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

[Wesley Mouch]

... And then the gerrymandering is undone for the elections after 2020 and we get automatic voter registration, no-reason absentee, etc...which will make the electorate even more Democratic.

Is there analysis of just how much advantage gerrymandering gives the gerrymanderer?

I'm quite sure the gerrymanderers [[GOP right now here) can't resist drawing favorable boundaries. If there's a political level to be pulled you can rest assured that politicians will push and pull it all day long. But when everything is said and done, I wouldn't be surprised if the results don't change much.

Same with easing up on voter registration. I like registration. Not to limit voting, but to create a non-trivial barrier. Encourages the more informed to vote, and discourages 'impulse' purchases, if you will. The Dems believe that they can more easily tap into special interest voting populations with a late-minute campaign, probably using fright tactics. And the Repubs fear that, for the obvious reason. But once this is the 'rules of the game', the Repubs are gonna find their own group of disgruntled, former non-voters to court. Net result will probably be closer to zero than the Dems think.

Only time will tell how fair the process is, and how much of an effect there is.

I don't think I've ever heard a 'success story' for liberalized or non-existent registration where these kind of easy-registration made a difference.

[Wesley Mouch]

...
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.

The political outlook of every household can now be detected with a very high degree of accuracy. This is available from data aggregators. "They" know who you are and who I am.
...

Seems to me like the best way to redistrict would be to NOT use software that's aware of demographics. Isn't the point to create districts that are natural, and not a product of the dream of some politician [[or commission member)?

Pure geography is the only system that can be fair because it avoids all considerations of income, demographics, and voter disposition. Then the chips will fall where they may.

[Meddle]

Pure geography is the only system that can be fair because it avoids all considerations of income, demographics, and voter disposition. Then the chips will fall where they may.

Which was my point.

[aj3647]

Is there analysis of just how much advantage gerrymandering gives the gerrymanderer?

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out that state's gerrymandered map before the 2018 election and issued its own map drawn along non-partisan lines. Democrats held 6 seats and Republicans held 12 under the previous map. After Tuesday's election [[with the new map), Democrats hold 10 seats and Republicans hold 8. That's a swing of 4 seats. Soooooo, pretty significant.

In Michigan the balance was 9-5 in favor of the Republicans before Tuesday. Haley Stevens and Elissa Slotkin flipped two marginally-Republican districts so the new balance will be 7-7. If I had to guess I'd say that non-partisan redistricting will probably make these two districts more Democratic such that the balance would be a pretty solid 7-7 split, which better reflects that actual statewide vote breakdown. I could also see it going 8-6 in favor of the Democrats by making one of those districts in the western side of the state more Democratic, maybe MI-06, but overall I'd say two formerly Republican-leaning seats that will move more solidly into the Democratic column and maybe put a third GOP seat into play.

The Dems believe that they can more easily tap into special interest voting populations with a late-minute campaign, probably using fright tactics. And the Repubs fear that, for the obvious reason. But once this is the 'rules of the game', the Repubs are gonna find their own group of disgruntled, former non-voters to court. Net result will probably be closer to zero than the Dems think.

Fright tactics? Like telling white people in the Upper Midwest that a Hispanic migrant caravan carrying smallpox and ISIS terrorists is coming to rape their women and murder them all? Those kind of fright tactics? Anyways, what former non-voters are the GOP going to court? Old white people already vote in large numbers, we know that. It's millenials and minority groups that traditionally have far lower voter turnout. So there's far more "room to grow" for the Democrats than for the Republicans in terms of voter turnout and automatic voter registration and no-reason absentee voting just isn't going to help the GOP nearly as much as it would Democrats. It's not like there's some glut of disgruntled or apathetic old white people out there not voting.

I don't think I've ever heard a 'success story' for liberalized or non-existent registration where these kind of easy-registration made a difference.

Define "success." Voting should be easy to do, not hard. If people can cast their vote without undue burdens, that is a success. If anything we should make a federal election a national holiday where people get the day off from work so they have ample time to vote. That would drastically cut the waiting times in lines and increase turnout.

[Canadian Visitor]

I don't think I've ever heard a 'success story' for liberalized or non-existent registration where these kind of easy-registration made a difference.

I can't speak to US examples, but I can say, voter turnout is higher in almost all developed countries than in the United States.

In almost all countries it is easier for a Citizen to be become a voter.

In Canada, you are automatically 'enumerated' [[registered) when you turn 18.

The government taps a variety of databases to ensure it captures just about everyone. Healthcard is a common choice, since pretty much every Canadian has one, and your birthday is on it.

Thereafter you get a voting card in the mail ahead of each election, which you bring to your polling station in order to vote.

Somehow, some folks do get missed, in which case you are supposed to add yourself to the voters list in advance, which you can, by reporting to the local returning officer or communication w/the elections agency and providing proof of citizenship/residency.

However, if you miss that, you can still swear an oath on the day of the election, with ID in hand, or if you lack all the ID, get someone else, with valid ID to swear you are who you say and have the right to vote.

***

We also have lots of advance polling days, usually 5 or so ahead of the actual election day, starting 2 weeks or so before hand.

These measures are not sufficient to ensure strong public engagement [[voter turn out in Canada is typically in the 60s % wise, peaking at 70 some %, which is still to low); but needless to say is a good deal better than 1/2 the population [[or more) staying home.

******

I still maintain Canada's provisions against gerrymandering are among the best.

Independent panels of judges [[not elected, non-partisan), and experts who propose riding [[district) adjustments every 10 years based on the census.

The panel's recommendations, which have to follow various guidelines are always presented to the public and all the parties.

The aim is all-party consent and public consensus on the boundaries.

I don't see why it would be done any other way.

[poobert]

I don't think I've ever heard a 'success story' for liberalized or non-existent registration where these kind of easy-registration made a difference.

Read: democracy is overrated

[Lowell]

Independent panels of judges [[not elected, non-partisan), and experts who propose riding [[district) adjustments every 10 years based on the census.

The panel's recommendations, which have to follow various guidelines are always presented to the public and all the parties.

The aim is all-party consent and public consensus on the boundaries.

I don't see why it would be done any other way.

We're finally heading that way but, mind you, you have four considerably-large parties, none a majority, so all-party consensus is a different game vs. our winner-take-all elections.

[Atticus]

The other things to remember are that in 2022 when the new districts are drawn:

1. There will likely only be 13 congressional seats, as opposed to the current 14 statewide in Michigan.

2. Even if drawn “fairly”, it will be very difficult to not have one or two districts that are heavily packed with Democratic voters, as Wayne County on its own will count for about 2+ congressional districts in 2022, and obviously tends to be very heavily democratic. Whatever district contains the city of Detroit will especially be unbalanced.

[BankruptcyGuy]

In short: No. For many reasons.

Explain to me how the historical, cultural, and economic interests of Detroit residents magically stop at the borders of Detroit. Does Detroit not share numerous historical and economic interests with many of the inner-ring suburbs, for example, many of which have diverse populations and have struggled economically in the exact same ways Detroit has? For example, what makes Ecorse or River Rouge so vastly different from Detroit?

Secondly, there's this:

[[d) districts shall not provide an advantage to any political party;

One could argue that packing nearly all of Detroit into one Congressional district would do exactly that. It would be like 95% Democratic. Right now the most partisan district in Michigan is MI-13 [[Rashida Tlaib's district). It has a Cook PVI of D+33, meaning that on average you can expect a Democrat to outperform a Republican in this district by a whopping 33 points. It was intentionally drawn that way during re-districting to pack as many Democrats as possible into one district, thus making other surrounding districts more favorable to the GOP. An all-Detroit district would put MI-13 to shame. It'd be something like D+60, it would be hands-down by far the most extremely skewed partisan district in the entire nation. No Republican could ever be competitive there.

Plus there's the optics of cramming most of the state's black people into one district. There's a reason why the MI GOP hasn't just lumped most of Detroit into one district to get rid of all the Democrats, and that's it.

But honestly look at the way MI-14 or MI-11 are drawn and tell me that makes sense.

Yes, but you cite [[d), and the proposal specifically requires the criteria to be judged in order. I dont think you could overlook [[c) to get to [[d).

And yes, this district is packed, as are the rest of them. As I tried to demonstrate, the only way that statewide representation matches the state's overall proportions is through perfectly noncompetitive districts. The more competitive, the more likely the state's representation is one-sided. This is the biggest flaw in the whole concept.

One other factor: majority-minority districts. In 2010, the Justice Department was clearly looking to make sure that the number of those did not decline. Thus, we got the 11th and the 14th.

Not defending the map as it is, but when you follow the criteria, people might not get what they expect.

[BankruptcyGuy]

Now for some pure speculation...

My first take for SE Michigan would envision districts radiating out from downtown ala the Woodward Plan, something like the map below. I think this is decently 'communal' and generally represents how residents of those areas interact in terms of city / suburb work, shopping and entertainment patterns.

Attachment 36877

The 14th would become a Woodward-centric [Dreamcruise?] district, the 9th would become a Gratiot-centric [Gratiot Cruise?] district going NE into Macomb until it fills is population, and the 13th Grand River-centric. The Downriver 12th "Dingell" district is a decently natural district and would remain largely the same. The 11th would wrap the northern eastside, the 8th northern westside.

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.

The political outlook of every household can now be detected with a very high degree of accuracy. This is available from data aggregators. "They" know who you are and who I am.

...and that and a couple of bucks will buy you a cup of coffee.

A few things:

Good first pass, but...
This would be legally challenged in a NY minute, as it breaks up Detroit into pie pieces. Challengers would allege that the number of majority-minority districts would be reduced.
There is probably one too many seats there. SE MI will probably have 4, unless you include exurbs.

[Atticus]

Obviously Michigan has been Gerrymandered... as obviously either side does it whenever they can. That being said, intentional or not, the Gerrymandering in Michigan pales in comparison to Ohio. If you want to see some interesting and intense Gerrymandering, Ohio is a great example.

[BankruptcyGuy]

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out that state's gerrymandered map before the 2018 election and issued its own map drawn along non-partisan lines. Democrats held 6 seats and Republicans held 12 under the previous map. After Tuesday's election [[with the new map), Democrats hold 10 seats and Republicans hold 8. That's a swing of 4 seats. Soooooo, pretty significant.

In Michigan the balance was 9-5 in favor of the Republicans before Tuesday. Haley Stevens and Elissa Slotkin flipped two marginally-Republican districts so the new balance will be 7-7. If I had to guess I'd say that non-partisan redistricting will probably make these two districts more Democratic such that the balance would be a pretty solid 7-7 split, which better reflects that actual statewide vote breakdown. I could also see it going 8-6 in favor of the Democrats by making one of those districts in the western side of the state more Democratic, maybe MI-06, but overall I'd say two formerly Republican-leaning seats that will move more solidly into the Democratic column and maybe put a third GOP seat into play.



Fright tactics? Like telling white people in the Upper Midwest that a Hispanic migrant caravan carrying smallpox and ISIS terrorists is coming to rape their women and murder them all? Those kind of fright tactics? Anyways, what former non-voters are the GOP going to court? Old white people already vote in large numbers, we know that. It's millenials and minority groups that traditionally have far lower voter turnout. So there's far more "room to grow" for the Democrats than for the Republicans in terms of voter turnout and automatic voter registration and no-reason absentee voting just isn't going to help the GOP nearly as much as it would Democrats. It's not like there's some glut of disgruntled or apathetic old white people out there not voting.



Define "success." Voting should be easy to do, not hard. If people can cast their vote without undue burdens, that is a success. If anything we should make a federal election a national holiday where people get the day off from work so they have ample time to vote. That would drastically cut the waiting times in lines and increase turnout.

The PA Supreme Court-imposed map was NOT on non-partisan lines. The Court is a partisan institution [[like ours, but worse), and they packed and cracked to flip the script.

[BankruptcyGuy]

In case I wasn't clear, packed districts are to the benefit of BOTH parties, independent of who has what percentage of the population. I can demonstrate with a piece of paper, scissors, and some crayons that my kids pulled out.

Take a piece of paper, and color some percentage of it blue [[say 55%) and some red [[say 45%). Make the left all blue and the right all red.

Now, there are several ways to make the districts [[which you accomplish with scissors). You can:

1. cut each district vertically. In my example, let's make 20 districts for easy math. You would have 11 all blue districts, and 9 all red districts. Those are what I call "perfectly noncompetitive districts".

2. cut each district horizontally. You would now have 20 districts, each 55% blue and 45% red. Those are "perfectly competitive districts".

3. something in between

Example 1 is very much favored by the parties. They dont have anything meaningful but a primary, and they are guaranteed their seats.

Example 2 has both parties competing in every race. That costs more, and is fraught with peril [[for them.)

The coup de grace is the voting outcome: Example 2 would have 20 blue seats, and the state would howl how the representation doesnt match the population. The packed example [[1) would match the state's population exactly.

And understand, the further you move away from 1 [[toward competitive districts), the closer you get to 2 [[representation not matching).

Just food for thought--the problem is more complex than it seems.

[Lowell]

This would be legally challenged in a NY minute, as it breaks up Detroit into pie pieces. Challengers would allege that the number of majority-minority districts would be reduced.
There is probably one too many seats there. SE MI will probably have 4, unless you include exurbs.

Thought about that too. My proposed 14th District [Woodward] could remedy that by encompassing Southfield, Oak Park, Ferndale and Pontiac along with the areas in Detroit and Highland Park.

The proposed 9th and 13th would also have substantial minority populations, enough to allow success of minority candidates. Coleman Young did get elected mayor of a then minority-minority city.

[Wesley Mouch]

...
And understand, the further you move away from 1 [[toward competitive districts), the closer you get to 2 [[representation not matching).

Well put.

Just food for thought--the problem is more complex than it seems.

Way more complex.

The way the law is written it appears that its trying to be all things to all people. You'll get your districts drawn to your idea of your community. Oh sure. You think anyone will be happy? No way. Every answer that try to deliver 'fairness' or 'equity' will only bring heartache and disappointment.

[archfan]

...
Same with easing up on voter registration. I like registration. Not to limit voting, but to create a non-trivial barrier. Encourages the more informed to vote, and discourages 'impulse' purchases, if you will. The Dems believe that they can more easily tap into special interest voting populations with a late-minute campaign, probably using fright tactics. And the Repubs fear that, for the obvious reason. But once this is the 'rules of the game', the Repubs are gonna find their own group of disgruntled, former non-voters to court. Net result will probably be closer to zero than the Dems think.

If everyone is registered, then it's harder to take registration away from groups of people you don't like. Renewing the registration along with your license refreshes the list periodically.

[Gistok]

In earlier decades, Detroit was divided up into 2 districts [[old 13th and 14th) which each had a majority [[or near majority) of African-Americans. Weren't there federal guidelines in those days... starting in the 1970s [[?) requiring not diluting minority districts?

I also remember that the Grosse Pointes were always included in one of those 2 Detroit districts.... so that mainly republican part of the district was overshadowed by the larger chunk of the distric that was always democratic.

[Bham1982]

You could easily split Detroit and still have two majority-minority [[or near majority-minority) districts.

Keep in mind that the suburbs nowadays have the majority of the region's nonwhite population. There are sizable Hispanic populations downriver, black populations in older parts of Oakland, Macomb and Wayne, and Asian populations in northern and western sprawl.

Every suburb is growing more diverse. Places like Troy and Novi now have more nonwhite kids in schools than white kids. This is our diverse, hopeful, affluent future, not the scary apocalyptic future you hear from Trump.

And the ME population, while counted as "white", and centered in Dearborn, is growing pretty much everywhere.

[Towne Cluber]

Places like Troy and Novi now have more nonwhite kids in schools than white kids.

That claim is not accurate. Both Troy and Novi schools are still more than 50% white.

[aj3647]

The PA Supreme Court-imposed map was NOT on non-partisan lines. The Court is a partisan institution [[like ours, but worse), and they packed and cracked to flip the script.

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

[Bham1982]

That claim is not accurate. Both Troy and Novi schools are still more than 50% white.

If it isn't accurate, then it's five years too soon. The elementaries are majority nonwhite, so districts overall will be so soon.

[Towne Cluber]

If it isn't accurate, then it's five years too soon. The elementaries are majority nonwhite, so districts overall will be so soon.

Maybe [[and that's somewhat of a big maybe) Troy Schools before Novi, given that Novi Schools are over 60% white. If I were a betting man, I'd also take the over on your 5 year prognostication. As to your elementary schools claims, I'll have to check with a more reliable source.

[Meddle]

^^ Might depend on what you include as 'white'. There is a heavy influx of Asian and Indian/Pakistani peoples out there.

[Towne Cluber]

^^ Might depend on what you include as 'white'. There is a heavy influx of Asian and Indian/Pakistani peoples out there.

Their published demographic numbers had separate categories for each.

[RO_Resident]

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.

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.