My Attempt to Make Fair Districts

[LLR]

Basically, I'm trying to make fair districts - not paying attention to partisan composition, keeping metro areas together, following real boundaries, etc. I'll explain why I think these districts are fair, and compare them to the current maps.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

The plan: one district encompassing the Boston suburbs, Nashua, Portsmouth, Manchester. One district for the rest. This separates the high population density Bostonian south from the rural, maverick north. It's a logical boundary to separate the urban/suburban from the rural. It also keeps the major metro areas together. It favors a linear boundary over a county boundary, but the line is somewhat near the county boundary anyway.

The map:  

District 1 is a rectangle encompassing Portsmouth, Manchester, and Nashua. It has most of Rockingham and Hillsborough Counties. Rating: Lean R

District 2 is much more rural, has a much lower population density, and has parts of all ten counties. Rating: Likely D

Improvements: I have combined Manchester and Nashua, which is a designated metro area. The current districts do not. In addition, I've done a better job of keeping counties whole, keeping cultural boundaries, and keeping geometric shapes.


IDAHO

The plan: One district for the Boise-Nampa area. Another for the remainder. This is a logical metro area to keep together, and it'll connect most of the rural areas. it also gives a divide that looks somewhat like the state border.

The map:

District 1 is the home of Boise, Nampa, and Twin Falls. The only county plit is in southern Valley County. The district is more or less rectangular. Rating: Safe R

District 2 contains Coeur d'Alene and Pocatello, as well as most of the National Parks and the more mountainous parts. Rating: Safe R

Improvements: I combined Boise and Nampa, which is one metro area. In addition, I followed county boundaries to a greater extent, opted for a northwest-southeast divide rather than the awkward-looking east-west one that exists now. The disparity between population densities in the current district 1 is lowered considerably as well.


RHODE ISLAND

The plan: One district for the Providence area, one for the rest. This is a logical urban-rural divide.

The map:

District 1 follows municipal boundaries, containing Providence, Pawtucket, Cranston, Warwick, and Kent County. Rating: Safe D

District 2 contains everything else - Woonsocket, the coast, and many suburbs. Rating:Lean D

Improvements: I opted to keep the Providence metro area whole. This is more of a style choice, but it does highlight a logical divide. It makes the districts more split on density and connects all of the rural areas, as well.


What do y'all think?

[LLR]

Your New Hampshire and Rhode Island maps are logical and are an improvement over reality.

Your Idaho map, though, is problematic.  The Boise district is an improvement over reality, but the other district suffers from the problem of an impassible mountain in the middle of it.  It's basically impossible to drive from eastern Idaho to northern Idaho without either passing through Boise or Missoula.

Oh, thanks. This would imply that it's a tradeoff between joining the metro area and having a logical second district, since it's impossible to connect Boise-Nampa with the north, given the size of Coeur d'Alene. In terms of partisan bias, there is very little in Idahoan districts no matter what, so either is a good solution. It's not gerrymandered either.

[LLR]

HAWAI'I

The plan: The current system is alright, since I'd like to keep Honolulu in its own district. However, I can keep the city of Honolulu with the eastern islands, and the rest of Oahu with the western islands.

The map:  

District 1: At 51% Asian, and containing Kailua and all of Kauai Island, this district is very easily Rating: Safe D. It contains Honolulu suburbs

District 2: This district is even more liberal, containing Honolulu proper as well as Kahului and Hilo. Rating: Safe D

Improvements: Yeah, this was kind of useless


MAINE

The plan: Combine Portland and Lewiston, and have Augusta and Bangor in the other district. Try for a straight north-south line.

The map:


District 1: Featuring the main urban centers, this district is compact and population-dense. Rating: Safe D

District 2: More conservative than our actual District 2. Much more rural. I suspect many French-Canadians live here, perhaps more than in actual District 2. Rating: Lean D

Improvements: The only county split is in Sagahadoc, giving Brunswick and Bath to Portland, since they are more urban than rural. Fairly straight line border, combines Lewiston and Portland due to them having more similarity than Portland and Augusta do.

[LLR]

NEBRASKA

The plan: One district for Greater Omaha, one for suburbs of Omaha and Lincoln, and one for the rest of the state.

The map:  

District 1: This district contains all of Omaha proper. It's very similar to the current district, though it includes fewer suburbs. Rating: Likely R
District 2: This district contains Lincoln, southern Omaha suburbs, and Southeast Nebraska. The border between districts 2 and 3 west of Omaha is the Platte River, which happens to also be a major county boundary.Rating: Safe R
District 3: This district is mainly rural, although it is 9% Hispanic. Rating: Safe R[/color][/font]

Improvements: Follows logical boundaries (Omaha city, Platte River), creates slightly more geometric districts, consolidates Omaha into one district.

[LLR]

Responses to Concerns:

Hawai'i: I admitted that there was no reason to improve the current map, and just felt I had to do something. Turns out it's worse, oh well.

Idaho: Yeah, muon's map seems a better solution here.

Rhode Island: Again, it's a tradeoff - either keep the metro area together or make a contiguous district. A possible solution would be to trade Warwick for Newport County, would that be better? Either way, this won't be relevant in 2020.

What order I'm going in: Number of districts per state.

[LLR]

I always try to get deviation under 1%. And muon, there are no county splits between district 2 and district 3 afaik?

Kevin, I know the Maine deviation was under 1,000 people.

[LLR]

NEW MEXICO

The plan: One district for Santa Fe and the north, one for Albuquerque, and one for the south.

The map:

District 1: Including Santa Fe, Taos, and Gallup, the Northern district is the Democratic stronghold. Featuring a somewhat rectangular shape, it's fairly similar to the real 3rd district. It's 20% Native American. Safe D

District 2: Including all of Bernalillo County and some of the urban parts of Sandoval, this is the Albuquerque district. Likely D

District 3: The Southern district includes the highest UFO population of any congressional district. It's also majority Hispanic (all three districts are majority-minority). Safe R

Improvements: All population deviations under 1,000. Only one county chop. Non-gerrymandered Albuquerque district.