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

[Torie]

The Dems bagged a seat in MD through a Dem gerrymander too. Would the Pubs be competitive for a seat in Mass in a neutral plan up there? Some of the commission plans were Dem gerrys lite (c.f. CO and CA and particularly AZ), but I digress.

[Torie]

The Dems bagged a seat in MD through a Dem gerrymander too. Would the Pubs be competitive for a seat in Mass in a neutral plan up there? Some of the commission plans were Dem gerrys lite (c.f. CO and CA and particularly AZ), but I digress.

There really isn't any way a neutral plan could create a seat is Mass that would be any worse for Dems than D+4.  You would have to create a Plymouth to Worcester suburbs seat, which would be a GOP Gerrymander and still probably wouldn't have voted GOP for President since 1988.

About D+2 is what I came up with (D+1.9% actually), but yes, you're basically right. A second CD is D+3.3% (using 2008 numbers). So two lean Dem CD's pop out, one on the cusp of being pretty safe.

[Torie]

Returning to Illinois, I wonder how much the favorite son effect was.  Is 5% about right (Illinois trended 5 points to the Dems in 2008, and about 5 points back to the Pubs again in 2012)?  

I ask, because per my "good government" non partisan map below using the rules that I like to use (minimizing chops, with a laser beam like focus on minimizing erosity, and ignoring just about everything else other than the VRA (and in this instance making some effort to create a second Hispanic influence CD, even though there is no second Hispanic CD to draw required by the VRA that hits 50% Hispanic VAP), I count nine potentially competitive CD's (yes nine), if one uses a 5 point PVI adjustment towards the Pubs.  Pity the map was not enacted into law, because if it had, Illinois could have had its economy revived just by all the campaign cash pouring into it given the jury sized number of CD's in play.  

I must say, that the Pub strength in the collar counties has just collapsed since my college days - just a massive implosion. Wow, just wow.

[Torie]

In other news, my IL-02 is 59.3% Hispanic VAP. I sweated that number, because I did not want to violate any of my other rules, unless the VRA risk was too high. I decided not, and would believe that even if the CD were below 59.2% Hispanic VAP, because I don't think the VRA requires grotesque CD's to hit a number, violating every other good districting rule in the book. There simply is no community of interest there, above and beyond that.

Anyway, it was a balancing test, and I sort of used 59% HVAP as the threshold, and if the number fell below that, the edges of the CD would have been more ragged. As it was, if all things were relatively, even if not absolutely equal, I sought out the higher percentage Hispanic precincts at the margin.

Hearing no objection, I am going to assume that the 5 point favorite son effect is in the ballpark,, which is what makes the map just so much fun.

[Torie]

Muon2, you are not contending that the VRA requires that second Hispanic octopus that sends out one tentacle from inner city Chicago to somewhere in the vicinity of beautiful downtown West Chicago are you? I guess maybe I missed that case. Next thing you know, someone will have the quite insane idea of hooking up black neighborhoods in Cleveland to those in Akron.

[Torie]

Gosh, I'm getting good at this.  Here is the "fair" map for the 2012-2020 cycle. The Dems pick up one seat (the Akron-Canton seat), are well positioned over time to get another (Cincinnati), and a third CD is a tossup (my OH-11). So absent a wave, the Dems pick up 1-3 seats over the GOP gerrymander, and would have picked up two seats I think in 2012 (Sutton would have won OH-11, but if she did not moderate, would eventually probably fall against a strong Pub in an off year election). Chabot I suspect would have barely held on, but his half life would not be that long.

[Torie]

I would much rather that Lackawanna be placed in the 10th like it was for decades until 2001 when it was removed to protect Sherwood from Junior making another attempt at him. When I drew the map like this the 10th came out as 51% McCain and the 11th as 53% Obama. A Casey Dem with a whole Lackawanna as a base could toss Marino in all but the most GOP of years and then produce a series of competative elections until some Republican managed to reign in Lackawanna or some Democrat likewise with Lycoming and thus hold it for a good length of time. Barletta would be able to win such an 11th in all but the most Dem of years. Might sacrifice a bit on the district quality, but Congressman quality would benefit as incumbents in both would be kept on their toes. These solid districts reduce degrade the incumbent over time, and NE PA needs solid representation, not solid districts.

That might be good if you're going for competitive districts as a priority. My primary intent was to keep communities of interest together and have reasonably shaped districts with minimal county splits (and lower municipalities for that matter). I made a point of keeping Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties together as the core of one district, as I think they constitute a strong community of interest. I'll admit that my PA-10 isn't the best district, but I think it's a natural extension to account for population loss. I would like to see the map you've drawn that splits Lackawanna from Luzerne.

That's a very nice map overall. My only real objection is that it doesn't leave a true Southeastern Ohio district and divides the Columbus suburbs somewhat excessively. I'd accept that map over the current in a heartbeat, but I'd probably object to districts 7, 10. and 12. I'm not fond of CD-08, but it's probably acceptable in the grand scheme of things.

Muon2 and I have thrown the  communities of interest thing (other than the VRA), into the dustbin. It is just always gamed by partisans - here, there and everywhere. We focus on chops and erosity, although I do bear in mind keeping metro areas together, and I did that. The Columbus burbs are almost all in one CD, and most of the city in another, and the choice involved not splitting the black community where it was contiguous, and trying to keep most of the city together.

[Torie]

What is everyone's thought on my version of Wisconsin?



Milwaukee

Given my erosity phobia, your map is way, way too erose for me. You might try again, trying to make things more compact if you are so inclined. That takes a lot of time, unless you put all the county population numbers on a spreadsheet, and move them around from CD column to CD column (you actually do most of your work on a spreadsheet rather than using the DRA utility, as if you did an outline of a painting in pencil before you started slapping paint on (that is what my boyfriend does)), as opposed to trial and error with your mouse clicks. It might be worth the effort, if you want to make a commitment to becoming Mr. Wisconsin in this effort. Just a thought.

[Torie]

Anyone get a chance to see my Wisconsin map?

I responded FWIW to your map in a post above.

[Torie]

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

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

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

I know you want to move towards House representation that more closely reflects the popular vote, but the Pubs are never go to agree to that. In fact, I suspect I, and Muon2 too for that matter, are too partisan to agree to that. What I am willing to do however, if need be, is skew a bit towards an excessive number of swing districts. What the Dems would really want, at a minimum, and I understand that, is to offset the screwing that they get from the VRA. That isn't going to happen either. So we need to do the best we can with what reasonable folks on both sides are willing to do.

[Torie]

The two ends of the state look solid, central PA does not to me. You guys are working too  hard to find micro-chops at the cost of erosity in my opinion. That pink CD is particularly unfortunate to my eyes.

[Torie]

Better Muon2, but I would switch counties between the yellow and pink CD's to square both out more, at the cost of another macro-chop. There is no good reason for that much additional erosity, particular for CD's large in geographic size, in order to avoid a macro-chop. I understand your concern about leashing gaming, but that is where the veto mechanisms come into play to mitigate that in my opinion. Here of course, what is in play really does not have any partisan effect, but I understand that it might in another instance.

[Torie]

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

[Torie]

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

So, basically, this:

?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Torie]

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

[Torie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Torie]

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



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

[Torie]

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

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

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

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

[Torie]

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

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

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

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

[Torie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Torie]

In your Mass map the  lean Pub CD is too erose for me Train - way too erose. As I said, we will just have to agree to disagree. Hopefully Muon2 will opine on the MD erosity issue. It seem clear to me, and clear to you otherwise, so that is that. There is no point about arguing between us about it further.

More globally, at the end of the day, what you and I think really does not matter. The issue is whether both parties can accept something other than the status quo. In that regard, since the status quo favors the Pubs more than what I favor, I suspect even if the Dems want something more, they would settle for that. The problem might be getting the Pubs to go along. They will never go along with something that dilutes substantially their geographic and VRA advantage. That is just reality.

FWIW, below is my Mass map. One issue is whether to follow county lines in Mass that don't mean much, but for this exercise I did, just for the sake of consistency. Again, I did not even look at the partisan numbers until the map was done, and frankly did not have much of a clue outside the obvious, because I have never drawn a map of Mass before.

[Torie]

How come you know so much about MD Muon2?  That was quite an impressive tour de horizon.

[Torie]

Map, after map, after map. We are a bunch of sickie poohs really, but I guess it serves a useful purpose.

OK, while it is hard to get excited about chopping unnecessarily chopping from one MSA into another, when both are back to back, and at the border densely populated to boot, rules are rules. Thus, I really did not think about it in this instance, but I should have. So many sand traps, so little time.

Before getting to the two new maps to throw on the pile, immediately below is a map of the MSA's for the area, derived from here. The child-board master might want to bookmark it for future reference, inasmuch as it is an extremely valuable utility if we are going to count MSA penetration as a chop, which seems to be the emerging consensus, even between moi and Train, and we two don't agree on much - ever!



And now the maps. The first fixes the little unnecessary MSA rape. The second goes on an anti-chop jihad while also still fixating like a laser beam on zapping erosity. I think the second map has fewer chops than the first, but I have not counted them. I will let Muon2 do that, since he is just so talented at it.

Muon2 unfortunately in his comment on erosity so quickly segued into his chop obsession that I missed him saying much really about measuring erosity. Sometimes I think he fuses chops and erosity.  Anyway, moving along from that little "chop" at the child-board maestro, my question is this. F the chop thing. I want to know, putting chops aside, which of the two maps below is less erose, and why, in detail.  The bit about erose state perimeters I don't think is too helpful because all the maps start with the same handicap, so why does that matter, other than to take into account perhaps given the weird shape of MD, what limits erosity once one swallows up the dangling tail perimeters?

We also need to think about compactness. Yes in the second map, the "Eastern shore" CD has a nice rectangular shape, but it has become rather obscenely huge. Compactness should count for something. We need to spend more time on that. Compactness matters - yes, it really does. Heck even the Dem mole on the AZ commission bearing the false flag of an "independent" yammered on about the compactness issue. If she and I agree on something, that is quite an event actually.

Anyway, I am out of here the rest of the day, so everyone have a good one. I will reappear tomorrow morning. Cheers. Oh, Muon2, given your scoring method, is the second map the most fairest of them all so far put up by the usual suspects?  Just curious.

[Torie]

Oh damn, I realize in the second map that the yellow CD raped the Baltimore MSA, so back to another map in my pile, that had the Eastern shore CD fill that bit in, pushing the red CD east. I will put that map up tomorrow. Pity that. The red CD was just so gorgeous.   It will mean a potentially nasty chop of Hartford County, and Cecil rather dangling out there (which sucks, although it will constitute a bone thrown to Train on his Cecil thing). I think maybe my first map will get a higher score now, depending on the chop count.

[Torie]

On the MSA issue, I believe my link has the latest data. I like the utility because you can zoom. A map of the whole US is impossible to read. Perhaps you have the same link in essence.

I had no idea there were so many what are in essence micro-MSA's, or really are not MSA's at all when it comes to population density, like your Benton Harbor area example, and so using MSA's when it is so "over-inclusive" as it were, I do agree is too restrictive, so we have a problem. (Another example is Grand Rapids, where instead of just being in Kent County, as it should, takes up a bunch of low density area to suck up three counties on Lake Michigan (MSA's just take up too much territory and that creates both, to use that dirty word, COI issues, as well as over-restrictive issues). In short, forcing regions to hew to MSA's (or count as another chop) might lead to worse maps really, given that there are so many MSA's, and over expansive ones.

Regarding the matter of using regions to take cognizance of them, I was never clear how using regions worked mechanically to force/influence changes in maps (just as I am not clear exactly how to measure erosity except by eye, even though I keep asking that we work on  that issue, and try to agree on the best approach that makes stuff look appealing to the eye, and  on that one I need your mathematical mind to help me), as opposed to just being a useful tool to find micro-chops, whatever one might want to do with them. Perhaps you might explain that.

On the issue of compactness, maybe there is no good solution, but it is a negative for a CD to just wander all over the state, like that AZ CD that went from Sedona to Snow Low via the Indian reservations. Maybe erosity measures that we have not yet defined, is the best that we can do. Sometimes unfortunately the mind of man is just too inadequate to fashion rules that really work on a global basis. Such is life.

Anyway, below is my map fix hewing to MSA's. It came out a bit better than I thought really. The red CD is +1% Dem, so that will make Train a bit happier, if not absolutely happy. I however, am almost always happy, even when my butt is being kicked from pillar to post. I'm a masochist I guess.