US House Redistricting: Michigan

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'd like to see krazen or BigSkyBob draw a map as to what they'd consider "fair", but they'll probably just argue that the current disgusting GOP gerrymander is a fair map.

[BigSkyBob]

I'd like to see krazen or BigSkyBob draw a map as to what they'd consider "fair", but they'll probably just argue that the current disgusting GOP gerrymander is a fair map.

The notion that there is one objectively "fair" way to redistrict is there with Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and Bigfoot. The key difference is logic can disprove the existence of "fair redistricting," but, science can only note that no specimens of Yeti have ever been discovered. Redistricting is an inherently political process.

To repeat what I wrote dozens of times,  redistricting involves choices some of which are reasonable, and others that are egregious. In redistricting Michigan, given the current set of incumbents, maps can be drawn that make reasonable choices that result in wildly different outcomes. The winner of the contest made reasonable choices that favored the Democrats and resulted in the highest number of expected Democrats to be elected, and the Republican legislature made another series of reasonable choices that will result in the maximum number of Republicans being elected. No doubt there are reasonable maps that have results that are in between.

I haven't insulted anyone intelligence by writing maps that favor my preferred candidates while trying to pass them off as being the One and True Way to "fairly"  redistrict Michigan.

[krazen1211]

I'd like to see krazen or BigSkyBob draw a map as to what they'd consider "fair", but they'll probably just argue that the current disgusting GOP gerrymander is a fair map.

A fair map would give the Democrats 6 districts; 1 in Flint/Saginaw, 1 in Detroit, 1 in Lower Oakland/Macomb, 1 in Wayne County, 1 in Washentaw/remainder of Wayne, and perhaps 1 in central Oakland. There is no other compelling strength of Democratic votes to guarantee them a 7th seat unless you decide to exclude extremely rational choices like attacking Ingram to neighboring Livingston County as was done in Debbie Stabenow's district.

The proposed maps include curious choices to needlessly reconfigure compact districts like the 6th that nicely sit in a corner of the state. Which are of course valid choices that adhere to municipal boundaries, but do not preclude the idea of other valid choices.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

A "fair" map doesn't "give" either party seats.  A fair map would make as compact of districts as possible, minimizing county and municipality splits (in that order of importance) and let the chips fall where they do.

[Verily]

I'd like to see krazen or BigSkyBob draw a map as to what they'd consider "fair", but they'll probably just argue that the current disgusting GOP gerrymander is a fair map.

A fair map would give the Democrats 6 districts; 1 in Flint/Saginaw, 1 in Detroit, 1 in Lower Oakland/Macomb, 1 in Wayne County, 1 in Washentaw/remainder of Wayne, and perhaps 1 in central Oakland. There is no other compelling strength of Democratic votes to guarantee them a 7th seat unless you decide to exclude extremely rational choices like attacking Ingram to neighboring Livingston County as was done in Debbie Stabenow's district.

The proposed maps include curious choices to needlessly reconfigure compact districts like the 6th that nicely sit in a corner of the state. Which are of course valid choices that adhere to municipal boundaries, but do not preclude the idea of other valid choices.

This is the sticking point--attaching Ingham and Livingston Counties to one another is not a rational choice. That's not a comment on whether it favors either party. (It would favor the Democrats to do so if the additional population thereafter were acquired from Eaton or Shiawassee County instead of outer Oakland County.) But they are completely and totally different in all ways; the fact that they are neighbors does not make connecting them reasonable or rational or intelligible for any reasons other than partisanship.

The same, of course, is true of connecting Washtenaw and Livingston (which you hypocritically aren't advocating, of course because it always favors the Democrats) or Gennessee to Livingston (again, no more unreasonable than connecting Ingham and Livingston, but also favors the Democrats). Livingston only reasonably connects to its fellow Detroit suburbs in Oakland and/or Wayne and the extreme NE corner of Washtenaw; it shares nothing in common with its other neighbors.

You fail to understand the basic meaning of "community of interest".

[freepcrusher]

I'd like to see krazen or BigSkyBob draw a map as to what they'd consider "fair", but they'll probably just argue that the current disgusting GOP gerrymander is a fair map.

A fair map would give the Democrats 6 districts; 1 in Flint/Saginaw, 1 in Detroit, 1 in Lower Oakland/Macomb, 1 in Wayne County, 1 in Washentaw/remainder of Wayne, and perhaps 1 in central Oakland. There is no other compelling strength of Democratic votes to guarantee them a 7th seat unless you decide to exclude extremely rational choices like attacking Ingram to neighboring Livingston County as was done in Debbie Stabenow's district.

The proposed maps include curious choices to needlessly reconfigure compact districts like the 6th that nicely sit in a corner of the state. Which are of course valid choices that adhere to municipal boundaries, but do not preclude the idea of other valid choices.

so a state that hasn't voted republican since 1988 is entitled to only six democratic seats? What are you smoking?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A "fair" map doesn't "give" either party seats.  A fair map would make as compact of districts as possible, minimizing county and municipality splits (in that order of importance) and let the chips fall where they do.

Which is exactly what Verily did. BSB and krazen then of course nitpicked his map to death ignoring or defending far more blatant gerrymanders in the current map. Hell your map isn't too disimilar to Verily's.

[Verily]

A "fair" map doesn't "give" either party seats.  A fair map would make as compact of districts as possible, minimizing county and municipality splits (in that order of importance) and let the chips fall where they do.

Sort of. Counties are arbitrary entities created in the 19th century that frequently bear little resemblance to actual communities of interest--witness Oakland County or Macomb County or Washtenaw County for areas in the same county that have little or nothing in common. Similar can be true of municipalities, although for the most part municipalities are small enough that they have homogenous characters and it is generally a good idea to respect municipal boundaries as a result.

Demographics should be the first and foremost determinator of communities of interest and fair districts, although county and municipal lines are sometimes useful indicators of demographic transitions (or useful benchmarks where the edge of a certain demographic region is unclear--e.g., the edge of the Saginaw metro is not obvious, but the borders of Saginaw county are a good proxy).

[minionofmidas]

They are also usually - but not always - important to the voters as marks of identity. I'd pretty much strike them from consideration pretty entirely only in fast growing suburban areas.

[krazen1211]

I'd like to see krazen or BigSkyBob draw a map as to what they'd consider "fair", but they'll probably just argue that the current disgusting GOP gerrymander is a fair map.

A fair map would give the Democrats 6 districts; 1 in Flint/Saginaw, 1 in Detroit, 1 in Lower Oakland/Macomb, 1 in Wayne County, 1 in Washentaw/remainder of Wayne, and perhaps 1 in central Oakland. There is no other compelling strength of Democratic votes to guarantee them a 7th seat unless you decide to exclude extremely rational choices like attacking Ingram to neighboring Livingston County as was done in Debbie Stabenow's district.

The proposed maps include curious choices to needlessly reconfigure compact districts like the 6th that nicely sit in a corner of the state. Which are of course valid choices that adhere to municipal boundaries, but do not preclude the idea of other valid choices.

This is the sticking point--attaching Ingham and Livingston Counties to one another is not a rational choice. That's not a comment on whether it favors either party. (It would favor the Democrats to do so if the additional population thereafter were acquired from Eaton or Shiawassee County instead of outer Oakland County.) But they are completely and totally different in all ways; the fact that they are neighbors does not make connecting them reasonable or rational or intelligible for any reasons other than partisanship.

The same, of course, is true of connecting Washtenaw and Livingston (which you hypocritically aren't advocating, of course because it always favors the Democrats) or Gennessee to Livingston (again, no more unreasonable than connecting Ingham and Livingston, but also favors the Democrats). Livingston only reasonably connects to its fellow Detroit suburbs in Oakland and/or Wayne and the extreme NE corner of Washtenaw; it shares nothing in common with its other neighbors.

You fail to understand the basic meaning of "community of interest".

Of course it is a valid choice. The major highways such as I-96 run east-west, and the historical nature of the link sets precedent for it to be maintained. Partisanship is an obvious excuse as the seat has been held by a Democrat in recent years.

When you attach a county like Washentaw, you come up with the pyramid shaped 7th district as you did that stretches over vast areas, as well as explicitly uncompacting the 6th district to move Kalamazoo into the 7th. That is partisanship, not to mention violating the neutral standards. You simply make choices that favor the Democratic party, and that is your right, but most people don't pretend that their crap smells like perfume.

[krazen1211]

so a state that hasn't voted republican since 1988 is entitled to only six democratic seats? What are you smoking?

Who do you think won the Congressional vote in 2010?

[timothyinMD]

I'd like to see krazen or BigSkyBob draw a map as to what they'd consider "fair", but they'll probably just argue that the current disgusting GOP gerrymander is a fair map.

A fair map would give the Democrats 6 districts; 1 in Flint/Saginaw, 1 in Detroit, 1 in Lower Oakland/Macomb, 1 in Wayne County, 1 in Washentaw/remainder of Wayne, and perhaps 1 in central Oakland. There is no other compelling strength of Democratic votes to guarantee them a 7th seat unless you decide to exclude extremely rational choices like attacking Ingram to neighboring Livingston County as was done in Debbie Stabenow's district.

The proposed maps include curious choices to needlessly reconfigure compact districts like the 6th that nicely sit in a corner of the state. Which are of course valid choices that adhere to municipal boundaries, but do not preclude the idea of other valid choices.

so a state that hasn't voted republican since 1988 is entitled to only six democratic seats? What are you smoking?

No one is entitled to anything, except what you earn by winning elections.   NORTH DAKOTA hasn't voted Democrat since 1964 yet it had an all Democrat congressional delegation for 24 years?  Was that "unfair?"   No

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Of course it is a valid choice. The major highways such as I-96 run east-west, and the historical nature of the link sets precedent for it to be maintained. Partisanship is an obvious excuse as the seat has been held by a Democrat in recent years.

The point is that Livingston County has far more in common with points east than with points west, north, or south. To create a Livingston-based district with the best possible community of interest would require the district to pick up portions of Oakland County.

Ingham County also has far more in common with the rest of its Metropolitan area (Eaton, Clinton Counties, possibly Shiawassee) than it does with Livingston County. To create a Lansing-based district with the best possible community of interest would require Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton to be in the same district, and that Livingston County be excluded from that district.

For the billionth time, this is not a matter of partisanship. The discussion is on creating a map that best preserves communities of interest. The only partisanship involved is when your side hails a blatant Republican gerrymander as God's gift to redistricting, and then denounces a map that preserves communities of interest as a Democratic gerrymander.

[ilikeverin]

I'd like to see krazen or BigSkyBob draw a map as to what they'd consider "fair", but they'll probably just argue that the current disgusting GOP gerrymander is a fair map.

A fair map would give the Democrats 6 districts; 1 in Flint/Saginaw, 1 in Detroit, 1 in Lower Oakland/Macomb, 1 in Wayne County, 1 in Washentaw/remainder of Wayne, and perhaps 1 in central Oakland. There is no other compelling strength of Democratic votes to guarantee them a 7th seat unless you decide to exclude extremely rational choices like attacking Ingram to neighboring Livingston County as was done in Debbie Stabenow's district.

The proposed maps include curious choices to needlessly reconfigure compact districts like the 6th that nicely sit in a corner of the state. Which are of course valid choices that adhere to municipal boundaries, but do not preclude the idea of other valid choices.

This is the sticking point--attaching Ingham and Livingston Counties to one another is not a rational choice. That's not a comment on whether it favors either party. (It would favor the Democrats to do so if the additional population thereafter were acquired from Eaton or Shiawassee County instead of outer Oakland County.) But they are completely and totally different in all ways; the fact that they are neighbors does not make connecting them reasonable or rational or intelligible for any reasons other than partisanship.

The same, of course, is true of connecting Washtenaw and Livingston (which you hypocritically aren't advocating, of course because it always favors the Democrats) or Gennessee to Livingston (again, no more unreasonable than connecting Ingham and Livingston, but also favors the Democrats). Livingston only reasonably connects to its fellow Detroit suburbs in Oakland and/or Wayne and the extreme NE corner of Washtenaw; it shares nothing in common with its other neighbors.

You fail to understand the basic meaning of "community of interest".

Of course it is a valid choice. The major highways such as I-96 run east-west, and the historical nature of the link sets precedent for it to be maintained.

You are, um, clearly not from Michigan.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If anybody cares, this press release has a few more details on my plan (how it did compared to the others, and the following demographic breakdowns): http://drawthelinemidwest.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/MCRC-competition-winner-release-final.pdf

Dist. Tot Pop Compactness Black VAP His. VAP Dem PI Rep PI
1 706,811 62.53% 1.56% 1.02% 43.66% 56.34%
2 706,217 80.45% 4.67% 4.49% 37.97% 62.03%
3 705,620 77.74% 8.89% 6.93% 38.66% 61.34%
4 706,965 67.13% 6.50% 3.55% 45.91% 54.09%
5 708,837 73.66% 12.13% 2.43% 51.20% 48.80%
6 708,398 84.40% 8.25% 4.10% 44.28% 55.72%
7 704,209 72.64% 8.12% 4.09% 45.78% 54.22%
8 707,807 71.89% 3.54% 2.54% 36.93% 63.07%
9 707,014 67.76% 9.83% 2.86% 45.99% 54.01%
10 703,039 71.38% 7.07% 1.94% 45.75% 54.25%
11 705,564 59.55% 12.53% 2.52% 47.64% 52.36%
12 704,073 56.68% 51.92% 6.85% 73.87% 26.13%
13 705,391 41.23% 53.04% 2.66% 70.94% 29.06%
14 703,695 73.57% 8.93% 3.51% 52.30% 47.70%

[Insula Dei]

so a state that hasn't voted republican since 1988 is entitled to only six democratic seats? What are you smoking?

Who do you think won the Congressional vote in 2010?

Of course, having won an election who wouldn't horribly mess up the map so as to make sure that their opponents won't recover too soon. That's all popular mandates should be used for.

[krazen1211]

Of course it is a valid choice. The major highways such as I-96 run east-west, and the historical nature of the link sets precedent for it to be maintained. Partisanship is an obvious excuse as the seat has been held by a Democrat in recent years.

The point is that Livingston County has far more in common with points east than with points west, north, or south. To create a Livingston-based district with the best possible community of interest would require the district to pick up portions of Oakland County.

Ingham County also has far more in common with the rest of its Metropolitan area (Eaton, Clinton Counties, possibly Shiawassee) than it does with Livingston County. To create a Lansing-based district with the best possible community of interest would require Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton to be in the same district, and that Livingston County be excluded from that district.

For the billionth time, this is not a matter of partisanship. The discussion is on creating a map that best preserves communities of interest. The only partisanship involved is when your side hails a blatant Republican gerrymander as God's gift to redistricting, and then denounces a map that preserves communities of interest as a Democratic gerrymander.

It is a very natural extension of the Michigan transit corridors. The Stabenow district used to extend into Gennessee County. To protect the integrity of the Flint district, Michigan mappers properly removed the 8th from Gennessee altogether and added Clinton County.

Any natural Michigan mapping scheme will begin in the Detroit Region, and after the Detroit 2 and Oakland 2 districts are drawn, only limited population remained in Oakland County, and Livingston County. The natural extension from here based on television and transit corridors is of course west.

Is your map a legit community of interest as it swoops and swerves across numerous counties to rack up far away GOP voters? Of course not! To drive from Howell to Port Huron along the fastest route you would cross through a whopping 4 other Congressional districts before reaching your destination on the far other side of the district.

The other proposed maps have the same types of choices, such as uncompacting the square shaped 6th district to add Battle Creek. The Judge-written Apol standards were written as such knowing that some would tend to abuse curious 'community of interests' ideas and thus instead adhered to defined geographical boundaries. They were not considered 'unfair' until 1 party started losing.

[BigSkyBob]

Of course it is a valid choice. The major highways such as I-96 run east-west, and the historical nature of the link sets precedent for it to be maintained. Partisanship is an obvious excuse as the seat has been held by a Democrat in recent years.

The point is that Livingston County has far more in common with points east than with points west, north, or south.

That is a point you wish to make. The question is how much importance should one place on your point. The answer seems to be, "Not much!"

Historically, Democratic legislators linked Livingston County with Lansing. This linking was perfectly acceptable to Democrats when Lansing and Pontiac outvoted Livingston. Population growth in Livingston changed that equation, and, now, Democrats want to reconsider their previous pairing. Too bad!

The reality is that Michigan doesn't consist of fifteen distinct "communities of interest" that are equally populated. Nor, does it consist of fourteen such equally populated districts, today. The reality is that redistricting will create districts that contain districts that include parts of more that one COI and/or cross lines of COI, whatever your alleged COI map of Michigan is.

The reality is that COI is a highly subjective term that is ripe for abuse. The reality is that the county next to yours is more likely to be similiar than a county two away. It isn't a neet little map with well defined lines. It is a gradiate.

It is particularly egregious that you are trying to split a city from a county that includes its suburbs for reasons of "COI." That's outright ridiculous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The topic is "Michigan Congressional redistricting" no matter how much you may wish to restrict the conversation to a particular topic that you subjectively consider the most favorable to your position.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

Of course it is a valid choice. The major highways such as I-96 run east-west, and the historical nature of the link sets precedent for it to be maintained. Partisanship is an obvious excuse as the seat has been held by a Democrat in recent years.

The point is that Livingston County has far more in common with points east than with points west, north, or south. To create a Livingston-based district with the best possible community of interest would require the district to pick up portions of Oakland County.

Ingham County also has far more in common with the rest of its Metropolitan area (Eaton, Clinton Counties, possibly Shiawassee) than it does with Livingston County. To create a Lansing-based district with the best possible community of interest would require Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton to be in the same district, and that Livingston County be excluded from that district.

For the billionth time, this is not a matter of partisanship. The discussion is on creating a map that best preserves communities of interest. The only partisanship involved is when your side hails a blatant Republican gerrymander as God's gift to redistricting, and then denounces a map that preserves communities of interest as a Democratic gerrymander.

It is a very natural extension of the Michigan transit corridors. The Stabenow district used to extend into Gennessee County. To protect the integrity of the Flint district, Michigan mappers properly removed the 8th from Gennessee altogether and added Clinton County.

Any natural Michigan mapping scheme will begin in the Detroit Region, and after the Detroit 2 and Oakland 2 districts are drawn, only limited population remained in Oakland County, and Livingston County. The natural extension from here based on television and transit corridors is of course west.

Is your map a legit community of interest as it swoops and swerves across numerous counties to rack up far away GOP voters? Of course not! To drive from Howell to Port Huron along the fastest route you would cross through a whopping 4 other Congressional districts before reaching your destination on the far other side of the district.

The other proposed maps have the same types of choices, such as uncompacting the square shaped 6th district to add Battle Creek. The Judge-written Apol standards were written as such knowing that some would tend to abuse curious 'community of interests' ideas and thus instead adhered to defined geographical boundaries. They were not considered 'unfair' until 1 party started losing.

Geographical boundries are fixed. Notions of "communities of interests" are highly subjective and subject to abuse. Excellent observation!

[nclib]

There is no question Michigan's current map is gerrymandered. Under the 1990s plan, Gore won 9 CD's to Bush's 7. Under the 2000s plan, Gore would have won 5 CD's to Bush's 10.

Anyone have the Kerry-Bush numbers for the new CD's? Obama-McCain isn't really a good measure in Michigan.

[BigSkyBob]

There is no question Michigan's current map is gerrymandered. Under the 1990s plan, Gore won 9 CD's to Bush's 7. Under the 2000s plan, Gore would have won 5 CD's to Bush's 10.

Anyone have the Kerry-Bush numbers for the new CD's? Obama-McCain isn't really a good measure in Michigan.

Alternately, those same facts suggest that the apportionment in the 1990's was gerrymandered to favor the Democrats, while the current map accurately reflects the fact that most of Michigan leans slightly Republican.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

There is no question Michigan's current map is gerrymandered. Under the 1990s plan, Gore won 9 CD's to Bush's 7. Under the 2000s plan, Gore would have won 5 CD's to Bush's 10.

Anyone have the Kerry-Bush numbers for the new CD's? Obama-McCain isn't really a good measure in Michigan.

Alternately, those same facts suggest that the apportionment in the 1990's was gerrymandered to favor the Democrats, while the current map accurately reflects the fact that most of Michigan leans slightly Republican.

Yes, the Republican-controlled Senate and John Engler gerrymandered in favor of the Democrats...

And until 2010, the state didn't really lean Republican.  We elect Republicans to some offices, but as a whole, the state tends to lean Democratic.  This does change from district to district though.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So, I've done a Republican gerrymander in the past.  I decided to do a Democratic gerrymander:

It would've been easier if I didn't have to obey the VRA - I probably could've made 9 Democratic districts instead of just 8.















That was a cleaned up version.  Originally, I had District 6 wrapping around District 3, but realized that I could just cut them off near Grand Rapids.  So this one is from my original map:

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

District      Obama   McCain   Dem   Rep
1      56.1%   42.2%   50.7%   49.3%
2      49.6%   48.8%   40.9%   59.1%
3      41.5%   56.8%   31.8%   68.2%
4      63.7%   34.8%   52.4%   47.6%
5      51.8%   46.4%   43.0%   56.1%
6      45.6%   52.7%   36.3%   63.7%
7      60.7%   37.7%   50.8%   49.2%
8      48.9%   49.3%   41.5%   58.5%
9      60.6%   37.7%   52.1%   47.9%
10      47.8%   50.6%   38.2%   61.8%
11      61.6%   36.8%   50.9%   49.1%
12      60.8%   37.4%   53.3%   46.7%
13      76.5%   22.6%   65.3%   34.7%   50.1% VAP
14      73.9%   24.9%   64.5%   35.5%   50.6% VAP

*Dem/Rep calcualted as an average of the Gubernatorial, AG, and SoS 2006 results (Dave's Index, not my own).  They're probably slightly Republican biased, as the AG and SoS have been good races for Republicans in recent years.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

District 8 is very far from continuous.