What districts would have Dems won back if not for gerrymandering?

[muon2]

You'd have to gerrymander Allegheny to move the needle there - swapping CD 18 up along the east side of Pittsburgh moves it to R+1, so it would move the skew by 1.

So, basically, this:

?

Though it must be noted that having 18 take all of the Mon Valley is a decision justifiable on more than just skew-reducing grounds, though skew reduction is certainly sufficient reason to draw it that way.

Let it be known that even my PA map was Pub-favoring.  (I guess my district 17 is marginally more competitive as well, but that still doesn't get us to parity.)

This shows the challenge to fair mapping as opposed to neutral mapping. Neutral mapping would only look at geographic criteria like chops and erosity. Most fair map proposals also want to improve competitiveness and maintain an appropriate partisan balance, which I measure with polarization and skew.

In some states the two goals can line up reasonably well. The neutral maps for MI were reasonably low skew. The packing of Dems in Detroit was balanced by plenty of Dem-leaning burbs. With half the CDs in SE MI it isn't hard to strike a competitive balance.

PA does not fall into the category of states like MI. Only SE PA features a lot of Dem-leaning and swingy suburbs and that area is only 7 of 18 CDs. The university town of State College doesn't produce the large population of Dems that are found in Ann Arbor, and the Harrisburg area doesn't match Lansing, so there's no hope for any swing CDs in central PA. In fact the neutral plans for PA produce 6 or 7 CDs that are more Pub than any CD in a neutral MI map.

If the Allegheny river is maintained as the southern limit of CD 12 to keep erosity in check and Pittsburgh is not chopped, this was the best I could do for a competitive CD 18. It has a PVI of R+0.3. Other than the Allegheny chop, CD 12 and 18 are whole county.

[krazen1211]

Hm.  What do people think of this proposal as a way to lessen, if not entirely neutralize, the partisan effects of line-drawing (both from gerrymandering, and "natural packing")?

Districts should be drawn in each state so that half of them have a PVI more D than the state as a whole, and half of them have a PVI that is more R than the state as a whole.  Maybe allow wiggle room of a point or two in either direction.  So, in the case of Michigan, you'd need seven districts D+4 or more Dem, and seven districts that were D+4 or more Pub.  Conversely, a state like North Carolina would be mandated to have six districts that are at least R+3, and a seventh right around that number.

This should safeguard against the worst abuses, in both directions. 

For the record, the enacted New Jersey map complies with this criteria.

Yet, of course, this poster in question doesn't like the New Jersey map and wants to blow Republican districts up.

Link


Curious.

[Torie]

Here is my redraw of Muon2's PA map for the CD's with which I was dissatisfied. The color variations for the chops appending the pink CD are micro-chops. The population for the Erie based CD is only off by 122 people, so no chop at all appears. I used Muon2's chops for the CD's with which I am satisfied, and did not otherwise draw. As per usual I seek rectangles and squares, and compactness (the pink and chartreuse CD's together are sort of a rectangle, and the shape of each is based on population, keeping the Scranton-Wilkes Barre MSA together, and finding a micro-chop). I disliked his split of Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, which is one MSA (and to me counts as another chop). They are back together now.

[traininthedistance]

Hm.  What do people think of this proposal as a way to lessen, if not entirely neutralize, the partisan effects of line-drawing (both from gerrymandering, and "natural packing")?

Districts should be drawn in each state so that half of them have a PVI more D than the state as a whole, and half of them have a PVI that is more R than the state as a whole.  Maybe allow wiggle room of a point or two in either direction.  So, in the case of Michigan, you'd need seven districts D+4 or more Dem, and seven districts that were D+4 or more Pub.  Conversely, a state like North Carolina would be mandated to have six districts that are at least R+3, and a seventh right around that number.

This should safeguard against the worst abuses, in both directions. 

For the record, the enacted New Jersey map complies with this criteria.

Yet, of course, this poster in question doesn't like the New Jersey map and wants to blow Republican districts up.

Link


Curious.

Well, how does the NJ map score on muon's (more robust) skew measure?   Is it even on that front, too?  I think you know what the answer would be.

How about we enact a new Pennsylvania map that complies with my proposed criteria (which is, mind you, supposed to be a fail-safe against the most egregious of partisan effects, and not a sufficient marker of good redistricting by itself) and then I'll stop complaining about NJ.  That's more than fair.

[Torie]

You'd have to gerrymander Allegheny to move the needle there - swapping CD 18 up along the east side of Pittsburgh moves it to R+1, so it would move the skew by 1.

So, basically, this:

?

Though it must be noted that having 18 take all of the Mon Valley is a decision justifiable on more than just skew-reducing grounds, though skew reduction is certainly sufficient reason to draw it that way.

Let it be known that even my PA map was Pub-favoring.  (I guess my district 17 is marginally more competitive as well, but that still doesn't get us to parity.)

This shows the challenge to fair mapping as opposed to neutral mapping. Neutral mapping would only look at geographic criteria like chops and erosity. Most fair map proposals also want to improve competitiveness and maintain an appropriate partisan balance, which I measure with polarization and skew.

In some states the two goals can line up reasonably well. The neutral maps for MI were reasonably low skew. The packing of Dems in Detroit was balanced by plenty of Dem-leaning burbs. With half the CDs in SE MI it isn't hard to strike a competitive balance.

PA does not fall into the category of states like MI. Only SE PA features a lot of Dem-leaning and swingy suburbs and that area is only 7 of 18 CDs. The university town of State College doesn't produce the large population of Dems that are found in Ann Arbor, and the Harrisburg area doesn't match Lansing, so there's no hope for any swing CDs in central PA. In fact the neutral plans for PA produce 6 or 7 CDs that are more Pub than any CD in a neutral MI map.

If the Allegheny river is maintained as the southern limit of CD 12 to keep erosity in check and Pittsburgh is not chopped, this was the best I could do for a competitive CD 18. It has a PVI of R+0.3. Other than the Allegheny chop, CD 12 and 18 are whole county.

I would give also give the above map  a high non-erosity score. Well done. It should in fact be one of the top five map designs as an educated guess (not sure about the split of Allegheny county however - that prong north is a bit off-putting - but maybe it has its virtues, not having played with that county in a non partisan (as opposed to a go for the throat partisan) effort).

[krazen1211]

Hm.  What do people think of this proposal as a way to lessen, if not entirely neutralize, the partisan effects of line-drawing (both from gerrymandering, and "natural packing")?

Districts should be drawn in each state so that half of them have a PVI more D than the state as a whole, and half of them have a PVI that is more R than the state as a whole.  Maybe allow wiggle room of a point or two in either direction.  So, in the case of Michigan, you'd need seven districts D+4 or more Dem, and seven districts that were D+4 or more Pub.  Conversely, a state like North Carolina would be mandated to have six districts that are at least R+3, and a seventh right around that number.

This should safeguard against the worst abuses, in both directions.  

For the record, the enacted New Jersey map complies with this criteria.

Yet, of course, this poster in question doesn't like the New Jersey map and wants to blow Republican districts up.

Link


Curious.

Well, how does the NJ map score on muon's (more robust) skew measure?   Is it even on that front, too?  I think you know what the answer would be.

How about we enact a new Pennsylvania map that complies with my proposed criteria (which is, mind you, supposed to be a fail-safe against the most egregious of partisan effects, and not a sufficient marker of good redistricting by itself) and then I'll stop complaining about NJ.  That's more than fair.

Let's see. I can't read your mind, only your posts, so I will use this.

Link

By this standard, the enacted NJ map has 6D, 2e, 2r, 2R. The Democrats have a bonus of 2 districts, and if I am reading muon2's post correctly, an expected skew of 2. 2 is what he assigned for Michigan.


Of course I briefly searched through this thread for the specific muon2 criteria that you hint about. Then again you tossed your own criteria aside in a half second when you decided it didn't achieve your hack partisan outcome, so I suspect you'll do his as well.

[muon2]

Here is my redraw of Muon2's PA map for the CD's with which I was dissatisfied. The color variations for the chops appending the pink CD are micro-chops. The population for the Erie based CD is only off by 122 people, so no chop at all appears. I used Muon2's chops for the CD's with which I am satisfied, and did not otherwise draw. As per usual I seek rectangles and squares, and compactness (the pink and chartreuse CD's together are sort of a rectangle, and the shape of each is based on population, keeping the Scranton-Wilkes Barre MSA together, and finding a micro-chop). I disliked his split of Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, which is one MSA (and to me counts as another chop). They are back together now.

Thanks it's quite nice and it's very helpful to understand your preferences. One question, is there a reason not to use this plan in the NE? The deviations as shown are -1683, -491, -182 for the pink, lime and orange districts. It keeps towns whole in Carbon and it avoids any other microchops for those districts.

[Torie]

Thank you. I was following your lines for the balance of the map with which I was satisfied. Yes, your lines losing the chop are superior. I just took your chops from CD's with which I did not mess as holy writ. I guess that was a mistake.

[traininthedistance]

Of course I briefly searched through this thread for the specific muon2 criteria that you hint about. Then again you tossed your own criteria aside in a half second when you decided it didn't achieve your hack partisan outcome, so I suspect you'll do his as well.

Please quote where, exactly, I "tossed aside" the usage of muon's skew criteria.  What I disagreed with is the idea of only using county chops/erosity as methods for scoring districts without regard to skew or metro contiguity, which appears to me rather more like the opposite of what you are claiming.

By this standard, the enacted NJ map has 6D, 2e, 2r, 2R.

Actually it is 6D, 2e, 1r, 3R.  Check your PVIs again.  Of course, looking at it more holistically, the lack of any districts at all in the "lean D" range is a good tipoff that what we are looking at is in reality a partisan gerrymander.  But you're a smart guy, I'm sure you knew that, even if you will never admit as such.

[muon2]

Thank you. I was following your lines for the balance of the map with which I was satisfied. Yes, your lines losing the chop are superior. I just took your chops from CD's with which I did not mess as holy writ. I guess that was a mistake.

I'm just trying to strike the right balance between your push to minimize erosity and train's desire to minimize chops. My adjustment is merely to refine the balance. As my optometrist would say "Is it better with lens 1 or 2?"

[traininthedistance]

Thank you. I was following your lines for the balance of the map with which I was satisfied. Yes, your lines losing the chop are superior. I just took your chops from CD's with which I did not mess as holy writ. I guess that was a mistake.

I'm just trying to strike the right balance between your push to minimize erosity and train's desire to minimize chops. My adjustment is merely to refine the balance. As my optometrist would say "Is it better with lens 1 or 2?"

I would say that my hobbyhorse is more MSA/CSA (and muni) chops than county chops; I think that my desire to minimize county chops is not really any more strong than yours or Torie's (though it obviously does exist as well).

[muon2]

Thank you. I was following your lines for the balance of the map with which I was satisfied. Yes, your lines losing the chop are superior. I just took your chops from CD's with which I did not mess as holy writ. I guess that was a mistake.

I'm just trying to strike the right balance between your push to minimize erosity and train's desire to minimize chops. My adjustment is merely to refine the balance. As my optometrist would say "Is it better with lens 1 or 2?"

I would say that my hobbyhorse is more MSA/CSA (and muni) chops than county chops; I think that my desire to minimize county chops is not really any more strong than yours or Torie's (though it obviously does exist as well).

Fair enough. Next question (for Torie, too) - is it worth a chop to reduce polarization and/or skew?

[traininthedistance]

Thank you. I was following your lines for the balance of the map with which I was satisfied. Yes, your lines losing the chop are superior. I just took your chops from CD's with which I did not mess as holy writ. I guess that was a mistake.

I'm just trying to strike the right balance between your push to minimize erosity and train's desire to minimize chops. My adjustment is merely to refine the balance. As my optometrist would say "Is it better with lens 1 or 2?"

I would say that my hobbyhorse is more MSA/CSA (and muni) chops than county chops; I think that my desire to minimize county chops is not really any more strong than yours or Torie's (though it obviously does exist as well).

Fair enough. Next question (for Torie, too) - is it worth a chop to reduce polarization and/or skew?

My first instinct is to say "yes to reduce skew, no to reduce polarization".  But, within limits and with exceptions.  I would actually say that, when it comes to polarization, it depends on the state.  The more elastic a state is, or the more naturally swingy area there is, the more I'd be amenable to polarization-reducing chops.  Ideally, the more a county chop can serve multiple purposes (by, say, pushing the overall skew down while also keeping the core of an MSA together), the more I consider it a worthwhile chop.

[krazen1211]

Of course I briefly searched through this thread for the specific muon2 criteria that you hint about. Then again you tossed your own criteria aside in a half second when you decided it didn't achieve your hack partisan outcome, so I suspect you'll do his as well.

Please quote where, exactly, I "tossed aside" the usage of muon's skew criteria.  What I disagreed with is the idea of only using county chops/erosity as methods for scoring districts without regard to skew or metro contiguity, which appears to me rather more like the opposite of what you are claiming.

By this standard, the enacted NJ map has 6D, 2e, 2r, 2R.

Actually it is 6D, 2e, 1r, 3R.  Check your PVIs again.  Of course, looking at it more holistically, the lack of any districts at all in the "lean D" range is a good tipoff that what we are looking at is in reality a partisan gerrymander.  But you're a smart guy, I'm sure you knew that, even if you will never admit as such.

At the time that the districts were mapped, NJ-11 was measured by cook to be R+5, and I used the 2-5 criteria that was posted. Certainly it would be both absurd and bizarre to measure NJ-11 using the current PVIs for the purpose of this measurement.

Link

The skew it appears is the same in any case based on the post I quoted, and is exactly what the state of New Jersey should have as a skew, based on the post I quoted.




But I am thoroughly amused by this new 'holistic' criteria approach, whatever it is, because it wasn't in your prior post.

[Torie]

Thank you. I was following your lines for the balance of the map with which I was satisfied. Yes, your lines losing the chop are superior. I just took your chops from CD's with which I did not mess as holy writ. I guess that was a mistake.

I'm just trying to strike the right balance between your push to minimize erosity and train's desire to minimize chops. My adjustment is merely to refine the balance. As my optometrist would say "Is it better with lens 1 or 2?"

I would say that my hobbyhorse is more MSA/CSA (and muni) chops than county chops; I think that my desire to minimize county chops is not really any more strong than yours or Torie's (though it obviously does exist as well).

Fair enough. Next question (for Torie, too) - is it worth a chop to reduce polarization and/or skew?

I am not interested in reducing skews via a new regime of gerrymandering. That is where the multiple maps and veto mechanism can mitigate things up to a point. I am more amenable to a chop to reduce polarization (but then there a nice chops and ugly chops), and the elasticity comment of Train has merit, but I am concerned about gaming what is competitive via AZ (although that state had the favorite son issue).  Measuring what is competitive can be tricky as places swing and trend over time (e.g., we all know what is happening to Hamilton County, Ohio, and what is competitive now, probably will not be in 4 years).  On the other hand, my bias is in favor of competitive districts, because I think over time, beyond partisanship, it will lead to a better public policy product. Both parties desperately need more moderates. I really believe that - the idea being to try to give each side something on important public policy issues, to reduce the toxicity of the public square. And boy, it is toxic now.

I suspect that just hewing to the algorithms will generate less polarization in most states substantially, and I am satisfied with that. The perfect can be the enemy of the good. Heck if you really got rid of all the skew, that would probably help the Dems, since there is more population I suspect in states that are heavily Dem that Pub, and as polarization gets more pronounced, the "natural" break moves exponentially. Finally when it comes to chops, for me I also chop to reduce erosity, and chops which increase erosity for partisan reasons kind of leaves me cold.

If we ever write a paper of course, the skew and polarization issues can be presented as options, and maps presented which demonstrate how they look (and change) with this factors overlaid, and let the states decide. Then the issue is how much weight to give them. Hopefully the overlay would not generate too much additional erosity, but that is up to the states to decide. Which raises the final issue. What if some states use the overlay, and others do not?  Then you have the unilateral disarmament issue.

This is a good time to push for this though, since at the moment the existing regime favors  the Pubs, and all of what we are doing should reduce that advantage some (particularly respecting  MSA's. which is why Train gets particularly excited about that. ). So the Dems should be satisfied with half a loaf, which is better than none. If they get the whole loaf, Pub opposition would probably kill off the enterprise in a vast swath of states. In the end you have to be practical, rather than "overly" idealistic.

Sorry for the rather discursive nature of this post. Hopefully, it made some sense.

[Torie]

Here by the way is a map of Maryland that a drew a couple of weeks ago, which restores to the Pubs the 2 CD's that the Dems ripped off in their gerrymander. I just thought I would throw it on the pile.



And here is an alternative iteration, with perhaps a tad less erosity. It is not applicable here, but this is one instance where which map I would prefer would turn on which reduced polarization the most. In MD, good redistricting principles basically shut out competitive districts, and to reach for them, would just be a bridge too far. So it just doesn't matter here.

[muon2]

Thank you. I was following your lines for the balance of the map with which I was satisfied. Yes, your lines losing the chop are superior. I just took your chops from CD's with which I did not mess as holy writ. I guess that was a mistake.

I'm just trying to strike the right balance between your push to minimize erosity and train's desire to minimize chops. My adjustment is merely to refine the balance. As my optometrist would say "Is it better with lens 1 or 2?"

I would say that my hobbyhorse is more MSA/CSA (and muni) chops than county chops; I think that my desire to minimize county chops is not really any more strong than yours or Torie's (though it obviously does exist as well).

Fair enough. Next question (for Torie, too) - is it worth a chop to reduce polarization and/or skew?

I am not interested in reducing skews via a new regime of gerrymandering. That is where the multiple maps and veto mechanism can mitigate things up to a point. I am more amenable to a chop to reduce polarization (but then there a nice chops and ugly chops), and the elasticity comment of Train has merit, but I am concerned about gaming what is competitive via AZ (although that state had the favorite son issue).  Measuring what is competitive can be tricky as places swing and trend over time (e.g., we all know what is happening to Hamilton County, Ohio, and what is competitive now, probably will not be in 4 years).  On the other hand, my bias is in favor of competitive districts, because I think over time, beyond partisanship, it will lead to a better public policy product. Both parties desperately need more moderates. I really believe that - the idea being to try to give each side something on important public policy issues, to reduce the toxicity of the public square. And boy, it is toxic now.

I suspect that just hewing to the algorithms will generate less polarization in most states substantially, and I am satisfied with that. The perfect can be the enemy of the good. Heck if you really got rid of all the skew, that would probably help the Dems, since there is more population I suspect in states that are heavily Dem that Pub, and as polarization gets more pronounced, the "natural" break moves exponentially. Finally when it comes to chops, for me I also chop to reduce erosity, and chops which increase erosity for partisan reasons kind of leaves me cold.

If we ever write a paper of course, the skew and polarization issues can be presented as options, and maps presented which demonstrate how they look (and change) with this factors overlaid, and let the states decide. Then the issue is how much weight to give them. Hopefully the overlay would not generate too much additional erosity, but that is up to the states to decide. Which raises the final issue. What if some states use the overlay, and others do not?  Then you have the unilateral disarmament issue.

This is a good time to push for this though, since at the moment the existing regime favors  the Pubs, and all of what we are doing should reduce that advantage some (particularly respecting  MSA's. which is why Train gets particularly excited about that. ). So the Dems should be satisfied with half a loaf, which is better than none. If they get the whole loaf, Pub opposition would probably kill off the enterprise in a vast swath of states. In the end you have to be practical, rather than "overly" idealistic.

Sorry for the rather discursive nature of this post. Hopefully, it made some sense.

One possibility is to consider polarization and/or skew is determining where chops should go once the number is set. In my original version of SE PA there are 6 chops for the 7 CDs. The interesting PVIs are CD 6 D+0, CD 7 D+8, CD 8 D+1 and CD 16 R+8.



If I maintain chop count, and use erosity as a measure within a chopped county but rearrange the locations of the chops to reduce polarization I get the following map. CD 6 is D+1, CD 7 is D+5, CD 8 is D+1 and CD 16 is R+5. So two additional CDs just drop into the competitive range at +5.



Though the erosity of the town grouping within Chester is actually quite good, one might not like the protuberance of CD 16 along US 30 from an esthetic point of view. One solution would be to eliminate the trichop entirely and create a chop in Lancaster keeping the same overall count. Again if the erosity is minimized within each county subject to population constraints and a goal of lower polarization I get this map. Here CD 6 is R+3, CD 7 is D+5, CD 8 is D+1 and CD 16 is R+2.



So this is what an overlay might provide. I can imagine that some states would want to use it (AZ) and some not (CA) based on their desire to create intentionally competitive districts by using political data in the mapping process.

[hopper]

Here by the way is a map of Maryland that a drew a couple of weeks ago, which restores to the Pubs the 2 CD's that the Dems ripped off in their gerrymander. I just thought I would throw it on the pile.



And here is an alternative iteration, with perhaps a tad less erosity. It is not applicable here, but this is one instance where which map I would prefer would turn on which reduced polarization the most. In MD, good redistricting principles basically shut out competitive districts, and to reach for them, would just be a bridge too far. So it just doesn't matter here.

So the Pubs would have the district in red and the light purple one?

I don't think we have a shot to gain back Van Hollen's seat. Remember the MD Dems gerrymandered Connie Morella out of that seat in 2001 redistricting. Van Hollen did only beat her by 3 percentage points in 2002.

[traininthedistance]

Here by the way is a map of Maryland that a drew a couple of weeks ago, which restores to the Pubs the 2 CD's that the Dems ripped off in their gerrymander. I just thought I would throw it on the pile.



And here is an alternative iteration, with perhaps a tad less erosity. It is not applicable here, but this is one instance where which map I would prefer would turn on which reduced polarization the most. In MD, good redistricting principles basically shut out competitive districts, and to reach for them, would just be a bridge too far. So it just doesn't matter here.

Well, at the very least Cecil County is normally considered to be part of the Eastern Shore, so it should really go in 1 instead of Anne Arundel.  And a 5-3 map is, if anything, gerrymandered towards the Pubs given that Maryland is just so Democratic overall.  I haven't done the exact skew calculations but I would expect 6-2 to be the "fair" expected result given the state's partisan lean.

How about something like this:



If anything, this map is still Pub-leaning, since the Dems are still only clearly favored in five of the districts.  District 3, taking in Howard and the vast majority of Anne Arundel, is both a swing district (53.9% Obama, so a PVI of D+1 maybe? ) and entirely consistent with any sort of good redistricting principle you'd care to cite.  So you should be happy with it.

[Torie]

"So the Pubs would have the district in red and the light purple one?"

The Pubs already have the Eastern shore CD, but were gerrymandered out of the two northern CD's. Those two northern CD's are what they pick up.

Muon2, I don't think all that additional erosity is worth at all that very marginal change in the partisan numbers. The additional erosity needs to be quite modest to start playing with partisan numbers. As I said, using good redistricting principles will get one perhaps about two thirds of the way to where everyone wants to go in all events. To go further, with all that additional complication, and potential gaming, strikes me as a bad bargain. The difference needs to be ala my two MD maps - very modest changes in erosity, where both maps look just fine to the eye. And yes, that prong into Chester that you created looks disgusting to me.

Train's map of MD adds a lot of additional erosity for no doubt partisan reasons. No, just no, in my world. As it is, the Dems have 60% of the CD's locked up, so it is not as if the skew is that horrible anyway. I would like to see your map of Mass btw. Why don't you work on your skew concerns there?  Or how about NY?  Myself, I play with Mass, and the Dems still take it all, with one CD potentially merely lean Dem. That was it. I accept that.

[traininthedistance]

Train's map of MD adds a lot of additional erosity for no doubt partisan reasons.

What additional erosity?  No, seriously, you're imagining things here.  I don't see it at. all.  Keep in mind that Cecil has to go into 1- I'm not going to let you get away with splitting the Eastern Shore for partisan gain, dude.  My map is a zillion times more sensible than that abomination that is your District 1.

And I would absolutely draw Massachusetts in such a way as to give the Pubs at least one district they'd have a real shot at.

[Torie]

Train's map of MD adds a lot of additional erosity for no doubt partisan reasons.

What additional erosity?  No, seriously, you're imagining things here.  I don't see it at. all.  

And I would absolutely draw Massachusetts in such a way as to give the Pubs at least one district they'd have a real shot at.

I guess Muon2 can help us on the erosity issue for MD, on which we disagree. We just have a fundamentally different philosophy here Train, and such is life. We will just have to agree to disagree, because we are both stubborn cusses on this, and I don't think it possible to close the gap. That happens sometimes. Moving stuff around for partisan reasons to me is perhaps not quite as fraught with peril as this communities of interest scam, but it has the potential for great mischief, and gaming.

[traininthedistance]

Train's map of MD adds a lot of additional erosity for no doubt partisan reasons.

What additional erosity?  No, seriously, you're imagining things here.  I don't see it at. all.  

And I would absolutely draw Massachusetts in such a way as to give the Pubs at least one district they'd have a real shot at.

I guess Muon2 can help us on the erosity issue for MD, on which we disagree. We just have a fundamentally different philosophy here Train, and such is life. We will just have to agree to disagree, because we are both stubborn cusses on this, and I don't think it possible to close the gap. That happens sometimes. Moving stuff around for partisan reasons to me is perhaps not quite as fraught with peril as this communities of interest scam, but it has the potential for great mischief, and gaming.

So, you can't defend splitting Cecil from the rest of the Eastern Shore, or explain how my map is unacceptably erose whereas yours is peachy.  Gotcha.

[Torie]

Train's map of MD adds a lot of additional erosity for no doubt partisan reasons.

What additional erosity?  No, seriously, you're imagining things here.  I don't see it at. all.  

And I would absolutely draw Massachusetts in such a way as to give the Pubs at least one district they'd have a real shot at.

I guess Muon2 can help us on the erosity issue for MD, on which we disagree. We just have a fundamentally different philosophy here Train, and such is life. We will just have to agree to disagree, because we are both stubborn cusses on this, and I don't think it possible to close the gap. That happens sometimes. Moving stuff around for partisan reasons to me is perhaps not quite as fraught with peril as this communities of interest scam, but it has the potential for great mischief, and gaming.

So, you can't defend splitting Cecil from the rest of the Eastern Shore, or explain how my map is unacceptably erose whereas yours is peachy.  Gotcha.

I said let Muon2 opine on the erosity issue, so we don't have to continually bite at each other on that one. I thought about Cecil when I drew the map, but it was just too far north, and added too much erosity, and the bay turns into but a river there anyway (your comment sounds more like a COI issue anyway - the important thing is that bridge connection to Annapoplis). It also makes the NE corner CD compact, along with making the Eastern shore CD more compact. That is why I did it. I didn't even look at the partisan numbers until I was done, and doubt the Cecil issue per se is that important to partisan issues anyway. I guess I just can't persuade you that I don't have ulterior motives, so there is no point anymore in even discussing that I guess. Thanks.

[traininthedistance]

Train's map of MD adds a lot of additional erosity for no doubt partisan reasons.

What additional erosity?  No, seriously, you're imagining things here.  I don't see it at. all.  

And I would absolutely draw Massachusetts in such a way as to give the Pubs at least one district they'd have a real shot at.

I guess Muon2 can help us on the erosity issue for MD, on which we disagree. We just have a fundamentally different philosophy here Train, and such is life. We will just have to agree to disagree, because we are both stubborn cusses on this, and I don't think it possible to close the gap. That happens sometimes. Moving stuff around for partisan reasons to me is perhaps not quite as fraught with peril as this communities of interest scam, but it has the potential for great mischief, and gaming.

So, you can't defend splitting Cecil from the rest of the Eastern Shore, or explain how my map is unacceptably erose whereas yours is peachy.  Gotcha.

I said let Muon2 opine on the erosity issue, so we don't have to continually bite at each other on that one. I thought about Cecil when I drew the map, but it was just too far north, and added too much erosity, and the bay turns into but a river there anyway (your comment sounds more like a COI issue anyway - the important thing is that bridge connection to Annapoplis). It also makes the NE corner CD compact, along with making the Eastern shore CD more compact. That is why I did it. I didn't even look at the partisan numbers until I was done, and doubt the Cecil issue per se is that important to partisan issues anyway. I guess I just can't persuade you that I don't have ulterior motives, so there is no point anymore in even discussing that I guess. Thanks.

I... still don't see how adding Cecil adds erosity?  Just asserting as such doesn't make it so?  It seems to me that your issue here, perhaps, is that you are overly wedded to lines that run straight north-south and east-west even when the natural geography of a state is geared towards diagonals.  This seems to me the one possible gloss of your horreur at my eminently fair and compact map which does not require ulterior motives to come into play.

And I have been very careful to try and not assume ulterior motives, as well as play along as best I can with your throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater school of thought on CoI.  (Some things, of course, are just too obvious to let slide, like the Eastern Shore.  And I will not stop harping on MSAs.  But in general I have bent over backwards to accept your terms of the debate, even though I could very easily, and possibly should, challenge some of them.)  But, of course, it is hard when you seem to refuse to do the same.  Perhaps maybe you could refrain from assuming that my proposals are made with partisan intent, and then I would be more than happy to do the same with yours.