Mid-2014 county population estimates out tomorrow, March 26

[Torie]

I like the first AZ plan.

The reservations are indeed a problem area. They are like munis that cross county lines, but there's more desire to keep them together than munis at county lines. At a minimum I would agree that there should be no chop penalty for an area that is exactly coincident with the reservation land in a county. At one point jimrtex and I suggested treating reservations as separate counties since that would then create a chop penalty for reservation splits, but not for chopping into the counties to keep them whole. It all depends on how strong one wants to make the incentive to keep reservations whole.

I think I have come up with the right objective function here. I like the preference metric as a way to resolve some of these issues. I will be getting to your King County Pub gerrymander post/map soon. I have quite a bit to say about that one.

Can you write your reservation preference metric in concise words? It seems plausible but I'd like to test it.

On the AZ-3 bridge chop issue, i think it comes down to the fact that we agreed, and I still believe, that there is no preference for CDs nested in a county - it's just about chops. I can rearrange your AZ-3 to put Tucson with Santa Cruz county and the rest of Pima with Yuma and SW Maricopa. The bridge chop vanishes with no extra chops.

The pack penalty does not obtain for single county UCC's? Is that wise? What is the downside of penalizing non nesting? Shouldn't, at a minimum, nesting be encouraged as a preference? Anyway, the policy issue still obtains, even if an escape can be effected here.

I might further note, that assuming the erosity score is the same, your posited escape might be a fail because it might well degrade the SKEW or POLARIZATION score, or both.

[muon2]

I thought that single county UCCs were given no special status. When we considered it in other states it created double penalties of the sort one should avoid.

I think that the bridge chop issue should not be measured with SKEW or POLARIZATION factors. We only consider those after a set of plans has made the Pareto cut.

I know that bridge chops in urban counties can shift the political numbers. They are very good at that. It's for exactly that reason I want to discourage them. If political factors come in after the Pareto cut, then I can use bridge chops to shift CDs a few points in the direction I want, often without any erosity consequences as you have noted. That gets my partisan map through the cut, perhaps at the expense of a neutral plan.

[Torie]

I thought that single county UCCs were given no special status. When we considered it in other states it created double penalties of the sort one should avoid.

I think that the bridge chop issue should not be measured with SKEW or POLARIZATION factors. We only consider those after a set of plans has made the Pareto cut.

I know that bridge chops in urban counties can shift the political numbers. They are very good at that. It's for exactly that reason I want to discourage them. If political factors come in after the Pareto cut, then I can use bridge chops to shift CDs a few points in the direction I want, often without any erosity consequences as you have noted. That gets my partisan map through the cut, perhaps at the expense of a neutral plan.

1. Single county UCC's, or any county having a population in excess of one CD (same thing), in general yes, should not get special status. But with respect to the pack issue, perhaps they should. It is a policy issue.

2. Bridge chops do not raise the concern that you have, if disfavored. I keep saying that.

3. If two maps are tied on chops and erosity, then first SKEW, and if that is also tied, then POLARIZATION, do come into play as the tie breaker, no? So your map loses, at least if my bridge chop definition and rules apply. And it should lose. Beyond the partisan numbers, it is bad practice all other things being equal, to increase the size of a chop.

4. I am thinking now for various big picture, macro reasons (both in helping to sell your/our scheme (particularly to the Dems, who are likely going to be the source of most of the opposition), and for those who think it good policy for the minority party to get more seats in a state dominated by the other party, and at the same time, have more swing CD's (the two factors tend to be fairly substantially correlated - any Pubs that manage to get elected to Congress in MA or CT or Maine or Hawaii, or Dems from Kansas or Utah or Nebraska, are going very likely to be moderate, and all will come from "swingish" CD's), that we need to give more emphasis to SKEW and POLARIZATION, and thus we need to modify a bit your rules when it comes to macro-chops. But I will get to that when I comment on your King County Pub gerrymander map. That is the place to try to improve SKEW and POLARIZATION scores. But we still want good maps. It is another of those balancing tests. Life is a balancing test. It's time to start thinking out of the box, just as you did so brilliantly with your highway cut scheme, which was an insight of sublime beauty and elegance, that has worked splendidly well (except at the edges where Jimrtex and I are still nipping at your heels, sometimes in unison, sometimes in stereo).

Oh, here is statutory language for you about Indian Reservations. We should call this after that German guy who left us over the Opebo affair, who cared so deeply about the integrity of Indian Reservations, and gave me the spanking I deserved when I started mapping AZ, and paid them no attention.

With respect to Indian Reservations, the following rules shall apply:

1.  The placement of an Indian Reservation into two different CD’s shall count as a chop, unless such division is done solely to avoid a chop of a county, and a division between CD’s of both a county and an Indian Reservation within that county shall count as two chops.

2.  A division of a county into two different CD’s that is solely the result of avoiding causing a division between two CD's of an Indian Reservation that crosses over into that county from an adjacent county shall not count as a chop.

3. With respect to two Qualifying Maps that otherwise have the same chop score, the map that causes a division of a county between two CD’s solely in order to avoid dividing an Indian Reservation between two CD’s, shall be deemed to have a higher chop score than the map that divides an Indian Reservation between two CD’s solely in order to avoiding dividing a county between two CD’s.

A higher score chop score is bad. This is a game of golf. The term Qualifying Map, means a map that is legal under the rules.

[muon2]

I thought that single county UCCs were given no special status. When we considered it in other states it created double penalties of the sort one should avoid.

I think that the bridge chop issue should not be measured with SKEW or POLARIZATION factors. We only consider those after a set of plans has made the Pareto cut.

I know that bridge chops in urban counties can shift the political numbers. They are very good at that. It's for exactly that reason I want to discourage them. If political factors come in after the Pareto cut, then I can use bridge chops to shift CDs a few points in the direction I want, often without any erosity consequences as you have noted. That gets my partisan map through the cut, perhaps at the expense of a neutral plan.

1. Single county UCC's, or any county having a population in excess of one CD (same thing), in general yes, should not get special status. But with respect to the pack issue, perhaps they should. It is a policy issue.

I think that's a fundamental change in philosophy, and I'm not convinced of the need to change.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If I can shift CDs by 3% without trying by going from bridge to not bridge, I bet I can do better if I need to. My point is they are very effective at shifting partisan numbers, and often incur no erosity penaly compared to a straight chop. This is an open mapping process and if there's a way to game the system for political advantage, it will be used.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We've never used the political measures as part of the map filter. The idea has been to find the Pareto frontier from non-political data, then pass those plans along with the political data to the decision making body. They could then use the political scores as they want.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The SKEW and POLARIZATION will appeal to good government groups, but I am not sure that including them in the selection criteria will sell it to the majority party. They were part of the OH competition and forced some strange choices knowing that they affected selection. Dems liked their impact in OH but not the Pubs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm quite leery of point 3. If some scores (eg INEQUALITY) are tie breakers, it becomes confusing to have parts of other scores (CHOP) also act as tie breakers. A score should just be a number to make this fly. Perhaps I can suggest a revision of the three points into two as follows:

1. A reservation area within a county is automatically a subunit of the county. Contiguous reservation subunits form a Reservation Subunit Cluster (RSC). The CHOP score shall increase by one for each district over the minimum needed for the cover of the RSC.

2. A chop into a county that only includes a reservation subunit shall not count as a chop of that county if the RSC is covered by the minimum number of districts.

[Torie]

Putting aside the tie breaker issue, your text has very different substantive provisions. First you levy a chop for dividing different reservations. I do not. There is no commonality there in governmental function. This issue actually obtains in Gila County where the San Carlos reservation is contiguous to the Apache reservation. Putting them in separate CD's should not be penalized. You have no chop penalty avoidance mechanism where a reservation chop is done to keep a county whole. If a reservation is chopped elsewhere, it should not generate another penalty in order to keep a county whole. So the only change here is to avoid levying a chop penalty for a chop of Apache along reservation lines.

1. A reservation area within a county is automatically a subunit of the county. Contiguous reservation subunits form a Reservation Subunit Cluster (RSC). The CHOP score shall increase by one for each district over the minimum needed for the cover of the RSC.

2. A chop into a county that only includes a reservation subunit shall not count as a chop of that county if the RSC is covered by the minimum number of districts.

As to tie breakers we disagree on that. I think that mechanism useful, and not particularly confusing, whether it be about reservations, or bridge chops, however defined. As to reservations, it is not that important, at least in my system. You either have an incentive to keep a reservation whole by chopping into a county, or you do not. In your system, counties are ignored in favor of reservations. I don't think that can be justified if the metric is about lines following governmental functions. Of course, reservations are localities. And just like localities, they can be chopped without penalty if they cross a county line. In your system Gila or Apache will always need to be chopped to avoid a chop penalty if the CD lines are around there.

Tie breakers are important for bridge chops to avoid your doomsday scenarios (potentially - it really has yet to be proven). It is not about partisan gerrymandering however, because it is all random. It is about whether it generates ugly maps. Playing the gerrymander card is a total red herring. It does not obtain at all really in any of this really.

As to selling this thing, this system really protects the Pub majority, after it drops about 10 seats or so or whatever. That is the effect. It cannot be denied. Allowing more flexibility in line drawing in big counties might end up giving the Dems a shot at some more seats net on a nationwide basis, while protecting map integrity, and give on a systematic basis more help potentially to the minority party on the short end of the SKEW. That is the point.

But I will get into that dealing with your King County map on that thread. On that map, did you count non state highway road cuts between municipalities in separate CD's that do not involve another county? I ask, because in general, the county chops are incentivized to go where fewer jurisdictions exist, which would tend to help the Dems because it is less populated areas that are chopped. In general, if one CD takes in the more rural areas, and the other CD takes in the populated areas, you will have one CD appending inside a county a ton of localities, with a lot of road cuts. Each and every road that leads out from a municipality to the balance of a county, even if there are no sub jurisdictions in the balance of the county, would count as a road cut. So that issue needs to be resolved first.

Our list of disagreements is getting longer again.

[Torie]

Here's New Hampshire based on population projections. The location of the chop was driven by the equality metric. Even though in my world, equality is at the absolute bottom of the heap, everything else was equal, so that was all that remained as the tie breaker as to the precise location of the chop. Also interesting is that both CD's have almost the same partisan complexion circa 2008, 1.28% and 1.06% Dem PVI's. The Dems would be pleased as NH trends slowly their way (or if you believe one poster here, at WARP speed). 

[muon2]

Here's New Hampshire based on population projections. The location of the chop was driven by the equality metric. Even though in my world, equality is at the absolute bottom of the heap, everything else was equal, so that was all that remained as the tie breaker as to the precise location of the chop. Also interesting is that both CD's have almost the same partisan complexion circa 2008, 1.28% and 1.06% Dem PVI's. The Dems would be pleased as NH trends slowly their way (or if you believe one poster here, at WARP speed).  

Were these just from county projections? If you want to get into the weeds the Census has estimates for all 259 towns in NH. When I looked at the muon rules applied to NH it made more sense to ignore counties but look at NECTA's (clusters of towns by urban center) as a replacement for the UCCs.



In any state where one can easily make a chop-free plan (such as with towns in NH or counties in IA) inequality becomes the variable of choice to contrast with erosity for Pareto purposes. Otherwise one has a one-dimensional representation and no flexibility.

[Torie]

I am more interested in skew and polarization than equality. We just disagree on that. But here, it makes no difference as I said just where in the food chain inequality is. And I am getting nervous that you are setting up different rules for different states. You seem searching for more clusters of stuff, be it ethic clusters, and now this variant of clusters. I am not sure what is driving this, other than perhaps boredom or something.

Using town estimates would only make a difference here for the size of the chop, and I am quite sure that this is still the best place to chop for equality purposes. The population number is small, and NH growth rates don't vary that much across the state.

[muon2]

I am more interested in skew and polarization than equality. We just disagree on that. And I am getting nervous that you are setting up different rules for different states. You seem searching for more clusters of stuff, be it ethic clusters, and now this variant of clusters. I am not sure what is driving this, other than perhaps boredom or something.

Using town estimates would only make a difference here for the size of the chop, and I am quite sure that this is still the best place to chop for equality purposes. The population number is small, and NH growth rates don't vary that much across the state.

My link is from two years ago and was hardly due to boredom. Counties don't even exist in half of New England as units of government, and they have a minimal role elsewhere. The UCC concept doesn't function well in New England. The Census recognizes the special nature of those six states and defined the New England City and Town Areas accordingly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some states have no predefined county subunits, and the rules have to adapt to that. New England maps much better with towns, not counties, as the basic unit. You'll see a number of examples with 2010 data on the thread I linked on my previous post.

[muon2]

Even if SKEW and POLARIZATION were used to contrast against EROSITY, I don't think it would do much good in states like RI and MA. INEQUALITY is the only game left in town.

[Torie]

Jimrtex's map has UCC areas in NH. Were they made up out of thin air? Is there no UCC area for those two adjacent counties? I don't understand why you say they don't work.

NH's counties do have government functions (I looked it up before drawing the map). It is not like CT. And even if they didn't, that does not mean they should not be used ala what was used in MD. Anyway, with the counties having real government functions, to make the lines just disappear, seems like an inconsistent approach to me. When does a county do enough, to keep its lines from disappearing?

Without checking back to the other thread, using counties worked splendidly well in CT, work fine in NH, and also worked very well in Mass. So color me confused on that one.

[Torie]

Even if SKEW and POLARIZATION were used to contrast against EROSITY, I don't think it would do much good in states like RI and MA. INEQUALITY is the only game left in town.

Yes, of course, and it turned out to be that way in NH, using standardized metrics, rather than custom metrics developed by your creative little mind. RI is losing a seat, so the map there should be really easy to draw in any event.

Mass counties seem to have functions too by the way. I came across that trying to check on the demographics of Lincoln in connection with how rich places vote.

[muon2]

Even if SKEW and POLARIZATION were used to contrast against EROSITY, I don't think it would do much good in states like RI and MA. INEQUALITY is the only game left in town.

Yes, of course, and it turned out to be that way in NH, using standardized metrics, rather than custom metrics developed by your creative little mind. RI is losing a seat, so the map there should be really easy to draw in any event.

Mass counties seem to have functions too by the way. I came across that trying to check on the demographics of Lincoln in connection with how rich places vote.

The counties exist a geographic entities, but lack an elected government other than certain officers like sheriff. Here's the description from the the Sec of State.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The town is vastly more important in MA and the rest of New England than anywhere else. The small scale, few counties, importance of the town, and recognition of such by the Census suggest that towns are the fundamental unit for drawing districts in those states. Based on all of those factors I've been treating those states in terms of towns as I've developed my rules for almost four years now.

[Torie]

I've ignored New England pretty much while you were up to your mischief. Anyway, it is up to the state to decide what matters to them, if their counties have less authority than in most places. I think that is OK. Just give them the options. Myself, I would stick with the counties. They work just fine. But it should be their decision, not ours, or yours, or mine. That is my point of view anyway. In the end, it really does not make much difference as a national matter. You didn't answer my UCC question for New Hampshire. I guess if you erase county lines, you were searching for something else to create urban clusters. Did you do that all across New England, creating non county based urban clusters, or just in New Hampshire? You seem to have a lot of urban clusters in New Hampshire. Might some think that you were a bit urban cluster happy?

Anyway, on to Montana. Here’s Montana if it gets a second seat.  The only thing of interest here is the Indian Reservation issue. To keep the reservation whole, a chop of Chouteau County was done, which increased inequality, but again, that is at the bottom of the food chain for me. However, another more erose map, avoids any county chop to avoid a reservation chop. Should such a map have a preference? If so, the second map wins the chop contest, even while being more erose, so both maps make the pareto optimality cut in that event.

The second map also has a more Dem CD in the west (almost kind of a Dem gerrymander really), which probably pushes that CD down to “r” territory to the extent that it is not in the first map. If so, that helps the polarization score. However, like skew, polarization is but a tie breaker in the food chain, so that does not matter. If Muon2 comes up with some grand unified formula for erosity which factors in skew and polarization (which he seems to be pondering to cull down my long preference list), then maybe it would matter.  I am willing to consider such a grand unified formula, but would need to see how it works in practice.  

Obama is now suddenly interested in the gerrymandering issue, and I know that he cares a lot about skew, and heck, maybe even polarization.  In any event, there is more and more interest out there in doing something to change the status quo. It’s perhaps beginning to reach critical mass. And something really can be done, if the formula is just right, and both parties are on the smart side, rather than the dumb side (that assumption perhaps being unrealistic, but whatever).

Man, I really milked a lot out of this rather boring state didn’t I, and all because of an itsy bitsy little Indian Reservation. One thing leads to another thing, and then yet another thing.

[jimrtex]

Even if SKEW and POLARIZATION were used to contrast against EROSITY, I don't think it would do much good in states like RI and MA. INEQUALITY is the only game left in town.

Yes, of course, and it turned out to be that way in NH, using standardized metrics, rather than custom metrics developed by your creative little mind. RI is losing a seat, so the map there should be really easy to draw in any event.

Mass counties seem to have functions too by the way. I came across that trying to check on the demographics of Lincoln in connection with how rich places vote.

Most counties in Massachusetts have been abolished, except in the southeast. Middlesex is no more. Barnstable has a county government and weighted voting. There are some residual functions such as courts organized on a county basis. Legislative districts include the name of the old counties.

The census bureau likes to make everything consistent. That is why there are CCD in areas of the country that have no governmental purpose or local recognition. They continue to use the old Massachusetts counties, so that it might appear that Lincoln is among the wealthier towns of "Middlesex County".

Historically, census-defined metropolitan areas in New England were based on towns. For statistical purposes they defined the equivalent of MSAs in in New England based on county units.

In 2000 when they changed the definition of metropolitan areas to be based on urban areas, they decided to make MSA's the standard throughout the country, while retaining the town-based areas in New England as an alternative.

NECTA have the same problem as MSA in that the underlying urban areas are chopped on old delineations. As you know census urban areas are based on continuous dense settlement. If you used that definiition, you could end up with the Bosnywash Urban Area. In New England, it appears they chopped urban areas based on pre-2000 metropolitan areas.

In some areas, these are simply wrong. The boundary between Springfield, MA and Hartford, CT is well south of the state line, while commuting patterns are almost identical to the state line. I think there is one town in Massachusetts that has dominant commuting to the north.

I started working on a commuter-based definition for Connecticut but never finished.

[Torie]

I don’t know if this exact iteration of a NY map based on population projections has been put up before, but it seems to me to be the wining map. My sentimental favorite is the second map, but it chops Greenburgh Town in Westchester generating an extra chop, and in the end is just an interior map.  The first map has a bridge chop per my definition (not Muon2's), so is disfavored, but with one fewer chop, stills prevails over the second map using my preference metrics.

I went through this exercise, because I am meeting a Dem candidate for Congress, Will Yandik, this coming Monday, and I wanted to show him what his CD might look like in 2022 assuming he gets elected. It is rather important, because with the second map, unless Mahoney in NY-18 retires in 2022, Will will need to find another line of work then. On the other hand, with the first map, he will be in a CD that merges basically with NY-22 (will lives near Hudson in Livingston Town). So he will be in much better shape, particularly if a right wing Pub wins in NY-22 this year. I will advise him to spend some time when he can up in Rome and Utica.

This is not a wholly theoretical exercise, because NY now has a redistricting law that will cut way back on the gerrymander regime. So reasonable maps are now the order of the day. This map is reasonable, and also has a good skew of Pub plus 1., and low polarization at 33 (2R, 4r, 5e, 5d, 10D).  Two CD’s are just barely r, and if both went to e, the skew would be zero. Both maps have the same skew and polarization scores, although the first map has NY-17 going from e to r, and NY-22 going from r to e.

Will is a moderate Dem who seeks consensus, with a calm and intellectual temperament, and an environmentalist. He’s a biologist. And he’s extremely smart (he was valedictorian at Hudson High School, and got a scholarship to go to Princeton). So I anticipate that I will be supporting him. He’s basically a Gibson type with a D label, who is somewhat more liberal on social issues.

The big unknown is whether Teachout chooses to run for the seat in the Dem primary. If she does, she will probably win the primary (she will have lots of money and name ID), but as a Birkenstock/Emily’s List type liberal, she is not a good fit for the district in a General Election, while Will Yandik will be an excellent fit. My instinct is that Teachout will not run, because she realizes the problem. If so, it may well be that Yandik will be our next Congressmen. It will be kind of fun to actually know my Congressman personally. I birded with him and my brother last month, which is where I met him. I did not know then of his political ambitions, but do now (we didn't talk politics while birding, because that just isn't done with serious birders).

 [/URL]



 

[muon2]

This is not a wholly theoretical exercise, because NY now has a redistricting law that will cut way back on the gerrymander regime. So reasonable maps are now the order of the day. This map is reasonable, and also has a good skew of Pub plus 1., and low polarization at 33 (2R, 4r, 5e, 5d, 10D).  Two CD’s are just barely r, and if both went to e, the skew would be zero. Both maps have the same skew and polarization scores, although the first map has NY-17 going from e to r, and NY-22 going from r to e.

I get a different value of SKEW from your distribution of seats. If I assume that NY is still D+11 in 2022, then 26 seats gives a skew offset of 11 D seats (11% * 4 * 26). Your distribution has 15 D+d seats and 6 R+r seats for a difference of 9 D seats. The SKEW is 2 R.

BTW I know you looked into this last spring. Are there significant changes from that plan to his one?

[Torie]

This is not a wholly theoretical exercise, because NY now has a redistricting law that will cut way back on the gerrymander regime. So reasonable maps are now the order of the day. This map is reasonable, and also has a good skew of Pub plus 1., and low polarization at 33 (2R, 4r, 5e, 5d, 10D).  Two CD’s are just barely r, and if both went to e, the skew would be zero. Both maps have the same skew and polarization scores, although the first map has NY-17 going from e to r, and NY-22 going from r to e.

I get a different value of SKEW from your distribution of seats. If I assume that NY is still D+11 in 2022, then 26 seats gives a skew offset of 11 D seats (11% * 4 * 26). Your distribution has 15 D+d seats and 6 R+r seats for a difference of 9 D seats. The SKEW is 2 R.

Yeah, I took the e seats off the table, and that is wrong. If all the CD seats were e, there would be no skew, per my formula, and that makes no sense.

BTW I know you looked into this last spring. Are there significant changes from that plan to his one?

No, it seems per one of my maps. It's just this map gets rid of the micro-chops on that map per the 0.5% leeway rule. Well, I take that back. I needed to put North Castle and Pound Ridge into NY-16 to get rid of the chop of Greenburgh (in both maps above actually, since in the second map, I needed to do that to avoid a tri-chop of Greenburgh). Greenburgh is the driver of all of these maps for this portion of the state it seems. Interestingly, I read the new NY law, and it is not clear to me if that law allows population variances to avoid town chops. It refers to avoiding town and block chops with respect to allowing population variances. Towns tend to be bigger than blocks.

In other news, after years of ignoring you and Jimrtex on this, I finally learned to take the population of each county, get the percentage of the CD quota for that population, and work with the CD quota fractions until I got to within .995 to 1.005. Things work much easier that way, and it reduces the chance for error. Sometimes, I am a really, really, slow learner!  

[Torie]

This morning I went to Will Yandik's event in Hillsdale. About 100 people showed up. Will Yandik loved my maps, and instantly understood the political implications. His eyes just glistened with delight in fact. He loves maps as much as we do. He even knew that Columbia County was neither part of the Albany UCC area, nor the NYC UCC area, and that Dutchess was part of the latter, and the implications of that vis a vis map drawing give the new New York law. Fancy that? I also told him about the Birkenstock Belt, and where it was, and that Hillsdale was a part of it, which fascinated him.

His speech was brilliant, well crafted, district specific, and politically smart - small farms, home health care for a population losing area filled with seniors (10 years older than the average for the nation), internet broad band, bipartisan, working with Republicans on issues where it was realistic to get stuff passed, and so forth. He was happy to see me. I suggested on the broad band issue, that he get in touch with some incumbent Congressmen for both parties, to get an idea of what the obstacles are, and why this has not been pushed by rural Pub Congresspersons, so he can get more specific, and show by his actions, that he can actually make his approach work. It's a big issue, because the economics of the region, and higher paying jobs, are all about using the internet, and working from home, or a small business. And the service sucks, and is driving folks crazy. My cousin is really frustrated, and has found all three currently available options unsatisfactory.

He's smart as a whip, charming, high energy, disciplined, and charming, great sense of humor and very articulate. I think he will be the next Congressman from the district, and the DCCC understands he's their best shot to win the district, and are pushing for him. I think the odds are pretty good he will be the next Congressman from the district. It will be kind of neat if he does, that I will know my Congressional representative personally. And oh, I pledged some money for him.

I also chatted with the former Hudson Common Council President about the weighted voting issue, and laid out my strategy, and what needs to be done when, to whom. He thought it a good approach.  

[jimrtex]

His speech was brilliant, well crafted, district specific, and politically smart - small farms, home health care for a population losing area filled with seniors (10 years older than the average for the nation), internet broad band, bipartisan, working with Republicans on issues where it was realistic to get stuff passed, and so forth. He was happy to see me. I suggested on the broad band issue, that he get in touch with some incumbent Congressmen for both parties, to get an idea of what the obstacles are, and why this has not been pushed by rural Pub Congresspersons, so he can get more specific, and show by his actions, that he can actually make his approach work. It's a big issue, because the economics of the region, and higher paying jobs, are all about using the internet, and working from home, or a small business. And the service sucks, and is driving folks crazy. My cousin is really frustrated, and has found all three currently available options unsatisfactory.

The last Labor government in Australia was a coalition government, that needed to pick up a few extra MPs. They got a few Independent Nationalist, or perhaps even Independent Country MPs on the issue of broadband for the Outback.

I also chatted with the former Hudson Common Council President about the weighted voting issue, and laid out my strategy, and what needs to be done when, to whom. He thought it a good approach.  

They really ought to fix the current weights. The current weights are clearly in violation of equal protection, and probably due process.

The county ought to junk the adjusted weighting, and go with simple weighting, with two supervisors elected from Kinderhook and Hudson.

[Torie]

The Home Rule Law does not allow the weights to be corrected except by referendum. The county can for supervisors, but the city cannot for aldermen. It's a gap in the law, because the law was not written contemplating cities having weighted voting. So the weighed votes cannot be changed by a mere Council vote. When they did that in 2013, it was illegal. Much of what Hudson does is illegal. That era is now coming to an end. That's what happens when pushy lawyers with too much time on their hands come to town.

[Torie]

Here is what happens to NY-18 if the NYC metro area for the remaining 5.75 years of the decade grows at a rate of 0.74% per year, rather than 0.69% per year,  ending the incumbent's career in what is now NY-19, assuming NY faithfully follows its new redistricting law. Greenburgh town is chopped, and NY-18 has a Dem PVI of 1.3%, while NY-17 has a Dem PVI of 0.5%, circa 2008. Columbia County really is on the cusp as to where it ends up. If growth slows down  a tad, rather than speeds up a tad, a Muon2 metric map would chop Geeene County, but is what is more likely to happen, is that Ulster County would be chopped, with Columbia County still in NY-18.

In other words, Columbia County goes to NY-22 only in the narrow window of current population growth rates in the NYC metro area. Outside the metro area, the population is almost precisely stagnant, with a very slight population loss, and that is unlikely to change. Upstate NY overall is very stagnant and stable, and likely to remain that way, without much change. On the other hand, the NYC metro area is much more unpredictable, with the health of Wall Street having much to do with what happens to its growth rate. Given the shape of NY, and its respective regional growth rates, one can predict what happens to one CD, mine, with a pretty high degree on certainty. In that sense, the situation I think is rather unique out there on the Fruited Plain.

[muon2]

Here is what happens to NY-18 if the NYC metro area for the remaining 5.75 years of the decade grows at a rate of 0.74% per year, rather than 0.69% per year,  ending the incumbent's career in what is now NY-19, assuming NY faithfully follows its new redistricting law. Greenburgh town is chopped, and NY-18 has a Dem PVI of 1.3%, while NY-17 has a Dem PVI of 0.5%, circa 2008. Columbia County really is on the cusp as to where it ends up. If growth slows down  a tad, rather than speeds up a tad, a Muon2 metric map would chop Geeene County, but is what is more likely to happen, is that Ulster County would be chopped, with Columbia County still in NY-18.

In other words, Columbia County goes to NY-22 only in the narrow window of current population growth rates in the NYC metro area. Outside the metro area, the population is almost precisely stagnant, with a very slight population loss, and that is unlikely to change. Upstate NY overall is very stagnant and stable, and likely to remain that way, without much change. On the other hand, the NYC metro area is much more unpredictable, with the health of Wall Street having much to do with what happens to its growth rate. Given the shape of NY, and its respective regional growth rates, one can predict what happens to one CD, mine, with a pretty high degree on certainty. In that sense, the situation I think is rather unique out there on the Fruited Plain.

I wouldn't leave out the possibility that Columbia goes with Albany after 2020. The Albany metro has to be chopped, and assuming that NY doesn't necessarily hew to the UCC pack rule the chop could give the Capital district a major role in two CDs.

[jimrtex]

The Home Rule Law does not allow the weights to be corrected except by referendum. The county can for supervisors, but the city cannot for aldermen. It's a gap in the law, because the law was not written contemplating cities having weighted voting. So the weighed votes cannot be changed by a mere Council vote. When they did that in 2013, it was illegal. Much of what Hudson does is illegal. That era is now coming to an end. That's what happens when pushy lawyers with too much time on their hands come to town.

MHR § 10.1.a.(13)(c) applies generally.

A change in weighting does not count under the once-in-a-decade rule.

The change to the board of supervisors will count since it remove several of the supervisors from Hudson.

[Torie]

The Home Rule Law does not allow the weights to be corrected except by referendum. The county can for supervisors, but the city cannot for aldermen. It's a gap in the law, because the law was not written contemplating cities having weighted voting. So the weighed votes cannot be changed by a mere Council vote. When they did that in 2013, it was illegal. Much of what Hudson does is illegal. That era is now coming to an end. That's what happens when pushy lawyers with too much time on their hands come to town.

MHR § 10.1.a.(13)(c) applies generally.

A change in weighting does not count under the once-in-a-decade rule.

The change to the board of supervisors will count since it remove several of the supervisors from Hudson.

Correct as to your first sentence, but it still needs a referendum. That's the rub. The supervisor thing has its own dynamic.