Fair redistricting: New York

[Bidenworth2020]

is it possible I could join this?

[cvparty]

is it possible I could join this?

in what way?

[muon2]

I believe this is the final table for NH. The SPICE scores allow simple comparison between plans. They aren't designed to pick a winner, but they are designed to weed out weak plans.

The usual way to interpret the scores is that if any plan has values that are in at least one case higher and in no case lower than another plan then it would be eliminated from consideration. I've highlighted those plans in the table. For example Starpaul20 has higher inequality and erosity than HCP while all other values are equal (red). Starpaul20 would be eliminated based on its SPICE scores. Similarly TimTurner and LimoLiberal are eliminated by muon2-A on chops and erosity (green). jimrtex would be eliminated by cvparty on polarization, inequality and erosity (blue). By using a smaller set of scores, such as just one of the chop scores or ignoring the polarization additional eliminations can be made to get a final competition set for voting.

Here's a table for the submitted NH plans as I fill each in. The erosity is based on the town connection map. The NECTA chop is based on the NECTA map reflecting Census groupings of towns. The key is S:Skew, P:Polarization, I:Inequality, CC:Chop (Counties/UCC), CN:Chop (NECTA), E:Erosity. Low scores are better.

Plan	-S-	-P-	-I-	-CC	-CN	-E-
Solid4096	0	0	5	1	4	29
Singletxguyforfun	0	2	4	3	2	21
TimTurner	0	0	2	3	4	30
cvparty	0	0	4	4	3	23
Sol	0	0	3	5	3	20
HCP	0	2	2	2	2	25
LimoLiberal	0	0	3	2	4	30
Starpaul20	0	2	3	2	2	27
Gallatine	0	2	7	4	2	19
muon2-A	0	0	2	1	4	28
muon2-B	0	2	1	4	0	24
jimrtex	0	2	5	4	3	24

Edit: Solid4096 was overlooked and is now added. It would also be eliminated based on SPICE scores from muon2-A.

[jimrtex]

is it possible I could join this?

Anyone can submit a plan, assuming they know how to use DRA.

There are 5 "commissioners" who are evaluating plans and choosing plans from among plans submitted by the "public". So you can be part of the "public" and submit a plan, or also comment on plans submitted by other public persons. Some of the commissioners are also submitting plans, but that is up to them, and presumably they are evaluating them objectively.

It is too late for NH, but you could be drawing a map for RI, CT, or MA.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Was my plan graded?

[cvparty]

Was my plan graded?

no, muon probably missed you cuz you just put a link

[Bidenworth2020]

ok, great, what state are we doing right now?

[cvparty]

ok, great, what state are we doing right now?

NH, status and details are always in the op

[cvparty]

ok, great, what state are we doing right now?

NH, status and details are always in the op

oh sorry
can I get the next state so I can start working on it?

the state order is also in the OP ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) next is RI, then CT, refer to OP to see the rest. I recommend making as many maps as you can in advance to stay ahead

[muon2]

Was my plan graded?

no, muon probably missed you cuz you just put a link

I did miss the link since it was in before the other maps. It is now scored with the other plans.

Based on the full scoring alone, there would be 7 plans that would go forward to the vote. If at some point you are concerned about the time for responses for both nominations and voting, this is a method that could replace the nomination step. It also would alleviate concern that the panel might unduly protect its own maps by nomination.

[cvparty]

Based on the full scoring alone, there would be 7 plans that would go forward to the vote. If at some point you are concerned about the time for responses for both nominations and voting, this is a method that could replace the nomination step. It also would alleviate concern that the panel might unduly protect its own maps by nomination.

Possibly, although there are nuances in the maps that aren't fully captured in your SPICE method/scores. Also, we aren't too concerned about how much deviation there is; the .5% requirement is just to ensure that the districts are about the same, nothing more. I don't think we're going past that and looking at +100 districts versus +500 districts. Making that distinction would tend to interfere with more important goals like communities of interest

[muon2]

Based on the full scoring alone, there would be 7 plans that would go forward to the vote. If at some point you are concerned about the time for responses for both nominations and voting, this is a method that could replace the nomination step. It also would alleviate concern that the panel might unduly protect its own maps by nomination.

Possibly, although there are nuances in the maps that aren't fully captured in your SPICE method/scores. Also, we aren't too concerned about how much deviation there is; the .5% requirement is just to ensure that the districts are about the same, nothing more. I don't think we're going past that and looking at +100 districts versus +500 districts. Making that distinction would tend to interfere with more important goals like communities of interest

That was my point about using a reduced set rather than the full number of values. For instance one can say that inequality cannot be used alone to eliminate a plan; it can be left as a tie breaker. That way some panelists may use it in deciding their vote, while others may not. Historically when we've done this type of exercise there are roughly equal numbers who feel or don't feel that differences under 0.5% deviation matter.

Usually we've focused on chops and erosity as the prime measures with skew considered to avoid an unduly partisan plan. In working on some states we found that adding the chop score to the inequality score gave a better result than chops alone.

The problem we found with communities of interest is that panelists rarely agreed on subjective measures. It's hard on real commissions and especially hard here on Atlas where many don't have any firsthand experience with the states they're judging. The work on UCCs was to create an objective way to determine what parts of an urban area belonged together as a CoI and how to balance that against maintaining whole counties in rural areas.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I mean, surely there has to be a reason New Hampshire's CDs have had the same basic design since before the 20th century, no?

[muon2]

I mean, surely there has to be a reason New Hampshire's CDs have had the same basic design since before the 20th century, no?

In many states there's a lot of history behind certain districts. If there's no gain from extensive gerrymandering, that history is going to influence a legislature drawing districts. Minimal change is a recognized neutral redistricting principle. WV successfully used that principle to uphold their current map. Then there are states like IA that intentionally start from a blank map every 10 years - the NH districts would probably change a lot each decade if they used the IA system, and that is essentially what we are doing in this thread.

[muon2]

For those who want to get a start on RI, I would note the following issues. RI has a PVI of D+9.6 and 2 CDs. To get a 0 Skew one district has to be a toss up (PVI less than 1.50). That's hard to do without making a mess of the map, so most plans will have a skew of 1 for the Dems. Polarization can be reduced by keeping one CD under PVI D+5.5 which is a competitive district that leans D.

RI has no county government, and they exist for purely statistical purposes. All local functions are handled by the municipalities. Because of that there is no chop score given for chopping counties, only municipalities. Also all of RI except for the municipalities of Hopkinton and Westerly are in the Providence-Warwick NECTA so every plan is going chop that once, and there's no value in that score.

Municipalities are the primary community of interest in RI, so keeping them whole is important. However, DRA only has 2010 block groups and the municipality name doesn't show up. The City/Town lines feature only works for a few municipalities since in some cases they show a Census place, not a municipality. Here's a map of the municipalities and the connection lines (including bridges and the Block Island ferry). Erosity is measured by the number of connecting lines cut by the border between CDs and cuts through municipalities.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I remember spending a lot of time trying to get a map with equal population (within the 1000 people range) without splitting any municipalities. I think it was impossible.

[muon2]

I remember spending a lot of time trying to get a map with equal population (within the 1000 people range) without splitting any municipalities. I think it was impossible.

It's not impossible, and there are good low-erosity plans with under 1000 deviation and no muni chops. I've found at least 2. If you don't care about erosity you can get a plan with a deviation under 10 without a muni chop!

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I remember spending a lot of time trying to get a map with equal population (within the 1000 people range) without splitting any municipalities. I think it was impossible.

It's not impossible, and there are good low-erosity plans with under 1000 deviation and no muni chops. I've found at least 2. If you don't care about erosity you can get a plan with a deviation under 10 without a muni chop!

I guess I am just going to sit out with RI.

[muon2]

I remember spending a lot of time trying to get a map with equal population (within the 1000 people range) without splitting any municipalities. I think it was impossible.

It's not impossible, and there are good low-erosity plans with under 1000 deviation and no muni chops. I've found at least 2. If you don't care about erosity you can get a plan with a deviation under 10 without a muni chop!

I guess I am just going to sit out with RI.

The way to find them is not with DRA. Get the muni populations from Wikipedia (2010 Census). Copy them into a spreadsheet. Then take the map I posted and make connected groups of munis. Use the spreadsheet to keep track of the population of the group compared to the quota.

[Strudelcutie4427]

Are we voting on New Hampshire today before we get started on RI?

[cvparty]

I guess I am just going to sit out with RI.

The population deviation only needs to be below 2600. Also, splits are allowed, especially with big political divisions. For example, Warwick has like 80,000 people. It's split in my plan. Like I said before, you don't need to bend over backwards to keep municipalities/counties whole and get a super low population deviation. The other factors are more important.

Are we voting on New Hampshire today before we get started on RI?

TimTurner and Ted Bessell still need to pick their 2 maps, and then we have to vote twice again...

[Mike Thick]

F***ing hell — got caught up in this trial thing and didn’t get back to my hotel until very late. Sorry.

Torie and Muon, once again.

[cvparty]

F***ing hell — got caught up in this trial thing and didn’t get back to my hotel until very late. Sorry.

Torie and Muon, once again.

wait wat? torie did not submit a map, and muon has 2 maps

[Nyvin]

F***ing hell — got caught up in this trial thing and didn’t get back to my hotel until very late. Sorry.

Torie and Muon, once again.

Fraud.

[Kevinstat]

CD1 (Rochester, Dover, Concord) - D+2.6
CD2 (Portsmouth, Manchester, Nashua) - R+2.7

Deviation is ±1257.

Basically a choppier version of HCP's map - three county chops (Rockingham, Merrimack, Hillsborough), but all towns are intact and IMO looks better with chops than following Rockingham and Merrimack Lines.

For those of the judges who are uncomfortable with the deviations of this plan, you can perhaps pretend you're voting for this



or this



I'm sorry, I couldn't resist posting these maps, which I made midday yesterday but hadn't gotten around to saving in the Atlas Gallery and then posting here.  You probably can't pretend you're voting on something other than what you're actually voting on.