Gerrymandering is not what's wrong with American politics

[DrScholl]

Republicans called California's map biased, but that suit went nowhere, because the map pretty much was what you get when you follow existing geographic lines, save for what VRA requires. As far as Ohio goes, it's pretty difficult to create a safe Republican map without taking partisanship into consideration. Let's not ignore the fact that the current map was drawn to favor Republicans, with great detail to assuring the safety of every single incumbent Republican (except for one who had a seat eliminated).

[Хahar 🤔]

With a fair map in place, I think Ohio would actually favour the Democrats.

favor

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

With a fair map in place, I think Ohio would actually favour the Democrats.

favor

nobody cares.

[muon2]

Republicans called California's map biased, but that suit went nowhere, because the map pretty much was what you get when you follow existing geographic lines, save for what VRA requires. As far as Ohio goes, it's pretty difficult to create a safe Republican map without taking partisanship into consideration. Let's not ignore the fact that the current map was drawn to favor Republicans, with great detail to assuring the safety of every single incumbent Republican (except for one who had a seat eliminated).

Speaking as someone who spent a lot of time trying to draw a balanced map in OH, I can say that it is doable, but it isn't easy. The overall state numbers may be even, but subtracting a black VRA CD in Cuyahoga leaves a big surplus of Pubs for the other 15 CDs. Those Pubs have to be carefully packed in relatively few districts (I used four). Here's an example that is balanced, highly competitive and designed for exact population equality.

[politicallefty]

Why should there be a district between Toledo and Cleveland?   And why should you divide the eastern and southeastern suburbs of Cleveland between an Akron-based district and Youngstown-based district?  And why should Cleveland be divided?

My thoughts aren't terribly different from muon's and his Ohio map. I've also drawn the state several times and I really liked the map I came up with about two and a half years ago:



I originally had a Toledo-based district similar to muon's, but I instead drew Toledo in with the remainder of the lake-shore. As you can see, I did not split Cleveland and see no reason why it should be split. Functionally, OH-10 is the district between the Cleveland one and the Toledo one that Democrats would most likely hold in all but the most disastrous of years. It's similar to Kucinich's old OH-10, but less safe by moving entirely out of Cleveland. I think it's a perfectly logical fit to combine Cleveland's western/southwestern suburbs with Lorain County.

Districts 6, 13, 14 and 16 are almost identical to muon's competitive map above (and I honestly had my map drawn before I had seen his). I don't see any problems with any of those districts.

I think my map would be something like this (with OH-03 probably more competitive on paper):

Safe D: 9, 11, 15
Lean/Likely D: 10, 13, 16
Toss-Up: 1, 6, 14
Lean/Likely R: 3
Safe R: 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12

I was a bit cautious on the lean/likely Democratic districts, but they're probably much safer than they appear. So, in a neutral year, I think both parties would start off quite safe with six districts each, leaving three or four highly competitive districts. Either party could reasonably win up to 10 seats, but I think an even split or a 9-7 split in either direction would be most probable in a relatively neutral year.

[Republican Michigander]

What people blame as "gerrymandering" due to overall state vote is often caused by two things.

1. VRA laws

2. Self packing. In a lot of states, most of the democrats are in a few densely packed areas. There are not a lot of 50/50 regions/counties, and most of them are moving in one direction or another. Even in some of those 50/50 regions, one side may be strongly R and the other strongly D.

In Michigan, the VRA laws require one district to go up from Detroit into the democrat part of Oakland County. Southfield/Oak Park can't anchor a D seat anymore unless it's Detroit. That impacts the VRA seats which are 80%+ D, as well as the shapes of other districts.

Places like Detroit are 95% democrat. Literally. That's going to be a vote sink unless you bacon strip a bunch of districts. Creating a South Lyon to Detroit baconstrip district to get it to 50/50 isn't fair to anybody.

[Nyvin]

What people blame as "gerrymandering" due to overall state vote is often caused by two things.

1. VRA laws

2. Self packing. In a lot of states, most of the democrats are in a few densely packed areas. There are not a lot of 50/50 regions/counties, and most of them are moving in one direction or another. Even in some of those 50/50 regions, one side may be strongly R and the other strongly D.

In Michigan, the VRA laws require one district to go up from Detroit into the democrat part of Oakland County. Southfield/Oak Park can't anchor a D seat anymore unless it's Detroit. That impacts the VRA seats which are 80%+ D, as well as the shapes of other districts.

Places like Detroit are 95% democrat. Literally. That's going to be a vote sink unless you bacon strip a bunch of districts. Creating a South Lyon to Detroit baconstrip district to get it to 50/50 isn't fair to anybody.

Michigan naturally has a huge vote sink area for Democrats in the Detroit metro....but the rest of the state doesn't vote heavily enough Republican to warrant all but 1 other seat outside Detroit being red.   MI-7, MI-8, and MI-11 already are baconstrip districts almost really.    That area in the southeast is probably what the GOP focused on the most in redistricting.

I do agree any sensible map would favor Republicans regardless of how it's drawn though.

[Republican Michigander]

Michigan naturally has a huge vote sink area for Democrats in the Detroit metro....but the rest of the state doesn't vote heavily enough Republican to warrant all but 1 other seat outside Detroit being red.   MI-7, MI-8, and MI-11 already are baconstrip districts almost really.    That area in the southeast is probably what the GOP focused on the most in redistricting.

I do agree any sensible map would favor Republicans regardless of how it's drawn though.

There's only two other districts that are completely in Metro Detroit (which I consider the tri-county area). MI-09 (Levin) is blue, and MI-11 (Trott) which is largely middle and outer ring suburbs. MI-11 is grotesquely shaped due to MI-14.

MI-07 doesn't go to Metro Detroit at all and while it's a long and somewhat narrow area, it does for the most part keep county integrity which is important and traditional in Michigan. It's usually considered a Jackson based seat, if anything.

Most of MI-08 is outside of Metro Detroit outside of it's portion of North Oakland. I don't consider Livingston County metro Detroit, and Ingham County (one of the other main D bases) is definitely not Metro Detroit. MI-08/MI-11 could have been cleaner (they didn't want to bump Rogers and McCotter districts together and didn't want to create more county splits either)

Most of MI-10 is in Macomb, but it also has the thumb.

MI-12 is about 1/2 in the Detroit area (Downriver) and 1/2 in the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti areas.

[Sol]

What people blame as "gerrymandering" due to overall state vote is often caused by two things.

1. VRA laws

2. Self packing. In a lot of states, most of the democrats are in a few densely packed areas. There are not a lot of 50/50 regions/counties, and most of them are moving in one direction or another. Even in some of those 50/50 regions, one side may be strongly R and the other strongly D.

In Michigan, the VRA laws require one district to go up from Detroit into the democrat part of Oakland County. Southfield/Oak Park can't anchor a D seat anymore unless it's Detroit. That impacts the VRA seats which are 80%+ D, as well as the shapes of other districts.

Places like Detroit are 95% democrat. Literally. That's going to be a vote sink unless you bacon strip a bunch of districts. Creating a South Lyon to Detroit baconstrip district to get it to 50/50 isn't fair to anybody.

Look at NC please.

[Nyvin]

Michigan naturally has a huge vote sink area for Democrats in the Detroit metro....but the rest of the state doesn't vote heavily enough Republican to warrant all but 1 other seat outside Detroit being red.   MI-7, MI-8, and MI-11 already are baconstrip districts almost really.    That area in the southeast is probably what the GOP focused on the most in redistricting.

I do agree any sensible map would favor Republicans regardless of how it's drawn though.

There's only two other districts that are completely in Metro Detroit (which I consider the tri-county area). MI-09 (Levin) is blue, and MI-11 (Trott) which is largely middle and outer ring suburbs. MI-11 is grotesquely shaped due to MI-14.

MI-07 doesn't go to Metro Detroit at all and while it's a long and somewhat narrow area, it does for the most part keep county integrity which is important and traditional in Michigan. It's usually considered a Jackson based seat, if anything.

Most of MI-08 is outside of Metro Detroit outside of it's portion of North Oakland. I don't consider Livingston County metro Detroit, and Ingham County (one of the other main D bases) is definitely not Metro Detroit. MI-08/MI-11 could have been cleaner (they didn't want to bump Rogers and McCotter districts together and didn't want to create more county splits either)

Most of MI-10 is in Macomb, but it also has the thumb.

MI-12 is about 1/2 in the Detroit area (Downriver) and 1/2 in the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti areas.

?

My point wasn't whether or not they're in the Detroit metro.    And MI-7 and MI-8 are both constructed very carefully to ensure their narrow GOP leans.   It's pretty obvious.     There are a number of counties Obama won in the area (including Ingham) and yet there isn't even 1 seat that's even a swing district.    That's really only possible with gerrymandering.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Is there any movement to revive the ole Multimember districts? It seems like the most obvious response.