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

[aj3647]

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.

[BankruptcyGuy]

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.

[aj3647]

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.

[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.

[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.

[oladub]

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.

[Wesley Mouch]

"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.

[BankruptcyGuy]

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.

[aj3647]

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.

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.

[BankruptcyGuy]

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.

[oladub]

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.