6 thoughts on “A Tale Of Two Headlines: When Somebody Is BSing You”

1. Your willingness to withhold judgement is generous, but may turn out to be naive.

   Perhaps this early map is indeed a mere a conceptual model; filled with placeholders, and merely intending to whet the whistle for the real work to come later.

   Or, on the other hand, perhaps (intentionally or not) this map has already become the First Offer, and will serve as an Anchoring device, and so just like that: we are already in the negotiations phase.

   And here we were, thinking we were still in the specifications phase, even as the train started to leave the platform.  Knife; meet gun.

   There is no doubt, if another map comes out later with substantive differences, the howling will commence, as if the first map had been carved on stone tablets.

   https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/dealmaking-daily/dealmaking-grappling-with-anchors-in-negotiation/

   Log in to Reply

   1. re:  "even releasing this map strikes me as naive bordering on stupid – which makes me wonder about who did it and why."

      If you don't know the process, I'm wondering a bit about who should be considered "as naive bordering on stupid."

      The staff of the independent redistricting commissions released the map, because the process mandated a release before the commissions began their rounds of hearings. 

      Section 44.4. Preparation, amendment, and approval of plans -public hearings and participation.(1) The commission shall begin by considering a plan, created by nonpartisan staff alone, to be known as the "preliminary plan". The preliminary plan must be presented and published no earlier than thirty days and no later than forty-five days after the commission has convened or the necessary census data are available, whichever is later.

      At the first public hearing at which the preliminary plan is presented, nonpartisan staff shall explain how the plan was created, how the plan addresses the categories of public comments received, and how the plan complies with the criteria prescribed in section 44.3 of this article V.

      Log in to Reply

      1. Ok thanks for the info, I revised my post.  It was a poor paragraph anyway.

         As I said in the caveat ("intentional or not") regardless of intent, this first draft will be treated as a negotiating anchor.  It already is.

         I'll leave it to insiders to figure out if the first draft was bona fide nonpartisan best effort, or if someone gamed it somehow.

         But I can say that in my experience as a change management facilitator, first drafts and straw models are highly volatile tools and tend to take on lives of their own.

         Either way, my point now is, like it or not, the jockying and posturing has begun.  Wait for the "official" first round to begin at your peril.

         Log in to Reply

      2. .

         Log in to Reply

2. As my husband has warned for years: “Warning! Warning! Journalist Doing Math!'

    

   Log in to Reply

3. Keep in mind when the maps were released, the Commissions' staffs also release a ton of data showing demographics for the proposed districts. This information is available here for the legislative maps and here for the congressional maps.

   Looking at the data provided based on voter registration and voter performance (measured using the AG race in 2018) the preliminary State House map has:

   30 districts leaning more than 5%  Dem

   7 districts leaning 0.1-5% Dem

   4 districts leaning 0.1-5% GOP

   24 districts leaning more than 5% GOP

   So the House map does favor Dems 37-28 (or 30-24 with 11 competitive districts if you like)

   For the State Senate:

   18 districts leaning more than 5%  Dem

   2 districts leaning 0.1-5% Dem

   2 districts leaning 0.1-5% GOP

   12 districts leaning more than 5% GOP

   So Dems are pretty safe there too.

   Looks like the Post has the more accurate headline in this case.

   Log in to Reply