Motown Bombers

Exactly. It doesn’t solve gerrymandering as long as someone is drawing lines. Michigan’s districts are pretty good the way they are. You typically get a 7-6 split with about 2-3 competitive districts. The rest of the country should follow Michigan.

I did and one that is actually feasible. Congress can expand the house. More seats means states will run out of opportunities to gerrymander. There would also need to be a new voting rights act on proportionality creating districts. I can probably create a 11D-2R map. Metro Detroit is only the three counties. That’s +5. Mid Michigan is Washtenaw, Ingham, Genesse and the city of Saginaw. West is Kent County, Kalamazoo county and Benton Harbor and St Joseph. Pack Republicans in the rest. I actually like this plan.

I don’t think an R+10 district will elect a Democrat. Regardless, what you presented here is already gerrymandered. What is Metro Detroit? Is it the CSA that includes Ann Arbor and Flint? Is it just the tri counties? The Detroit CSA is 53% of the population. At 5 reps, that’s only 38% of the representation. If you go MSA and only focus on Wayne-Oakland-Macomb, that’s about 43%. Now what do you do with Washtenaw and Genesee Counties? I’m assuming mid Michigan. I’m thinking Washtenaw, Genesse, Ingram and the Tri Cities make it more than 50/50. Where is the Thumb in all this? Mid Michigan? Where does mid end and west begin? What about the north? This still leaves it open to gerrymandering and Detroit is under represented.

Yeah but at some point you run out of places to gerrymander. I think Texas gerrymander could backfire since they are relying on a realignment from Hispanics. I’m not sure how many more republican districts you squeeze from the Texas suburbs. Same with California, you’re likely to get more districts in the Central Valley.

What needs to happen is the house needs to be expanded. It hasn’t been expanded in over 100 years. The average district in California is 760k. Wyoming is 580k. The Wyoming rule would make sure all districts are the size of the smallest district. That would add 16 districts to California.

That still exposes it to gerrymandering.

Illinois didn’t disarm themselves like California. Good for them.

Wild, so just because a state has 40% of one party doesn’t mean that 40% of the districts will be that party? To get to 8 red districts in Illinois, you’re probably going to have to do a little gerrymandering. Probably have to cut up the Chicago exurbs and pack Dems in Chicago.

BTW how is Iowa not on the list? It’s worse than Illinois. It has four congressional districts and all are republican despite Harris winning 42% of the vote and congressional Dems winning 43%.

Because republicans across the country have been gerrymandering while blue states like California have unilaterally disarmed themselves. Good for Illinois. Keep going. Maybe Republicans will finally agree with Illinois Democratic senators and end gerrymandering. Until then, I’m not interested in both sides bull****. Illinois has been playing by the same rules as republicans.

So? That doesn’t make Illinois the most gerrymandered. That 47% isn’t just in one part of the state. Shouldn’t all of the districts be 47% Republican? 47% is not typical. There shouldn’t be a single Republican district in Illinois.

Cry me a ****ing river. Look across the border into Wisconsin. Republicans have a super majority in the legislature in a state Democrats won statewide. The last republican to get 45% in Illinois was Bruce Rauner in 2014 and that was because of the whole corruption thing with Blagojevich. Don’t overstate republican support in Illinois.

No, it’s not. Democrats in good faith established redistricting commissions in states like California. No red state. Sorry, not going to both sides this one.