US House Redistricting: Minnesota

[BigSkyBob]

why do the republicans bother proposing such preposterous maps? They know it will get vetoed.

Wonder if they can send this through as a constitutional amendment.

But its probably for the same reason that Nevada Democrats did what they did. To spend their time doing something.

It is amazing how a poster can feign such a high level of ignorance over a very simple issue. Legislatures pass maps because it is their job.

The proposed map is an excellent map on two accounts. First, it is beneficial to Republicans. It isn't a dummymander. Second, it isn't a gerrymander, either. Going to court, the legislature will have passed a map that is entirely reasonable. There is a Minneapolis district, a St Paul District. An inner suburban district, and two outer suburban districts. The southern district is a natural result of the metro area barrier. The remaining two upstate districts stretch East to West, which is as valid of a choice as North to South.


I would note that the last time redistricting went to court, the courts restructured the districts in Minnesota creating outer suburban districts to the South, and North and West of the metro area, decimating seats in South Minnesota. The proposed map follows the previous restructuring.


The critics of the map are reduced to claiming it is "preposterous" because the inner suburban district expands into the outer suburban areas at a place favorable to Republicans. Well, due to lower population growths, the inner districts had to expand into the outer areas somewhere. What would be "preposterous" would be for a Republican legislature doing it at a place favorable to Democrats. Do you think they are that stupid?

Claims about an impending veto also ring hollow. I don't see the same standard applied to Nevada, and other states where a Republican governor will veto a Democratic leaning map.

[BigSkyBob]

Unless a court is going to draw a map like the Pubbies did, if the parties cannot cut a deal, then yes, the map is DOA. As a Dem I would just toss it in the wastebasket and laugh at how the Pubbies can dream the impossible dream.

That's the point! Entering litigation, the Republicans will have passed a map that is suitable inasmuch as it compact, respects county lines, etc.

[BigSkyBob]

It's a gerrymander. It combines MN-03 with Carver County and McLeod County which it has no reason to be combined with and splits Walz's base by removing Nicollet. Nicollet and McLeod are not metro counties and have no place in a metro district. And Nicollet has no place being separated from Blue Earth.

Calling it a "gerrymander" doesn't make it a gerrymander.

Words have meaning, and the meaning of "gerrymander" is simply not "taking line choices that I don't like."


Here is a little reality for you: the metro population is not exactly five districts, so some of those districts must include areas outside the metro. That simply isn't "gerrymandering."

[BigSkyBob]

It's a gerrymander. It combines MN-03 with Carver County and McLeod County which it has no reason to be combined with and splits Walz's base by removing Nicollet. Nicollet and McLeod are not metro counties and have no place in a metro district. And Nicollet has no place being separated from Blue Earth.

Calling it a "gerrymander" doesn't make it a gerrymander.

Words have meaning, and the meaning of "gerrymander" is simply not "taking line choices that I don't like."


Here is a little reality for you: the metro population is not exactly five districts, so some of those districts must include areas outside the metro. That simply isn't "gerrymandering."

It's gerrymandering because:

It seeks to make Chip Cravaack's district safe by taking out Duluth and the Iron Range.

It seeks to make Colin Peterson, who is a very conservative Democrat, the representative from the liberal northeastern part of the state.

It weaken's Tim Walz's standing by adding more Republican areas to his district while removing Democratic ones.

It makes Paulsen's district safer for him by include very conservative areas, thus turning it from a swing district into a safe R district, and keeps both 2 and 6 nice and Republican.

It doesn't have to look like a gerrymander to be a gerrymander, Bigskybob... and drop the attitude.  kthx

Again, there were population shifts within the state that called for adjustments. Inner city, inner suburban and rural areas did not grow as fast as the outer suburban areas. One, or more, of the three inner districts had to expand outward. Whomever's district that expanded outward was likely to add Republicans to their district.

Where do you get off claiming the right to declare it "gerrymandering" if it was the suburban Republican whom expanded into the exurbs, rather than one, or both of the innercity Democrats? 


In the last redistricting, the Demcrats bitched and moaned that it was unfair for there to be four out-state anchored  districts, and four metro-based districts when the metro was 58% of the state. The courts agreed, and restructured the state's districts. Republican Representatives in Southern Minnesota were harmed. That was a result that I did not personally like, but, I don't abuse the English language to declare it a "judicial gerrymander."

P.S. Peterson may very well be a "very conservative Democrat," whatever that means, but, Dan Boren is, probably, the only Demcrat in the House of Representatives whom is properly considered " conservative." Even then, I don't think Boren qualifies as "very conservative."

[BigSkyBob]

It is when it's obviously done just to shore up the closest Republican held seat (MN-03) or carve out the base of of a Dem incumbent (which is blatantly what the separation of Nicollet and Blue Earth is.)

Have you ever been to the Mandate area? I lived there for five years. Mandate (Blue Earth) and North Mandate (Nicollet) are so closely linked that they don't even have separate "now entering" signs, the city limits for both just says both Mandate and North Mandate. There is no reason to separate it besides splitting a Democratic incumbent's home.

This is one of the lamest claims to gerrymandering I have ever read. Cities are divided all the time in redistricting. That isn't "gerrymandering." To claim that splitting neighboring cities from each other constitutes "gerrymandering" take that absurdity one step further. Wait! Counties are split! That must be "gerrymandering." Hell! Neighboring counties are split from each other as well. That too must be "gerrymandering."


Every line choice you don't like isn't "gerrymandering."

[BigSkyBob]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yet again, the metro area include 58%, not 62.5% in the previous census. To create a fifth metro seat the courts expanded the 2nd district to the South, and the 6th district to the Northwest. While the metro share has increased, it hasn't increased to 62.5% of the state. One, or more, metro districts had to expand outstate. That is a mathematical fact. You cannot justly claim a metro/out-state cross to be sinister because it is inevitable.

The Republican map, basically, improved on the metro/rural split by making the sixth district a purely metro seat, and concentrating all the rural areas paired with the metro into the second. There is nothing inherently unfair, unjust or sinister about such a choice.


To answer your question, to expand the third into either Anoka, or Wright counties would require that the sixth expand into rural areas, or wrap around into Dakota county. This is contrary to their goal of making the sixth a metro seat.


Again, you can't just dismiss redistricting choices you don't like as being "gerrymandering."

[BigSkyBob]

Dude, no one is complaining about the map being shifted to reflect population adjustments. It's about how those adjustments are done. There is no reason to push MN-03 out to McLeod County. It can be easily kept within the metro to meet ideal population.

Only by pushing other districts out in McLeod or some other rural county. The Metro simply isn't 62.5% of the state. Choices to cross into rural areas had to be made. One the whole, this map concentrates those crossing into the second district much more than the previous lines.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But, there was at least two "reasons." First, it was entirely proper to concentrate all the rural areas attached to the metro into one district. It was on the border of the second, and the second expanded into rural areas. Some counties had to be added. The second reason is population equality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no doubt that it would be obvious that folks would be happiest if exactly 62.5% of the state was in the metro.  Since it isn't, it is obvious that some rural folks are going to have to accept being placed into a metro-based district. Concentrating those rural folks in one district, instead of splitting them in half,  to me, gives them a greater voice.


That is a choice I like and you don't like. Where is the "gerrymandering?"


Choices had to be made. The folks in Minnesota elected Republican to make those choices, and their plan reflects their interests more than yours. That democracy in action. Live with it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No Republicans were harmed by the 2000 redistricting. Kennedy got an almost completely new district that he won in and would've continued to hold had he not been a complete idiot who thought he could win a Senate seat. [/quote]


Having a nearly new district is disadvantageous. Your argument is akin to claiming, "While we did shoot at him, we missed, so it wasn't attempted murder."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There were three South Minnesota seats. Why are you only mentioning two?

[BigSkyBob]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yet again, the metro area include 58%, not 62.5% in the previous census. To create a fifth metro seat the courts expanded the 2nd district to the South, and the 6th district to the Northwest. While the metro share has increased, it hasn't increased to 62.5% of the state. One, or more, metro districts had to expand outstate. That is a mathematical fact. You cannot justly claim a metro/out-state cross to be sinister because it is inevitable.

The Republican map, basically, improved on the metro/rural split by making the sixth district a purely metro seat, and concentrating all the rural areas paired with the metro into the second. There is nothing inherently unfair, unjust or sinister about such a choice.


To answer your question, to expand the third into either Anoka, or Wright counties would require that the sixth expand into rural areas, or wrap around into Dakota county. This is contrary to their goal of making the sixth a metro seat.


Again, you can't just dismiss redistricting choices you don't like as being "gerrymandering."

The trade-off for making the Sixth a "purely metro" seat was to expand the Third into rural McLeod County. As you said, either way, one of the districts has to expand out of the metro. So why should it be the Third (which is currently an inner-ring suburban district) rather than the Sixth (which already includes rural areas)?

Again, it is for reasons I have already stated. Rural folks attached to metro districts were concentrated into the Second. If McLeod really is rural, rather than exurban, then you are merely making the perfect the enemy of the good. Two districts with significant rural areas are  shifted to one district with significant rural areas, and another with slight rural areas.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First, if it doesn't matter, why did you claim it as proof of "gerrymandering?"

Second, the Northern split is completely fair. You don't like the fact that it is a restructuring of districts, but, then again, so was the last court map.

[BigSkyBob]

First, if it doesn't matter, why did you claim it as proof of "gerrymandering?"

Tell the 30,000+ residents of rural McLeod County who would be stuck in a Hennepin County district that it "doesn't matter". There is no reason whatsoever to extend an inner-ring suburban district that far west. The Sixth can easily pick up the rural areas needed to balance the population between metro and rural districts, and doing so would be less controversial since the Sixth already contains rural areas anyway.

Again, you spin a circular web of sophistry. Of course, all the rural counties combined with a metro district could be concentrated in the Sixth. It is equally true that they can be concentrated in the Second. And, it is equally true that they could be split. That is just a redistricting choice. Claiming one choice that doesn't favor you is "gerrymandering" while the choice that does favor you is not, is simply hypocritical nonsense.


It just so happens that the non-metro areas to the North of the Metro are more Republican than the non-metro areas to the South. The effect of expanding the sixth is the removal of Republicans from the non-metro districts. The effect of expanding south is removing fewer Republicans from the non-metro areas. To argue that because a redistricting in your favor can be done, it should be done is purely circular.

Of course, removing non-metro Republicans from the outstates districts will draw less of an ire from partisan Democrats. Sure, the Republicans could avoid "controversy" by taking a meek, submissive attitude towards partisan Democrats. The Republicans in the legislature could have gone to DKE website and voted for the "7-1 Democratic gerrymander." If they did, the Democrats wouldn't have bitched and moaned about the map. Of course, they would have screwed themselves. The Republicans in the legislature took the decision to take decisions that favored them, and not the Democrats. Certainly, Democrats aren't going to like the decisions taken, just as Republicans wouldn't have liked some of the decision Democrats would have taken. Claiming any choice taken by Republicans that disfavoring you constitutes "gerrymandering" is just injecting aggressive incivility into political discourse.

No matter how many time reassert it, the reality is that there are valid reasons for expanding into Carver county: it is on the boundary between the Sixth and Second. Adding McLeod brings the Third up to population.  Given the goal of concentrating out-state areas in the Second, the logical expansion for the Third is into the Second, and the logical county is the border county of Carver.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't like the fact that it splits the community of interest that is northwestern Minnesota, dividing it among districts dominated by areas it has nothing in common with, for purely partisan reasons.[/quote]

Sure, I have no doubt you don't like the map. What you don't have is any valid reason to label it "gerrymandering."


The reality remains that upstate can be divided either North and South or East and West. The first option favors the Republicans, so they took it. That doesn't make it "gerrymandering."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"One man, one vote" means every region, area, county, city, etc., etc., has exactly the representation to which  it is entitled.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In every conceivable maps there are pairs that don't make particular sense. In general, a county is apt to be more likely to be similar to a bordering county than a county farther away. But, lines must be drawn, even if it splits such pairs.


You have a bitch. You don't have a case for arguing "gerrymandering."

[BigSkyBob]

Dude, no one is complaining about the map being shifted to reflect population adjustments. It's about how those adjustments are done. There is no reason to push MN-03 out to McLeod County. It can be easily kept within the metro to meet ideal population.

Only by pushing other districts out in McLeod or some other rural county. The Metro simply isn't 62.5% of the state. Choices to cross into rural areas had to be made.

Yes, and it can be limited to two districts like the current map. Not three like here.

Actually, it is the way that respects the most county lines. Otherwise, you are looking at three-way splits of counties.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, hardly. The second just expands out further into some odd areas. [/quote]


Like, duh! If the decision is taken to concentrate the out-state areas attached into metro districts into the Second then, of course, the Second would have to expand out farther. The district expands South to a fairly straight line of counties. If you think that's "odd," then that speaks more about your judgment than the map.


I understand that is a decision you don't like. That doesn't make it gerrymandering.


Y

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, redistricting involves choices, and the Republicans took decisions that favored themselves, not the Democrats. Taking decision that favor the decision taker, and gerrymandering are two seperate concepts. If you wish to argue that a map that lacks all the classic signs of a gerrymander such as  non-compact districts, numerous county/city/prcinct splits etc., etc., is still a "gerrymander" then you are going to have give some compelling reasons. So far, you have offered your bitches and moans about the map as if you opinions are gospel. They aren't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But, there was at least two "reasons." First, it was entirely proper to concentrate all the rural areas attached to the metro into one district. It was on the border of the second, and the second expanded into rural areas. Some counties had to be added. The second reason is population equality. [/quote]

But it doesn't do that. McLeod and southern Stearns aren't in the second. And Nicollet wouldn't work if Carver wasn't removed to shore up the third. [/quote]


Again, the Republicans in the legislature took decisions that favored Republicans. Redistricting involves choices. Assuming the Republicans in the legislature weren't stupid, then, the map that they write, and "what works" will mesh.


The reality is that there are numerous possible reasonable configurations. The Republicans simply found a very reasonable configuration that is more favorable to them than other configurations. That simply isn't gerrymandering.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no doubt that it would be obvious that folks would be happiest if exactly 62.5% of the state was in the metro.  Since it isn't, it is obvious that some rural folks are going to have to accept being placed into a metro-based district. Concentrating those rural folks in one district, instead of splitting them in half,  to me, gives them a greater voice.[/quote]

Nicollet isn't a rural county, it's a core part of metro Mankato. This split is for no reason beyond partisan ones. [/quote]


Apperently, you wish to quibble. Very well. By "rural" I meant "out-state" or "non-metro." I figured you would be able to distinguish what I meant by "rural." Silly me. Alas, I will spend the time to type "non-metro" rather than "rural."


That said. Again, some "non-metro" areas had to be linked with some suburban areas. That is a mathematical necessity of the map. That you object that one such pairing doesn't benefit the Democrats isn't evidence of "gerrymandering." Gerrymandering is a stronger accusation with a higher burden of proof.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because Nicollet was obviously removed to weaken Walz. [/quote]

Again, where is the gerrymandering?  Again, certainly, the Republicans made decisions that favored Republicans, but, that is not to say that they created a gerrymander.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And elected a Governor who can veto this crap. Live with it. [/quote]

I don't doubt the governor may very well veto the map. And, most assuredly his motivation for vetoing the bill will be that doing so is favorable to Democrats. What is ridicious are your attempts to equate writing maps you don't like with gerrymandering. I'm sure in one of the few states that Democrats control the process you will deny the decisions they took that favored themselves were necessarily gerrymandering.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No Republicans were harmed by the 2000 redistricting. Kennedy got an almost completely new district that he won in and would've continued to hold had he not been a complete idiot who thought he could win a Senate seat. [/quote]


Having a nearly new district is disadvantageous. Your argument is akin to claiming, "While we did shoot at him, we missed, so it wasn't attempted murder."[/quote]

So the court specifically drew the map to target Gutknecht? [/quote]

Childish sarcasm doesn't alter the fact that you were refering to Kennedy, not Gutknecht.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Giant aside inasmuch as the topic was Kennedy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another blatant lie. There were not three southern Minnesota seats in the 90s map.
[/quote]


That's right, the districts in Minnesota have been restructured twice.  South Minnesota had parts of three seats, then two seats, and now one. Each time a Republican member in the South was screwed over. That simply doesn't mean they were "gerrymandered" out of their seats.

[BigSkyBob]

First, if it doesn't matter, why did you claim it as proof of "gerrymandering?"

Tell the 30,000+ residents of rural McLeod County who would be stuck in a Hennepin County district that it "doesn't matter". There is no reason whatsoever to extend an inner-ring suburban district that far west. The Sixth can easily pick up the rural areas needed to balance the population between metro and rural districts, and doing so would be less controversial since the Sixth already contains rural areas anyway.

Again, you spin a circular web of sophistry. Of course, all the rural counties combined with a metro district could be concentrated in the Sixth. It is equally true that they can be concentrated in the Second. And, it is equally true that they could be split. That is just a redistricting choice. Claiming one choice that doesn't favor you is "gerrymandering" while the choice that does favor you is not, is simply hypocritical nonsense.


It just so happens that the non-metro areas to the North of the Metro are more Republican than the non-metro areas to the South. The effect of expanding the sixth is the removal of Republicans from the non-metro districts. The effect of expanding south is removing fewer Republicans from the non-metro areas. To argue that because a redistricting in your favor can be done, it should be done is purely circular.

Of course, removing non-metro Republicans from the outstates districts will draw less of an ire from partisan Democrats. Sure, the Republicans could avoid "controversy" by taking a meek, submissive attitude towards partisan Democrats. The Republicans in the legislature could have gone to DKE website and voted for the "7-1 Democratic gerrymander." If they did, the Democrats wouldn't have bitched and moaned about the map. Of course, they would have screwed themselves. The Republicans in the legislature took the decision to take decisions that favored them, and not the Democrats. Certainly, Democrats aren't going to like the decisions taken, just as Republicans wouldn't have liked some of the decision Democrats would have taken. Claiming any choice taken by Republicans that disfavoring you constitutes "gerrymandering" is just injecting aggressive incivility into political discourse.

No matter how many time reassert it, the reality is that there are valid reasons for expanding into Carver county: it is on the boundary between the Sixth and Second. Adding McLeod brings the Third up to population.  Given the goal of concentrating out-state areas in the Second, the logical expansion for the Third is into the Second, and the logical county is the border county of Carver.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't like the fact that it splits the community of interest that is northwestern Minnesota, dividing it among districts dominated by areas it has nothing in common with, for purely partisan reasons.

Sure, I have no doubt you don't like the map. What you don't have is any valid reason to label it "gerrymandering."


The reality remains that upstate can be divided either North and South or East and West. The first option favors the Republicans, so they took it. That doesn't make it "gerrymandering."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"One man, one vote" means every region, area, county, city, etc., etc., has exactly the representation to which  it is entitled.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In every conceivable maps there are pairs that don't make particular sense. In general, a county is apt to be more likely to be similar to a bordering county than a county farther away. But, lines must be drawn, even if it splits such pairs.


You have a bitch. You don't have a case for arguing "gerrymandering."

A sensible, fair map would preserve communities of interest. [/quote]

No, that is a sophistry. A proper map will draw a reasonable balance between compactness, adherence to county/city lines/ and "communities of interest," whatever that means, racial composition and series of other factors. Judging these standards as a whole, the Republicans created an entirely reasonable map. You can't dispute that fact, so you are forced to dumb-down the standard of reasonable districts to "communities of interest." That is how intellectually weak your case is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it is you whom has redefined "gerrymandering."  Redistricting is the process of splitting some areas from the rest of the state.


Since there is a sophistry in your formulation, I am forced to quibble. Yes, I don't deny that those taking the decisions took the decisions that favored them. I do most strongly "deny" that "purely partisan reasons" motivated any particular decision. The map shows an amazing respect for county lines, and compactness. Every decision taken was clearly congruent with compactness and respect for county lines. If "partisan poltics" were the sole motivation, the GOP could have whipped up a 5-3 map with little difficulty. They would have to gerrymander to do it, but, it could be done.

[BigSkyBob]

From what I've read, the two northern districts have always been drawn side by side and not across the state, because of communities of interests. The Republican map is a gerrymander, because that sort of formation doesn't appear to be logical other than for hyper-partisan reasons.

1) That isn't really true. For instance, today, there isn't two Northern districts. There is a Northeastern, Western, and Southern district. Before that, there was a Northeastern, Northwestern, Southwestern, and Southeastern districts. Before that, there was two Eastern districts to the North and South, a South Central district, a Southern Western/West-Central district, and a North Western/North Central district.


2) In the previous restructurings, the Southern districts were restructured to be East-West rather than North-South. I don't see how you can produce a compelling reason to claim what was good for the South is unacceptable for the North.

[BigSkyBob]

Based on information from this site, I have calculated the optimum re-distribution of Minnesota's population among its 8 districts.  (Numbers rounded to nearest multiple of 5.)

1st District gains 18205 from the 2nd.
2nd District loses 18205 to the 1st, 27140 to the 3rd, and 24180 to the 4th.
3rd District loses 46510 to the 5th, and gains 27140 from the 2nd, and 32180 from the 6th.
4th District gains 24180 from the 2nd, and 24180 from the 6th.
5th District gains 46510 from the 3rd.
6th District loses 32180 to the 3rd, 24180 to the 4th, 37480 to the 7th, and 2650 to the 8th.
7th District gains 37480 from the 6th.
8th District gains 2650 from the 6th.

No, you have created a distribution that minimizes shifts from one district to another. Courts have rejected such arguments in favor of restructuring districts in the recent past.

[BigSkyBob]

I don't have a map, but the calculations in my post above is the way to re-map with as few changes as possible.  There is simply no cause for a completely new configuration (particularly of districts 7 and 8 ) as proposed by the Republican map.

The history of Minnesota redistricting has been a series of basic restructuring of the districts. Your opinion of whether, or not, there is "cause" for restructuring is just that: your opinion. The folks that were elected to take such decisions have a different opinion.

[BigSkyBob]

No, that is a sophistry. A proper map will draw a reasonable balance between compactness, adherence to county/city lines/ and "communities of interest," whatever that means, racial composition and series of other factors. Judging these standards as a whole, the Republicans created an entirely reasonable map. You can't dispute that fact, so you are forced to dumb-down the standard of reasonable districts to "communities of interest." That is how intellectually weak your case is.

Of course there are other factors involved in making a proper map than maintaining communities of interest, but the Republican map violates the communities of interest standard when there is no need to do so.

Of course, there was an absolute need to violate "communities of interest." In Northern Minnesota, the Iron range is a "community of interest." Every other county in Northern Minnesota has more in common with each other than with the Iron Range. Someone has to be paired with the Iron Range. The previous map paired folks to the South, while the current map pairs people to the West. The first pairing benefits Democrats, so you support it. The second pairing benefits Republicans, so the Republicans in the legislature preferred it.


Clearly, the Republicans drew a map more favorable to Republicans than the Democrats would had draw had they drawn the map. What you haven't produced is any evidence that the map is a "gerrymander."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it is you whom has redefined "gerrymandering."  Redistricting is the process of splitting some areas from the rest of the state. [/quote]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gerrymander
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gerrymander
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gerrymander
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1250680#m_en_us1250680
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/gerrymandering
http://www.yourdictionary.com/gerrymander

What exactly have I redefined? [/quote]

Well, the first definition for instance. M-W defines "gerrymandering" as, basically, packing your opponents, and cracking your supporters. Like every other definition in the dictionary, it is approximate. But, in any case, you have expanded that definition significantly with your prattle about "comunities of interest."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This goes above and beyond a 5-3 map- it is a blatant attempt at 6-2, achieved by weakening Walz and Peterson while shoring up Paulsen and Cravaack. Granted, the Duluth-Moorhead district is a bit of a gamble but:
     1.) The GOP has nothing to lose.
     2.) Cravaack proved that a GOP victory in this type of district is possible, and
     3.) If Peterson gets primaried, it can only help the GOP.

[/quote]


Now, you are simply in fantasyland. Cravaak will run in the lower of the two Northern districts. The far Northern district is heavily Democratic. Peterson might not win a primary there, but, the Democratic nominee will be heavily favored.

The plan is basically, 1-1-1-2 in the metro area, and 0-1-1-0-1 in the non-metro districts. The Republicans are favored in three districts, the Second, the Sixth and the near-North district. The Democrats are heavily favored in three districts. There are two swing districts, one currently held by a Republican and one by a Democrat.

[BigSkyBob]

You can go back and forth forever on the "communities of interest" nonsense. The maps creators note that the new 7th has the "community of interest" of being agricultural areas, while the new eight is a "community of interest" more along the lines of tourism, timber, and a shared Canadian border.

From a press account:

"Anderson said the new 7th District would be a predominantly agricultural region. "The people in Cambridge have more in common with people in Willmar than with people in Grand Marais," she said.

Besides the Canadian border, she said, residents of the new 8th District share interests in timber and tourism. Also, she quipped, snow melts more slowly up north than in the center of the state."

[BigSkyBob]

2) I have consistently noted that neither county lines, compactness, nor communities are the end all and be all, just the principles that should be maximized. Inevitably, these principles will conflict. I will not allow myself to claim that the perfection of any particular one is the enemy of the greater good of maximizing all three.

This is exactly the point. With a northwestern and a northeastern district you get all three- respect for county lines, compactness, and preservation of communities of interest. With the Republican proposal you only get respect for county lines and compactness at the expense of preservation of communities of interest. The Republicans' willingness to throw communities of interest out the window when it is not necessary to do so, for no other reason than for partisan gain makes their map a gerrymander.

No, with Republican map you have all three as much as with a North-West split.

[BigSkyBob]

You can go back and forth forever on the "communities of interest" nonsense. The maps creators note that the new 7th has the "community of interest" of being agricultural areas, while the new eight is a "community of interest" more along the lines of tourism, timber, and a shared Canadian border.

From a press account:

"Anderson said the new 7th District would be a predominantly agricultural region. "The people in Cambridge have more in common with people in Willmar than with people in Grand Marais," she said.

Besides the Canadian border, she said, residents of the new 8th District share interests in timber and tourism. Also, she quipped, snow melts more slowly up north than in the center of the state."

Are you kidding me?  Again, don't comment on this if you don't understand Minnesota geography. 

Excuse me? Whom should we believe, a person whom was elected to Minnesota's legislature, was appointed by her peers-- whom where elected by a majority of the voters in a majority of the seats-- to create the map, or some wannabe punk with internet access?

There the obnoxiousness, and ignorance, of your comment has just blown up in your face. If you failed to recognize whom Anderson was, that reflects very poorly on you, doesn't it? Perhaps, you shouldn't comment on Minnesota politics without a scorecard?

That said, no matter how uninformed you are, I would never question your right to post in this, or any forum. We have this thing called the First Amendment. It has a purpose. Namely, it enshires the principle that every viewpoint has the right to participate in public debate so that public policy can be decided in the context of the Truth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did you have actual poll numbers to back up this claim, or have you appointed yourself the royal "we" of Minnesota? Doesn't matter. Whether, or not, the Republican map is popular, and whether, or not, the Republican map is a gerrymander.  I have no opinion of the popularity of the map in Minnesota. I will note that it simply is not a "gerrymander."

[BigSkyBob]

1) That isn't really true. For instance, today, there isn't two Northern districts. There is a Northeastern, Western, and Southern district. Before that, there was a Northeastern, Northwestern, Southwestern, and Southeastern districts. Before that, there was two Eastern districts to the North and South, a South Central district, a Southern Western/West-Central district, and a North Western/North Central district.


2) In the previous restructurings, the Southern districts were restructured to be East-West rather than North-South. I don't see how you can produce a compelling reason to claim what was good for the South is unacceptable for the North.

Bottom line, two districts cover the Northern part of the state regardless of containing other portion.

That is true of the old map and new map. Why does that mean one is a "gerrymander," and the other is not?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I dispute the factual basis of this assertion on your part.


The point of my position is maintain a respect for the Truth. There is an attempt here to redefine "gerrymandering" from what Gerry himself did, to any map passed by the majority party that wasn't incompetent["dummymander"]. In some cases majorities pass maps that are reasonable, and are among the more favorable to the majority than other reasonable maps, and at other times majorities pass unreasonable maps to favor themselves. Gerrymandering is the latter, not the former.


I have no doubt that the proposed Minnesota map is more favorable to the GOP than the current map. I understand why Democrats would oppose it, and/or wish that the governor veto it.   But, that fact that they don't like the map doesn't grant them a moral entitlement to lie about the map. It simply isn't an example of gerrymandering.

[BigSkyBob]

Excuse me? Whom should we believe, a person whom was elected to Minnesota's legislature, was appointed by her peers-- whom where elected by a majority of the voters in a majority of the seats-- to create the map, or some wannabe punk with internet access?

Excuse me? Whom should we believe, a career politician who drew the map, who has a stake in the process, who lives in suburban Hennepin County, and would say whatever needs to be said to defend her work, or a normal person who actually lives in northern Minnesota and is intimately familiar with the geography and culture of that region? Oh wait, that career politician is a Republican, so obviously everything she says must be the gospel truth.

Would you explain why we shouldn't prefer an elected politician who has stood for office, been elected, appointed by her peers to run the process, lives in the suburbs of Minneapolis, and has some undetermined proclivity to mendacity, and familiarity with the geography and cultures in Minnesota, over a some wantabe politician who hasn't been elected, lives in some county North of Minneapolis and has some undetermined tendency towards mendacity, and familiarity of the geography and culture of Minnesota?


We can go back and forth loading, and unloading smuggled premises. What even you can't defend
would be for some audience member in a redistricting hearing standing up and stating to Sarah Anderson, " Are you kidding me?  Again, don't comment on this if you don't understand Minnesota geography." I sure the members of the committee would look at him and say, "Who does that punk think he is?"

[BigSkyBob]

Excuse me? Whom should we believe, a person whom was elected to Minnesota's legislature, was appointed by her peers-- whom where elected by a majority of the voters in a majority of the seats-- to create the map, or some wannabe punk with internet access?

Excuse me? Whom should we believe, a career politician who drew the map, who has a stake in the process, who lives in suburban Hennepin County, and would say whatever needs to be said to defend her work, or a normal person who actually lives in northern Minnesota and is intimately familiar with the geography and culture of that region? Oh wait, that career politician is a Republican, so obviously everything she says must be the gospel truth.

Would you explain why we shouldn't prefer an elected politician who has stood for office, been elected, appointed by her peers to run the process, lives in the suburbs of Minneapolis, and has some undetermined proclivity to mendacity, and familiarity with the geography and cultures in Minnesota, over a some wantabe politician who hasn't been elected, lives in some county North of Minneapolis and has some undetermined tendency towards mendacity, and familiarity of the geography and culture of Minnesota?


We can go back and forth loading, and unloading smuggled premises. What even you can't defend
would be for some audience member in a redistricting hearing standing up and stating to Senator Anderson, "  Are you kidding me?  Again, don't comment on this if you don't understand Minnesota geography." I sure the members of the Senate would look at him and say, "Who does that punk think he is?"

Just keep on a' pushin' the bar higher and higher, Bob!  Now you're just appealing to authority in the worst of ways.

Oh please! I understand that certain folks believe that sarcasm is an acceptable alternative to rational debate, but, it isn't. The fact is that you embarrassed yourself by directing such a punkish comment in response to a quote from one of the writers of the map. Surely, you would consider it basic fairness for the person whose map you attacked to be granted  the opportunity to explain the rationale behind the map.


At this point, it would behoove you to apologize for directing such a condescending, flippant and sarcastic remark towards Sarah Anderson's words. It certainly would be the well mannered thing for you to do. But, would it be political idiocy?


P.S. Apperently it was the royal "we," wasn't it?

[BigSkyBob]

Haha.  I take it you've never met Sarah Anderson, Bob.  I trust many of the people commenting in this thread to be less ignorant than Rep. Anderson.

I see you have chosen to be as childish in your comments as others have been  condescending and obnoxious. It reflects more on you than Sarah Anderson.

[BigSkyBob]

Hard to argue with those maps Mike. In short, they are as boring as hell! 

I doubt it will happen. In the last map the Courts argued about the relevent merits of having an outstate district span either all of Southern Minnesota, all of Western Minnesota, or all of Northern Minnesota. The court claimed the facts pointed to the Southern span being the preferable partition.

To swap the South Western corner of Minnesota would reverse that decision.

[BigSkyBob]

The Dems did a butt ugly tri-chop of Hennepin it appears. Surely that dog won't hunt would it with a court? I don't see the Mankato chop myself.

Both parties would have done themselves more good with something more realistic. A court simply is not going to do a great northern CD on its own recognizance, unless it is a Pub controlled court, with a partisan bias. The Dem map appears to be a joke.

That seems to be a big problem with the national parties. They would rather go for a max plan rather than one that can win. In states where they have the legislative majority that works, especially if the other side won't attack with an alternative that can win in court. It also works if the court decides that it doesn't want to draw its own as was the case in 1991 in IL where the GOP plan was adopted after the legislature failed to act.

But, if the court feels like it want alternatives, the party plans don't look good. In MN there were plans submitted through the public mapping process, and the court could certainly take one of those. This was the entry judged to be the best though the population would need to be adjusted to make it exact.

I won't make too much of the fact that this map was "judged" by some people, based on some standard, to be the "best." Different people judging the same maps by different standards will come up with different winners. What I will note, however, is the utter incongruity of a map that links the Iron Range with the North Dakota border being judged the "best" with the high-handed lectured I was bombarded with to the effect that such a pairing was a gross foul and only an ignoramus, or, partisan hack, could justify such a pairing with a straight face.

Seems that strawman has been shown to be well stuffed!

[BigSkyBob]

Not quite. The GOP map quite needlessly shores up the third by running it out into some German rural/exurban counties. Other than that though, yeah.

The fact that those counties might be considered "rural/exurban" might be relevent. The fact that many of the folks there may be ethnically German is not.