A neutral map would be very unlikely to result in a Pub gerrymander in IL. VRA decisions make it impossible to pack minorities to the extent required to get a Pub win with an intentional gerrymander barring a wave election. A neutral map would obviously not do as well as an intentional Pub gerrymander, so it would be less likely to give Pubs an advantage.
Would neutral maps result in frequent situations where Republicans win a majority in one or more chambers even while losing or possibly tying the popular vote for said races? This is sort of why I wanted to ask - an "indirect gerrymander" seemed sort of extreme, but given how densely packed voters appear to be in Illinois, the idea that Republicans would have a consistent advantage and thus more frequently win large amounts of seat with comparatively less effort seemed likely based on his assertions.
So are you saying Democrats would likely retain varying levels of majorities, but possibly be more apt to lose them in bad years?
At this point, I'm rather surprised IL Democrats have not put their own initiative on the ballot. They could even delay it until 2031, while also having the amendment prohibit further initiatives from modifying the process. Yes, it is scummy, but I'm just musing here. Someone in the leadership there had to have realized by now that at some point before 2021, those groups are going to get it right and get an initiative on the ballot. I do wonder how they could be so strategically inept after all this.
