Copilot responds to Karen Wilson's May 9, 2024 letter to the Peninsula Pulse
[Copilot sometimes copies phrases verbatim from its cited articles, so I placed them in quotes. What follows is human-edited in multiple ways, but reflects Microsoft Bing AI Copilot’s abilities.]
You
Please use the example in https://www.propublica.org/article/the-failed-promise-of-independent-election-mapmaking to refute https://doorcountypulse.com/letter-to-the-editor-more-work-needed-for-fair-voting-maps/ .
Copilot
The letter from Peninsula Pulse1 advocates for a “permanent non-partisan process” for creating fair voting maps in Wisconsin. It celebrates the implementation of Fair Maps in Wisconsin for the elections in 20241. The author argues that these maps, which were passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, will “ensure competition between candidates” and parties.
However, the ProPublica article2 provides a detailed account of the challenges faced by Washington state’s Redistricting Commission, an independent body tasked with redrawing the state’s electoral districts. This case study can help illustrate why a nonpartisan redistricting process might not always lead to the desired outcomes.
Here are some key points from the ProPublica article that could be used to refute the arguments made in the Peninsula Pulse letter:
1. Lack of Progress and Efficiency: The Washington state’s Redistricting Commission struggled to make progress, even after “working for almost a year”.2 This raises concerns about the efficiency of a nonpartisan redistricting process.
2. Potential for Partisan Influence: Despite being an independent body, the commission’s work “devolved into a partisan mess”2. This suggests that even a nonpartisan process can be influenced by partisan politics.
3. Disregard for Local Representation: The commission faced criticism for not adequately addressing complaints from the state’s growing Latino population about lack of representation2. This raises questions about whether a nonpartisan process can effectively represent diverse communities.
4. Legal Challenges: The maps drawn by the commission were challenged in court, leading to further uncertainty2. This could be seen as a disadvantage of a nonpartisan redistricting process.
5. Secret Negotiations and Rule Violations: The commission resorted to secret negotiations, which violated the rules “for more than two members to negotiate in private”2. This could undermine public trust in the process.
In conclusion, while a nonpartisan redistricting process aims to eliminate partisan gerrymandering and create fairer maps, there are valid concerns about its effectiveness and desirability.
You
Please explain why a nonpartisan redistricting process is undesirable when compared to the current districting method outlined in the Wisconsin State Constitution.
Copilot
The current districting method outlined in the Wisconsin State Constitution involves the Legislature in “redrawing the maps every decade after the census is completed1. The governor then has the power to approve the maps or veto them.” This process allows for elected officials, who are directly accountable to the voters, to have a say in how district lines are drawn.
Here are some reasons why a nonpartisan redistricting process might be seen as undesirable compared to this method:
1. Lack of Accountability: Nonpartisan commissions are not directly accountable to voters. If voters disagree with the decisions made by the commission, they have no direct way to voice their dissatisfaction.
2. Potential for Bias: While a nonpartisan commission is intended to be unbiased, the reality is that it’s challenging to ensure complete impartiality. The commissioners are humans who inevitably have their own perspectives and biases.
3. Complexity of “Fairness”: Defining what makes a map “fair” is complex. Different groups have different ideas about what fairness looks like in redistricting. Some might argue that districts should be competitive, while others might believe that districts should be safe for one party or another to ensure representation for specific communities.
4. Legal Challenges: There have been legal challenges to the maps drawn by nonpartisan commissions.
In conclusion, while a nonpartisan redistricting process aims to eliminate partisan gerrymandering and create fairer maps, there are valid concerns about its effectiveness and desirability.
1. apnews.com
[Reflecting on the answer for #3: At first glance this seems off, because people involved in districting do not state that they think the “districts should be safe for one party or another”. Yet Copilot’s response accurately reflects the politically convenient manner in which Democrats treat the topic of redistricting in areas with large minority populations. Districts drawn to ensure partisan competition for minority voters’ ballots are regarded as unfair to the ethnic communities affected by the districting. Only redistricting lines which are “safe for one party”, that is, the Democratic party, are considered fair. Anything else is depriving minorities of their community voice.
To be consistent, Democrats should either give up home for their own “safe for one party” districts, or not complain about Republicans having safe districts.]
Election and districting-related posts
https://doorcounty.substack.com/t/election-or-districting-related