US House Redistricting: Michigan

[Torie]

Muon2, with that map, if the Dingell CD took all the rest of Wayne except the points, still have a shortage of population after taking all of Wastenaw?

A complete district that linked the Livonia corner to the south Wayne area would use the eastern 3/5 of Washtenaw and the northern tier of townships in Monroe. One could swap some of Washtenaw's rural townships out and extend into the city of Monroe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Combining enough precincts to make two districts in Wayne cannot exceed 50.1% black VAP. Thus there's no wiggle room to add the Pointes without dropping a district below 50%. The splits of towns within Wayne was the minimum I could find that kept both above 50%. It's extremely tight.

And that, and only that, is arguably the only thing that saves the Pubbies from a worrisome legal challenge. Here's the rub: 3 CD's can fit (barely, but barely is enough to create a potential problem) into Wayne and Washtenaw (see below). Since we know Dingell has to grab Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti, if we could create two black 50% VAP CD's in Wayne alone, then what is the rationale for another county split? Arguably, McCotter in MI-11 could only dip into Wayne to the extent needed to have Dingell pick up the rest of Washtenaw - not many people. What is the rationale for a black CD to cut into Oakland?  Yes, I suppose a black CD could cut into Oakland, but then McCotter could not cut into Wayne, and again the cut arguably could not be more than the Dingell shortfall in population in Washtenaw. It could be a potential disaster.

But potential disaster was averted - barely. A black CD can jut into Oakland. But at that point, there is no need for MI-12 to take the Pointes to create two black CD's anymore, so since an entire CD can still fit into Macomb, unless you can figure out how cutting out the Pointes, or cutting into Macomb, saves a split elsewhere, we have a potential legal problem.  Hey, come to thing of it, a black CD could cut into Macomb to avoid a cut of Macomb at its northern boundary and that is 125,000 people, so maybe that is the way to go. And that unleashes McCotter to get what he needs in Wayne. That's it baby I think; we fit MI-12, the two black CD's, Dingell's CD, and McCotter's CD, MI-11 entirely into Wayne, Macomb, and Wastenaw and Oakland, and MI-07 has an even county line on one side, and gets its population equalization from Washtenaw, and Rogers in his CD gets what he needs out of Oakland after taking Livingston.  We have a plan! Fantastico! God bless demographics, and the VRA.  What would we do without you?

And this map will be adopted into law. If I am right, it is an absolute no brainer. Even given the games the Dems are playing with the Michigan Supremes, they will be totally screwed and have no legal case at all.



And this is the population equalizer for Washtenaw for MI-07 (MI-07 can equalize here, or on its west side), that makes the remaining six CD's (MI 13, 14, 11, 12, 08, 09) fit like a glove into Wayne, Macomb, Livingston, and Wayne. From a GOP partisan perspective, it's well - perfect, just perfect - almost magical!

By the way, exurban Washtenaw seems to have had a huge population increase. That most be where some of the Detroit metro folks are moving, to try to escape it all, who can't otherwise just get the heck out of Dodge entirely.  



And below is what is almost certainly the chop for Macomb (Warren to be precise), following black percentages, and what I know is the heavily Dem town of Eastpointe (57% Kerry).

The black percentage in the chop zone of Warren has increased by about 10% per precinct from a decade ago. Eastpointe has gone up about 20% in black percentage (to close to 30%), which probably largely explains (probably over-explains, since Macomb in general has trended in tandem with the nation) its heavily Dem profile, swing, and trend. I suspect this Macomb chop will be quite efficient, and move MI-12 closer to the still marginal, but now clear lean GOP zone, maybe as much as plus 3% GOP PVI, but in any event, above 2%. But I need to see the partisan numbers for the Warren chop, rather than just racial percentages, for 2008, not 2004, to be a bit more confident. I need in short, to see just how polarized Macomb has become with more recent election returns data. But notice that the chop zone is 16.8% black, and few blacks live outside the chop in Macomb - maybe 4% as a wild guess overall. The partisan trend in other words from 2004 to 2008 has matched the nation in Macomb, but I doubt it matched the nation on the Dem side of the chop zone, which perforce means it did not on the other side of the Macomb chop either - to wit, intra-Macomb polarization, which is the very fuel without which Gerrymanderer's have no gas.

[muon2]

Here's the map I think Torie has in mind for SE MI. This map has each district within 100 of the ideal population. It's what I've expected for some time with CD 13 (54.2% black VAP) and 14 (56.8% black VAP) each splitting into Oakland and Macomb to allow a district wholly contained in each of those counties. I use CD 8 from Livingston as the balancer per Torie's suggestion. I'll let him check this against his precinct tables for PVI.

[Torie]

Yes, that is the map. It is one I drew at the beginning, but it had the disadvantage of dislodging Rogers from his Livingston base.  He isn't going to dislodge McCotter from his Livonia satrap. But it is by far the safest legally, and the Dem maneuverings on the Michigan Supremes worry me, so I have become very legally cautious, particularly since the vicious Pubbie Gerrymanders are going to be about as amicable as the way the Wisconsin legislature so calmly "debated" the termination of public employee unions (except of course for the Pubbie's public safety pets).  

So it will have to be done. And with all the muni lines up, one can see that the geography of the way Southfield Township, West Farmington and Bloomfield Township unfortunately forces the Dem link up to Pontiac through prime Pubbie territory, rather than West Bloomfield. However, with about another 150,000 folks for the Dem pack to pick up, one can afford a loss of some efficiency. This map, while legally safe, is not as efficient as my former map. But safety first! What is that chop you did in the northweest corner of West Farmington though?  Is that some new town?  Not all those pink lines represent municipalities, and so far as I know, there is no such town that takes a bit out of that NW corner.  If so, that little chop needs to go. In any event, both CD-08 and CD-11 will be pretty safely GOP.

Other than that, the map is perfect with two exceptions. First, the chop of Westland has not picked up the right precincts, so that needs to be revised; in fact, MI-11 needs to pick up Garden City again, and use Westland as a link to get there it looks like. That way, MI-11 will lose most of Dem Westland, rather than take most of it in. That change alone will be worth maybe 40 basis points.

And second, just because I told you that Mt. Clemens in Macomb is a Dem node, does not mean that it is efficient to do a chop of Clinton Township rather than Warren to get there. It isn't. The chop needs to be in Warren. There is a Dem nest down there in Warren that needs to be excised from MI-12, particularly since it appears the nest has been growing both larger and more "blue" (using the Leips partisan color scheme) over time, and that will probably continue, as the escape from Detroit continues. Both races I think are in agreement now that Detroit sucks. It is a place to be from, not in. Plus, the Warren chop cuts down on erosity (which is mentioned in passing in the Michigan statute), plus juice up the black percentage a bit more, so it is all for the public good in carrying out the intent of the VRA anyway. One does well by doing good, in this case.


So good job Muon2, and you probably did it in an hour, while I spend days on these things. I hate when that happens!  

[Brittain33]

In that map, what happens to:

• Ingham County?
• MI-7 with Monroe and however many people from Washtenaw? A hard-right rep. like Walberg will not like that map, but perhaps the legislature doesn't care for him and would be ok with a lower-profile Republican trying to win that district.

[Torie]

Below is the map to draw I think, with the dark blue in Washtenaw, the olive green in Westland, and the magenta in the northeast corner of Oakland depicting the two options. The Pubbie numbers in MI-09 and MI-11 should be pretty close, both with Pubbie PVI's of above 6% I suspect.  But we shall have to tote up the partisan numbers to be sure. The issue is what to do with the 28,000 in excess population for the quin county Detroit metro area, after MI-08, MI-09, MI-11, MI-13 and MI-14 hit their required population numbers.

Ideally,  if MI-07 or MI-10 have clean county lines everywhere else, the excess population could go to MI-10 in the quin county area; MI-10 will have to wander around into strange places in Genesee, Saginaw and Bay Counties plus the thumb to get to its population numbers, and could probably use a slug of Pubbies, and that is what it would get out of Oakland. This approach would also avoid MI-7 having to pick up about 28,000 folks in Dem precincts in Washtenaw (not massively Dem, but probably 60-40 Obama stuff). Notice just how close we came to disaster in Washtenaw with MI-07. If MI-07 had to pick up but two more precincts, than it would have had to drop Pittsfield Township, and cut into Ann Arbor itself, and the gerrymander would be massively degraded! Ouch!  But we just avoided that, with one precinct to spare.

Anyway, the alternative of helping out MI-07 and MI-10 a bit would result in MI-11 taking in more Dem precincts in Westland, but MI-11 is plenty Pubbie as it is, and can easily absorb them without its PVI heading down to an undesirable number.  It's only Dem area is Westland really (and MI-11 under either version can shed Westland's most Dem precincts to MI-08 in any event), with Garden City modestly Dem, along with Farmington City, and that is about it. The balance is just a sea of Pubbies. So if we can get away with it legally, it should and will be done. If not, it will not. It is that simple.

However, MI-07 will probably have to be part of the Ingham County chop, and if so, that MI-10 magenta chop into Oakland may be too legally dangerous if it creates another county split within the state that could otherwise be avoided. But if we can jiggle things elsewhere in creative and Machiavellian ways (due to MI-10 or MI-07 having clean lines elsewhere for example), this would be a better Gerrymander with a view to helping out MI-07 and MI-10, but if - and only if, we can make it legally copacetic to do it. And just who is more suited to do this task, than moi, I ask you? Who? 

In all events, we certainly do not want to take the 28,000 in excess population out of northern Macomb, making it more Dem. That would be way beyond the Pubbie pale. No!  Just no!

[Brittain33]

Ok, new question. Will Michigan Republicans pair Mike Rogers (Howell) and Thad McCotter (Livonia) in one district in order to create a new Pubbie district in outer Oakland?

[Torie]

Ok, new question. Will Michigan Republicans pair Mike Rogers (Howell) and Thad McCotter (Livonia) in one district in order to create a new Pubbie district in outer Oakland?

The Pubbies will have to, in order to avoid the risk of a successful legal challenge that the Pubbie Gerrymander created an unnecessary county split. That risk just cannot be run. Rogers will have to move to Oakland County. Period. Game over. This puppy is just not subject to debate - at all!

[Brittain33]

The Pubbies will have to, in order to avoid the risk of a successful legal challenge that the Pubbie Gerrymander created an unnecessary county split. That risk just cannot be run. Rogers will have to move to Oakland County. Period. Game over. This puppy is just not subject to debate - at all!

Rogers was a state senator for many years and a majority floor leader (per Wikipedia.) What happens if he tells the legislature that he's not moving, especially if some ambitious Republican from Oakland decides the seat has his name on it? Is there no other way to preserve McCotter (using Oakland), Rogers (using Ingham and points west), and Miller (using 7/8 of Macomb) following Michigan's legal rules? The legislature probably wouldn't care if Walberg was screwed over in the process.

Is this not subject to debate because it's McCotter's only fighting chance to stay in Congress?

[Torie]

The Pubbies will have to, in order to avoid the risk of a successful legal challenge that the Pubbie Gerrymander created an unnecessary county split. That risk just cannot be run. Rogers will have to move to Oakland County. Period. Game over. This puppy is just not subject to debate - at all!

Rogers was a state senator for many years and a majority floor leader (per Wikipedia.) What happens if he tells the legislature that he's not moving, especially if some ambitious Republican from Oakland decides the seat has his name on it? Is there no other way to preserve McCotter (using Oakland), Rogers (using Ingham and points west), and Miller (using 7/8 of Macomb) following Michigan's legal rules? The legislature probably wouldn't care if Walberg was screwed over in the process.

Is this not subject to debate because it's McCotter's only fighting chance to stay in Congress?

Well McCotter and Rogers can chat about it, but McCotter is really tied to his slug of Wayne. No, the Pubbies are not going to lose a seat because Rogers or McCotter will not move. In fact, I am not sure screwing over Walberg would solve the legal problem.

Brittain33, you seem so intent in feeding to the wolves my Pubbie Congresspersons that I work so hard to protect (or in Michigan, quite arguably since Wayne helped us by dropping 170,000 more people, to hatch a brand new Pubbie Congresscritter). It is not going to happen. The Pubbies are going for the max - each and every seat in reach will be Pubbified. Deal with it. The Dems are just not going to control both the presidency and Congress again in the next ten years. We tried that once in recent times, and once is enough! 

[Brittain33]

Brittain33, you seem so intent in feeding to the wolves my Pubbie Congresspersons that I work so hard to protect (or in Michigan, quite arguably since Wayne helped us by dropping 170,000 more people, to hatch a brand new Pubbie Congresscritter). It is not going to happen. The Pubbies are going for the max - each and every seat in reach will be Pubbified. Deal with it. The Dems are just not going to control both the presidency and Congress again in the next ten years. We tried that once in recent times, and once is enough!  

I genuinely don't understand where your confidence in this outcome comes from--but I do love seeing your maps and talking about possibilities. Some legislature's going to have to come out with a map soon to shut me up!

[Torie]

Brittain33, you seem so intent in feeding to the wolves my Pubbie Congresspersons that I work so hard to protect (or in Michigan, quite arguably since Wayne helped us by dropping 170,000 more people, to hatch a brand new Pubbie Congresscritter). It is not going to happen. The Pubbies are going for the max - each and every seat in reach will be Pubbified. Deal with it. The Dems are just not going to control both the presidency and Congress again in the next ten years. We tried that once in recent times, and once is enough!  

I genuinely don't understand where your confidence in this outcome comes from--but I do love seeing your maps and talking about possibilities. Some legislature's going to have to come out with a map soon to shut me up!

Clearly!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I agree with Brittain33 that the problem with your maps (masterfully made as they are) is that they assume Republicans will always be willing to "take one for the team," as needed.  You've got to ask yourself, if Rogers has really good connections in the legislature and wants a certain district (more or less) what's stopping him from screwing over another pubbie?  If the Ohio Republicans are likely going to give Tiberi, Stivers, and Austria special treatment, is it really that hard to imagine them doing so by throwing someone in another part of the state under the bus (like Johnson or Renacci who don't really have any connections or influence).  I could go on, but I'm sure you get my point.  Stranger things have certainly happened, and I'm not saying this will happen everywhere, but I'd be shocked if all major Republican maps (in states with high gerrymander potential) were anywhere near as aggressive and single-mindedly focused on efficiency as yours are.  On the other hand, who am I to pass judgment on the work of the "gorgeous octopus"  

[Verily]

You seem to have invented an extra Republican who would be screwed over by a failure to eliminate both Peters and Levin. There is a quite neat map that combines Peters and Levin in a safe Dem seat while leaving everyone else (relatively) safe. Not sure Rogers can really be considered all that safe as long as Lansing is in his district, but that's really his only option short of a fight with McCotter. Did make McCotter quite safe, however.

This is what the Michigan GOP will do, more or less (and maybe with a total redesign in NW Michigan; I did heavily rearrange the districts up there).

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

You seem to have invented an extra Republican who would be screwed over by a failure to eliminate both Peters and Levin. There is a quite neat map that combines Peters and Levin in a safe Dem seat while leaving everyone else (relatively) safe. Not sure Rogers can really be considered all that safe as long as Lansing is in his district, but that's really his only option short of a fight with McCotter. Did make McCotter quite safe, however.

This is what the Michigan GOP will do, more or less (and maybe with a total redesign in NW Michigan; I did heavily rearrange the districts up there).

I may be completely off here, but wouldn't Walberg be (somewhat) vulnerable, especially since Schauer is considering a rematch?  I don't know if this is still a problem since you removed the Washtenaw part of the district, but Monroe county will probably be pretty opposed to Walberg (though maybe not a different Republican).   

[Brittain33]

Thanks--that map answers my question and is what the Republicans almost certainly will do, assuming it's legal on counties and such.

@Mr. X, I'm guessing that if they decide to give a Pubbie some more marginal territory, Walberg will be the odd man out.

[Verily]

Yup, Walberg is not in a good position, undoubtedly, but he's surrounded by marginal Republican seats already. Can't make him safer without putting Rogers or Upton in a D-leaning seat. He's also a lot less popular in the state legislature than the well-connected Rogers and Upton, at least in part because, unlike them, he can't hold a marginal seat.

In any case, Monroe County is only 51% Obama, R+2, so I don't see why it's such a problem for Walberg. Plus, he dropped the more Democratic Eaton County.


On further consideration, though, that map might not be safe enough for Rogers, as it loses Republican parts of outer Oakland for more Democratic Eaton County (and also some rural parts of Shiawassee, which are probably GOP). Not sure how to shore him up without creating a lot more county splits, though. Maybe I could run him into outer Oakland and use the extra space in McCotter's seat to get rid of the split of Lapeer.

[Verily]

Well, that solution (splitting Oakland again, removing the split of Lapeer, then reaching MI-04 into Eaton County) does sort of work. It results in an additional county split, but I think I managed to excise the Democratic parts of Eaton County from MI-08, which should leave it around its current partisanship, about the best that can be done within the legal constraints.

Also note that on this map each GOP incumbent is in their own district, as is each Democratic incumbent (but Peters and Levin are together). MI-04 got a major redesign, however, although its core of Midland, where the incumbent resides, is still there.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Yup, Walberg is not in a good position, undoubtedly, but he's surrounded by marginal Republican seats already. Can't make him safer without putting Rogers or Upton in a D-leaning seat. He's also a lot less popular in the state legislature than the well-connected Rogers and Upton, at least in part because, unlike them, he can't hold a marginal seat.

In any case, Monroe County is only 51% Obama, R+2, so I don't see why it's such a problem for Walberg. Plus, he dropped the more Democratic Eaton County.


On further consideration, though, that map might not be safe enough for Rogers, as it loses Republican parts of outer Oakland for more Democratic Eaton County (and also some rural parts of Shiawassee, which are probably GOP). Not sure how to shore him up without creating a lot more county splits, though. Maybe I could run him into outer Oakland and use the extra space in McCotter's seat to get rid of the split of Lapeer.

I think Walberg might actually run somewhat worse than McCain in Monroe (and the district for that matter).  However, I agree that this is more or less what will probably happen (and that if a Republican has to be made uncomfortable, it will be Walberg).  In any event it sounds like Monroe is less Democratic than I thought, so this map should work fine (especially since you seem to have figured out a way to make Rogers safe).

[krazen1211]

Iteration 1.

[Torie]

Thanks--that map answers my question and is what the Republicans almost certainly will do, assuming it's legal on counties and such.

@Mr. X, I'm guessing that if they decide to give a Pubbie some more marginal territory, Walberg will be the odd man out.

We need to make some kind of bet, because I assure you, the Pubbies will do nothing remotely like the Verily plan. What shall it be? 

[Kevinstat]

Brittain33, you seem so intent in feeding to the wolves my Pubbie Congresspersons that I work so hard to protect (or in Michigan, quite arguably since Wayne helped us by dropping 170,000 more people, to hatch a brand new Pubbie Congresscritter). It is not going to happen. The Pubbies are going for the max - each and every seat in reach will be Pubbified. Deal with it. The Dems are just not going to control both the presidency and Congress again in the next ten years. We tried that once in recent times, and once is enough! 

Will we be able to gerrymander Washington? Or do you guys use some sort of awful commission?

In my perfect world, a commission would draw all districts across the Fruited Plain, and try to create as many competitive districts as possible as its metric.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

His maps are not what he wants but what he thinks the drawers want. Notice how he is drawing CA to comply with the guidelines and not to apply any partisan influences in his drawing of it.

[Kevinstat]

His maps are not what he wants but what he thinks the drawers want. Notice how he is drawing CA to comply with the guidelines and not to apply any partisan influences in his drawing of it.

Oh I see.  Has he tried his hand at any of the (admittedly few) Democratic gerrymander opportunities like Illinois?  Although I guess there intra-(Democratic) party factional and incumbent-protection (in Democratic primaries) considerations might prevent what would otherwise be the best plan for them.

[Torie]

His maps are not what he wants but what he thinks the drawers want. Notice how he is drawing CA to comply with the guidelines and not to apply any partisan influences in his drawing of it.

Oh I see.  Has he tried his hand at any of the (admittedly few) Democratic gerrymander opportunities like Illinois?  Although I guess there intra-(Democratic) party factional and incumbent-protection (in Democratic primaries) considerations might prevent what would otherwise be the best plan for them.

Illinois will be next, after I get my maps for WI, MI, OH, IN and PA all nicely wrapped with supporting data to the Pubbie influence peddlers in each state. I intend to make a difference; I mean that, and will devote a lot of energy to the task - like a white hot laser beam.  And then I will gut Pubbies in Illinois just as brutally as I gut Dems in my little Great Lakes/PA zone, which I know well, and love so much. And I know Illinois well as part of that package. I went to college and business school in Chicago, and is my want, explored each and every corner of the city; no hood was "too dangerous" for a Tore visitation - none. But no, I won't push my Illinois map on the Dems in Illinois. I will leave that to the "usual suspects" on this very forum.

Cheers.

[Torie]

Here are the numbers for the newly drawn MI-12. At 1.6% GOP PVI, MI-12 slips into the "lean GOP" category (which is from 1.5% to 3.0% in GOP PVI). More later, including this adjusted incumbent PVI thingy in the event it is a Miller versus Levin race in 2012.

Getting the most efficient chop of Warren took about two hours, as I played "let's make a deal," where I exchanged precincts between MI-13 and MI-12 (sometimes the exchange deals were package ones, where I had to take or leave two or three precincts at once, and then I totaled the numbers for the package, to see if I was gaining any McCain basis points for the precincts packages available for exchange), until the last exchange deal was consummated that generated any Pubbie basis point profit. (I had the precinct on a spreadsheet ranked by McCain percentages, to speed up the pace of the game, but it still took awhile, as I had to hunt with my mouse to see just where the precincts subject to profitable exchange were located, and whether they were within reach of inclusion or excisement, as the case might have been.) Playing the game for that long gained about 30 basis points or so in Pubbie PVI.  In this PVI range, every basis point has meaning, each and every one, so the game is not over until it's over.