Atlas Redistricting Commission

[OBD]

Okay obviously waiting for more consensus but I like Sestak's idea the most. Allows for the most flexibility, accounting for differently sized factions and player dropouts as this go on (while also allowing people to RP in their natural political position). For states I would prefer starting with midsize states in case interest declines, starting with small-medium states with interesting line drawing (perhaps Oregon or Colorado? Shameless self-promo I know) before moving upward along the population curve. People can draw maps for states that they have expertise or vested interest in.

[Coastal Elitist]

So how are we going to draw these maps together?

[ChiefFireWaterMike]

So how are we going to draw these maps together?

Way that makes most sense to me is discord calls, at set times.

[OBD]

So how are we going to draw these maps together?

Way that makes most sense to me is discord calls, at set times.

My thoughts were that people interested in drawing maps for the states would make drafts, then we would propose edits on the forum (e.g. for a Colorado map moving, say, Garfield County from the 3rd to the 2nd) and eventually get to the point where we had an up or down vote. If there's previous Atlas commissions we could also base it off that - would rather keep it accessible for non-Discord folks unless everyone would rather use that medium.

Anyway, I say we move to start soon. To maintain maximum flexibility with faction sizes and activity, I think we should adopt Sestak's system where the consent of a majority of Dems/Reps/Indys is required to advance any proposal. We'd start with outlining guidelines (and rules) for the commission, then we'd move to the first state. I personally think Minnesota (mid-size population, swing state with interesting district choices) is a good starting point for this commission, after which we'd move up along the population curve.

What say you?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I would prefer we have something substantatively different from past commissions. Does the support for that actually exist? Or is that just me.

[OBD]

I would prefer we have something substantatively different from past commissions. Does the support for that actually exist? Or is that just me.

What would this entail?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I also would agree firmly with OBD's desire to keep this as something based on this forum, to keep it accessable.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I would prefer we have something substantatively different from past commissions. Does the support for that actually exist? Or is that just me.

What would this entail?

I was under the impression that a quasi-partisan hack commission* with roleplay for sure had support, and it also might be very fun doing just that.
I'm not so sure about the former anymore.
*=sort of like a forum-based equivalent of an Arizona-style or New Jersey-style commission, except with more Independents and a wider range of outcomes

[palandio]

Just some thoughts and ideas:

1. The creation and choice of maps should follow a certain formalism (this is just my proposal, I'm open for different ideas or maybe we could even vote on that):
a) During the informal negotiation phase plans can be discussed. This can happen partially on discord but since I'm not on discord and I think that some others aren't either, I think that a part of the negotiation should take place on other channels (pm and dedicated threads). Throughout the negotiation phase plans can be proposed on the main thread if they are endorsed by at least three commission members. This plan then has proposal status. An endorsement can be withdrawn. No member can endorse more then one plan at the same time. That means that endorsing a new plan implies the withdrawal of an older endorsement. Plans that are no longer endorsed by at least three members lose proposal status.
b) If a plan reaches a certain threshold of endorsements then a vote (yes/no) can be announced. If over a certain timespan no plan receives the support of a (weighted) majority then a vote between the two most-endorsed plans can be enforced and the one that receives more votes wins.

2. I was also wondering about the dynamics inside the commission:
a) I think that often something like the Median voter theorem would apply: There are one or more tie-breakers ("median voters") and a plan that is designed to find a majority needs to get close to what the tie-breaker wants. This works if the tie-breaker is actually has some concept of what is considered "fair" that isn't complete partisan hackery. Personally I find this interesting particularly when playing as an independent, but I think that there can be more to this game than just talking about tie-breakers or median voters.
b) I would like to see at least sometimes a constellation where a bipartisan gerrymander is competing against a map that follows more abstract principles. This would need the D and R partisans to also take into account issues like incumbent protection and "how many safe seats would my party get" and it would make the game more fun for the non-independents in my opinion because an unholy alliance could win against the independents. Maybe it would even be possible that the rules allow for a shady simultaneous "two-state deal" to be enforced by a majority to e.g. protect incumbents in two already gerrymandered states.
c) The most entertaining would probably be a mix of a) and b).

[kwabbit]

Still interested from a while back, hope there's still enough room.

Perhaps there could be a rotating mini-commission for each state, drafting an initial first map, from which others give input and vote on changes. Each mini-commission could be 2 D 1 I 2 R or something like that.

I don't like the idea of D avs larping as Independent or Republican hacks, especially if they feel the need to larp as hacks, given that their behavior would be predictable/obnoxious. Might as well just 'simulate' an R hack by just adding one vote to the R option, we wouldn't need a person to do that. I would want to be an R on the commission, but drawing hack gerrymanders is neither difficult nor interesting, and I would hope other partisan members would refrain from advocating those.

[OBD]

I would prefer we have something substantatively different from past commissions. Does the support for that actually exist? Or is that just me.

What would this entail?

I was under the impression that a quasi-partisan hack commission* with roleplay for sure had support, and it also might be very fun doing just that.
I'm not so sure about the former anymore.
*=sort of like a forum-based equivalent of an Arizona-style or New Jersey-style commission, except with more Independents and a wider range of outcomes

I feel like (at least personally) a commission where we actually represent our own ideologies will be most conductive to parity in the map drawing. As others have said it's not great if the people roleplaying as Republicans cannot do so accurately and (in)advertently sabotage their side of the commission.

Just some thoughts and ideas:

1. The creation and choice of maps should follow a certain formalism (this is just my proposal, I'm open for different ideas or maybe we could even vote on that):
a) During the informal negotiation phase plans can be discussed. This can happen partially on discord but since I'm not on discord and I think that some others aren't either, I think that a part of the negotiation should take place on other channels (pm and dedicated threads). Throughout the negotiation phase plans can be proposed on the main thread if they are endorsed by at least three commission members. This plan then has proposal status. An endorsement can be withdrawn. No member can endorse more then one plan at the same time. That means that endorsing a new plan implies the withdrawal of an older endorsement. Plans that are no longer endorsed by at least three members lose proposal status.
b) If a plan reaches a certain threshold of endorsements then a vote (yes/no) can be announced. If over a certain timespan no plan receives the support of a (weighted) majority then a vote between the two most-endorsed plans can be enforced and the one that receives more votes wins.

2. I was also wondering about the dynamics inside the commission:
a) I think that often something like the Median voter theorem would apply: There are one or more tie-breakers ("median voters") and a plan that is designed to find a majority needs to get close to what the tie-breaker wants. This works if the tie-breaker is actually has some concept of what is considered "fair" that isn't complete partisan hackery. Personally I find this interesting particularly when playing as an independent, but I think that there can be more to this game than just talking about tie-breakers or median voters.
b) I would like to see at least sometimes a constellation where a bipartisan gerrymander is competing against a map that follows more abstract principles. This would need the D and R partisans to also take into account issues like incumbent protection and "how many safe seats would my party get" and it would make the game more fun for the non-independents in my opinion because an unholy alliance could win against the independents. Maybe it would even be possible that the rules allow for a shady simultaneous "two-state deal" to be enforced by a majority to e.g. protect incumbents in two already gerrymandered states.
c) The most entertaining would probably be a mix of a) and b).

I think we should adopt the clauses of 1) in conjunction with requiring a majority vote from all factions for a map to pass. Seems like a good way to go about it.

Still interested from a while back, hope there's still enough room.

Perhaps there could be a rotating mini-commission for each state, drafting an initial first map, from which others give input and vote on changes. Each mini-commission could be 2 D 1 I 2 R or something like that.

I don't like the idea of D avs larping as Independent or Republican hacks, especially if they feel the need to larp as hacks, given that their behavior would be predictable/obnoxious. Might as well just 'simulate' an R hack by just adding one vote to the R option, we wouldn't need a person to do that. I would want to be an R on the commission, but drawing hack gerrymanders is neither difficult nor interesting, and I would hope other partisan members would refrain from advocating those.

Agree on the second paragraph, and I think Sestak's solution could work to mitigate that by ensuring every party has a seat at the table. Mini-commissions, though, would probably be too vulnerable to activity swings to be viable.

Anyway, I think we should move officially to open the commission and decide guidelines for the district-drawing to use (e.g. whether county/municipality lines are prioritized, acceptable population deviation, use of partisan data, etc.) before this gets bogged down. Also, if folks have Minnesota maps ready to propose, they could start doing so in the coming days. Maybe post a justification along with your map?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I would like to switch to being an Independent, to leave room for another actual Republican.

[palandio]

[snip]

[snip]

I think we should adopt the clauses of 1) in conjunction with requiring a majority vote from all factions for a map to pass. Seems like a good way to go about it.
[snip]

But what if the factions can't agree on a map and keep blocking each other?

[OBD]

[snip]

[snip]

I think we should adopt the clauses of 1) in conjunction with requiring a majority vote from all factions for a map to pass. Seems like a good way to go about it.
[snip]

But what if the factions can't agree on a map and keep blocking each other?

That probably won't be the case, but if it takes too long we could proceed to a weighted majority vote as described earlier.

[jimrtex]

District Builder is holding contests:

https://medium.com/districtbuilder/map-across-america-a-national-redistricting-competition-6ad02d18826c

    Illinois State House or State Senate
    Florida Congressional, State Senate, or State House
    Pennsylvania Congressional
    North Carolina Congressional
    Wisconsin State Senate or Wisconsin Assembly

They claim that you have to draw the map in District Builder, but I doubt that they can actually distinguish assuming there is an import.

[palandio]

[snip]

Anyway, I think we should move officially to open the commission and decide guidelines for the district-drawing to use (e.g. whether county/municipality lines are prioritized, acceptable population deviation, use of partisan data, etc.) before this gets bogged down. Also, if folks have Minnesota maps ready to propose, they could start doing so in the coming days. Maybe post a justification along with your map?

Ok, here are my ideas about guidelines. I think that we should keep them relatively "open":

Population equality
District population must not deviate from the state average by more than 1,000. For districts that consist of only whole counties a deviation of 4,000 is allowed. For districts in New England that consist of only whole towns a deviation of 2,000 is allowed.

Contiguity
Districts must be contiguous, if possible by land. If land contiguity is not possible then bridges are to be preferred over ferries and ferries over no connection at all.

VRA compliance
Maps must conform with modern interpretations of the VRA (Gingles, "performance", no over-packing, no undue cracking...).

Compactness
Districts shall be compact. To evaluate compactness not only pure geometry shall be considered, but also geographical population distribution, natural barriers and traffic connections.

Integrity of administrative divisions
Counties and cities shall not be unnecessarily split. As a rule of thumb there shall not be more county splits than districts. (For counties that have more than one district quota, you get one free split for every full quota. A three-way split counts as two splits, a four-way split counts as three splits, etc.)

Communities of interest (CoI)
shall be considered, although there are so many of them that not all of them can be respected. Examples for CoIs are:
- Metro areas
- Orientation towards the same city for services
- Commuting patterns
- Similar economic/social structure and interests
- Settlement patterns
- Media markets
- Ethnic groups (if they don't already fall under the VRA)
- Common history
- ...

Partisan fairness, competitiveness and responsiveness
are desirable goals as long as the map respects the criteria mentioned above. When evaluating partisan fairness the phenomenon of "over-proportionality" must be taken into account, i.e. an uneven split in the popular vote will usually lead to an even more lopsided seat count, a completely natural phenomenon that should not cause concern. Maps shall be responsive of political swings. Competitive districts are desirable when they arise naturally.

Historical continuity
may be cited in favor of districts that comply with the criteria mentioned above.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

[snip]

Anyway, I think we should move officially to open the commission and decide guidelines for the district-drawing to use (e.g. whether county/municipality lines are prioritized, acceptable population deviation, use of partisan data, etc.) before this gets bogged down. Also, if folks have Minnesota maps ready to propose, they could start doing so in the coming days. Maybe post a justification along with your map?

Ok, here are my ideas about guidelines. I think that we should keep them relatively "open":

Population equality
District population must not deviate from the state average by more than 1,000. For districts that consist of only whole counties a deviation of 4,000 is allowed. For districts in New England that consist of only whole towns a deviation of 2,000 is allowed.

Contiguity
Districts must be contiguous, if possible by land. If land contiguity is not possible then bridges are to be preferred over ferries and ferries over no connection at all.

VRA compliance
Maps must conform with modern interpretations of the VRA (Gingles, "performance", no over-packing, no undue cracking...).

Compactness
Districts shall be compact. To evaluate compactness not only pure geometry shall be considered, but also geographical population distribution, natural barriers and traffic connections.

Integrity of administrative divisions
Counties and cities shall not be unnecessarily split. As a rule of thumb there shall not be more county splits than districts. (For counties that have more than one district quota, you get one free split for every full quota. A three-way split counts as two splits, a four-way split counts as three splits, etc.)

Communities of interest (CoI)
shall be considered, although there are so many of them that not all of them can be respected. Examples for CoIs are:
- Metro areas
- Orientation towards the same city for services
- Commuting patterns
- Similar economic/social structure and interests
- Settlement patterns
- Media markets
- Ethnic groups (if they don't already fall under the VRA)
- Common history
- ...

Partisan fairness, competitiveness and responsiveness
are desirable goals as long as the map respects the criteria mentioned above. When evaluating partisan fairness the phenomenon of "over-proportionality" must be taken into account, i.e. an uneven split in the popular vote will usually lead to an even more lopsided seat count, a completely natural phenomenon that should not cause concern. Maps shall be responsive of political swings. Competitive districts are desirable when they arise naturally.

Historical continuity
may be cited in favor of districts that comply with the criteria mentioned above.

This is a very good framework for us to work under.

[Stuart98]

Ok, here are my ideas about guidelines. I think that we should keep them relatively "open":

Population equality
District population must not deviate from the state average by more than 1,000. For districts that consist of only whole counties a deviation of 4,000 is allowed. For districts in New England that consist of only whole towns a deviation of 2,000 is allowed.

Too high. I'd shoot for 100 w/ splits/500 without.

Integrity of administrative divisions
Counties and cities shall not be unnecessarily split. As a rule of thumb there shall not be more county splits than districts. (For counties that have more than one district quota, you get one free split for every full quota. A three-way split counts as two splits, a four-way split counts as three splits, etc.)

Too inflexible. Counties are bad indicators of COI a lot of the time and extra county splits may be necessary in places for VRA compliance (eg North Carolina).

[palandio]

Ok, here are my ideas about guidelines. I think that we should keep them relatively "open":

Population equality
District population must not deviate from the state average by more than 1,000. For districts that consist of only whole counties a deviation of 4,000 is allowed. For districts in New England that consist of only whole towns a deviation of 2,000 is allowed.

Too high. I'd shoot for 100 w/ splits/500 without.

Ok, let's wait for other people's opinion.

Integrity of administrative divisions
Counties and cities shall not be unnecessarily split. As a rule of thumb there shall not be more county splits than districts. (For counties that have more than one district quota, you get one free split for every full quota. A three-way split counts as two splits, a four-way split counts as three splits, etc.)

Too inflexible. Counties are bad indicators of COI a lot of the time and extra county splits may be necessary in places for VRA compliance (eg North Carolina).

Ok, I see your point. The question is if we scrap the rule altogether or if we add a further sentence like: This rule can be loosened to account for the VRA or for CoIs or in states where counties have little meaning (e.g. Massachussetts) or for cities with particularly erose borders.

[NewYorkExpress]

I'm not willing to actually draw the maps, but I'd be happy to serve as a vote on any maps for such a commission if this is indeed going forward (indeed, I'm looking forward to seeing what you all come up with for New York, in particular).

[Sol]

Ok, I see your point. The question is if we scrap the rule altogether or if we add a further sentence like: This rule can be loosened to account for the VRA or for CoIs or in states where counties have little meaning (e.g. Massachussetts) or for cities with particularly erose borders.

^I think something like this is good. Counties are often good CoIs, especially east of the Rockies and South/West of Philly, and especially in rural areas. But in major metros and certain parts of the country (New England, the West, and to a lesser extent NY/SEPA/NJ) counties are less significant.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Counties are best described as a CoI in an of themselves, distinct from but also intimately related wth other CoI.
But given the vagueness of CoI as a concept, and the subjectiveness inherent in the concept, counties are the most clear and concise CoI we have.

[palandio]

So what's the plan?

I think that we should agree on the guidelines and then move on to Minnesota.

The only objections against my proposed guidelines were about Integrity of administrative divisions and Population equality.

If I understand correctly we can agree on the following wording of the Integrity of administrative divisions section:

Integrity of administrative divisions
Counties and cities shall not be unnecessarily split. As a rule of thumb there shall not be more county splits than districts. (For counties that have more than one district quota, you get one free split for every full quota. A three-way split counts as two splits, a four-way split counts as three splits, etc.) This rule can be loosened to account for the VRA or for CoIs or in states where counties have little meaning (e.g. Massachussetts) or for cities with particularly erose borders.

That leaves the Population equality section. I propose the following vote: Until a certain deadline (maybe October 09, 06:00 AM atlas time) every commissioner can name the maximum deviation he/she wants to allow in the following cases:
a) District consisting of only whole counties
b) District consisting of only whole towns in New England
c) All other districts
For each case if the number of votes is odd, then the median vote decides. If the number of votes is even then the geometric mean of #(n/2) and #(n/2 + 1) is taken. So far the following votes have been cast:

palandio:
a) 4,000 b) 2,000 c) 1,000
Stuart 98:
a) 500 b) 500 c) 100

If these were the only votes, the results would be:
a) 1,414 b) 1,000 c) 316.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

If this is to go ahead, I vote the same as Palandio.

[OBD]

I'm ready to roll with whatever.