Forum Redistricting Commission

[Sol]

I don't know about you all, but I've been craving some sort of redistricting activity. So I think it would be fun to have some sort of redistricting commission, to act as a sort of model for how these things will work  out in real life.

Like most real-life commissions, we should have a bipartisan balance of Democrats/Left-leaners and Pubbies/Righ-leaners. So maybe four of each?

Also, we'll need criteria to use. I suppose we can decide that together.

What state would be good?

Anyone interested?

Moderator's note: The definitions and criteria adopted by the FRC are in a separate locked thread for easy access.

[Sol]

You might want to include some (genuine) independents as well.  Averroes Nix, Mr. Morden, Mr. Wulfric, among others that haven't immediately come to mind...   

Well, I was suggesting left-leaning/right-leaning to include those folks. But if they wanna come in as independents, they're welcome. Rules ain't strict.

[Sol]

Let me propose the following. A commission of five or seven members is determined by lot from among those interested with no party having a majority. The commission agrees to the criteria and software (presumably DRA) and is in charge of making sure that the criteria are followed. They can also be arbiters of things like VRA compliance. I'd be happy to act as a consultant on measurable criteria, based on the various rubrics we've tested here in the past.

Once the criteria are set for a state then the public (including the commission) can propose maps for the state for a fixed period of time. Proposed maps are posted here so that the public can view all maps, and propose new maps that improve upon existing proposals. At the end of the time period the commission votes from those maps that best meet the criteria. In this way the map is crowdsourced under the auspices of the commission, and everyone gets some say in the process.

As to the state, I would suggest VA since its congressional plan was just struck down by the court, pending appeal.

I think that sounds fine.

[Sol]

Also what preferences does everyone have for states? The biggest question to figure out is the number of districts we want to work with, I think. Which categories in the following tier list are acceptable to y'all? At what point, if any, will the exercise become too big or too small?

Big Four: CA/TX/FL/NY
Large States: IL/PA/OH/MI/GA/NC
Medium States: NJ/VA/WA/AZ/IN/TN/MA
Small States: MD/WI/MO/MN/AL/SC/CO
Tiny States: KY/LA/CT/OK/OR
Simple States: the rest (four districts or less)

I would prefer to avoid the Big Four (Otherwise known as the computer crashers).

Of the large states, IL, PA, OH, MI can also slow down stuff (this is less of a problem in NC/GA due to smaller precinct sizes).

If people want a state with a sort of large, densely populated 'metro' feeling like NY or CA, may I suggest NJ? It has a lot of districts and tends to feel larger when one draws it.

[Sol]

Interested in being a lobbyist of some sort too. And I say Wisconsin.

[Sol]

As an interest group representative from the Shenandoah Valley, I would like to express my opinion of the various preceding maps.

AngryGreatness: Excellent! Your teal district keeps the Shenandoah Valley whole and together, and it will surely elect a true local representative. Someone from the Roanoke metro may not like it as much, however.

Miles: I can't see yours because of school blocks.

Jimrtex: Your plan slices and dices the natural community of interest in NW Virginia. It is unacceptable.

[Sol]

Going off of train's map. Hampton Roads and Nova doesn't matter--what I'm focusing on is the center/Richmond.