Fair redistricting: California

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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+07.45 - 59.7 - 39.0
District 2 R+07.48 - 47.3 - 51.3
District 3 D+08.67 - 62.3 - 36.5

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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

Can you put up a zoom shot of Albuquerque with the Rio Rancho chop?

Here you are:

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Colorado Non-Partisan plan.

My non-partisan redistricting plan for Colorado. Only 3 counties are split, and only Thornton (Adams) and Pueblo (Pueblo) cities are split.

District 1 D+24.23 - 74.1 - 24.3
District 2 D+09.33 - 61.4 - 36.9
District 3 R+08.20 - 46.6 - 51.6
District 4 R+13.19 - 41.8 - 56.7
District 5 R+11.41 - 41.7 - 56.8
District 6 D+03.52 - 55.1 - 43.3
District 7 D+02.72 - 54.8 - 43.3

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Arizona Non-Partisan Plan.

My non-partisan redistricting plan for Arizona. The plan increases the number of Hispanic Majority VRA districts from two to three.

District 1 R+09.71 - 43.6 - 55.0
District 2 R+02.90 - 47.1 - 51.7
District 3 D+07.58 - 55.9 - 42.9 - 50.5 Hispanic
District 4 D+08.86 - 54.3 - 44.7 - 58.2 Hispanic
District 5 R+15.97 - 35.7 - 63.2
District 6 R+09.19 - 41.5 - 57.5
District 7 D+11.89 - 55.4 - 43.3 - 54.4 Hispanic
District 8 R+15.89 - 36.6 - 62.2
District 9 D+00.78 - 49.1 - 49.7

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Utah Non-Partisan plan.

My non-partisan redistricting plan for Utah. Only two counties are split

District 1 R+13.03 - 40.3 - 57.0
District 2 R+30.31 - 26.3 - 70.4
District 3 R+32.16 - 22.0 - 74.8
District 4 R+03.54 - 48.2 - 49.0

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Nevada Non-Partisan plan.

My non-partisan redistricting plan for Nevada. There is a Hispanic Majority VRA district, and only 3 cities in Clark County are split.

District 1 D+21.12 - 70.1 - 27.6 - 50.1 Hispanic
District 2 R+06.97 - 49.4 - 48.2
District 3 D+01.48 - 55.6 - 42.5
District 4 R+03.82 - 51.4 - 46.3

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Idaho Non-Partisan plan 1 (East-West)

My first non-partisan redistricting plan for Idaho. Only one county is split.

District 1 R+13.57 - 41.3 - 56.3
District 2 R+25.40 - 29.8 - 67.8





Idaho Non-Partisan plan 2 (Boise)

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

District 1 R+14.88 - 39.0 - 58.8
District 2 R+22.85 - 33.4 - 64.1

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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.

I don't like the second plan either, and I wholeheartedly agree that the in the second plan do not represent united communities of interest. Rather I have devised it as a theoretical, just to prove that you can only split one county. However the tradeoffs for only splitting one county are indeed large and in my opinion vastly outweigh the benefits. I submitted it solely for the purpose of showing other users that that it is indeed possible to split only one county.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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

I've split up my Oregon plans into their own separate posts so people can evaluate my first plan solely on it's merits which, in my opinion, persons were unable to do as it was overshadowed by my borderline-horrific second plan.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Washington Non-Partisan plan.

My non-partisan redistricting plan for Washington. Douglas County is the only unnecessary county split, in addition to the required splits of King, Pierce and Snohomish. Seattle is wholy within the 7th, and the districts follow city lines in the split counties.

District 1 D+02.59 - 55.1 - 42.9
District 2 D+14.84 - 63.6 - 34.7
District 3 R+04.53 - 50.3 - 47.7
District 4 R+13.13 - 39.0 - 59.1
District 5 R+07.66 - 46.5 - 51.0
District 6 D+04.82 - 56.5 - 41.5
District 7 D+36.23 - 84.0 - 14.5
District 8 D+09.14 - 58.3 - 40.2
District 9 D+06.44 - 57.2 - 41.0
District 10 D+05.73 - 57.5 - 40.6

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Hawaii Non-Partisan plan.

District 1 D+18.23 - 70.8 - 27.8
District 2 D+17.83 - 73.0 - 25.3