Based on 2012 results only, which state gerrymander flipped the most seats?

[muon2]

My metric is actually much easier to compute than some of the ones proffered to judges in hopes of finding a justiciable standard.

What you want is my computation of SKEW.
1. Find the PVI for the state as a fraction (or divide the percent by 100) and multiply that by 4 times the number of districts. This is the expected excess in the delegation for the party in a neutral map. Count Republicans as a negative number.
2. Find the PVI's of the actual districts. Count 0 for each highly competitive district (PVI 0 or 1), +1 for all other Democratic districts, and -1 for all other Republican districts. The total is the expected excess in the delegation under the actual map.
3. Take the number from step 2 and subtract the number from step 1. Express a negative number as a positive number in favor of the Republicans. The resulting positive number is the SKEW score, and lower numbers are closer to the ideal partisan fairness.
2A. You can substitute the actual delegation for the hypothetical delegation based on PVIs.

AZ is R+7. 4 times that percentage is -28%, and times 9 seats is -2.52 (rounded to -3), which is the neutral expectation. The map has 1 highly competitive CD (AZ-9), 2 Dem CDs (AZ-3,7) and 6 Pub CDs for a partisan expectation of -4. The SKEW is -1 or R+1. Over the decade it should slightly favor the Pubs.

The actual delegation is 4D, 5R or an actual excess of -1. Compared to -3 that gives a current SKEW of D+2, which gets howls from the Pubs. But unless the district PVI's are way off then either the Dems are overperforming or the Pubs are underperforming the map.

edit: Based on 2012 results only the delegation is 5D 4R so the skew is D+4.

[muon2]

Here are some more SKEWs from the poll list. Keep in mind that each seat that flips shifts the SKEW by 2 since one party loses and the other gains.

FL (R+2; 10D, 17R). The neutral expectation is -2, the map expectation is 2e, 8D-17R = -9 for a SKEW of R+7. The actual delegation is a R+5 skew.

IL (D+8, 10D, 8R). The neutral expectation is +6, the map expectation is 2e, 11D-5R = +6 for a SKEW of 0. The actual delegation is a R+4 skew. The PVIs are likely distorted here because of the Obama favorite-son effect. With a pre-Obama D+5 for the state, the map has a D+2 skew and the delegation is R+2 skew.

MD (D+10, 7D, 1R). The neutral expectation is +3, the map expectation is 7D-1R = +6 for a SKEW of D+3 and the delegation matches the map.

NC (R+3, 3D, 10R). The neutral expectation is -2, the map expectation is 3D-10R = -7 for a SKEW of R+5 and the delegation matches the map.

OH (R+1, 4D, 12R). The neutral expectation is -1, the map expectation is 4D-12R = -8 for a SKEW of R+7 and the delegation matches the map.

PA (D+1, 5D, 13R). The neutral expectation is +1, the map expectation is 1e, 5D-12R = -7 for a SKEW of R+8. The actual delegation is a R+9 skew.

TX (R+10, 11D, 25R). The neutral delegation is -14, the map expectation is 11D-25R = -14 for a SKEW of 0 and the delegation matches the map.

VA (Even, 3D, 8R). The neutral delegation is 0, the map expectation is 3D-8R = -5 for a SKEW of R+5 and the delegation matches the map.

[muon2]

Well following your metrics, sometimes a skew is built in, given the geographic concentrations. One might consider skew as the best measure of "fairness," but per your system, "fairness" in that sense is just a tie breaker, no? Also, your AZ analysis does not take into account the McCain favorite son factor, although given Romney's performance, perhaps it was less than assumed. Anyway, I would consider AZ-09 lean Dem, AZ-02 tilt Dem, AZ-01 and tilt Pub. I think we both drew AZ maps that gave the Dems two seats, with the rest safe Pub. That happens when you have a CD that does not split Tucson, and has the VRA mandated Hispanic CD in Phoenix.

Yes. My metric does not account for geographic concentrations or the VRA, which is why I looked at it as an advisory tie breaker. In principle one could account for the VRA by drawing the mandated districts, then assessing the SKEW on the remainder of the state. Of course that leads to the debate as to which districts are actually mandated, and from VA that is probably a smaller number than one might have previously thought.

[muon2]

You say PVI, but you really mean the Dem share of the vote. For PVI purposes the Dem share is the percentage found by dividing the Dem vote by the total Dem+Pub (eliminating all other votes). I'm not sure if your numbers are adjusted to the two-party share.

Since Obama got 53.7% of the two-party vote in 2008, an approximate PVI is found by comparing each of those percentages to 53.7%. Perhaps you did that in your analysis, but not in the table.

Here's the PVI for those maps:

1:  49.6% Obama
2:  53.7% Obama (was kinda surprised by this, wasn't intentional)
3:  49.4% Obama
4:  57.5% Obama
5:  62.3% Obama
6:  43.9% Obama
7:  53.7% Obama
8:  57.9% Obama
9:  55.7% Obama
10:  46% Obama
11:  56.7% Obama
12:  62.3% Obama
13:  74.3% Obama  (50.6% BVAP)
14:  75.6%  Obama  (51% BVAP)

If I'm counting right that's 8 seats that lean Dem, and another 2 that are probably swing seats (MI-7 and MI-2).   That would be AT LEAST three seats picked up from the current map, and possibly two more.

[muon2]

I have a question about the Muon2 scoring system. Assuming that you have a macro-chop into a county, what is the penalty, if any, for one locality chop that is neither a macro-chop nor a micro-chop, as opposed to none, in that county? Each locality, whether chopped or not, generates road cuts between it and adjacent localities in another CD, so what is the extra penalty for the chop itself within one locality? Does it matter if the locality chop is a micro-chop or not? Irrespective of whether a county macro-chop is in play, do micro-chops that exist (having already used up the 0.5% population variance wiggle room), generate a road cut, be it in a locality, or a county chop?

The question has some importance with respect to choosing between my two NJ maps. Assuming the best Dem skew is 2 rather than 3 for NJ, than pushing NJ-02 into the toss-up category gets a better skew, but it also seems to require a locality chop in a macro-chopped county. Thus the question as to whether there is an additional penalty for doing that. If not, and the two maps otherwise score the same, than the skew score will act as the tie breaker.

If there is a macrochop in a county then the subdivisions of the county are treated like counties themselves. Imagine that a macrochop causes the county to be replaced by its subdivisions. Chops into those subdivisions activated by a macrochop are treated just like any other county chop. The only difference between subdivisions and counties is that connections between subdivisions within a county  may consider any public road, not just numbered state and federal highways.

Perhaps I should create a sticky thread with the rules for reference.

[muon2]

I have a question about the Muon2 scoring system. Assuming that you have a macro-chop into a county, what is the penalty, if any, for one locality chop that is neither a macro-chop nor a micro-chop, as opposed to none, in that county? Each locality, whether chopped or not, generates road cuts between it and adjacent localities in another CD, so what is the extra penalty for the chop itself within one locality? Does it matter if the locality chop is a micro-chop or not? Irrespective of whether a county macro-chop is in play, do micro-chops that exist (having already used up the 0.5% population variance wiggle room), generate a road cut, be it in a locality, or a county chop?

The question has some importance with respect to choosing between my two NJ maps. Assuming the best Dem skew is 2 rather than 3 for NJ, than pushing NJ-02 into the toss-up category gets a better skew, but it also seems to require a locality chop in a macro-chopped county. Thus the question as to whether there is an additional penalty for doing that. If not, and the two maps otherwise score the same, than the skew score will act as the tie breaker.

If there is a macrochop in a county then the subdivisions of the county are treated like counties themselves. Imagine that a macrochop causes the county to be replaced by its subdivisions. Chops into those subdivisions activated by a macrochop are treated just like any other county chop. The only difference between subdivisions and counties is that connections between subdivisions within a county  may consider any public road, not just numbered state and federal highways.

Perhaps I should create a sticky thread with the rules for reference.

Well then if a subdivision chop in such instance counts the same as a county chop, doing a subdivision chop in a macro chopped county is near fatal to one's score. That still leaves the issue of whether micro-chops (after using up the 0.5% wiggle room), generate road cuts. I assume that they do, but I just want to confirm that.

Yep, all chops count for road cuts. Well unless they divide a county such that there are no local roads to connect the pieces.

[muon2]

The court seems to find that there is no VRA requirement for VA, or at best if there is a requirement expert testimony says that a district can perform for the minority if it is Dem and has 36% BVAP. VA had a large SKEW from my list above (R 5), so I wanted to see how a muon2 neutral map would perform.

I ignored the VRA, but used the UCC and MCCs for VA. Cover rules were met everywhere. Pack rules were violated in Richmond, but it requires a county chop to meet them. Pack rules aren't quite followed for Norfolk, but that's because the peninsula has to attach to Va Beach unless the connection rules are changed to allow the seasonal ferry at Tangier Is.



The districts line up 2D, 3d, 1e, 1r, 4R for a SKEW of 0. The even one is CD-10 and is actually D+1. This map is a 2 and a half seat swing and would likely be a three seat swing in practice in a neutral election year.

As it turns out CD-3 is 38.5% BVAP and D+7, so based on the experts it would be likely to elect the candidate of choice for the black population.

[muon2]

Train's prediction that NC's gerrymander involved a 2 seat flip to the Pubs, appears to be correct.  Below is the Muon2 metric map. Remarkably. Outside the mandatory chops in Mecklenberg and Wake Counties, remarkably given the Jimrtex urban cluster obstacle course there is only one other county that is chopped.  Who would have imagined that poor little Rockingham County would end up being tri-chopped?

There are no Section 2 CD's involved, but even without the free pass to pack black Democrats, the map is still skewed to the Pubs by one more seat than would be "fair." The skew based on 2008 results should be two seats to the Pubs, rather than three.

That's about like the version I got for my NC in 2013. There is one thing to correct in the spreadsheet. Skew is based on the expected bias of seats. NC in 2008 was 3.5% more Pub than the national numbers, so multiplying that by 4 and by 13 seats, gives an expected delegation that is R+2. Thus, since your excess is R+3, the skew for your map is R+1.

[muon2]

Well, my concern regarding the Lumbee is that, unlike most so-called communities of interest, the Lumbee are genuinely an obvious community of interest in a quantifiable sense. In any case, it's easy to keep them together while maintaining a whole county CD-7 and CD-8 (although it does finks over CD-3 somewhat, but there's always somewhere in NC that gets a little messed up).

Charlotte UCC is too big for 2 districts, so you have to chop somewhere. So you might as well chop in Gaston County since you can't link it to any of the other Charlotte UCC counties.

I'm not sure one can make the case for a Lumbee CoI at the whole county level. Here are the VAPs (and %) for the Native population:

Robeson 36,142 (36.8%)
Hoke 2,909 (8.9%)
Scotland 2,604 (9.6%)

In neither raw numbers nor percent do either Hoke or Scotland remotely approach levels for a county cluster. Even Robeson is below the 40% VAP threshold we used for black minority clusters.

[muon2]

NC, as Torie's map shows. Democrats have 3 seats not but I can see them getting 8 on his map.

I don't see how they get 8 without some crazy blue dog action. Seven of the CDs are R+7 or better, so that leaves at most 6 targets for the Dems.

Torie's Charlotte area CD-9 uses a bridge chop to link Gaston to Iredell and Cabarrus. Those are either illegal or at best penalized at the level of a UCC chop. The proper chop is to split Charlotte evenly between the two CDs. Not only does it avoid the bridge chop, but it improves the visual compactness of CD-9 and creates two highly competitive CDs R+0.7 and D+0.1. That would bring Dem targets up to 7 CDs.

[muon2]

NC, as Torie's map shows. Democrats have 3 seats not but I can see them getting 8 on his map.

I don't see how they get 8 without some crazy blue dog action. Seven of the CDs are R+7 or better, so that leaves at most 6 targets for the Dems.

Shouldn't we consider incumbents, though?

I'm pretty confident McIntyre would win 7, Kissell 2 and Shuler 11.

Kissell might hold CD-2 at R+3, but the other CDs are R+7.5 and are very tough. Even if they are held in 2012, I doubt they would hold in 2014, and once lost aren't coming back in the decade.

[muon2]

1. Communities of interest are ignored. That is the whole point. An exception quite possibly is for Indian Reservations, but the Lumbees don't have one. So they are out of luck.

2. There is a traveling chop issue for my NC-9, but it is not clear if they are prohibited, or you just pay the the price vis a vis chop and erosity scores. Without a possible traveling chop, the city of Charlotte has to be split, which counts the same as a county chop for macro-chopped counties such as Mecklenburg. Gaston has to be taken in, because it is part of the Charlotte urban cluster, and if not included, you have a cover and pack penalty. And although COI does not matter, absent a traveling chop, the map would chop up the black community in Mecklenburg. And depending on how you slice Charlotte exactly, one CD becomes tossup, and the other remains in the Pub column, albeit narrowly.

3. There was a rogue precinct yes, and that caused a map change, since it threw off the population of NC-03. The tri-chopped county is lost, and two small county chops replace it, for the same chop score. The erosity score probably improves. The new map is a bit more Pub friendly, and the skew goes to Pub plus 2, and the Dem gain from the gerrymander drops to 1.5 seats.

I also see a bridge chop in CD-8 (Randolph). In addition there is no highway connection between Rowan and Stanly. This version could fit with the rest of the plan to fix the defects.



CD-5: R+8
CD-8: R+1
CD-9: R+17
CD-12: D+2

This also drops the skew back to R+1.

Edit: The 2010 population of Charlotte (731,424) is barely below as that of a CD (733,499). But Pineville is surrounded and has a 2010 population of 7,479, so it puts any whole Charlotte district over the quota by more than the variance. It also looks like the city lines for Charlotte cut off Gaston county. I would conclude that a chop of Charlotte is a necessity.

Edit2: We defined a CoI for black (esp rural) counties as connected counties over 40% BVAP. Martin counties fits that, so it should swap with Currituck to keep the MCC together. The swap also improves erosity.

[muon2]

You still have the issue of the Rowan-Stanly link. They are contiguous so NC would allow it as a matter of law (NC law even allows point contiguity, ugh). However, there is no highway connection between them, so the strict rules forbid reliance on the link. That means that strict scoring rejects the plan (as it would a bridge/traveling chop).

I'm assuming you would like something more generous to allow these defective plans to be scored. Presumably both these defects could in general be remedied with different chop (eg the switch in Mecklenburg). In that case, I suggest that they should be no better, and preferably worse than a simple chop. I'd advocate for a double chop penalty to discourage their use.

Edit: Discussion about this point has been split to a separate thread.

[muon2]

Moving right along from the battle of North Carolina, here is my Louisiana map. A pack penalty of the New Orleans metro area was unavoidable, and to avoid a cover and pack penalty for Baton Rouge, I needed to do an artificial chop into St. John the Baptist Parish with LA-01. And voila, here is an example of where two counties cannot be connected, even though it would have solved some problems for me, to wit, between St. James and Assumption Parishes. There is no road connection between them at all. And I did keep in one CD the 4 black Mississippi River counties in the NE corner of the state as well.

An interesting question is with St. John the Baptist parish, is that the southern bit has no road connection to the balance of the parish. Does putting that portion of the parish into another CD count that is connected by a road count as a chop? It's moot here, because I needed to put another precinct in the parish across the river into LA-02 to make the numbers work, but it could have potentially been an issue. Louisiana is a bit of a challenge given the relatively lack of road connections in the Bayou area. But hey, that is why some Cajuns travel by boat.

The Dems are shut out here. LA-01 has a Pub PVI of about 2%. I do not consider that there is a Section 2 CD in play connecting the black areas of Baton Rouge and New Orleans. There are white areas in between. Even if there were not, arguably connecting two black metro areas with a rural bridge is not even then a Section 2 CD. But with a white blockade, there almost certainly is not in my opinion.

So the Dems picked up a seat over what a Muon2 metric map would have given them. And this map does not rely on a non state road paved connection.

Interestingly at the time of redistricting in 2011 there was a LADoT ferry between Reserve and Edgard that would count as a state highway connection. It had closed in 2007 due to levee repairs, and other issues kept it closed until it reopened in Jan 2011. It closed again for state budget reasons in July 2013.

[muon2]

How on earth did you come across that trivia? Assuming there was no ferry, does it count as a chop or not in your opinion?

It counts as a chop, but there is no link created so it adds nothing to erosity. It may even reduce erosity depending on which parts are attached to which other areas. St John the Baptist parish is complicated in that the county seat (Edgard) is not the seat of government (LaPlace).

[muon2]

Notice that chop into Paulding County? A chop along the state highway does not work. I see no problem with such a chop. It should be allowed assuming there is the requisite paved road connecting the chopped portion to the adjacent county (here it is county road number 381). (I am not even sure there needs to be anything but a paved road, assuming there is the requisite number county highway at least somewhere connecting to the two counties, but let's leave that one alone for now.) In all events, the constraint that one must follow a state highway in, makes no sense to me. It might cause a locality chop. But I guess that is a moot point, if we are going to allow county road connections. So we are left with whether any paved road will do for a chop in (assuming there is a county road connection somewhere else between the two counties), if necessary to avoid a locality chop.

A chop along a state highway works fine in the real world in Paulding and there are a number of choices that wouldn't impinge on an incorporated community. The problem looks like it's due to the constraints of the precincts used by DRA. GA doesn't have townships to drive the creation of precincts,  and the GA cities don't have any bearing on the precincts. Real redistricting would ignore the precincts for a chop into Paulding.

[muon2]

Notice that chop into Paulding County? A chop along the state highway does not work. I see no problem with such a chop. It should be allowed assuming there is the requisite paved road connecting the chopped portion to the adjacent county (here it is county road number 381). (I am not even sure there needs to be anything but a paved road, assuming there is the requisite number county highway at least somewhere connecting to the two counties, but let's leave that one alone for now.) In all events, the constraint that one must follow a state highway in, makes no sense to me. It might cause a locality chop. But I guess that is a moot point, if we are going to allow county road connections. So we are left with whether any paved road will do for a chop in (assuming there is a county road connection somewhere else between the two counties), if necessary to avoid a locality chop.

A chop along a state highway works fine in the real world in Paulding and there are a number of choices that wouldn't impinge on an incorporated community. The problem looks like it's due to the constraints of the precincts used by DRA. GA doesn't have townships to drive the creation of precincts,  and the GA cities don't have any bearing on the precincts. Real redistricting would ignore the precincts for a chop into Paulding.

That's fine, but in some cases that will not be the case. Since we will allow county highways for connectivity, they should be allowed for chop ins as well. I raise again the bridge chop issue above btw.

In Gwinnett, there seem to be townships by the way. At least groups of precincts have the same proper name, and I drew my chop line there accordingly.

The current Gwinnett precincts have numbers only according to the county website, and there isn't township government. I would guess that the DRA names are from the previous decade and reference historic townships that may once have had a role in government but no longer do. In any case those names don't always match well with the actual cities. I assume that real world redistricting would define sub areas based on the present cities.

[muon2]

Here's my take on CO. I reduced some erosity by swapping a pack point for a county chop. I also avoided a questionable link between Gilpin and Clear Lake. The districts are 2D, 1d, 1e, 3R compared to the actual 2D, 1d, 1e, 1r, 2R. Yes the 1e is R+0 in mine compared to D+1, but I don't see a substantial change.

[muon2]

Here's my take on CO. I reduced some erosity by swapping a pack point for a county chop. I also avoided a questionable link between Gilpin and Clear Lake. The districts are 2D, 1d, 1e, 3R compared to the actual 2D, 1d, 1e, 1r, 2R. Yes the 1e is R+0 in mine compared to D+1, but I don't see a substantial change.

That is a four lane highway built by Central City to provide access from Clear Creek County (I-70 and Denver really).

And that's an area where our definitions conflict. The Central City Parkway is neither numbered nor a state highway, though it was built locally to provide a more convenient and direct connection. I can imagine at some future point the state taking over the highway, at which point it would meet both our definitions. I'm willing to miss a few like this in the interest of a simpler definition.

In any case I went for lower erosity for the same chop count.

[muon2]

Why not avoid the whole bridge chop issue in Randolph and put the chop in northern Rowan?

Never mind. it's the UCC.

I still think that bridge chops are bad and invite mischief. A UCC penalty is preferable to a bridge chop IMO.

I thought your version with the Moore chop was a good solution, and lower erosity to boot.

[muon2]

Why not avoid the whole bridge chop issue in Randolph and put the chop in northern Rowan?

Because that generates a cover penalty.

I noticed at the same time as your post. See above.

[muon2]

Why not avoid the whole bridge chop issue in Randolph and put the chop in northern Rowan?

Never mind. it's the UCC.

I still think that bridge chops are bad and invite mischief. A UCC penalty is preferable to a bridge chop IMO.

I thought your version with the Moore chop was a good solution, and lower erosity to boot.

That's an empirical issue, that requires examples. I think the mischief is contained by the bridge chop losing if the maps are tied in chops as I described. And absent the UCC penalty, then of course the chop would be in Rowan, unless that generated a locality chop, and then the maps are still tied, and one looks at erosity. Between all those constraints, color me skeptical as to the mischief caused.

The Moore chop map has one more chop than my map above (causing that map with my scoring scheme to tie rather than beat yours on chop count). I stole your idea about NC-02 to lose that chop.

The mischief in bridge chops is allow one to more easily link two separate areas of the same political persuasion by avoiding a population of the other political persuasion. I think that's the essence of political gerrymandering. You weren't doing it in Randolph for that reason, but I can point to one of your earlier NC maps where you kept most of Charlotte together (ignoring the connection issues). That plan resulted in a bipartisan gerrymander in the Charlotte area that created a solid district for each side with no opportunity for competition. Our more recent non-bridge chops of Mecklenburg forced a more competitive district, which I think is good policy.

[muon2]

Why not avoid the whole bridge chop issue in Randolph and put the chop in northern Rowan?

Never mind. it's the UCC.

I still think that bridge chops are bad and invite mischief. A UCC penalty is preferable to a bridge chop IMO.

I thought your version with the Moore chop was a good solution, and lower erosity to boot.

That's an empirical issue, that requires examples. I think the mischief is contained by the bridge chop losing if the maps are tied in chops as I described. And absent the UCC penalty, then of course the chop would be in Rowan, unless that generated a locality chop, and then the maps are still tied, and one looks at erosity. Between all those constraints, color me skeptical as to the mischief caused.

The Moore chop map has one more chop than my map above (causing that map with my scoring scheme to tie rather than beat yours on chop count). I stole your idea about NC-02 to lose that chop.

The mischief in bridge chops is allow one to more easily link two separate areas of the same political persuasion by avoiding a population of the other political persuasion. I think that's the essence of political gerrymandering. You weren't doing it in Randolph for that reason, but I can point to one of your earlier NC maps where you kept most of Charlotte together (ignoring the connection issues). That plan resulted in a bipartisan gerrymander in the Charlotte area that created a solid district for each side with no opportunity for competition. Our more recent non-bridge chops of Mecklenburg forced a more competitive district, which I think is good policy.

There was no way to do a bridge chop there that reduced total chops, so that map was a fail. Even absent that, in other instances, the end result might have been the reverse anyway. End partisan results in a map that a computer generates are all presumably quite random across the Fruited Plain I would think. Mischief making bridge chops would also tend to tank the erosity score. I await examples of where a winning map has a mischief making bridge chop. We both are into data based decision making, no? 

The data requires agreed metrics and goals. You used to subscribe to the idea that if all else is equal (Pareto equivalent) then increasing the number competitive districts is a preferred goal. Since I envision a political body picking from Pareto equivalent maps, I'd like to discourage "flexibility" that serves to put partisan or bipartisan gerrymanders on the list. What is your feeling on reducing the potential for partisan gerrymanders as a policy goal?

There's another issue of goals that I'm trying to reconcile. You clearly prefer avoiding UCC penalties compared to county chops - they are equal so that's your choice. But UCCs are a proxy for a type of CoI, they wouldn't exist but for a concern about objective CoI. Yet there is this quote from our other thread (emphasis added).

You need to try to fashion precise definitions for your categories. It all seems too subjective to me. I always try to formulate such precision in categories in my mind as I think this through, and what seems right, and what will be the impact on maps. I am less concerned with COI issues per se, except as a by product for rules that can be applied objectively, without having to otherwise make such judgments.

Isn't what jimrtex and I trying to do each in our own way build CoI into connections in the same way we built urban areas into UCCs? UCCs are not a byproduct of other objective rules, but a specific rule created toward a policy goal related to CoI. If there is less concern about CoI, why not prefer whole counties to UCC penalties?

[muon2]

I am not persuaded that the rules I propose would systematically reduce the number of competitive districts, or increase the skew for that matter. That is your claim, but so far, I don't see any evidence of that. What my rules I think would do is reduce chop penalty scores. There is no flexibility in the sense that it involves humans. It involves a computer. A computer does not have a partisan bias, unless programmed for it.

I do have a preference for UCC integrity, but if after the penalty points, another map is superior, as your Colorado map was, splendid. It takes a bit more creativity to do what you did, because if you hew to UCC integrity, the remaining options are fewer.

You avoided both my questions. This is not merely a computer exercise, but one that could be applied as a crowdsourcing activity. It's as a way to engage the public in a constrained fashion that I envisage a set of rules. I'll restate my questions.

Question one. You used to hold that if all else is equal, competitive districts were better than uncompetitive districts. You called plans with more competitive districts "the cat's meow" IIRC. Do you still feel that way?

Question two. On one hand you prefer UCC as an objective proxy for a CoI, and the UCC was not a byproduct of other rules. On the other hand in the context of connections you have stated that you are not concerned with CoI except as a byproduct of other objective rules. Should there be specific objective rules designed solely as proxies for CoI?

[muon2]

When I originated my rules it was in response to the OH redistricting competition (2011). That was a crowdsourced exercise in developing a map. Rules were developed and posted, then tools were provided to the public to make submissions. As plans were submitted others could take those plans and create modified versions of the same. At the end of the public exercise the winning plans were selected and presented to the legislature. Both jimrtex and I participated in that competition and we had multiple threads about it at the time. Afterwards, there were aspects of the OH competition rules that I thought could be improved and generalized.

The current battle in FL uses some of that crowdsourcing idea. There is a public mapping tool and anyone can get an account and submit plans. A plan can be completely new or based on plans already submitted. They score certain aspects based on the FL constitution. It's all public, and jimrtex even contributed a plan to the process.

The OH competition included a plan generated by a computer algorithm, but it did not do as well as the best plans submitted by the public. The 2011 OH competition forced a single winner with specific second and third places, but that required a set of weights on the disparate measures for geographic integrity, compactness, and partisan fairness. Those weights were arbitrary and forced more attention on some measures than others. The 2009 test run for the competition in OH kept the factors separate and looked at the best in each category. I turned that idea into a Pareto test based on separate measures.

What I would prefer is a crowdsourced map exercise with predetermined rules using a publicly available mapping tool with data. Anyone could participate including computer algorithms and partisan interests. At the end of the exercise the set of plans on the Pareto frontier would go to a decision making body - either a commission or the legislature. That body would then have to select from that limited set of plans. This type of approach got the attention of the Council of State Governments which featured it in its monthly newsletter a few years ago.

I should add that the VA redistricting exercise we started on this board a year ago was built on this model and outlined the process in some detail.