Temporal Weighted Apportionment

[muon2]

I think you are saying that a district that gets 3.2 representatives has 3 representatives in each Congress for that decade and 1 representative for one of the Congresses that decade. Who decides in which Congress that happens? You mention regional balance. Are the regions predefined?

[muon2]

How does this translate to actual people serving in Congress? Suppose there is a district assigned 3.4 seats.

Do three people get the potential to serve for the full decade while one other might have to serve, retire for a term or two then come back?

Does the gap rotate with the seats? eg. seat A serves in terms 1,2,3, 4 and 5; seat B in 1,2,3 and 4; seat C in terms 1,2,4 and 5; seat D in 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Are the seats all filled by the best three or four at each cycle or by proportional vote each cycle, so there is no tie of people to seats?

In a complex body like Congress there's a tremendous advantage to have served more than a couple of terms. It takes time to learn the people and operations. Members with experience will tend to be more effective for their constituents.

[muon2]

Illinois is entitled to 28 representatives, with between six and 9 districts.





The Chicago UCC has enough for 18.66 districts, with 9.34 for the remainder of the state. The remainder of the state can be divided into two or three districts. The three districts would be quite near the minimum, while two districts would be near the maximum.

Starting from Rockford and picking up the Quad Cities area, it was clear that Peoria would be needed to get to the 3.00 minimum. Coming up from the south included the Carbondale and St.Louis suburbs.
This left a third district with Springfield, Decatur, Champaign-Urbana, Bloomington, and the southern exurbs of Chicago.

The initial version had the middle district extending to the Mississippi. The final version has more of an eastern Illinois flavor, with a bump out to include Springfield, while the northern (or western) district and southern districts include all of the Mississippi.

Cook County is entitled to 11.34 representatives. This splits into a Chicago and a non-Chicago (Cook County) district that takes advantage of the 6.0 limit to keep states, UCCs, counties, etc. within a single district. Their are not many options splitting the suburban counties, since the Cook panhandle cuts DuPage off from the north. Kendall was placed in the northern district based on a perception of a stronger connection to Kane than Will counties. If Kendall has a stronger connection to Will, and indirectly to DuPage, it could be switched.

1701 - Chicago - 6.0 representatives.

1702 - Cook County - 5.4 representatives.

1703 - DuPage-Will - 3.6 representatives.

1704 - Chicagoland North-West - 3.8 representatives.

1705 - Northern Illinois or Western Illinois - 3.2 representatives.

1706 - Eastern Illinois or Central Illinois - 3.0 representatives.

1707 - Southern Illinois - 3.0 representatives.

Kendall and DeKalb are together in the same judicial circuit, and until recently they were both in the same circuit as Kane. The Metro West municipal council of governments includes Kane, Kendall and DeKalb. I think your arrangement for the collars is fine.

Since judges are elected in IL the judicial system might be a reasonable way to divide the downstate area. In this split the southern region (1.321 M) exactly matches the 5th Appellate Court and its included circuit courts. The central region (1.463 M) includes all of the 4th Appellate Court plus the 21st Circuit Court (Iroquois and Kankakee). The northern region (1.510 M) includes all the remaining parts of the 2nd and 3rd Appellate Court not in the Chicago UCC or the 21st Circuit.

I'm not sure how low in population you can go including rounding. So if the southern region is too low you could shift Macoupin and Jersey, splitting the 7th Circuit Court, but equalizing the population between those two regions.

[muon2]

I know some judges who ride, but probably not on their judicial circuit.

BTW, how would the Chicago and Cook delegations be elected to conform with the VRA?

[muon2]

I think the second one makes more sense. I like that it keeps the Saginaw Midland Bay City area together.

[muon2]

Why not put Highlands, Hardee, and DeSoto with Palm Beach? It balances the population better and keeps the interior counties of south FL together.

[muon2]

Why not put Highlands, Hardee, and DeSoto with Palm Beach? It balances the population better and keeps the interior counties of south FL together.

I associate Highlands with Polk. 62% of the county population is in the Sebring-Avon Park UA which is in the extreme northeastern part of the county.

The extension of Palm Beach was only to get enough population for a district, and to recognize Lake Okeechobee as a focus for a small part of the Palm Beach population that is itself isolated from the bulk of the county.

From my travels there, Sebring is well separated from Lake Wales and the farther points of Polk. Polk is very much an I-4 county, not shared by the three rural counties to the south. I view it more as grouping the six inland south counties together, separate from central FL. They go with Palm Beach only because Palm Beach needs the extra population.