« “COSTS OF DEMOCRATS” ADDED TO BLOGROLL | Home | MDE ON THE RADIO: SHOWTIME! »
COMBINE MINNEAPOLIS AND ST. PAUL INTO ONE DISTRICT IF MINNESOTA LOSES CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
By Michael B. Brodkorb | July 6, 2007
I served as the Redistricting Analyst for the Minnesota Senate Republican Caucus from December 2000 to March 2002. Back in April of 2001, then-Senator Dave Kleis introduced plan C0001-1, a congressional district redistricting plan that combined Minneapolis and St. Paul in the same congressional district.
If Minnesota loses a congressional district after the 2010 census, Minneapolis and St. Paul need to be combined into the same congressional district.
It makes complete sense. I expect to be actively involved in the 2010 redistricting process in Minnesota, so please check back to Minnesota Democrats Exposed for more information as we get closer to the 2010 census.
Topics: Uncategorized | 30 Comments »
30 Responses to “COMBINE MINNEAPOLIS AND ST. PAUL INTO ONE DISTRICT IF MINNESOTA LOSES CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 6th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Oh, can’t you hear the whining from the Dems if that were to happen? I doubt that will occur, especially if the Repubs don’t re-capture the state house in 2008. The Dems will draw up a plan that combines Republican districts and the Gov will veto it and it will go to a judicial panel. If the Repubs gain control of the house, they will run into the Dems in the Senate. Same result, the judiciary will probably have to sort it out.
July 6th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
oh yeah, nothing like half the state’s population into one CD… that certainly seems like an even distribution of CDs…
July 6th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
how about uptown and various spot-communities of ultra-gay liberals can be their own district, and those with common sense can have the rest.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
northerndebater shoots from the hip, but he’s not hip when he shoots.
A typical congressional district had about 600,000 people. The population of Minneapolis (the city only, not the suburbs) combined with the population of Saint Paul (the city only, not the suburbs) is about that number.
The two cities combined do not constitute “half the state’s population”.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Ideally, I’d love to see the 4th and 5th CD’s consolidated into one.
The Democrats, of course, will scream loudly saying that both cities are so culturally and economincally different that they must be kept separate at all costs.
At one time, that was true. But St Paul has been sliding Leftward with each passing election and now is only slightly less liberal than Minneapolis.
The Democrats will likely try to merge John Kline (2nd CD) and Jim Ramstad (3rd CD) into one district. It wouldn’t be a far reach because in the early 90’s, Ramstad represented parts of northern Dakota and Scott counties, I believe.
With the way the 8th CD is bleeding out, I can almost imagine their new boundaries stretching all the way down to Anoka or Stearns counties in any new re-districting.
Given the Dem’s extreme dislike of Michele Bachman, it’s not a far reach that they would try to toss much of the 6th CD into the 8th CD and force her into an campaign against Oberstar.
In any case, 2012 will be interesting!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
If Democrats run the show in 2012, you can bank on it being the most corrupt gerrymandering ever.
A Minneapolis-St. Paul district only makes sense. They are one collective constituency with the same issues.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Please combine Minneapolis and St Paul. It will free up a large number of blue suburbs like Fridley, Roseville, St. Louis Park. It would make life pretty tough for Kline, Ramstad and Bachmann with 50-75k new Democratic voters.
I cannot imagine Bachmann surviving without Wright and Sherburne Counties while gaining WBL and Roseville.
Or maybe we’ll put Bachmann and Kline in the same district.
Oh the possibilities!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Folks – thanks for the good discussion. On a related subject Tom Gillaspy, the Minnesota State Demographer, will be on my radio tomorrow with King Banaian of SCSU Scholars.
I hope you can listen tomorrow on AM 1280.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
I question why the citizens allow partisans to have controll of this. I suppose no plan is worse then any other if more then one party has a say.
I guess I fond my answer as to what Republicans intend to do to remove Keith Ellison from office. And hey why the heck not gurentee a Democrat wins rather then allow for the possibilty of a reasonable candidate knocking away the remaining 5% from Ellison.
July 6th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Never trust a liberal with numbers. Northerdebater (debates himself, maybe?) says half the state’s population is in Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Note true.
The state’s population is about 4.9 million. The population of Minneapolis and St. Paul is 670,000… that’s 13.6 percent of the state’s population… not half.
If Minnesota is to have nine congressional districts, it makes a lot of sense to put much of Minneapolis and St. Paul in the same CD. Their needs are similar, their voting behaviors are similar.
It makes no sense to “disenfranchise” rural Minnesota by lumping large portions of the urban core into their CDs.
July 6th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Mike, Hakim Ellison had 55% of the vote. Alan Fine and Tammy Lee each had about 21%. Jay Pond had 2%.
Thats a 34% deficit to make up. In a district that elects 90% Democrats.
Short of having Keith led away in handcuffs, he will be in office until they decide what to put on his tombstone.
July 6th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
So what your saying is if only 2 parties run candidates or two parties and the Green Party participate the gap becomes about 10-15%. Of course I could bring up instant run off voting, but I’m more concearned about convincing Democrats that it’s not just a good idea in talk, but also in action.
Even a real Republican could have a chance one on one if the candidate was well polished and a few things went against Ellison. I would hope the Republicans see the oppurtunity to defeat Ellison by not running a candidate. Talking up candidates like Alan Fine do more to hurt the Republican party then anything else.
July 6th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
While I do kind of think MSP should be one uber-liberal CD, I of course would much rather see two solid Dem CD’s.
Although putting them together and possible screwing over Bachmann would just be amazing.
Whose to say MN will lose a district anyway?
I really doubt combining them will ever happen though, 2010 will be a gubernatorial year and the Dems could take the seat back (even the Republicans have to admit that we are due for a Dem governor by now) and House and Senate Republicans have a lot of work to do to gain majorities in both chambers.
I think I’d rather see either the 6th become more Republican so that there is no way a Democrat can win or make it a complete toss up district. It bugs me that St. Cloud is a fairly Democrat area but has to be represented by such a right wing maniac. It’s just tough to figure out what to do with St. Cloud and Washington county, areas that are not nearly as Republican as the rest of the CD.
I think the districts are currently being pretty well represented, Bachmann and Kline maybe should be a bit more moderate, the 7th should have a Republican but Peterson evens that out with his moderate views.
Id say leave the CD’s as close to what they are as possible.
July 6th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
oh, i see the startribune article talking about losing CD
July 6th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
1) Run-off elections are the worst idea in the history of elections. They’re a complete fiasco everywhere that has them. I know it would have saved us from Bill Clinton and Jesse Ventura, but they generally only tend to legitimize fringe nut cases.
2) Minnesota is never due for a Democrat governor. Gov. Goofy (Perpich) was your last best option. He was a joke. And Minnesota needs adults in the governor’s office.
3) Bachmann and Kline are two of our finest representatives at the national level.
July 6th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
I’d debate your theory on run off elections, but it’s just one of those issues where you can’t get anywhere with a Republican. The reason being that Democrats tend to be less loyal then Republicans and run off elections would tend to redeliver votes to Democrats assuming the other options are not pulled up into the top two as a result of the run off election. I completly understand Republicans fear of run off elections, but part of the problem is a lot of Republicans, much like a lot of Democrats don’t represent the majority, or come close to it. Americans don’t want the govrment in our lifes be it fiscally or socially.
Most Americans are rational libertarians and you don’t get a satifactory result to that end with either Democrats or Republicans or the combination or results we see with both. IRV will not rise a Green Party candidate to office unless the district is already ultra liberal in which case.
When the Democrats or Republicans have a safe district they move to the fringes so it really would make no difference if a Green won in the 5th or a Constitution party candidate won in the 6th. Ellison is a Green and then some, Bachmann is a constitution. It’s also debatable what IRV would have done in the 2000 presidential election or 2006 Minnesota governors race. We can look at the #’s that came as a result of no IRV and shift them as polls might suggest they would have, but IRV creates a motivation to vote, a motivation to run and a motivation not to belittle your like minded lower level oppisition.
And probaly most importantly Keith Ellison never gets elected with IRV, because despite the 5ths likelyhood of electing any Democrat it is not extreamly libral as a whole.
July 6th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
A) Runoff elections are horrible. Recall the Calif recall Govenor election when dozens of dumbasses were in the running?
B) I say combine St Paul and Minneapolis districts. Except for a few wealthy areas, they will continue to lose population. Why should the the Coleman/Rybik twins get two congressmen?
July 6th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Remember this though, Obestar’s strength is with the stagnet union towns. Shifting could put more Republican leaning people in his district.
Obestar…who by the way hasn’t lived in Minnesota in decades….could be more at risk with new districts.
July 6th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Mike, instant runoff voting in Minneapolis is why we end up with choices like Rybak vs Belton, Rybak vs Mcglaughlin, and all the other Dem Vs Dem or Dem Vs Green in the city.
It has ensured that liberals will continue to run Minneapolis forever. That is why they put it in place.
July 7th, 2007 at 4:32 am
They don’t have IRV yet in Minneapolis, moron.
July 7th, 2007 at 7:16 am
They have a primary system set up to only allow the top two candidates. How is that different?
July 7th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Minneapolis passed IRV but we haven’t had an election using it yet. I’m all for giving it a shot since Minneapolis can’t possible elect any more Democrats or Greenies.
I think our state and country needs to try something different with elections. Right now whoever gets elected tends to have views that don’t do a good job of representing a majority of their constituents. Most people don’t vote and it is rare for somebody to get more than 60% of the support from those that do. Yes we may get a few nut jobs running because they will get a little attention but that to me is less worrisome than out current system that creates two warring political cabals. Of course sine change is something that could hurt both parties they will suddenly find that it is a “bipartisan issue” and work to ensure they both have to deal with only each other.
July 7th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
I wouldn’t trust Instant Runoff Voting for any amount of money. Can you imagine how easy it would be for the DFL to manipulate those elections? For starters, I can’t imagine wanting to vote for a “second choice” for the same seat anyway.
I’ll stick with the good old fashioned paper ballots and coloring in the circles. The only way those can be manipulated is when the DFL takes home the ballots and burns them in their fireplaces (like they did in 2002 when they stole the Senate Seat in Austin and Albert Lea district).
July 7th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Those clamoring for IRV are advocating a cure in search of a problem. In other words, the Constitution provided the correct system for managing elections. Close elections are a short, recent trend. There have been similar trends in the past. They don’t last long.
IRV could have put Nixon in the white house in 1960, not Kennedy. And who knows how the world would be different.
The IRV option is more about legitimizing fringe groups — which actually serve a more valuable purpose in forcing change in the two major parties — and qualifying lunatics for public election funds… public election funds should be abolished anyway… but that’s another story.
The Framers had it right. Don’t fix what ain’t broke.
July 7th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
I agree with your point chestnut that IRV shouldn’t be needed. I sure as heck don’t need it to know which candidate deserves and thus gets my vote, but there are to many out there that are scared to vote for the candidate they want and these people leave us with candidates like Keith Ellison.
As for the idea that IRV produces extream librals thats simply a matter of the fact that Republicans fight against it to the point where it is impossible to have IRV without also having an ultra libral voting base. Maybe in 50 years San Fransisco will turn conservitive, if it does happen and they don’t get rid of IRV IRV will help to deliver conservitive office holders sooner then the current system.
My main argument for IRV is focused at Democrats who call a vote for anyone but there flawed candidate or a Republican a wasted vote, or when they claim ownership on votes for other candidates. If they believe it then they should deliver the system that proves it.
July 7th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
The primary elections should be interesting with redistricting, and even before that in 2008 when Keith Ellison comes up for reeleection under the full scrutiny of the international media covering the Republican Convention.
Ellisons past is still out there lovingly preserved on the internet. http://presslord.com/speech.htm There are still a lot of not yet examined questions about Keith Ellisons finances and how he dug out of an apparent financial hole just before the primary. I’m sure this will be looked into.
July 7th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
[...] Ladies and gentlemen, if there is anything that should inspire you to spend the next four years knocking on doors, recruiting the best candidates you can and working as hard as you can to ensure a Democratic majority in 2010 it is this line: “I expect to be actively involved in the 2010 redistricting process in Minnesota,” [...]
July 7th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Politics has become a exercise in how the two major parties can maintain control. It is why most people don’t care and hate both Bush and the congress at the same time. Each side packing bills with earmarks, favors for friends, gerrymandered districts, etc.. They have over the last few decades come to hate all politicians more than almost any other time. The people’s confidence in their government is low. Maybe people should care a little more about that and less about being on the winning team at all costs.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:38 am
[...] As I previoulsy wrote, I served as the Redistricting Analyst for the Minnesota Senate Republican Caucus from December 2000 to March 2002. Below is a map of the combined Minneapolis and St. Paul congressional district proposed in a plan offered by the Senate Republican Caucus. [...]
July 9th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Gerrymander the shit out of this state to push republicans out. Much like Texas.