Michigan: The urban-rural divide writ large
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:03:55 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Michigan: The urban-rural divide writ large
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Michigan: The urban-rural divide writ large  (Read 3639 times)
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« 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 CD’s 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 PVI’s for the last two election cycles, then each party shares the loss of Michigan’s 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).
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2017, 12:57:19 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.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 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.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2017, 01:53:04 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.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2017, 01:53:30 PM »


 
 

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 CD’s 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 PVI’s for the last two election cycles, then each party shares the loss of Michigan’s 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).

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.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 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. 
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2017, 03:02:35 PM »
« Edited: February 19, 2017, 03:24:49 PM by AKCreative »

I think the map is mostly just a pretty GOP gerrymander.   The state doesn't align east-west hardly anywhere and that's how most of the districts are drawn.   The interstates are mostly all North-South and that's how a lot of the current districts are drawn (MI-1 an obvious exception).

Also when you talk about "urban-rural divide" most of what you is try to mix them up rather than divide them,  Grand Rapids district going east instead of to Holland and Muskegon for example.    Also Monroe going to the same district as Kalamazoo and Flint being put into the same district as the Thumb counties.  

If you're goal was to create "urban" districts and "rural" districts then this map seems to go in the opposite direction.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 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.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2017, 05:57:38 PM »
« Edited: February 19, 2017, 06:11:04 PM by jimrtex »

"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.  
???

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?

You then have: Washtenaw, Jackson, Monroe, and Lenawee;

Calhoun, Kalamazoo, and the remining five southern tier counties.

In the Lansing district, replace Jackson with Gratiot, Montcalm, and Ionia.

Make the Grand Rapids seat all of Kent, and the eastern part of Ottawa

You then have a Lake Michigan seat. The divide between the Lake Michigan seat and the Lake Huron (Saginaw Bay) seat is between Mecosta and Isabella.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2017, 06:02:11 PM »
« Edited: February 19, 2017, 06:06:33 PM by Torie »

"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.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2017, 06:38:30 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.
It is a guess whether Washtenaw or Genesee is a better fit, and it may also eliminate all the other county chops except in Ottawa, where it keeps all of a CD in the Grand Rapids UCC.

In the Detroit UCC:

(1) Genesee + Livingston + Northern/Western Oakland
(2) Oakland (generally the eastern part)
(3) St.Clair + Macomb as you drew it
(4) remainder of Oakland + Macomb + part of Wayne (Grosse Pointe's, Hamtramck, Highland Park and some of Detroit?)
(5) Wayne, mostly Detroit.
(6) Wayne, southern and western.

This eliminates a county cut in  the UCC.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2017, 06:57:35 PM »

Chops themselves are subjective and aren't used by many mapping regulations in the country.   Communities of interests and avoiding partisan interests (like vote sink districts in your MI-9) are a better alternative.   County/City lines are very often outdated and serve very little real purpose.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 19, 2017, 07:45:19 PM »

Chops themselves are subjective and aren't used by many mapping regulations in the country.   Communities of interests and avoiding partisan interests (like vote sink districts in your MI-9) are a better alternative.   County/City lines are very often outdated and serve very little real purpose.

I strongly disagree. Many states that do have mapping regulations do pay attention to chops and the need to minimize them. Recent redistricting reforms in FL and OH very much care about keeping counties and cities intact. The overthrow of the VA and FL plans rested in part on the court's concern that there were too many chops into counties to create the minority district. Public testimony in states without such regulations in 2011 included a great deal of comment about preserving counties and cities. For most people outside of the largest cities the county and city make up their main basis of identifying their community of interest.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 19, 2017, 09:11:21 PM »

Chops themselves are subjective and aren't used by many mapping regulations in the country.   Communities of interests and avoiding partisan interests (like vote sink districts in your MI-9) are a better alternative.   County/City lines are very often outdated and serve very little real purpose.

I strongly disagree. Many states that do have mapping regulations do pay attention to chops and the need to minimize them. Recent redistricting reforms in FL and OH very much care about keeping counties and cities intact. The overthrow of the VA and FL plans rested in part on the court's concern that there were too many chops into counties to create the minority district. Public testimony in states without such regulations in 2011 included a great deal of comment about preserving counties and cities. For most people outside of the largest cities the county and city make up their main basis of identifying their community of interest.
In many (most?) areas of the country, elections are administered at the county level. Counties were generally created as areas for universal application of state law (e.g. courts, sheriff, land records, local roads, elections, etc.). It is not an accident that in many parts of the country, the seat of county government is called a courthouse. It is only toward the end of the 20th century where they started getting into providing services such as water and sewer, streets, planning, mass transit, etc.

Before the OMOV districts of the 1960s, many states did not split counties, or only the largest counties:

Alabama (none)
Alaska (one district)
Arizona (only Maricopa)
Arkansas (none)
California (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Alameda, Santa Clara, Orange, San Diego)
Colorado (none)
Connecticut (based on towns, though eastern counties kept whole)
Delaware (one district)
Florida (Dade)
Georgia (none)
Hawaii (one district)
Idaho (none)
Illinois (only Cook, except DuPage was split to avoid splitting Chicago)
Indiana (none)
Iowa (none)
Kansas (none)
Kentucky (none)
Louisiana (only Orleans)
Maine (none since 1872)
Maryland (only Baltimore city)
Massachusetts (based on towns)
Michigan (only Wayne)
Minnesota (only Hennepin, and the split was on the Minneapolis line)
Mississippi (none)
Missouri (St. Louis, Jackson, and St.Louis city)
Montana (none)
Nebraska (none)
Nevada (one district)
New Hampshire (based on counties)
New Jersey (towns, except Newark and Jersey City split)
New Mexico (one district)
New York (Westchester, Bronx, insular New York, Rensselaer, Monroe, and Erie)
North Carolina (none)
North Dakota (none)
Ohio (Hamilton, Trumbull, Cuyahoga)
Oklahoma (none)
Oregon (none)
Pennsylvania (Philadelphia and Allegheny)
Rhode Island (town based)
South Carolina (none)
South Dakota (none)
Tennessee (none)
Texas (Harris)
Utah (none)
Vermont (none since 1842)
Virginia (none)
Washington (only King)
West Virginia (none)
Wisconsin (only Milwaukee)
Wyoming (one district)
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 19, 2017, 10:25:47 PM »

I like this map a lot, but your 7th looks somewhat like a "Leftovers" district.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 19, 2017, 11:39:18 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.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2017, 09:49:17 AM »
« Edited: February 20, 2017, 09:57:06 AM by Torie »

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.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 20, 2017, 02:05:33 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. 
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 20, 2017, 02:36:40 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.

I really don't understand how, in a 1 BVAP-majority district scenario, maximizing the number of people who are happy with their representative should be considered packing, but I admit that I am utterly baffled by much of the VRA-related jurisprudence.  If African-Americans want to be represented by an African-American in the Democratic primary and non-African Americans would prefer a different candidate, wouldn't it make more sense to maximize the number of African-Americans in that VRA district, not minimize them?

Given the state of current jurisprudence, you're probably right, though.  Even a facially neutral rule of keeping municipalities together would probably be overturned due to some contrived arguement about the rule having a discriminatory effect in extreme cases, like Detroit.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 20, 2017, 05:35:46 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.

I really don't understand how, in a 1 BVAP-majority district scenario, maximizing the number of people who are happy with their representative should be considered packing, but I admit that I am utterly baffled by much of the VRA-related jurisprudence.  If African-Americans want to be represented by an African-American in the Democratic primary and non-African Americans would prefer a different candidate, wouldn't it make more sense to maximize the number of African-Americans in that VRA district, not minimize them?

Given the state of current jurisprudence, you're probably right, though.  Even a facially neutral rule of keeping municipalities together would probably be overturned due to some contrived arguement about the rule having a discriminatory effect in extreme cases, like Detroit.

This is the exact same argument Republicans in courts make over and over and over again...

"We just wanted to cram as many Black people into that 1 district that we possibly could just so we could be sure they get the candidate they wanted!"

Neither you or them are fooling anyone,  you don't need anything above 50% BVAP for them to get the candidate of their choice.    It fails in courts over and over again but it's still tried time and time again anyway.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: February 20, 2017, 08:04:30 PM »
« Edited: February 21, 2017, 07:10:19 AM by Torie »

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 two black congresspersons of the minority's choice, but with uncertainty as to 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
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 20, 2017, 11:08:09 PM »
« Edited: February 20, 2017, 11:10:54 PM by Torie »

Jimrtex’s 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 CD’s, 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 – 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 – like in four of the CD’s they currently hold rather safely. And that is the way it should be.  And oh yes, the incumbent politicians will hate this map.  Good! ☺

 
 
 
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: February 20, 2017, 11:11:46 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.

I really don't understand how, in a 1 BVAP-majority district scenario, maximizing the number of people who are happy with their representative should be considered packing, but I admit that I am utterly baffled by much of the VRA-related jurisprudence.  If African-Americans want to be represented by an African-American in the Democratic primary and non-African Americans would prefer a different candidate, wouldn't it make more sense to maximize the number of African-Americans in that VRA district, not minimize them?

Given the state of current jurisprudence, you're probably right, though.  Even a facially neutral rule of keeping municipalities together would probably be overturned due to some contrived arguement about the rule having a discriminatory effect in extreme cases, like Detroit.

This is the exact same argument Republicans in courts make over and over and over again...

"We just wanted to cram as many Black people into that 1 district that we possibly could just so we could be sure they get the candidate they wanted!"

Neither you or them are fooling anyone,  you don't need anything above 50% BVAP for them to get the candidate of their choice.    It fails in courts over and over again but it's still tried time and time again anyway.

Again, I am assuming a world where there is only sufficient population for 1 >50% BVAP district.  If that's the case, what is the optimal solution?  Drawing a district with a high African-American population that will certainly vote for the African-American's candidate of choice, keeping municipalities whole, or splitting the SE Michigan African-American population into 2 <50% BVAP districts that might, but are not certain to do so? The first solution seems more optimal to me, but I doubt the courts will agree.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: February 20, 2017, 11:17:29 PM »

Jimrtex’s 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 CD’s, 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 – 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 – like in four of the CD’s they currently hold rather safely. And that is the way it should be.  And oh yes, the incumbent politicians will hate this map.  Good! ☺

 
 
 

How are you calculating population?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 20, 2017, 11:28:59 PM »
« Edited: February 21, 2017, 07:16:09 AM by Torie »

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 marginal in any event as it pertains to Michigan. In part that is due to just how rare the chops are. Smiley
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.068 seconds with 13 queries.