After playing around with some open-source redistricting tools and thinking about the gnarly issues that arose therefrom, I reached some conclusions that surprised me.
For instance, geographical compactness doesn’t matter much, unless you are taking it away.
Huh? Well I think what matters most is continuity. It is comical how that previous redistricting has caused the 4th cd to wrap manderishly from Brookline to New Bedford. But now that it has, Barny Frank has good relationships with constituents throughout, the fishing industry et cetera.
Changing that will be disruptive and put those constituencies at a disadvantage, at least temporarily.
People do not care what the cartographic dimensions of their district are. They care, can their rep do the job for them?
So unmaking a Gerrymander can be as bad as creating one.
Also while I continue to think it is unfortunate that incumbents in the Legislature get to select their own voters by drawing their ow districts, I am surprised to discover that I have no problems with the legislature drawing CDs that maximize the clout the delegation enjoys in DC.
It’s also completely unclear to me whether districts should strive for homogeneity or diversity. Which is the true measure of redistricting integreity: All the rich suburbs get to hang together, or are paired with some poor cities?
Change is coming, for the worse (since we lose a seat). But if you’d asked me about this a year ago, I would not have come up with answers (or questions) like these.
Question: Against what yardstick will you measure the new districts?
I’ve served on a redistricting committee on the town level.
One way to think about things is incremental improvements. Changes in population require the redrawing of some lines. Balance these two ideas: (1) minimize change, and (2) use the requirement of change to improve the districts.
Need to make a district smaller? Great. Chop off the part which least belongs. Perhaps it’s separated by the rest of the district by geography or transportation. Perhaps it makes more sense to be in the district next door. Perhaps it’s the long appendage which results in a less compact district. Likewise… need to add land to a district? Do it by grabbing the “outcast” portion of another district. In either case, try to make sure that the 2+ districts which are changed are both slightly better.
that is frequently redistricted.
We’re 6,300 and a nice chunk to balance off the larger towns in our area. We are periodically lumped with communities that couldn’t find us on a map. My state senator represents parts of East Longmeadow, Longmeadow, Ludlow, Belchertown, Springfield, Granby, and all of Wilbraham. We may belong demographically.
In Congress, we are represented by John Olver, who covers most of the area of Western Mass. I understand the population arguments for eliminating a seat for Western Mass, but I think many people in Eastern Mass don’t appreciate the challenges of covering a district would run from the New York border to beyond Worcester. Increasing the number of communities a Congressman represents makes it more difficult to know the people there. An enormous district makes it difficult just getting to those places.
I don’t know if Western Mass will lose a seat, but I do know there is a good argument to keeping one.
This may be true. However, if all of South Dakota can be one seat, I don’t think it’s asking too much sacrifice for a Congressperson to cover Western Mass.
The compactness argument doesn’t work if you are making a case for preserving two districts. Does it make sense to have Pittsfield and Northampton separated from Springfield if you are worried about travel time for a Congressman?
As it stands now, Olver’s district extends along the NH border, almost to Lowell. To keep that district intact, you would need to expand where… to Lawrence?
I mean, who does? What’s it good for?
Rural districts are going to encompass a lot of land mass compared to urban districts. So? If you have a good rep with a good staff, do you care who else has him or how far away they are from you? Why?
There is an argument for keeping a senior & influential congressman like Oliver without sacrificing another like Neal–a rebuttable one perhaps, but an intelligible one, I think.
Quadrilaterals look nice on maps, but unless you travel by helicopter, they’re useless. I’d rather see five communities strung out along the Pike then a whole Vermont-to-Connecticut slice of the Bay State that is almost impossible to traverse in under an hour.
As an activist, it is helpful to have compactness so that volunteers can function as a unit. Not required of course. Not saying that it outweighs other issues. But there is a reason to prefer a more compact district.
and maybe it argues for creating as many compact urban districts as possible (rather than pairing cities with lots of population-small towns).*
But in the western part of the state, any district you draw will be much too big to allow volunteers to function as a unit in the way I think you mean.
*Another argument: A rep from a district with most, but not all, of its population in cities will likely give short shrift to rural concerns. But that implies there should be least one very rural district, quite spread out and not at all compact.
John Olver is said to handle the unwieldy nature of his district well. Maybe some would disagree. However, if you want to talk communities of interest, throwing Worcester in a totally Worcester county district would leave the center-left city at the mercy of several hard-right suburbs.
The problem with non-compact districts is when most of the population is in a city that is not in the same region of the state as the smaller rural and suburban areas. I grew up in southeastern Worcester County, closer to Providence than Worcester, but nowhere near Springfield. But in 2002 when I got my absentee ballot to vote for the first time, I found my town was no longer in the Worcester-area district and instead of Congressman McGovern, I had some one from Springfield who I had never heard of.
It would be one thing for rural and suburban parts of western Worcester county to be represented by one of the western Mass congressmen, but it makes no sense to me that southeastern Worcester county is in the Springfield district, and that the northeastern areas of Fitchburg and Leominster are represented by a congressman from Amherst. I would suspect that people in the southern part of the state would be just as confused why their congressmen are from Worcester and Newton.
Compactedness definitely isn’t the goal, but it should be the starting point to get districts where people feel reasonably represented by the metro area within the district. Start with the regional metro areas and build outwards, avoiding snakes to other regions, and you’ll be pretty well off.
If Western Mass were one district is just as possible to have a Congressman from North Adams representing Springfield or vice-versa. That could be just as remote as Bellingham from Springfield, if not quite as a far.
Here’s a thought experiment. Imagine your Blackstone Valley community has been ably represented by Jim McGovern of Springfield for years.
Suddenly, suppose redistricting kicks in and your rep is now someone from Worcester whom you have never heard of.
Is your distress at losing McGovern appreciably different? Do you say, Well that’s all right, because Worcester is geographically closer to me than Springfield is?
If so, I guess you really do value geographical compactness. But if your reaction is, Dang, what are those jerks doing to my district? then I think you don’t care about compactnerss so much (and, I wouldn’t either).
I’m curious what you mean by that. Do you mean ensuring we send a unified Democratic bloc? Or do you measure clout as keeping important ranking members in office (like Frank)? I don’t think either definition is wrong, but which do you think is more important (or a 3rd option)?
I hear what you’re saying about the short-term pain, but I think undoing gerrymandering in general is a good thing, over the long run. At the very least, I think it promotes more faith in government, letting people know their Reps aren’t only trying to save their jobs.
seniority and effectiveness. Seems like it is a legitimate consideration and a plan that did not take it into account would be flawed.
Still no maps. 24 minutes past the deadline. This is like teasing a child with presents on Christmas Day but not allowing them to be opened.