Fair redistricting: California

[Dr. MB]

New Mexico plan

My non-partisan redistricting plan for New Mexico, only Sandoval County is split, and Rio Rancho is the only city split.

District 1 D+7.45 - 59.7 - 39.0
District 2 R+7.48 - 47.3 - 51.3
District 3 D+8.67 - 62.3 - 36.5

I was going to do a map, but it ended up identical to this one - down to the +7.45 D PVI, so I'll just second this nomination.

[Dr. MB]

AZ-01: R+6
AZ-02: R+1
AZ-03: D+2
AZ-04: R+17
AZ-05: D+8
AZ-06: R+14
AZ-07: D+10
AZ-08: R+15
AZ-09: R+1

[Dr. MB]

District 1: Red
District 2: Yellow
District 3: Green
District 4: Blue

1: R+26
2: D+5
3: R+25
4: R+31

[Dr. MB]

R+15 and R+23. Ada County is split, but this map has high geographical contiguity.

[Dr. MB]

Oregon Non-Partisan plan 1.

My first non-partisan redistricting plan for Oregon. Two counties are split.

District 1 D+06.60 - 58.0 - 39.9
District 2 R+12.06 - 42.9 - 54.8
District 3 D+27.64 - 76.6 - 21.3
District 4 D+00.90 - 55.1 - 42.6
District 5 R+01.02 - 52.2 - 45.8





Oregon Non-Partisan plan 2 (minimum county splits).

My second non-partisan redistricting plan for Oregon. Only one county is split.

District 1 D+08.34 - 58.9 - 39.3
District 2 R+12.15 - 42.7 - 55.0
District 3 D+27.79 - 76.8 - 21.2
District 4 D+03.31 - 57.4 - 40.3
District 5 R+06.17 - 48.4 - 49.4

The second plan makes absolutely no sense.

First of all, you're putting Wasco/Sherman/Gilliam/Hood River in with the heart of the Willamette valley? That's like putting Fresno and San Francisco in a district together.

And second of all, the north coast doesn't belong with Roseburg and Eugene - it preferably would go in the first district. Also, Coos and Curry counties should definitely be in the same district.

[Dr. MB]

District 1: D+6
District 2: R+11
District 3: D+28
District 4: D+1
District 5: R+2

3 counties are split.

[Dr. MB]

We should automatically disqualify AustralianSwingVoter from every state with 3 or more Districts, since he is constantly willing, and trying to violate fair redistricting criteria by trying to put as many County splits as possible all into the same County, and then trying to spin it off as a good thing like this:

Oregon Non-Partisan plan 2 (minimum county splits).

My second non-partisan redistricting plan for Oregon. Only one county is split.

Really dishonest.

It is just a personal choice. I respect the fact that many, like yourselves, prefer to not split counties between more than two districts. However I have a different approach I have previously outlined. I would also point out that the map you have quoted is very similar to muon's second plan.
However I most certainly agree with you that my Second Plan isn't good from a communities of interest view, and I far prefer my first plan. The second plan exists solely to prove that it is possible, but with grave shortcomings.
Also, what do you mean by "Really dishonest." in reference to my statements regarding the second plan of "minimum county splits" and "Only one county is split.". Those statements are true, and I cannot understand how I am dishonest in my making of such statements.

Here are my two plans for OR.

...


Plan B seeks to preserve the Portland UCC and both the pack and cover are maintained. Only Clackamas is chopped, and within it CD 3 picks up all of the city of Milwaukie and the CD 1-5 border follows school district boundaries in the county. The result is a CD 4 that includes almost the entire coast of the state. Though the districts are less competitive they still have the ideal skew of 1 for the state.



CD 1: (-1275) D+8.4
CD 2: (+2218) R+12
CD 3: (+307) D+28
CD 4: (-537) D+3.3
CD 5: (-714) R+6.1

The reaction of other posters to the plans by ASV and myself actually point to something important in redistricting. Many groups have suggested that computers would do a better job than people in drawing plans. Yet a plan like the ones above might be exactly the output of a fairly sophisticated algorithm.

My challenge to those who don't like such plans is to ask how you would define criteria that could be used by an algorithm to avoid a preference for plans like those above. The definition should be objective and not subjective. Also think about the fact that in 2020 OR will likely get a 6th CD and at least one district that spans the Cascades will become a necessity.

In 2020 I’d assume all of Josephine and parts of Jackson would be transferred to a new district from the 2nd, so no significant change in Cascade-crossing would be needed.