2018 Michigan Election Results: What do They Mean for Detroit?

In 2022, when they redraw the map, Michigan will likely have 13 districts. Looking at the population figures, that translates to about one rep for every 770,000 people.

Wayne County has 1.75mil people, which would be about 2.3 reps for that county. Oakland has 1.25mil people, or 1.6 reps for that county. Macomb has 0.87mil people, or 1.1 reps for that county.

In total, that is about 4 reps for all three Metro counties, and would leave 9 other reps for the rest of the state. Not saying they will draw it up that way, but they could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aj3647

Which map looks more gerrymandered to you? Once you have made your choice, I'll tell you who drew each map.

Attachment 36891

Attachment 36892

---

No question the top map [[which was the original map) is more gerrymandered. But again, what's the goal? Having a map with more races that are competitive, or having an overall legislative body that matches the party proportions of the populace?

Originally Posted by Johnnny5

The blame for the ridiculousness of the boundary lines surrounding District 13 & 14 lies in Washington, not in Lansing [[And it definitely is not set that way for the benefit of Republicans). Unfortunately, crazy map boundaries such as this are likely to become more common with the new commission based system, not less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RO_Resident

Nope, the blame resides squarely in Lansing. Why else would Bob LaBrant write an email, “We’ve spent a lot of time providing options to ensure we have a solid 9-5 delegation in 2012 and beyond.”
https://www.bridgemi.com/public-sector/emails-suggest-republicans-gerrymandered-michigan-weaken-dem-garbage

Nobody in Lansing [[R- or D-) has clean hands. Don't pass the blame over to Washington.

---

My post refers specifically to the lines surrounding districts 13 & 14.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e070893ac8da

Here is a real mess that won't be cleaned up for the next 5+ years
Andy Levin, the congressman’s son, is the only one
who has never been elected to anything.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/mem...-82.995,42.443

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy

Well, actually, the task is somewhat more complicated. Under Michigan law [[pre-Prop 2) "communities of interest" were an important criteria. They continue as such under Prop 2.

The text is:

"Proposal 2 required commissioners to prioritize the following criteria, in the order as listed, for proposing and adopting redistricting plans:[1]
[[a) districts shall be of equal population and comply with federal laws;
[[b) districts shall be geographically contiguous;
[[c) districts shall reflect the state's demographic population and communities of similar historical, cultural, or economic interests;
[[d) districts shall not provide an advantage to any political party;
[[e) districts shall not favor or disfavor an incumbent official;
[[f) districts shall reflect consideration for county, township, and municipal boundaries; and
[[g) districts shall be reasonably compact."

---

"Communities of interest" sounds like however the majority party wants to define it. Proposal 2-c sounds like something political parties and their lawyers can argue about forever. It might be better to use mathematical grids just like Jefferson laid out square grids in the Northwest Territory to replace, for instance, land claims based on "along the river to the big oak tree, thence 2,000 feet north". Grids have illogical problems of their own but were easier to manage after the river changed course and the big oak tree rotted. Looking at, for instance, a map of Michigan Congressional districts, the Detroit metropolitan area is a gerrymandered mess.

If all same population areas were divided mathematically and there are to be 13 districts, it could be done like this: Beginning with the UP include as much of the northern lower Penninsula as necessary to include 1/13 of the State's population. Draw an E-W line across the upper part of the lower peninsula. It would look much like MI- Congressional District 1 today. Then mathematically divide the balance of the lower peninsula's population with three N-S lines and two E-W lines, or visa versa, based on wherever the center of Michigan's population is not including Congressional District 1. Owosso is about the center of Michigan's present population. There would be smaller rectangles in the south and east parts of the lower penninsula but each approximate rectangle would have equal population. Every 10 years, it would then be relatively simple to adjust E-W and N-S lines mathematically based on census changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

"Communities of interest" sounds like however the majority party wants to define it. Proposal 2-c sounds like something political parties and their lawyers can argue about forever. It might be better to use mathematical grids ...snip...

---

This 'solution' came from the same sausage makers as the 'problem'. So no surprise that this will be a entirely different but equally corrupt mess.

Mathematical, algorithmic might, just might be better. But I wouldn't be too sure even of that. How you create that algorithm will be viewed by both sides as a game to be won. Legions of mathematicians will test various models until they find a model that uses slightly diagonal lines to tilt the tables their way... all while professing that their pan is the paragon of egalite'. Ha!

Everything about this change is political. Do not doubt that. And it will stay political. We dream of a true 'fair' system. Nobody wants fair, really. They want to eat their opponents lunch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aj3647

Which map looks more gerrymandered to you? Once you have made your choice, I'll tell you who drew each map.

---

Top clearly more lizardly. But of course it really depends on where the populations and partisans are.

The odd shapes in 'top' might be out in rural lands where they mean nothing, and the little jogs in 'bottom' might be really important and something to fight over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Everything about this change is political. Do not doubt that. And it will stay political. We dream of a true 'fair' system. Nobody wants fair, really. They want to eat their opponents lunch.

---

Exactly, and my point is that "fair" can mean two diametrically opposite results with two diametrically opposite methodologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Everything about this change is political. Do not doubt that. And it will stay political. We dream of a true 'fair' system. Nobody wants fair, really. They want to eat their opponents lunch.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy

Exactly, and my point is that "fair" can mean two diametrically opposite results with two diametrically opposite methodologies.

---

Again, I don't see how this is such a painfully difficult concept for some of you. A "fair" system would see Michigan's Congressional Representation [[and State legislature composition) closely mirror that of the statewide vote based on party lines. If 55% of Michiganders go to the polls and vote for Party A, but somehow Party B ends up with 70% of the Congressional seats for Michigan, then clearly the fix was in on how the lines were drawn.

If 55% of Michigan voters go to the polls and vote for Party A and Party A gets between 50% and 60% of the Congressional seats, that's fair. How, in your learned opinions, would that somehow be unfair?

I guess if you're used to holding on to power via unscrupulous anti-democratic methods, then yes, a more fair system would seem unfair to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

There is a good chance that this we be negotiated using Maptitude, the leading redistricting software. This allows for sophisticated layering of data like income and demographics along with voting dispositions.

---

Indubitably some sort of GIS system will be used to crunch the numbers and come up with the proposed congressional districts after the next census.

Serious question...is anyone using Maptitude anymore? ArcMap, ArcGIS, or QGIS. But Mapitude?

I don't think we have had an active license in our shop for a decade and a half.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aj3647

Again, I don't see how this is such a painfully difficult concept for some of you. A "fair" system would see Michigan's Congressional Representation [[and State legislature composition) closely mirror that of the statewide vote based on party lines. If 55% of Michiganders go to the polls and vote for Party A, but somehow Party B ends up with 70% of the Congressional seats for Michigan, then clearly the fix was in on how the lines were drawn.

If 55% of Michigan voters go to the polls and vote for Party A and Party A gets between 50% and 60% of the Congressional seats, that's fair. How, in your learned opinions, would that somehow be unfair?

I guess if you're used to holding on to power via unscrupulous anti-democratic methods, then yes, a more fair system would seem unfair to you.

---

In order to have a "fair" system as you described, you would have to pack all like-minded voters in to individual districts. This is precisely what we have now.

It gets worse when you want some of those districts to be not just majority-Democratic [[in this state) but majority-minority. Thus, you have the 13th and 14th.

The point that's been made by the VNP folks was that we have ideologues in Congress because districts are safe. That may be so. But when you make the districts less "safe", you are more likely to end up with representation that doesn't match the state as a whole. That's just math.

Competitive districts and state-wide congressional representation that matches the state as a whole are opposite sides of the spectrum, map-making-wise. The closer you get to one, the further you get to the other. Anyone who tells you otherwise has no idea what they are talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy

In order to have a "fair" system as you described, you would have to pack all like-minded voters in to individual districts. This is precisely what we have now.

---

No, you don't. I don't think you are grasping this very simple issue.

Here's what precipitated this issue. In 2016 [[and 2014), Democrats received more votes for the State House then Republicans did, and yet Republicans held a 63-47 advantage in seats in the state House. How is it that although Democrats got >50% of the vote, that Republicans ended up with 57% of the seats? Answer: gerrymandering. Exact same thing happened in 2014; Democrats win more votes but Republicans win a solid majority of the seats.

https://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/o...nt?oid=2472685

Congressional seats were even worse. Republicans held 9 out of 14 seats [[64%) despite taking nowhere near 64% of the Congressional vote statewide in 2016.

Hmmm, maybe the reason why Proposal 2 passed with flying colors is because the majority was sick of being disenfranchised election after election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aj3647

Again, I don't see how this is such a painfully difficult concept for some of you. A "fair" system would see Michigan's Congressional Representation [[and State legislature composition) closely mirror that of the statewide vote based on party lines. If 55% of Michiganders go to the polls and vote for Party A, but somehow Party B ends up with 70% of the Congressional seats for Michigan, then clearly the fix was in on how the lines were drawn.

If 55% of Michigan voters go to the polls and vote for Party A and Party A gets between 50% and 60% of the Congressional seats, that's fair. How, in your learned opinions, would that somehow be unfair?

I guess if you're used to holding on to power via unscrupulous anti-democratic methods, then yes, a more fair system would seem unfair to you.

---

"What had been a 9-5 advantage for Republicans in Michigan’s 14-member congressional delegation will become an even 7-7 split when the new Congress is sworn in on Jan. 3 and could potentially pave the way to additional gains in 2020, when Democrats typically have a larger edge than in non-presidential years." -freep 7/7/18

By your own definition, that's almost "fair". I prefer mathematical models to whatever the majority party chooses to define as fairness. We could infinitely split hairs defining and redefining fairness. For example, Michigan has the highest concentration of Finnish Americans in the Country and they are concentrated in the western UP. Breaking their vote up so they are all not locked into one district without extreme gerrymandering is a difficult nut to crack. Maybe we could have rainbow shaped districts, nicely colored striped districts on maps stretching from Lake Superior to Wayne County. What then, when small Amish communities refuse to vote? ...and on and on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aj3647

No, you don't. I don't think you are grasping this very simple issue.

Here's what precipitated this issue. In 2016 [[and 2014), Democrats received more votes for the State House then Republicans did, and yet Republicans held a 63-47 advantage in seats in the state House. How is it that although Democrats got >50% of the vote, that Republicans ended up with 57% of the seats? Answer: gerrymandering. Exact same thing happened in 2014; Democrats win more votes but Republicans win a solid majority of the seats.

https://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/o...nt?oid=2472685

Congressional seats were even worse. Republicans held 9 out of 14 seats [[64%) despite taking nowhere near 64% of the Congressional vote statewide in 2016.

Hmmm, maybe the reason why Proposal 2 passed with flying colors is because the majority was sick of being disenfranchised election after election.

---

The "received more votes for the house" is really, really bad math. That depends entirely on contested races elsewhere on the ballot, and doesn't take into account undervoting, which is prevalent everywhere. C'mon.

Gerrymandering absolutely exists. That's a given. But it's not why the Dems didn't control the House between 2010 and 2018. That's a convenient excuse for poorly-run campaigns and poorly-selected candidates.

I do know this: when you want two majority-minority districts, you are going to be either packing in all Dems [[which will leave less in the rest of the state to split up) or you will be cracking the Repubs, which will and should lead to an instant lawsuit.

[QUOTE=BankruptcyGuy;559662]The "received more votes for the house" is really, really bad math. That depends entirely on contested races elsewhere on the ballot, and doesn't take into account undervoting, which is prevalent everywhere. C'mon. ]

You are misreading the issue. When there is gerrymandering to the insane extent it exists in Michigan, it cuts up the districts in such a way that the less represented group wins more seats. Perhaps a graphic would helpAttachment 36941

Projected US population in 2020:

325,000,000
➗
435 US House Seats
=
749,000 population in each District

Projected Michigan pop in 2020:

10,000,000
➗
749,000 pop. In each District
=
13.3 Congress People or 13 Seats

——-

Voting Rights Act requires 2 Majority Minority Districts which means Detroit’s population of 670,000 will have to get filleted in half to meet the VRA requirement.

Lowell’s map would essentially violate the VOA by slicing the Black population into thinner slices, thereby rendering their voices silent.

Oh, just another thought, population is not the same a voting age citizens; so, places with more children get fewer votes. That is just another reason why oldsters have an advantage.

Here's a potential solution: Make congressional districts smaller.

Historically, the number of congressional districts and representatives was increased to reflect our growing nation and expanding US population, multiplying by a factor of six from the birth of our nation until 1911. But never since then. In 1911 each member of congress represented about 200,000 people. Today, almost 750,000.

Not only does this mean our members of congress are much less in touch with the citizens they represent, it makes our government much less representational of our population.

One suggestion, to expand congress from 435 to 593 members, would according to the NY Times, "result in a more competitive landscape, with 25 percent of seats qualifying as toss-ups, compared to just 10 percent today. Many states that elect only Republicans today would elect a Democrat or at least become more competitive, and vice versa."

I like the idea. What do you think?

America Needs a Bigger House
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ives-size.html

"What do you think?"

I think we need less government, not more. I think the parties should have NO say at all in districts. I think districts should be based on population alone with NO consideration of the individual preferences of residents. I think we need term limits to prevent dinosaurs like McConnell. I think there should be NO salary for state or federal legislators, Governors or Presidents.

Let the PEOPLE speak without their votes and voices being stacked by those who do or don't like what the people have to say.

We need to eliminate professional politicians who know how to manipulate the system to their personal agenda and financial advantage and go back to citizen politicians who speak FOR the people.

Just take the money out of it .
I don't want a citizen politician speaking for the people.
That is exactly what a LOBBYIST does.
If you repeat crap , over and over , people start to believe it [[propaganda)
Funding it , with money only makes the loudest crap spread further, faster

Do you want the slickest, loudest car salesmen, representing you ?

What was once a position that people looked up to,
involved integrity, intelligence, diplomacy, tact, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnny5

The blame for the ridiculousness of the boundary lines surrounding District 13 & 14 lies in Washington, not in Lansing [[And it definitely is not set that way for the benefit of Republicans). Unfortunately, crazy map boundaries such as this are likely to become more common with the new commission based system, not less.

---

Well, actually, the lines for the 13th and 14th were drawn that way to benefit the Republicans. The idea with gerrymandering is to draw a few districts that vote overwhelmingly for your opponents while drawing a bunch that are sufficiently on your side to vote for your party in all but the worst situations for your party. So, for Republicans, the challenge was to design 5 districts that would never ever vote Republican while making 9 districts that were, say, 60-65% Republican. The idea with the 13th and 14th was to corral all of the African-American and Democratic voters in sight into these two districts to keep them out of the 11th district in particular, and make the 11th more likely than not Republican. Well, the "or not" for the 11th happened this year, but not for lack of trying by the Republicans.