Nonpartisan Campaign Seeks to Reform Illinois Redistricting

[krazen1211]

http://gapersblock.com/mechanics/2013/07/10/nonpartisan-campaign-seeks-to-reform-illinois-redistricting/


A coalition of groups throughout the state has announced the creation of the campaign Yes for Independent Maps. Yes for Independent Maps seeks to reform the legislative redistricting process in Illinois through a ballot initiative.




Looks like they are trying to pull an Ohio.

[Torie]

I suspect Muon2's fingerprints are all over this puppy behind the curtain. He is not focused like a laser beam on his little redistricting algorithms as a mere hobby. Now if I can just get him to put erosity issues at the top of the list, life would be beautiful. And I hereby give him permission to use my beautiful non partisan Illinois map as to what might have been in a world without partisan hacks at the wheel, for agitprop purposes.

[krazen1211]

I suspect Muon2's fingerprints are all over this puppy behind the curtain. He is not focused like a laser beam on his little redistricting algorithms as a mere hobby. Now if I can just get him to put erosity issues at the top of the list, life would be beautiful. And I hereby give him permission to use my beautiful non partisan Illinois map as to what might have been in a world without partisan hacks at the wheel, for agitprop purposes.

Doesn't he have a safe house district for himself?

[Torie]

I suspect Muon2's fingerprints are all over this puppy behind the curtain. He is not focused like a laser beam on his little redistricting algorithms as a mere hobby. Now if I can just get him to put erosity issues at the top of the list, life would be beautiful. And I hereby give him permission to use my beautiful non partisan Illinois map as to what might have been in a world without partisan hacks at the wheel, for agitprop purposes.

Doesn't he have a safe house district for himself?

Sure, but Muon2 is serving to accomplish goals that serve the public interest. That is the correct reason to be in politics, as opposed to just focusing on securing one's political career as a sinecure. The end game here is to create a national uniform model code for redistricting. The trick is to get a state to sign on, and then push to metastasize it across the Fruited Plain.

[ilikeverin]

I suspect Muon2's fingerprints are all over this puppy behind the curtain. He is not focused like a laser beam on his little redistricting algorithms as a mere hobby. Now if I can just get him to put erosity issues at the top of the list, life would be beautiful. And I hereby give him permission to use my beautiful non partisan Illinois map as to what might have been in a world without partisan hacks at the wheel, for agitprop purposes.

Doesn't he have a safe house district for himself?

Sure, but Muon2 is serving to accomplish goals that serve the public interest. That is the correct reason to be in politics, as opposed to just focusing on securing one's political career as a sinecure. The end game here is to create a national uniform model code for redistricting. The trick is to get a state to sign on, and then push to metastasize it across the Fruited Plain.

Certainly a tenure-track professor has very little reason to want to be a politician for job security

[muon2]

I suspect Muon2's fingerprints are all over this puppy behind the curtain. He is not focused like a laser beam on his little redistricting algorithms as a mere hobby. Now if I can just get him to put erosity issues at the top of the list, life would be beautiful. And I hereby give him permission to use my beautiful non partisan Illinois map as to what might have been in a world without partisan hacks at the wheel, for agitprop purposes.

Doesn't he have a safe house district for himself?

Sure, but Muon2 is serving to accomplish goals that serve the public interest. That is the correct reason to be in politics, as opposed to just focusing on securing one's political career as a sinecure. The end game here is to create a national uniform model code for redistricting. The trick is to get a state to sign on, and then push to metastasize it across the Fruited Plain.

Certainly a tenured-track professor has very little reason to want to be a politician for job security

[ilikeverin]

I suspect Muon2's fingerprints are all over this puppy behind the curtain. He is not focused like a laser beam on his little redistricting algorithms as a mere hobby. Now if I can just get him to put erosity issues at the top of the list, life would be beautiful. And I hereby give him permission to use my beautiful non partisan Illinois map as to what might have been in a world without partisan hacks at the wheel, for agitprop purposes.

Doesn't he have a safe house district for himself?

Sure, but Muon2 is serving to accomplish goals that serve the public interest. That is the correct reason to be in politics, as opposed to just focusing on securing one's political career as a sinecure. The end game here is to create a national uniform model code for redistricting. The trick is to get a state to sign on, and then push to metastasize it across the Fruited Plain.

Certainly a tenured-track professor has very little reason to want to be a politician for job security

Beg pardon!  I knew I should've looked it up before I said for sure. *hughughug*

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I hope it is successful.

The link doesn't appear to be working.

[muon2]

I hope it is successful.

The link doesn't appear to be working.

This is the direct link to the organization.

[Sol]

I hope this works out!

[traininthedistance]

I suspect Muon2's fingerprints are all over this puppy behind the curtain. He is not focused like a laser beam on his little redistricting algorithms as a mere hobby. Now if I can just get him to put erosity issues at the top of the list, life would be beautiful. And I hereby give him permission to use my beautiful non partisan Illinois map as to what might have been in a world without partisan hacks at the wheel, for agitprop purposes.

If I am reading this map right, the Democrats would have to win in Illinois by a statewide margin of thirteen points to merely take half the seats.  If they win statewide by anything less, the Republicans get a majority of the seats.

I am sorry, but that is quite definitionally unfair.  Whichever party gets more votes should be expected to have more seats, full stop- anything else ought to be unacceptable.  (Yes, I know, Arizona.  That map was obviously quite unfair in "our" favor.  I'm happy to admit as such.)

This is why I've come to the conclusion that the entire concept of single-member, FPTP geographic constituencies are fatally flawed in how they discriminate against urban areas and packed population, and that PR is the only truly equitable method (presumably with multi-member constituencies if you want to maintain some sense of local interest).

[Torie]

In an even election nationally, the Dems all things being equal, would have to win Illinois by about 55% to get half the seats (Obama with 63%+ in Illinois of the two party vote in 2008, less the 7.7% adjustment factor for Obama winning the nation by 3.7%, plus the 4% favorite son factor). That is what PVI means. And in 2008, that would mean given the favorite son factor (and assuming it went down ballot), that the Dems would have won all those marginal seats all things being equal, leaving the Pubs with but 4 seats out of 18.

But yes, the Pubs have a built in advantage - perhaps about 20 seats nationwide due to the Dems being packed in inner cities, plus the VRA that keeps them packed (perhaps a 1.5% advantage in raw percentage vote). But as you can see if the Chicago burbs trend much more Dem, a host of seats will slip into the Dem column - and they are trending Dem. If that happens, the Pubs will get less than their share of seats, ala Massachussets. So is the cup half full, or half empty?  Also, the adjustment factor for the Obama favorite son phenomenon, is guesswork. It might be 3 points rather than 4. Or it might be 5 points.

[traininthedistance]

In an even election nationally, the Dems all things being equal, would have to win Illinois by about 55% to get half the seats (Obama with 63%+ in Illinois of the two party vote in 2008, less the 7.7% adjustment factor for Obama winning the nation by 3.7%, plus the 4% favorite son factor). That is what PVI means. And in 2008, that would mean given the favorite son factor (and assuming it went down ballot), that the Dems would have won all those marginal seats all things being equal, leaving the Pubs with but 4 seats out of 18.

But yes, the Pubs have a built in advantage - perhaps about 20 seats nationwide due to the Dems being packed in inner cities, plus the VRA that keeps them packed (perhaps a 1.5% advantage in raw percentage vote). But as you can see if the Chicago burbs trend much more Dem, a host of seats will slip into the Dem column - and they are trending Dem. If that happens, the Pubs will get less than their share of seats, ala Massachussets. So is the cup half full, or half empty?  Also, the adjustment factor for the Obama favorite son phenomenon, is guesswork. It might be 3 points rather than 4. Or it might be 5 points.

Massachusetts is an anomaly, of course.  Not the only anomaly, of course- the entirety of New England works much the same way, save the Boston exurbs in southern NH, and it seems like New Mexico is laid out pretty well for the Dems, as well.  But it is an anomaly all the same.  For every Massachusetts, there are three or four Marylands.

I would think that a "fair" distribution of seats given geographic constituencies (i.e. not pure, nationwide PR) would probably be best modeled as a logistic function- i.e. a 50/50 electorate should produce 50/50 seats, but a 55/45 state should return somewhat more than 55 percent of the seats for the dominant party, and once one party is pushing 65 or 70 percent, then a clean sweep is entirely reasonable. 

[krazen1211]

California Democrats also claim a disproportionate number of seats. Nobody is complaining. Go figure.

[Хahar 🤔]

Last year Democrats won 68.75% of seats in the California State Assembly on 58.46% of the vote. There's no real way to draw a fair map that would provide a party winning that much of the vote a substantially smaller number of seats than that.

[krazen1211]

Last year Democrats won 68.75% of seats in the California State Assembly on 58.46% of the vote. There's no real way to draw a fair map that would provide a party winning that much of the vote a substantially smaller number of seats than that.

They also claim 71% of Congressional districts. Texas Republicans of course claim only 66% of the districts with 58% of the vote, and that is with Sam Johnson getting 0 votes reported to the AP.

Such is the silliness with whining about so called unfairness.

[muon2]

In an even election nationally, the Dems all things being equal, would have to win Illinois by about 55% to get half the seats (Obama with 63%+ in Illinois of the two party vote in 2008, less the 7.7% adjustment factor for Obama winning the nation by 3.7%, plus the 4% favorite son factor). That is what PVI means. And in 2008, that would mean given the favorite son factor (and assuming it went down ballot), that the Dems would have won all those marginal seats all things being equal, leaving the Pubs with but 4 seats out of 18.

But yes, the Pubs have a built in advantage - perhaps about 20 seats nationwide due to the Dems being packed in inner cities, plus the VRA that keeps them packed (perhaps a 1.5% advantage in raw percentage vote). But as you can see if the Chicago burbs trend much more Dem, a host of seats will slip into the Dem column - and they are trending Dem. If that happens, the Pubs will get less than their share of seats, ala Massachussets. So is the cup half full, or half empty?  Also, the adjustment factor for the Obama favorite son phenomenon, is guesswork. It might be 3 points rather than 4. Or it might be 5 points.

Massachusetts is an anomaly, of course.  Not the only anomaly, of course- the entirety of New England works much the same way, save the Boston exurbs in southern NH, and it seems like New Mexico is laid out pretty well for the Dems, as well.  But it is an anomaly all the same.  For every Massachusetts, there are three or four Marylands.

I would think that a "fair" distribution of seats given geographic constituencies (i.e. not pure, nationwide PR) would probably be best modeled as a logistic function- i.e. a 50/50 electorate should produce 50/50 seats, but a 55/45 state should return somewhat more than 55 percent of the seats for the dominant party, and once one party is pushing 65 or 70 percent, then a clean sweep is entirely reasonable. 

The rough rule of thumb is that a 1% swing in vote should produce a 2% swing in the outcome for seats. That assume the kind of lumpy distribution of voters seen in most states, and not the relatively smooth spread in MA.

Last year Democrats won 68.75% of seats in the California State Assembly on 58.46% of the vote. There's no real way to draw a fair map that would provide a party winning that much of the vote a substantially smaller number of seats than that.

They also claim 71% of Congressional districts. Texas Republicans of course claim only 66% of the districts with 58% of the vote, and that is with Sam Johnson getting 0 votes reported to the AP.

Such is the silliness with whining about so called unfairness.

The CA vote at 58.5% D would forecast a 67% hold on seats if the map was 50-50 for an even split of the votes. The assembly and congressional results are fairly consistent with the 2% for 1% rule of thumb.

[krazen1211]

In an even election nationally, the Dems all things being equal, would have to win Illinois by about 55% to get half the seats (Obama with 63%+ in Illinois of the two party vote in 2008, less the 7.7% adjustment factor for Obama winning the nation by 3.7%, plus the 4% favorite son factor). That is what PVI means. And in 2008, that would mean given the favorite son factor (and assuming it went down ballot), that the Dems would have won all those marginal seats all things being equal, leaving the Pubs with but 4 seats out of 18.

But yes, the Pubs have a built in advantage - perhaps about 20 seats nationwide due to the Dems being packed in inner cities, plus the VRA that keeps them packed (perhaps a 1.5% advantage in raw percentage vote). But as you can see if the Chicago burbs trend much more Dem, a host of seats will slip into the Dem column - and they are trending Dem. If that happens, the Pubs will get less than their share of seats, ala Massachussets. So is the cup half full, or half empty?  Also, the adjustment factor for the Obama favorite son phenomenon, is guesswork. It might be 3 points rather than 4. Or it might be 5 points.

Massachusetts is an anomaly, of course.  Not the only anomaly, of course- the entirety of New England works much the same way, save the Boston exurbs in southern NH, and it seems like New Mexico is laid out pretty well for the Dems, as well.  But it is an anomaly all the same.  For every Massachusetts, there are three or four Marylands.

I would think that a "fair" distribution of seats given geographic constituencies (i.e. not pure, nationwide PR) would probably be best modeled as a logistic function- i.e. a 50/50 electorate should produce 50/50 seats, but a 55/45 state should return somewhat more than 55 percent of the seats for the dominant party, and once one party is pushing 65 or 70 percent, then a clean sweep is entirely reasonable. 

The rough rule of thumb is that a 1% swing in vote should produce a 2% swing in the outcome for seats. That assume the kind of lumpy distribution of voters seen in most states, and not the relatively smooth spread in MA.

Last year Democrats won 68.75% of seats in the California State Assembly on 58.46% of the vote. There's no real way to draw a fair map that would provide a party winning that much of the vote a substantially smaller number of seats than that.

They also claim 71% of Congressional districts. Texas Republicans of course claim only 66% of the districts with 58% of the vote, and that is with Sam Johnson getting 0 votes reported to the AP.

Such is the silliness with whining about so called unfairness.

The CA vote at 58.5% D would forecast a 67% hold on seats if the map was 50-50 for an even split of the votes. The assembly and congressional results are fairly consistent with the 2% for 1% rule of thumb.

Well, they have 71% now, and 74% once they win the fluke CA-31. That is effectively 3 extra seats, due to a combination of a favorable geographical layout and a favorable redistricting map.

[muon2]

In an even election nationally, the Dems all things being equal, would have to win Illinois by about 55% to get half the seats (Obama with 63%+ in Illinois of the two party vote in 2008, less the 7.7% adjustment factor for Obama winning the nation by 3.7%, plus the 4% favorite son factor). That is what PVI means. And in 2008, that would mean given the favorite son factor (and assuming it went down ballot), that the Dems would have won all those marginal seats all things being equal, leaving the Pubs with but 4 seats out of 18.

But yes, the Pubs have a built in advantage - perhaps about 20 seats nationwide due to the Dems being packed in inner cities, plus the VRA that keeps them packed (perhaps a 1.5% advantage in raw percentage vote). But as you can see if the Chicago burbs trend much more Dem, a host of seats will slip into the Dem column - and they are trending Dem. If that happens, the Pubs will get less than their share of seats, ala Massachussets. So is the cup half full, or half empty?  Also, the adjustment factor for the Obama favorite son phenomenon, is guesswork. It might be 3 points rather than 4. Or it might be 5 points.

Massachusetts is an anomaly, of course.  Not the only anomaly, of course- the entirety of New England works much the same way, save the Boston exurbs in southern NH, and it seems like New Mexico is laid out pretty well for the Dems, as well.  But it is an anomaly all the same.  For every Massachusetts, there are three or four Marylands.

I would think that a "fair" distribution of seats given geographic constituencies (i.e. not pure, nationwide PR) would probably be best modeled as a logistic function- i.e. a 50/50 electorate should produce 50/50 seats, but a 55/45 state should return somewhat more than 55 percent of the seats for the dominant party, and once one party is pushing 65 or 70 percent, then a clean sweep is entirely reasonable. 

The rough rule of thumb is that a 1% swing in vote should produce a 2% swing in the outcome for seats. That assume the kind of lumpy distribution of voters seen in most states, and not the relatively smooth spread in MA.

Last year Democrats won 68.75% of seats in the California State Assembly on 58.46% of the vote. There's no real way to draw a fair map that would provide a party winning that much of the vote a substantially smaller number of seats than that.

They also claim 71% of Congressional districts. Texas Republicans of course claim only 66% of the districts with 58% of the vote, and that is with Sam Johnson getting 0 votes reported to the AP.

Such is the silliness with whining about so called unfairness.

The CA vote at 58.5% D would forecast a 67% hold on seats if the map was 50-50 for an even split of the votes. The assembly and congressional results are fairly consistent with the 2% for 1% rule of thumb.

Well, they have 71% now, and 74% once they win the fluke CA-31. That is effectively 3 extra seats, due to a combination of a favorable geographical layout and a favorable redistricting map.

The average deviation on their expected 35 seats out of 53 is about 3 seats, so the 74% result is just outside that range, and certainly well within statistical likelihood. It would be hard to prove a bias with that result.

[jimrtex]

I suspect Muon2's fingerprints are all over this puppy behind the curtain. He is not focused like a laser beam on his little redistricting algorithms as a mere hobby. Now if I can just get him to put erosity issues at the top of the list, life would be beautiful. And I hereby give him permission to use my beautiful non partisan Illinois map as to what might have been in a world without partisan hacks at the wheel, for agitprop purposes.

Compactness is not one of the criteria.

The criteria are:

(0) substantial population equality;
(1) the district plan shall not dilute or diminish the ability of a racial or language minority community to elect the candidates of its choice, including when voting in concert with other persons;
(2) districts shall respect the geographic integrity of units of local government;
(3) districts shall respect the geographic integrity of communities sharing common social and economic interests, which do not include relationships with political parties or candidates for office; and
(4) the district plan shall not either purposefully or significantly discriminate against or favor any political party or group.

The criteria are sufficiently in conflict and ambiguous to ensure that the plan will end up being reviewed, and possibly revised by the courts.  The purpose for transparency is simply to build a record for the plaintiffs; and to serve as a mechanism to coerce the commissions decisions.

The selection method could produce a situation like in Arizona.  Illinois does not register by party.  A voter may affiliate with a party at the primary.  Is an unaffiliated voter someone who doesn't vote in primaries, or someone who claims to pick based on the particular races in play each year.

[Green Line]

Hopefully this passes! Bobby Rush does a poor job representing the southwest suburbs, he doesnt care at all.

[barfbag]

Last year Democrats won 68.75% of seats in the California State Assembly on 58.46% of the vote. There's no real way to draw a fair map that would provide a party winning that much of the vote a substantially smaller number of seats than that.

Good luck to Illinois. It would be nice to see something non-partisan, but I've never heard of a non-partisan redistricting.

[muon2]

Hopefully this passes! Bobby Rush does a poor job representing the southwest suburbs, he doesnt care at all.

The proposal is a constitutional amendment that would only affect the state legislature. Congressional map drawing is not covered in the constitution and is handled directly by the legislature.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Is there a way to add it to the Constitution without going through the legislature?

[muon2]

Is there a way to add it to the Constitution without going through the legislature?

No. Public initiatives to amend the IL constitution can only affect the legislative article of constitution, and then it must affect both structural and procedural aspects of the legislature.