Dave's Redistricting App

[muon2]

Yet another map of Ohio, Republican gerrymander again:



OH-01 (dark blue SW) - Assuming Chabot wins (which seems pretty likely), this district cuts out a bit more of Cincinnati and adds a little more of Butler County to nudge the numbers towards the Republicans.
OH-02 (dark green S) - Little is changed here, except it takes in a little more of Cincinnati. Jean Schmidt's gotten a lot less vocal lately, so she should have little problem holding it.
OH-03 (dark purple W) - Dayton + Republican areas. R-leaning. Mike Turner lives here.
OH-04 (red central) - Jim Jordan's district, completely redesigned to take in a bit of Columbus, Jordan's home in Champaign County, and some Republican-leaning counties in the north central part of the state. Should be another R-leaning district.
OH-05 (yellow NW) - Bob Latta's district; some of the counties changed, but this should remain a solidly R district.
OH-06 (light green E) - Combined parts of Charlie Wilson and Zack Space's districts to make another R-leaning district. Space doesn't live here, though. Wilson might have a chance at holding it in a good year, but a Republican should be able to win it otherwise.
OH-07 (grey S) - Steve Austria lives in the western edge of the district. It's been pushed to the SE corner of the map, and remains solidly R.
OH-08 (light purple SW) - Differently-configured (suburban Cincinnati/Dayton district now) but should remain solidly R for John Boehner.
OH-09 (teal N) - Mary Jo Kilroy gets a safe Dem district that stretches from Toledo to the Dem portions of Lorain County.
OH-10 (magenta N) - Combined parts of Cleveland with Akron. Safe Dem district. Kucinich lives here; Sutton lives outside the district, but could always primary him.
OH-11 (light green N) - Fudge's district; plurality-black. Safe Dem.
OH-12 (light purple central) - Columbus-area district for Pat Tiberi; mostly unchanged.
OH-13 (pink NE) - Sutton lives here, but all the heavily-Dem parts have been removed. It should be a Republican-leaning district now.
OH-14 (brown NE) - LaTourette's district, pretty much the same.
OH-15 (orange central) - Kilroy's, or soon to be Stivers', district. A little less of Columbus, a little more of the Republican counties to the west.
OH-16 (dark teal E) - Ryan's district, includes the Youngstown area, Canton, and a bit of Space's district. Ryan, Space, and Boccieri all actually live in this district. Safe Dem.

So this one should, at best, go 12-4 R.

I think that a GOP gerrymander would play it safe and keep OH-11 majority Black. The best way to do that is to run it down to Akron. However, that would keep OH-10 on the west side of Cleveland.

[muon2]

If the GOP is going to draw the lines in Ohio, they would be well advised to throw in the towel on Columbus, and give the Dems a district there. Otherwise, they risk having two Dem Columbus based seats at some point. Pigs get fat, and hogs get slaughtered. Did you consider that Muon2?

It's not my map, and I would have to look at precinct-level data to see if the new Columbus-area seats were strong enough to hold GOP incumbents during 2008. I do think that JL is on the right track in that a GOP map may want to split Columbus four ways rather than the current three-way split if they don't concede a seat.

I think that a GOP gerrymander would play it safe and keep OH-11 majority Black. The best way to do that is to run it down to Akron. However, that would keep OH-10 on the west side of Cleveland.

In 2000, it was possible to include all of Cleveland in a majority-black district, though the included suburbs had to be very selective.  In 2010, more of the eastern and southeastern suburbs will be majority black, and presumably the black share of Cleveland itself will be greater (based on the 2006-2008 ACS) the district is now 59% black vs. 56% at the time of the 2000 census, this is because whites have been leaving at a greater rate than blacks (the district has lost 80,000 since the census and the loss of 2 seats is going to require a huge pick up of population.

The black population in Akron is concentrated in the SW part of the city, and Akron itself is only 30% black, so you would need a long isthmus running through the northern part of Summit County and into Akron, which also results in eastern and western Summit County being split, or having to wrap around CD-11.

I don't think you need to string cities together to pick up enough black residents if you can create a compact district in Cuyahoga county that is very high plurality black.

The Bartlett decision might imply otherwise. If there has been a pattern of racial bloc voting in NE OH, and there is a potential election district with 50% plus black voting age population, then there could be a valid section 2 claim against a map that did not create a majority-black district. The decision rejected plurality districts that relied on crossover white votes or on a multiple-minority coalition.

[muon2]

It seems to me, without knowing for sure, because I have not crunched the numbers, that it is better and safer for the GOP to pack as many Dems as possible into one Franklin County district, and then they will have a much easier time making everything else around reasonably safe for them (as opposed to some pathetic PVI +2 kind of junk - we want PVI +4 at least, with +6 being even better). If it done right, the Dems get two Cleveland area seats (it may have to be three to keep the risk down of having to worry about a couple of marginal seats), one Youngstown seat, and the Toledo seat, the Columbus seat, and that is it. 10 or 11 pretty safe seats out of 16, is not a bad day's work.

Does that make sense?

It does make sense, but I first want to see what the gamble would look like.  I'll assume that a district that would have voted for McCain in 08 is GOP enough to hold an incumbent in a bad year. With that in mind, I took a look at how I might split up Columbus to preserve 12 out of 16 seats for the GOP while keeping the incumbents and takeovers in CD 1 and 15 in separate districts. Stivers lives in the redrawn CD 6.

Neither Dave's App nor the Atlas have sub-county-level election data for 2008, so I could at best make estimates. To my eye, all 12 of the GOP districts may be for McCain. CD-14 is the weakest, but I took Kent out, so it is about as strong as one can get in the NE corner. CD-12 could be strengthened by swapping parts of Perry and Washington with CD-16, and I'll look at that when data becomes available. CD-6 was difficult, since Stivers lives in central Columbus, but it could be made better for the GOP by bringing CD-8 into Columbus as well and moving Ross and Pike to CD-6.

The Bartlett decision might imply otherwise. If there has been a pattern of racial bloc voting in NE OH, and there is a potential election district with 50% plus black voting age population, then there could be a valid section 2 claim against a map that did not create a majority-black district. The decision rejected plurality districts that relied on crossover white votes or on a multiple-minority coalition.

According to the ACS 2006-8 CD-11 is now about 59% black, because whites are leaving faster than blacks (its population is now 550,000, down from 630,000)

The majority-black census tracts in Akron have 35,000 blacks in a total population of 50,000 (about 70%),.  Add in enough census tracts to make the area contiguous (most of the black population is in SW Akron, but there are also areas in the SE and near north side), plus provide a connection to Cuyahoga County, and you might be able to get 45,000 black out of 75,000 from Summit County.

Assume 720,000 for a CD.  So a majority black district would need 360,000.  If a Summit portion were 45/75 black, the Cuyahoga portion would be 315/645 black (48.8%).

Let's assume that we instead added in areas in Cuyahoga county that were only 30% black.  That would end up being 46.9% overall.  So your choice is between a totally ungainly district that runs 20 miles along the Cuyahoga River for strictly race reasons to get up to 50%, vs. a compact district in Cuyahoga County that might be 47% black.

The map below uses the Cleveland-Akron connection to make a new CD-11 that is 56% black (402 K / 718 K). I don't think the shape is any worse than many acceptable VRA districts.

 

[muon2]

The map below uses the Cleveland-Akron connection to make a new CD-11 that is 56% black (402 K / 718 K). I don't think the shape is any worse than many acceptable VRA districts.

 

How is the population projected?

Haven't you split Akron among 4 districts?

As I understand it, Dave's Red. App uses the 2008 estimates for the county, including the estimates for each racial and language group tracked by the Census. The population changes for the county in the estimate are applied within each group uniformly throughout the county. Variations in population growth within a county are not part of his app. Similarly, new communities in transition this decade between racial groups are not captured by his approach.

I find that it provides a only rough estimate of location in populous counties, but at least enough to sense where trends may take redistricting efforts. If I am trying to strictly follow municipal lines, I would use my own projection data from the Census at the level of minor civil divisions. That wasn't my goal here, since I was looking at the questions raised by JLT's suggested GOP plan. For this exercise I forced each district to be within 100 of the ideal based on the App's population assignment.

As for Akron, the city is only divided between three districts, since my CD-14 only goes into the Akron suburbs much as the current CD-14 does today. I didn't mind the division, since Akron is heavily gerrymandered in the current map which was drawn by the GOP. I saw no reason to assume that they wouldn't want to consider a split to concentrate heavily Dem areas in one district and divide the remainder in a 2010 map.

[muon2]

What are the PVI's of CD 13 and 15, Muon2, do you think?  I am particularly interested in the Bush 2004 percentages. In this part of the country, I am not sure Obama reflects a normalized political balance. They look a bit tepid to me, and more like marginal seats. We don't like marginal seats for this little partisan endeavor. (This is not meant to be some kind of good government exercise; it is meant to be a contact sport with the Dems the losers, and the only rule is that it needs to pass SCOTUS muster. Other than that, we cheat like hell.)

In short, we need more of a firewall.  I suspect both may need some selected Columbus burb stuff (sub and ex) put into them so the Dems are not tempted to seriously contest them, even if they have something of a tailwind going for them. Do you see where I am going here?

Yes, I understand we just have to live with the NE corner thing. Pity there are not more Chagrin Fallses to put in there (nice and rich and WASP and reliably Republican).

I took a look at 2004 at the town level. As drawn CD-13 is something like R+3 or 4, but CD-15 is a more marginal seat at R+1 or 2. I would need precinct level votes and block controls to move it up. Given the starting point, that should be very reasonable to achieve.

[muon2]

The map below uses the Cleveland-Akron connection to make a new CD-11 that is 56% black (402 K / 718 K). I don't think the shape is any worse than many acceptable VRA districts.

 

How is the population projected?

As I understand it, Dave's Red. App uses the 2008 estimates for the county, including the estimates for each racial and language group tracked by the Census. The population changes for the county in the estimate are applied within each group uniformly throughout the county. Variations in population growth within a county are not part of his app. Similarly, new communities in transition this decade between racial groups are not captured by his approach.

I think that is where it is going to be tough.  Places like Cleveland, Cleveland Heights, and East Cleveland are losing population even faster than the county as a whole.

The areas of greatest growth, or at least slowest decline, are the outer tier of townships on the south, west, and east.  North Royallton and Olmsted Falls are the big winners with about 2.5% growth each.  While you might find blacks moving into areas like Solon, you might be picking up cities that are 20% black.

In Summit County, you actually have growth areas like Richland, but Akron is declining.  And I'm sure you are going to find the black population more dispersed.

At 56% I think the district I drew will hold up even with accurate numbers. I'm anticipating better tools soon. That should give us all a better look at the possibilities.

[muon2]

The map below uses the Cleveland-Akron connection to make a new CD-11 that is 56% black (402 K / 718 K). I don't think the shape is any worse than many acceptable VRA districts.

 

How is the population projected?

As I understand it, Dave's Red. App uses the 2008 estimates for the county, including the estimates for each racial and language group tracked by the Census. The population changes for the county in the estimate are applied within each group uniformly throughout the county. Variations in population growth within a county are not part of his app. Similarly, new communities in transition this decade between racial groups are not captured by his approach.

I think that is where it is going to be tough.  Places like Cleveland, Cleveland Heights, and East Cleveland are losing population even faster than the county as a whole.

The areas of greatest growth, or at least slowest decline, are the outer tier of townships on the south, west, and east.  North Royallton and Olmsted Falls are the big winners with about 2.5% growth each.  While you might find blacks moving into areas like Solon, you might be picking up cities that are 20% black.

In Summit County, you actually have growth areas like Richland, but Akron is declining.  And I'm sure you are going to find the black population more dispersed.

At 56% I think the district I drew will hold up even with accurate numbers. I'm anticipating better tools soon. That should give us all a better look at the possibilities.

If you can get 56% you are capturing 90% of blacks in the two-county area, and your proposed district will be short of 720,000 because it is based on countywide estimates.  To get it back up, you are going to have to include adjacent areas that have a substantial black population, but nowhere near a majority.

In Summit County, the countywide estimate is for no-change, but Akron is declining.  In Cuyahoga County, the 2008 estimate is for an 8.7% decline, but there are heavier declines in Cleveland, East Cleveland, Cleveland Heights, etc.

So you are going to end up closer to 50% than 60% and you are connecting two cities 20 miles apart with a national park and splitting both cities.

In 2000, a district with 720.000 persons and a bare majority black population could be drawn in Cuyahoga County using whole cities, including Cleveland.  It will have lost 10% of its population, but will be a bit blacker.  Adding in 70,000 in the eastern part of the county may drop the percentage just below 50%.

So can you rationalize a non-compact district that may end up just a couple of percentage points blacker, than a single-county district made up of whole towns?

The rationalization would be based on avoiding a potential VRA challenge. The premise of the map is that the GOP is in charge of the pen and wants to maximize seats. Presumably the Dems would want to challenge the map, and a successful VRA challenge could throw their entire map away. Based on the Bartlett decision, I think that this map survives, but a GOP map that has only a plurality black district when a majority is possible would lose.

I agree that the population is probably less than indicated, but the map only needs 50% VAP to meet the goal I set for the map. I think that with 56% in this estimate, it is likely that 50% will be achievable. Actually, being able to expand into additional D areas of Akron to add population to CD-11 would help the GOP improve the PVIs of neighboring districts.

[muon2]

Is it possible to draw an Asian-majority CD in the lower 48?
How small would that CD have to be to have and Asian majority?

It is possible, btw, to draw a majority-minority CD in Wisconsin. It looks hideous, though, because the Milwaukee ghettos have to be connected via very thin strips with high-minority areas of Racine and Kenosha.

I've identified three so far from the data in Dave's App. The two in CA were part of the discussion on this thread early this month. CD15 in the San Jose area (orange below) is 52% Asian. CD 38 in the San Gabriel area of LA (slate green below) is just over 50% Asian.





There is also one possible in NYC as I posted in Jan.  The yellow CD that stretches across Queens and through Chinatown into Brooklyn is 51% Asian.

[muon2]

Democratic gerrymander of PA. Guarantees the defeat of Jim Gerlach and makes Charlie Dent likely to lose while also preserving all incumbents except Critz, who is doomed.

Is there a VRA district left in Philly?

[muon2]

Here is a map of California using the redistricting commission's guidelines with 53 districts.

It looks nice. How many minority majority districts did you get? In particular how many Hispanic seats are there? Since CA will be over 1/3 Hispanic I would think that the VRA will require a number of seats roughly proportional to that as long as contiguous areas that are somewhat compact can be identified. Based on age profiles, I estimate that a district would have to be 55-60% Hispanic in total population to break 50% in voting age population.

I assume you know that you have a number of discontinuous pieces in your map. For instance there appears to be a piece of purple float in the brown area in Kern, and a number of fragments in the Bay area. I'm guessing that they wouldn't change the makeup of the districts much.

[muon2]

Yes, the discontinous parts were weird. Sometimes when I clicked on a certain block group, other ones away (not next to each other) from it also got highlighted and I couldn't always work around it. I didn't have this problem when I was working with the non-partisan data. But yes, they didn't make too much of a difference and usually didn't even contain a 1,000 people.

CD 15, 20, 28, 31, 32, 34, 38, 39, 43, 45, 47 and 51 are all Hispanic majority. With the exception of CD-39, they all have at least a 55% Hispanic population.

CD 18, 33, 35 and 44 have more than a 40% Hispanic population. I also have two black districts, both in LA, that have a 35% black population. There are also a bunch of other districts with more than a 30% Hispanic population, so Hispanic interest groups could complain that their votes are being "wasted". I made this map pretty quickly so I didn't try too hard to draw Hispanic districts. I certainly should have been able to make another one in the central valley. It was easier to draw Hispanic majorities around LA since the population is more compact and I have a better understanding of where the Hispanic population lives, thus I could quickly make the Hispanic districts. So do you think this map would be acceptable or do I need more Hispanic districts?

There's no exact number that would guide how many majority VAP districts need to be made when there is a large fraction of the population such as in CA. The best direction comes from Johnson v. DeGrandy (1994) in ruling on FL legislative redistricting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In that case the court determined that FL did not have to maximize the districts in the Miami area, but only provide a number of districts that were roughly proportional to the VAP. Flipping this around would indicate that if the number of districts with a majority VAP is substantially less than the overall number then a section 2 VRA violation would be present. However, the court went to point out that merely meeting proportionality would not guarantee a valid map if other factors were used to deny minority voting strength.

DeGrandy was cited in LULAC v. Perry (2006) and used to give the following specific example.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From this I would conclude that a statewide analysis of CA Hispanic voting age population would be required to determine an appropriate number of Hispanic districts. Estimates from 2008 put the Hispanic VAP at 32.8% of the population which would suggest that 17 districts would avoid a section 2 challenge on those grounds. Since the population fraction of 36.1% is 10% higher than the 32.8% of the VAP, I conclude that in general a district would need to be over 55% Hispanic to meet a 50% VAP threshold.

My earlier effort had 18 seats, with 17 in excess of 56% Hispanic. The intent was to meet the tests I would expect under the VRA.

[muon2]

The trick is you have to draw Hispanic-majority but Republican-leaning districts, which is much easier than it sounds if you know where to try.

I'm curious how you define that as "fully VRA compliant." A district where there is a Hispanic majority, but your intent is for them to be outvoted by the Anglo minority in a polarized election with low Hispanic turnout, is not VRA compliant because the community does not get to elect "the candidate of their choice."

Well then, if The Democrats lose TX-23 to a candidate that won more of the white vote than the Hispanic vote, does that mean it no longer counts as a VRA district because a majority of Hispanics didn't vote for their current representative even if he himself is Hispanic?  What about my TX-29, where a White Democrat representing a Hispanic-majority district would be replaced (presumably) by a Hispanic Republican?

The LULAC opinion cited De Grandy on this issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that brittain33's statements reflect the courts opinions on this. One reason that the SCOTUS has refused to define a safe harbor for redistricting is that they believe that states are clever and will find ways to work around hard rules to dilute minority voting strength. The "totality of the circumstances" phrase is critical to their analyses of the last two cycles.

[muon2]

Wow.  You're telling me, it would violate the VRA to create a theoretical district that consists solely of Bexar county, Because despite being a Hispanic-majority district, a Republican might win it without winning the Hispanic vote?  That doesn't make any sense.  TX-15, TX-23, TX-27, and TX-28 all voted for Bush despite being Hispanic-majority because Bush won the small white populations in each district by more than Kerry won the Hispanic.  By the rules you give, none of those districts would be eligible for VRA certification, as in each a small white population can out-vote the Majority Hispanic population to flip the districts.

The presidential vote is not so relevant here, since it does not go towards electing a representative of that minority group. Also, there may specific elections where the majority minority does not succeed with a specific candidate (for instance during a "wave" election), but that does not affect the district for compliance with section 2 of the VRA. If 50% VAP is insufficient for a minority group to elect candidates of their choice, then there would have to be sufficient evidence to support a different percentage in that district.

Each case is considered uniquely under the VRA. That's one factor that adds to the challenge. A person drawing the district lines must consider the past history and current voting behavior of the particular group to ascertain compliance. So to your assertion about Bexar (which is actually larger than 2 CDs) it might or might not be valid depending on the totality of TX districts.

[muon2]

Here is a map of California using the redistricting commission's guidelines with 53 districts.

Will more respect for county lines be required?  You have 4 districts crossing the Los Angeles San Bernadino county line.

I found that I used 4 as well. However, two were for majority-minority districts (Hispanic and Asian). The other two were dictated in part by road connections and mountains, so they made sense from that perspective.

[muon2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is there a SCOTUS case that clearly says that Muon2?  Just asking.

And what does candidate of their choice mean - the chap whom at least 50% + 1 of Hispanics vote for?  That seems kind of hard to effect. How does one know? Is there any case law on what the definition of "candidate of their choice" means?

The Bartlett case made it clear that no action was required for populations that were under 50% of a district's VAP. Other cases make it clear that when there is 50% then all circumstances must be evaluated to determine if a majority-minority district is required. If it is required, then the district must be drawn so that the minority can elect the candidate of their choice.

The court has deferred on the question about citizen VAP vs total VAP, which could create a situation where higher percentages are needed. Some map makers have looked at election returns to estimate the threshold a minority (esp. Hispanics) would need to elect the candidates of their choice. For instance an area of 60% Hispanic population might repeatedly fail to elect their candidates due to a high non-citizen population. Some maps take this into account and other do not, but I'm not aware of a court decision that would give definite direction. Since some anticipate that it might happen, the safe course is to draw a map accordingly.

[muon2]

How does one know how Hispanics actually voted?  Exit polls?  Or is the game just one involving what surname seems to get elected? Has SCOTUS ruled on this notion, that if 50% +1 Hispanic VAP seems to still elect Anglos, and in particular Anglo Republicans, that further inquiry is needed?

What I'm saying is that SCOTUS has not ruled on this specific question. However, they have clearly left open the possibility that the state could find a way to make a 50% VAP district that would be drawn to favor the white candidate instead of the minority candidate. The De Grandy court has intentionally left itself the ability to rule against the state in that circumstance.

[muon2]

Nope. The 27th kept Nueces County and is still 64% Hispanic.

Which you created by fajita-stripping (or more fajita-stripping to be precise) the 15th district, that is even worse than the 15th that Delay originally drew.  It stretches from McAllen to the Houston Metro area--you don't get much uglier than that.  In a fair map, I usually just cut out the rural central Texas/San Antonio parts of the 27th, 15th, and 28th, and make them each like 90% Hispanic.

I'm also curious as to whether or not creating minority-majority districts where they are not VRA required would be struck down.  Making a 60% Black one in Houston makes the rest of Harris county more than 55% Republican, but it's not very compact (not really ugly, like IL-17 or something, but kind of long and sweeping).

By possible but not required, I would assume that this means that the Gingles test is not met. The Bartlett decision clearly said that states could do more than the minimum to assist minority groups, but there was no mandate to do that. Their comment was with respect to the creation of coalition districts, but it would seem that the same logic would apply to creating majority-minority districts.

An example would be creating majority-Asian districts in CA. There is little sign of bloc voting by whites against Asian candidates there and Asians are not as prone to bloc voting for the same candidate. The court would not mandate an Asian-majority district, nor would it be forbidden unless it caused a violation with another minority group.

As far as the black district in Houston, a reasonably shaped one could be created at 52%, leaving two solid Hispanic ones.

[muon2]

Actually I just had a similar thought to muon, what about South Carolina? 7x0.3=2.1. Blacks would be "entitled" to a second seat with one gained. Anyone drawn an SC map with two majority black districts?

Some really ugly ones.  You have to dive into NC-1 levels of district drawing to get two districts like that in South Carolina, as the Black Voters aren't all that concentrated outside of the black belt, and even then there are still pockets of whites.

Here's the version I put together a year ago. Both CD-6 (teal) and CD-7 (grey) have just over 50% black population, I don't think they look all that bad if you saw them in isolation.

For me the worst looking districts are the coastal ones. There's too much population for just one district so Charleston gets split between CDs 1 (blue) and 2 (green), and CD2 has to snake down long the GA line and around the Hilton Head corner to get there.

[muon2]

The MA map currently looks as awful as it does as an attempt to make sure no Republicans under any circumstances would win any seat.

No, that's not true. It's about incumbent protection with crazy combinations resulting from seats lost to other states. It's quite close to the map drawn in the 1990s with the contribution of Gov. Weld who wanted the 5th to be Republican accessible.

It's complicated by the fact that 6 of the 10 reps live in Boston and its nearby suburbs. To provide for the incumbents requires districts that spoke out from Boston. But they don't call it the Hub for nothing.

[muon2]

It's complicated by the fact that 6 of the 10 reps live in Boston and its nearby suburbs. To provide for the incumbents requires districts that spoke out from Boston. But they don't call it the Hub for nothing.

I wouldn't consider Salem to be a suburb of Boston, but yes, this is the biggest scandal of the map. Framingham, New Bedford, Nantucket, and Taunton all having reps living within 10 miles of downtown Boston is ridiculous.

We agree on the map, but I'll respectfully disagree about Salem. It's very much a part of the the north suburbs of Boston.

[muon2]

Just finished Nebraska with new census numbers. Pretty proud of myself for finding every precinct and getting the three districts within 100 people of each other, as well as only one split county.



Note: I couldn't fit it all on, but just in case you didn't know, everything missing on the left is in CD-03.

Did you try splitting no counties? If so how close could you get? I'm always curious as to how well the IA model would work in other states.

[muon2]

Just finished Nebraska with new census numbers. Pretty proud of myself for finding every precinct and getting the three districts within 100 people of each other, as well as only one split county.



Note: I couldn't fit it all on, but just in case you didn't know, everything missing on the left is in CD-03.

Did you try splitting no counties? If so how close could you get? I'm always curious as to how well the IA model would work in other states.

It works surprisingly well in some states where you wouldn't expect it, Like Tennessee (assuming an exception is made for the Shelby county by putting all of Memphis in one district).

Aren't the counties around Nashville too populous to get a district of 100 persons deviation without splits?

[muon2]

Just finished Nebraska with new census numbers. Pretty proud of myself for finding every precinct and getting the three districts within 100 people of each other, as well as only one split county.



Note: I couldn't fit it all on, but just in case you didn't know, everything missing on the left is in CD-03.

Did you try splitting no counties? If so how close could you get? I'm always curious as to how well the IA model would work in other states.

It works surprisingly well in some states where you wouldn't expect it, Like Tennessee (assuming an exception is made for the Shelby county by putting all of Memphis in one district).

Aren't the counties around Nashville too populous to get a district of 100 persons deviation without splits?

I Said "Suprisingly well" not perfect.  You can get within like 20k, which is great considering that all those counties have like 200,000 people in them

Unfortunately 20K won't survive a court challenge. For the IA system to work, there has to be enough small jurisdictions (like counties in IA) that districts can be constructed by an independent body using simple rules. Those districts have to come out very close to equal for the court to determine that the state's interest in preserving its districting rules justify the deviations from exact equality. If the rules allow splits in general, then the court will determine that exact equality should be achieved by splitting to the extent needed.

[muon2]

I am, too.

OK. That is good news, that it is not my computer. I am a long way from IT help right now!  

CC:  Muon2

I've used it this evening without any difficulty. However, about a week ago it started hanging my Firefox. Since then I've been using IE with the App.

[muon2]

Here's the link that Dave Bradlee couldn't post:

www.kwiksurveys.com/online-survey.php?surveyID=HBNLOI_a50d3df

I fixed it in his post as well.