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

Michigan saw a blue wave that flipped the Governorship, Attorney General and Secretary of State offices from Republican to Democrat. Meanwhile the Dems retained the federal Senate seat. Additionally two federal congressional seats have flipped blue. Remarkable too is that all the winners were women.

Huge changes impend as well from the passage all three referendums.
1-Recreational Marijuana decriminalized
2-Anti-gerrymandering reform established
3-Ease of voter registration and voting reform passed

I’m interested to hear your take on what this will mean for our metropolitan family of communities and the City of Detroit in particular.

While Lansing and the City of Detroit got along fairly well in spite of a Republican-Democrat divide will that relationship become tighter and more beneficial to Detroit?

I should add that Republicans, while losing seats, retained solid control of both houses of the Michigan Legislature and seem likely to keep the Supreme Court.

This portends gridlock and could inflame Metro Detroit vs outstate animosities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

Michigan saw a blue wave that flipped the Governorship, Attorney General and Secretary of State offices from Republican to Democrat. Meanwhile the Dems retained the federal Senate seat. Additionally two federal congressional seats have flipped blue. Remarkable too is that all the winners were women.

Huge changes impend as well from the passage all three referendums.
1-Recreational Marijuana decriminalized
2-Anti-gerrymandering reform established
3-Ease of voter registration and voting reform passed

I’m interested to hear your take on what this will mean for our metropolitan family of communities and the City of Detroit in particular.

While Lansing and the City of Detroit got along fairly well in spite of a Republican-Democrat divide will that relationship become tighter and more beneficial to Detroit?

---

I think its difficult to say with any degree of certainty what last night will bring about.

Prop 2 and 3 should likely have the effect of reducing gerrymandering favourable to Republicans, which in turn may shift future electoral results.

But that isn't really knowable, and will certainly be influenced by other political events yet to occur.

****

I think the action or inaction of the lameduck session of the Mich. legislature needs to be closely watched.

Will there be an attempt to rollback or waterdown the minimum wage and sick day proposals passed just a few months ago.

If the answer is yes, then it may be very hard to re-pass these in the incoming legislature.

However, if these are not altered, it will likely be impossible for Republicans to water them down later with a Dem as governor.

I am hopeful for Michiganders that those improved labour standards survive.

****

I'm intrigued by the overall results of ballot initiatives across the country, not just in Michigan.

Other states also passed anti-gerrymander laws.

2 States [[Miss. and Ark) voted for significant minimum wage increases.

Medical marijuana will be legalized in several more states.

Cal. passed a multi-billion dollar plan to house the homeless.

3 States passed Medicaid expansion.

2 more elected Governors likely to pursue same.

All of these portend to me, that in Blue-leaning states in particular, there is a shift further to the left, at least for now.

Cali will be one to watch for interesting developments with what appears to be a Dem super majority in both state houses and a Dem Governor who ran on single-payer.

I actually don't think he'll be able to get that through, but I imagine something will pass that moves the State in that general direction.

The fact that Michigan went for democrats across the board and yet still have no traction in the state legislature just goes to show how powerful gerrymandering is.

... when will vacant jobs be announced in the Whitmer administration?

I think you guys are overstating the GOP control in the legislature. Dems gained more seats in the state Senate [[+5) than they've won since the 70's. And despite being conservative, there were quite a few GOP senators who defected on some major issues over the last 8 years [[RTW among others). The Senate GOP can only afford 3 defections on major bills, and only four in the state house. It is not at all unlikely that that happens on some major legislation. They do not have the overwheliming majorities they once had, and will be under tremendous pressure given that the Dems swept every statewide office save for a Supreme Court seat.

And speaking of the Supreme Court, it's completely possible when rogue-justice Beth Clement winning re-election and who has been trending more liberal in her rulings that the Dems make a deal to make her Chief Justice. In that case, it's completely possible we get a much, much more moderate Supreme Court now that Beth Clement - who the GOP essentially turned on and left for dead, and who was elected with a not-insigificant amont of Dem votes [[personally know a lot of Dems who split their ticket for her) - is no longer who beholden to the party.

I think some of you are underestimating what happened last night. The GOP has two more years, that's it. 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.

Speaking of changes, what I'd really like to see [[I think) is non-partisan Electors. They should be elected by the people, not party insiders. That would more likely guarantee that the Electoral College votes the will of the voters instead of the parties.

Of course, then we have to make sure the Primaries can't be manipulated so that they reflect the will of the Party instead of the voters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drjeff

The fact that Michigan went for democrats across the board and yet still have no traction in the state legislature just goes to show how powerful gerrymandering is.

---

The fact that Democrats have spent the last few decades self-segregating themselves is responsible for much of their disproportionate lack of representation in Lansing. Outside of urban areas and some inner suburbs this state is almost entirely red, and it's nearly impossible to draw up a normal looking congressional map to fairly account for this. That said, I guess we'll soon find out what a "non-gerrymandered"[[As if such a thing exists) map actually looks like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnny5

The fact that Democrats have spent the last few decades self-segregating themselves is responsible for much of their disproportionate lack of representation in Lansing. Outside of urban areas and some inner suburbs this state is almost entirely red, and it's nearly impossible to draw up a normal looking congressional map to fairly account for this. That said, I guess we'll soon find out what a "non-gerrymandered"[[As if such a thing exists) map actually looks like.

---

Land doesn't vote. People do. One person, one vote. It shouldn't matter where they live. The state looks "almost entirely red" on a map specifically because of Republican gerrymandering. But even then, you'll still see lots of red on the map because there are massive swathes of this state where very few people live. An electoral map can look deceiving, they just show land, not population or population density.

It's easy enough to spot a gerrymandered vs non-gerrymandered map. A non-gerrymandered, fairly drawn map will see the proportion of Democrats and Republicans in the state legislature closely approximate the percentage of votes that those two parties received statewide. There you go. It's literally that simple.

If 55% of Michiganders go to the polls and vote for Democrats for the legislature, and only 45% of elected legislators are Democrat, then your map is intentionally drawn in a way to dilute the Democratic vote in favor of the Republican vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnny5

Outside of urban areas and some inner suburbs this state is almost entirely red,

---

LOL. You mean outside of where people actually live, the state is almost entirely red?

Nearly 80% of the state's population lives in metropolitan areas. Michigan is a blue-leaning state because metro areas are blue-leaning. Yes, rural areas are like 90% red but they have small, declining populations.

Laugh if you want, but the problem is someone actually has to create a congressional map to account for this [[Not just say what one should do). The fact that Democrats are moving into denser areas that they already control makes this an increasingly difficult problem. It may continue to cost them in congressional races, same as it did in the 2016 election.

All I can say is women ruled the day in these midterms. They've made significant inroads.

Everyone is relieved by Gretchen winning but would Schuette have been so bad? I'm mostly indifferent but the Republicans did have their turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

Speaking of changes, what I'd really like to see [[I think) is non-partisan Electors. They should be elected by the people, not party insiders. That would more likely guarantee that the Electoral College votes the will of the voters instead of the parties.

Of course, then we have to make sure the Primaries can't be manipulated so that they reflect the will of the Party instead of the voters.

---

In Michigan, electors are first-vote-bound. Whether their identity is partisan or non-partisan wouldn't matter, legally, unless there was a 2nd vote at convention. The last time was Reagan-Ford 76?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aj3647

Land doesn't vote. People do. One person, one vote. It shouldn't matter where they live. The state looks "almost entirely red" on a map specifically because of Republican gerrymandering. But even then, you'll still see lots of red on the map because there are massive swathes of this state where very few people live. An electoral map can look deceiving, they just show land, not population or population density.

It's easy enough to spot a gerrymandered vs non-gerrymandered map. A non-gerrymandered, fairly drawn map will see the proportion of Democrats and Republicans in the state legislature closely approximate the percentage of votes that those two parties received statewide. There you go. It's literally that simple.

If 55% of Michiganders go to the polls and vote for Democrats for the legislature, and only 45% of elected legislators are Democrat, then your map is intentionally drawn in a way to dilute the Democratic vote in favor of the Republican vote.

---

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."

So, if Detroit is a reasonably compact group of people with similar historical, cultural and economic interests, wouldn't the map makers be REQUIRED to jam them into one district?

When you look at the problem mathematically, there are a whole range of possible outcomes. Let's take the example that the state is 55% D and 45% R, because the math is easy. Let's say, to keep the math easy, there are 20 districts. That would mean that people would expect 11 D and 9 R districts. That is not, however, at all likely, and it becomes more likely as the districts are packed. If there are 20 districts that are all 100% their party members [[close to today's map 10 years ago), then the chances of 11-9 would be 100%. Those would be what I would call perfectly noncompetitive districts. If each district were divided with 55% Ds and 45% Rs, then the districts would be perfectly competitive, but the most likely outcome would be 20 Ds and no Rs. So the concept really isn't simple at all. Do you value competitive districts [["hey, you won't get the far-right and far-left people!') or a result that matches the demographics? The latter requires packing, and you get what you have today.

Plan on more pain - because little will change anytime soon.
Infrastructure will continue to deteriorate from bridges, to roads, to sewers.
Gerrymandering chaos is still in full effect, whacko representation.
SNAFU, FUBAR, SUSFU and TARFU reign supreme for quite a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnny5

The fact that Democrats have spent the last few decades self-segregating themselves is responsible for much of their disproportionate lack of representation in Lansing. Outside of urban areas and some inner suburbs this state is almost entirely red, and it's nearly impossible to draw up a normal looking congressional map to fairly account for this. That said, I guess we'll soon find out what a "non-gerrymandered"[[As if such a thing exists) map actually looks like.

---

Well, here's what one gerrymandered map looks like - Michigan's 13th district. So, for non-gerrymandered, make it look nothing like this.

https://wdet.org/media/daguerre/2016...2986dd8cc9.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archfan

Well, here's what one gerrymandered map looks like - Michigan's 13th district. So, for non-gerrymandered, make it look nothing like this.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archfan

https://wdet.org/media/daguerre/2016...2986dd8cc9.png

---

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.

I need to be on those commissions.

As I explained my plan before, based solely on population [[which should meet all of the requirements posted above):

Outstate, one or more entire counties would be a district. The whole UP for example. There's a line across the state lined up with the bottom of Roscommon County. Maybe everything in the LP north of there. Maybe a split along I-75 if needed.

Urban areas, maybe a single county like Oakland would be one district. Macomb and St. Clair could be another. Monroe and Jackson, another. Then Washtenaw and Eaton.

Wayne would be split into 2, 3 or 4 as needed. East of Woodward to the river. West of Woodward to Telegraph and down to the river. Then west of Telegraph to the county line. Maybe a 4th break downriver somewhere if the population count worked out, perhaps south of I-94 and the Rouge River.

Yes, that would put the GPs in with the east half of Detroit, but so what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

I need to be on those commissions.

As I explained my plan before, based solely on population [[which should meet all of the requirements posted above):

Outstate, one or more entire counties would be a district. The whole UP for example. There's a line across the state lined up with the bottom of Roscommon County. Maybe everything in the LP north of there. Maybe a split along I-75 if needed.

Urban areas, maybe a single county like Oakland would be one district. Macomb and St. Clair could be another. Monroe and Jackson, another. Then Washtenaw and Eaton.

Wayne would be split into 2, 3 or 4 as needed. East of Woodward to the river. West of Woodward to Telegraph and down to the river. Then west of Telegraph to the county line. Maybe a 4th break downriver somewhere if the population count worked out, perhaps south of I-94 and the Rouge River.

Yes, that would put the GPs in with the east half of Detroit, but so what?

---

Yikes! You might want to look up population numbers and a map before you take your commission seat!

^^ Which I don't have available, so those are just examples of grouping areas instead of using squiggly lines to target certain voters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy

So, if Detroit is a reasonably compact group of people with similar historical, cultural and economic interests, wouldn't the map makers be REQUIRED to jam them into one district?

---

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.

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. :cool:

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.

---

I would love to hear how Washington is responsible for those districts looking that way and not Lansing. Specifically.

Also, how is it NOT to the benefit of Republicans to pack Democrats into two districts [[MI-13 and MI-14) that are D+30 and D+31 respectively? That's exactly how Republicans were able to maintain edges in MI-8 and MI-11 [[both R+4 districts) until two days ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

Now for some pure speculation...

My first take for SE Michigan would envision districts radiating out from downtown ...

---

Disagree..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexlin

... 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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aj3647

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

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. :cool:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aj3647

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy

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

---

Well put.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

...
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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy

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.

Attachment 36891

Attachment 36892

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Towne Cluber

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

^^ 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.

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.

---

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.

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.