the link sets precedent for it to be maintained. Partisanship is an obvious excuse as the seat has been held by a Democrat in recent years.

The point is that Livingston County has far more in common with points east than with points west, north, or south.

That is a point you wish to make. The question is how much importance should one place on your point. The answer seems to be, "Not much!"

Historically, Democratic legislators linked Livingston County with Lansing. This linking was perfectly acceptable to Democrats when Lansing and Pontiac outvoted Livingston. Population growth in Livingston changed that equation, and, now, Democrats want to reconsider their previous pairing. Too bad!

The reality is that Michigan doesn't consist of fifteen distinct "communities of interest" that are equally populated. Nor, does it consist of fourteen such equally populated districts, today. The reality is that redistricting will create districts that contain districts that include parts of more that one COI and/or cross lines of COI, whatever your alleged COI map of Michigan is.

The reality is that COI is a highly subjective term that is ripe for abuse. The reality is that the county next to yours is more likely to be similiar than a county two away. It isn't a neet little map with well defined lines. It is a gradiate.

It is particularly egregious that you are trying to split a city from a county that includes its suburbs for reasons of "COI." That's outright ridiculous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The topic is "Michigan Congressional redistricting" no matter how much you may wish to restrict the conversation to a particular topic that you subjectively consider the most favorable to your position.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

Of course it is a valid choice. The major highways such as I-96 run east-west, and the historical nature of the link sets precedent for it to be maintained. Partisanship is an obvious excuse as the seat has been held by a Democrat in recent years.

The point is that Livingston County has far more in common with points east than with points west, north, or south. To create a Livingston-based district with the best possible community of interest would require the district to pick up portions of Oakland County.

Ingham County also has far more in common with the rest of its Metropolitan area (Eaton, Clinton Counties, possibly Shiawassee) than it does with Livingston County. To create a Lansing-based district with the best possible community of interest would require Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton to be in the same district, and that Livingston County be excluded from that district.

For the billionth time, this is not a matter of partisanship. The discussion is on creating a map that best preserves communities of interest. The only partisanship involved is when your side hails a blatant Republican gerrymander as God's gift to redistricting, and then denounces a map that preserves communities of interest as a Democratic gerrymander.

It is a very natural extension of the Michigan transit corridors. The Stabenow district used to extend into Gennessee County. To protect the integrity of the Flint district, Michigan mappers properly removed the 8th from Gennessee altogether and added Clinton County.

Any natural Michigan mapping scheme will begin in the Detroit Region, and after the Detroit 2 and Oakland 2 districts are drawn, only limited population remained in Oakland County, and Livingston County. The natural extension from here based on television and transit corridors is of course west.

Is your map a legit community of interest as it swoops and swerves across numerous counties to rack up far away GOP voters? Of course not! To drive from Howell to Port Huron along the fastest route you would cross through a whopping 4 other Congressional districts before reaching your destination on the far other side of the district.

The other proposed maps have the same types of choices, such as uncompacting the square shaped 6th district to add Battle Creek. The Judge-written Apol standards were written as such knowing that some would tend to abuse curious 'community of interests' ideas and thus instead adhered to defined geographical boundaries. They were not considered 'unfair' until 1 party started losing.

Geographical boundries are fixed. Notions of "communities of interests" are highly subjective and subject to abuse. Excellent observation!

[BigSkyBob]

There is no question Michigan's current map is gerrymandered. Under the 1990s plan, Gore won 9 CD's to Bush's 7. Under the 2000s plan, Gore would have won 5 CD's to Bush's 10.

Anyone have the Kerry-Bush numbers for the new CD's? Obama-McCain isn't really a good measure in Michigan.

Alternately, those same facts suggest that the apportionment in the 1990's was gerrymandered to favor the Democrats, while the current map accurately reflects the fact that most of Michigan leans slightly Republican.

[BigSkyBob]

There is no question Michigan's current map is gerrymandered. Under the 1990s plan, Gore won 9 CD's to Bush's 7. Under the 2000s plan, Gore would have won 5 CD's to Bush's 10.

Anyone have the Kerry-Bush numbers for the new CD's? Obama-McCain isn't really a good measure in Michigan.

Alternately, those same facts suggest that the apportionment in the 1990's was gerrymandered to favor the Democrats, while the current map accurately reflects the fact that most of Michigan leans slightly Republican.

Yes, the Republican-controlled Senate and John Engler gerrymandered in favor of the Democrats...

And until 2010, the state didn't really lean Republican.  We elect Republicans to some offices, but as a whole, the state tends to lean Democratic.  This does change from district to district though.

Again, my claim isn't that Michigan, as a whole, leans Republican. The claim I made is that Michigan consists of the few areas with heavy concentration of Democrats, and the rest that leans Republican. That is, Democrats are "packed," while Republicans aren't.

[BigSkyBob]

Of course it is a valid choice. The major highways such as I-96 run east-west, and the historical nature of the link sets precedent for it to be maintained. Partisanship is an obvious excuse as the seat has been held by a Democrat in recent years.

The point is that Livingston County has far more in common with points east than with points west, north, or south. To create a Livingston-based district with the best possible community of interest would require the district to pick up portions of Oakland County.

Ingham County also has far more in common with the rest of its Metropolitan area (Eaton, Clinton Counties, possibly Shiawassee) than it does with Livingston County. To create a Lansing-based district with the best possible community of interest would require Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton to be in the same district, and that Livingston County be excluded from that district.

For the billionth time, this is not a matter of partisanship. The discussion is on creating a map that best preserves communities of interest. The only partisanship involved is when your side hails a blatant Republican gerrymander as God's gift to redistricting, and then denounces a map that preserves communities of interest as a Democratic gerrymander.

It is a very natural extension of the Michigan transit corridors. The Stabenow district used to extend into Gennessee County. To protect the integrity of the Flint district, Michigan mappers properly removed the 8th from Gennessee altogether and added Clinton County.

Any natural Michigan mapping scheme will begin in the Detroit Region, and after the Detroit 2 and Oakland 2 districts are drawn, only limited population remained in Oakland County, and Livingston County. The natural extension from here based on television and transit corridors is of course west.

Is your map a legit community of interest as it swoops and swerves across numerous counties to rack up far away GOP voters? Of course not! To drive from Howell to Port Huron along the fastest route you would cross through a whopping 4 other Congressional districts before reaching your destination on the far other side of the district.

The other proposed maps have the same types of choices, such as uncompacting the square shaped 6th district to add Battle Creek. The Judge-written Apol standards were written as such knowing that some would tend to abuse curious 'community of interests' ideas and thus instead adhered to defined geographical boundaries. They were not considered 'unfair' until 1 party started losing.

Geographical boundries are fixed. Notions of "communities of interests" are highly subjective and subject to abuse. Excellent observation!

Apperently, I am being accused of inconsistency between this statement, and, my statement, that in practise, while discussing redistricting a "community of interest" is "an area that would benefit me to consolidate!"