Fair redistricting: New York

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

For like 80% or so states, I will attempt to submit a fair map, but some for a few states, I am going to submit gerrymanders.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I wonder how often we will have a case where 3 different people all submit the same map.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

The States of Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas will be fun when we get to them.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I am going to just put New Hampshire in now:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=19719

Now that this has started, I stand by this.

Deviation and PVI is in image description.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I find it bothersome that of the 5 maps that made it to the final round for Maine, the winning map was the map (and the only map) that had more than 1000 population deviation, which I believe should be a hard cap at what is allowed.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Seeing how muon2 grades each plan is interesting.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Was my plan graded?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I remember spending a lot of time trying to get a map with equal population (within the 1000 people range) without splitting any municipalities. I think it was impossible.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I remember spending a lot of time trying to get a map with equal population (within the 1000 people range) without splitting any municipalities. I think it was impossible.

It's not impossible, and there are good low-erosity plans with under 1000 deviation and no muni chops. I've found at least 2. If you don't care about erosity you can get a plan with a deviation under 10 without a muni chop!

I guess I am just going to sit out with RI.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

This was my map.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

How do you get the road map to show up?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

y'all didn't include two of the maps...there are ten of them

also, scarlet has told me that she cannot commit as a panelist if anyone is interested in taking her place please notify me.

I join.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I have a crazy idea.

How about we get rid of the permanent panel entirely. Just have the 5 fastest people at any given state be the ones in the panel for that state. Different panel for every state, and ensures that things go quickly.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

01: D+08.71
02: D+10.25
03: D+13.93
04: D+08.15
05: D+11.40
06: D+17.13
07: D+07.87
08: D+19.82

Posting this map to counteract Singletxguyforfuns map.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

By the way, I am interested in knowing what the muon rules scores would be for all of these Maryland maps.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

01: R+09.12
02: D+03.70
03: D+08.98
04: D+10.17
05: R+10.77
06: R+15.04
07: R+00.78
08: D+17.51
09: R+19.89
10: D+05.45
11: D+15.20

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Here's my analysis for the MD maps.

Here's recap of the muon2 metrics, with their application to MD. Low scores are better.

SKEW measures the lean of the delegation compared to the statewide expectation based on PVI. CDs with a PVI of 0 or 1 (tossup) don't count. For MD the expected skew is 4 for the Dems. A plan with 6 D and 2 R will score a SKEW of 0 (6-2=4).

POLARIZATION measure how well the CDs will respond to changes in the electorate. Competitive seats with PVI of 2 to 5 count 1 and uncompetitive seats of 6 or more count 2.

INEQUALITY is a relative measure of the population range using the muon rules table.

CHOP sums the number of chops of counties, towns, and urban clusters. The UCC are from jimrtex's table. Macrochopped counties are those where the population after the largest fragment is removed is greater than 5% of the quota, and chops of subunits would then be considered. Since there are no agreed county subunits, each additional fragment over 5% adds 1 point to the chop score.

EROSITY measures the irregularity of district borders in terms of the number of broken connections between counties and subunits within counties. Since county subunits are not defined, a macrochop gets an additional 2 points for each border between fragments.

Plan	-S-	-P-	-I-	-C-	-E-
Singletxguyforfun	2	16	7	20	38
politicalmasta73	0	15	6	22	34
cvparty	1	14	6	22	37
Solid4096	4	16	4	29	42
muon2-A	0	15	13	12	30
muon2-B	1	12	8	12	31
jimrtex	2	15	9	18	32
AustralianSwingVoter	0	15	5	12	30
Torie-A	1	12	8	11	33
Torie-B	0	15	11	11	29

Solid - Do you have a version of your map that shows county lines. I can't score it for chops and erosity as is.

Under the I+C vs E Pareto test the following plans would survive:
ASV (17, 30) and Torie-B (22, 29)

My county splits:

Harford, Howard, Frederick, and Baltimore City are all split once.
Baltimore County, and Montgomery are both split twice.
Prince Georges is split thrice.

Harford: District 4 and 5
Howard: District 5 and 6
Frederick: District 7 and 8
Baltimore City: District 3 and 4
Baltimore County: District 3, 4, and 5
Montgomery: District 6, 7, and 8
Prince Georges: District 1, 2, 6, and 8

7 Counties are whole in District 1
1 County is whole in District 2
4 Counties are whole in District 3
1 County is whole in District 4
1 County is whole in District 6
3 Counties are whole in District 7

edit: scores added. I'm sure you are not surprised that it gets totally killed by the muon rules.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Veteran poster Lewis Trondheim came up with this plan in July, 2011! I still think it's one of the best I've seen with whole counties. Since Lewis no longer posts here, I'm going to submit it for him. There are no chopped counties. No UCCs are chopped either, even though we hadn't defined those until 2013.



CD 1: (+277)
CD 2: (+2)
CD 3: (-280)

That purple district looks very ugly.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

1: R+17.21
2: R+23.45
3: R+17.81

Note: the area in the north outside the view of the screenshot is in District 1.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

WV does not chop counties for CDs and won a major SCOTUS decision this decade related to that. In Tennant v Jefferson County the court allowed them to keep counties intact while having a population range of nearly 1%. WV was able to show that was the smallest population range that met their state goals. Most states, particularly those that chop counties must have exact population equality.

Of course chops are permitted here, and whole county plans with smaller deviations are possible, too. There are three UCCs in WV: Huntington (Cabell, Putnam), Wheeling (Ohio, Marshall), and Weirton (Hancock, Brooke). The Wheeling and Weirton UCCs make up the northern four counties of WV, so it would be a strange plan that would chop them. Huntington is generally the only one to watch.

Here is the map of regional connections in WV.

Why? These Counties have only a very small border with each-other, and both of them have substantially larger borders with other Counties than with each-other. It would be as if Iowa and South Dakota were put in the same region of the country for something, but Minnesota and Nebraska were in different regions.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

According to ballotpedia, Herb Snyder, while he was a member of the legislature tried to have 6 additional Counties moved between Congressional Districts in the 2010 Redistricting that had been kept in the same District in the final plan, but his plan was voted down by the legislature. Ballotpedia gave no details on which Counties he tried to move, however. Does anyone here know the details of what he tried to do?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

So therefore jimtrex's plan is invalid, as the maximum deviation (PA-3, -1.96%) is far in excess of the maximum deviation as set out under criteria 4: "Populations must be provided; maximum allowed deviation is 0.5%".

Is my plan invalid or are the rules invalid?

Your plan is invalid.