MI maps - muon2 scoring

[jimrtex]

So at this point there are 13 plans, so let's see if we can find a relationship between chop and erosity scores. To get the relationship I need to extract the Pareto optimal plans.

If I use the original raw CHOP and EROSITY there are three plans that rise to the top.
muon2 B: C 8, E 116
Torie C: C 12, E 95
Torie B: C 13, E 94

Could you show a chart?

[jimrtex]

So at this point there are 13 plans, so let's see if we can find a relationship between chop and erosity scores. To get the relationship I need to extract the Pareto optimal plans.

Are the 13 plans:

Torie 2015 (A, B, C, D, E, F)
Train 2015 (A2, A3, B, C, D)
Muon2 2015 (A2, B)?

[jimrtex]

So at this point there are 13 plans, so let's see if we can find a relationship between chop and erosity scores. To get the relationship I need to extract the Pareto optimal plans.

Are the 13 plans:

Torie 2015 (A, B, C, D, E, F)
Train 2015 (A2, A3, B, C, D)
Muon2 2015 (A2, B)?

Not train A2 (it was subsumed into A3), but I did score your joint submission with Torie as jimrtex A.

That's good, since I scored A2.

[jimrtex]

So at this point there are 13 plans, so let's see if we can find a relationship between chop and erosity scores. To get the relationship I need to extract the Pareto optimal plans.

If I use the original raw CHOP and EROSITY there are three plans that rise to the top.
muon2 B: C 8, E 116
Torie C: C 12, E 95
Torie B: C 13, E 94

Could you show a chart?

For the first comparison in the above quote I used the following table.

Plan	range INEQUALITY	raw CHOP	EROSITY
train A3	10	11		136
train B	10	10		126
train C	10	9		125
train D	10	9		124
Torie A	10	12		106
Torie B	12	13		94
Torie C	12	12		95
Torie D	12	12		99
Torie E	11	12		115
Torie F	11	12		122
jimrtex A	11	12		112
muon2 A	11	9		119
muon2 B	10	8		116

The highlighted rows were Pareto optimal in that there was no plan that could improve on either CHOP or EROSITY without diminishing the other. For example muon2 B improves on both scores cmpared to muon2 A, so I eliminated muon2 A. Torie C improves on EROSITY for the same CHOP as Torie A so it is eliminated. Note this is with the raw CHOP without UCC penalties. INEQUALITY didn't figure into this selection.

Does Pareto optimization require a discrete domain, or can it be continuous.  I suppose you would have to figure out a way that could compare plans that improved one variable, while not significantly degrading another.   That was the impetus between my question about hyperbolic curve fitting, as a way of defining the direction of improvement.

[jimrtex]

Does Pareto optimization require a discrete domain, or can it be continuous.  I suppose you would have to figure out a way that could compare plans that improved one variable, while not significantly degrading another.   That was the impetus between my question about hyperbolic curve fitting, as a way of defining the direction of improvement.

Pareto works fine with continuous variables as well. The rule is that if one plan improves one or more variables compared to another plan, but makes no variable worse, then it is Pareto preferred. I assume that your two variables are the population shift and the perimeter for the regions. Do you have additional variables to score the districts in regions larger than one?

What if it improves one variable, while making another variable slightly worse (for mumbly values of slightly).

As currently conceived, the regional plan would be chosen before there was further refinement.  I am assuming that small changes to Detroit regions, such as adding population from Ingham rather than Sanilac, Lapeer, or Genesee will  make no material difference to the Detroit districts (we are only adding about 4% of a quota).

[jimrtex]

As currently conceived, the regional plan would be chosen before there was further refinement.  I am assuming that small changes to Detroit regions, such as adding population from Ingham rather than Sanilac, Lapeer, or Genesee will  make no material difference to the Detroit districts (we are only adding about 4% of a quota).

I understand that a regional plan might be chosen first, but there still has to be a way to score the subregional plans once the regional plan is selected. There are lots of ways to carve up the Detroit districts and where the extra population is attached will affect the districts, especially if the additional population is greater than the allowable deviation.

Let's say you have a map that puts two districts in Wayne, and another across the Wayne/Oakland border.   That puts another district in Livingston+Oakland, with 0.563 left over.
Place one district in Macomb, which leaves 0.191.   Add in St.Clair.  If the extra 0.40 comes from Lapeer it gets added in as well.

But let's say that 0.25 comes from Ingham.  That will give you 0.25 more left over in Oakland.  So you are moving the border in northern Oakland a little bit.   And you can still come across the Macomb-Wayne line to grab the Grosse Point's which shifts the boundary in Oakland County a litte further east.

[jimrtex]

Non-partisan redistricting is an interesting concept, one I am open to.  It's interesting an attempt is being made here to do that.
That's of course in the event that a law was passed that required House seats to be drawn with presidential voting in mind.  That's my favorite alternative to the current system - which I am not sure about on whether I want it reformed or not.

California and Florida do not permit use of political data, including locations of incumbents, except when used in conjunction with racial or ethnic minorities.  Arizona requires creation of competitive districts if possible.

[jimrtex]

Anyway, for scoring,  "your" map is below (as best I could draw it), avoiding subunit chops, assuming that they are penalized in the chop score (as they should be). I must admit "your" MI-04 achieves absolute perfection.


MI jimrtex 2015A

It wasn't really "my" map.  I found a map on the Internet, and was using it for example.  You've jumped ahead to the next step.  But your going back and forth about whether it is better to split Eaton or Ingham illustrates a weakness of a single comprehensive stage.  It become exceedingly complex when trying to consider where the boundary should be between Grand Rapids and Lansing, when it is somehow tied to the division of Hamtramck.   If your statewide map had been approved, then there could be a simple focused discussion on where to get 13,647 persons, where all the options might be considered.

The switch of Osceola (not Missaukee) was automatic.  When a single county on a boundary can be switched and improve the equality between the two districts, then it is shifted.  The algorithm is simple.   Determine counties in the more populous district that have less population than the difference.   Choose the one that reduces the difference the most, while not breaking contiguity.

I had noticed that the shift of Missaukee would produce a 3rd district within 0.5% bounds.  I'll submit it as a joint effort.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

INEQUALITY 11 (range), 9 (ave dev) (range 5977, ave dev 1257) [11/9 in Torie D]
CHOP 12 raw (UC 14, UP 16, US 17) [12/13/14/16 Torie D]
EROSITY 112 (changes 1/2:5[6], 1/4:5[5], 2/3:10[2], 2/4:5[5], 3/4:4[2], 3/5:1[0], 3/8:5[3], 4/5:4[4], 4/8:0[1], 5/8:0[1], 5/10:4[3], 5/11:4[3], 8/11:1[1], 10/11:11[10] net +13) [99 in Torie D]

Shifting the chop from Saginaw to Ingham doesn't affect the raw CHOP, but does increase the UCC cover count, though if single county UCCs are counted it's a wash. Note that Kent is now a macrochop so erosity increases there, plus the other shofts tend to hurt erosity as well.

Shifting the chop from Clinton to Eaton increases the ave dev INEQUALITY to 10 and leaves the CHOP the same. The EROSITY drops to 110.

Edit: The chop into Ingham decreases the Detroit UCC pack from 5 to 4 so the UP score goes up an additional 1 beyond the 1 for GR.

When you originally split the Lansing UCC, you went all the way to the Ingham-Eaton line.  There is clear distinction between that, and chopping 5% of the county's population.

I don't see any difference in a policy standpoint from having two districts extending outside the Detroit UCC, and just one.  Keeping whole districts within a county might make sense for the Ohio and Texas houses, where you have many house districts, per county.  And in Ohio, it was the only part of the constitution that they followed faithfully since it was an absolute standard.

The main difference between our scoring systems is that I'm focusing on trying to achieve whole county districts, and stranding the minimum number of people outside their counties.  I think we should compare to West Virginia rather than Iowa.  First and foremost, we want to have whole county districts.   If we can achieve this in multiple ways, we prefer less erose maps.  But if we can't achieve whole county districts, shouldn't we try to make the smallest adjustments, rather than try to drive down to Iowa equality standards, just because we can once we breach county boundaries?

[jimrtex]

Anyway, for scoring,  "your" map is below (as best I could draw it), avoiding subunit chops, assuming that they are penalized in the chop score (as they should be). I must admit "your" MI-04 achieves absolute perfection.


MI jimrtex 2015A

It wasn't really "my" map.  I found a map on the Internet, and was using it for example.  You've jumped ahead to the next step.  But your going back and forth about whether it is better to split Eaton or Ingham illustrates a weakness of a single comprehensive stage.  It become exceedingly complex when trying to consider where the boundary should be between Grand Rapids and Lansing, when it is somehow tied to the division of Hamtramck.   If your statewide map had been approved, then there could be a simple focused discussion on where to get 13,647 persons, where all the options might be considered.

The switch of Osceola (not Missaukee) was automatic.  When a single county on a boundary can be switched and improve the equality between the two districts, then it is shifted.  The algorithm is simple.   Determine counties in the more populous district that have less population than the difference.   Choose the one that reduces the difference the most, while not breaking contiguity.

I had noticed that the shift of Missaukee would produce a 3rd district within 0.5% bounds.  I'll submit it as a joint effort.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

INEQUALITY 11 (range), 9 (ave dev) (range 5977, ave dev 1257) [11/9 in Torie D]
CHOP 12 raw (UC 14, UP 16, US 17) [12/13/14/16 Torie D]
EROSITY 112 (changes 1/2:5[6], 1/4:5[5], 2/3:10[2], 2/4:5[5], 3/4:4[2], 3/5:1[0], 3/8:5[3], 4/5:4[4], 4/8:0[1], 5/8:0[1], 5/10:4[3], 5/11:4[3], 8/11:1[1], 10/11:11[10] net +13) [99 in Torie D]

Shifting the chop from Saginaw to Ingham doesn't affect the raw CHOP, but does increase the UCC cover count, though if single county UCCs are counted it's a wash. Note that Kent is now a macrochop so erosity increases there, plus the other shofts tend to hurt erosity as well.

Shifting the chop from Clinton to Eaton increases the ave dev INEQUALITY to 10 and leaves the CHOP the same. The EROSITY drops to 110.

Edit: The chop into Ingham decreases the Detroit UCC pack from 5 to 4 so the UP score goes up an additional 1 beyond the 1 for GR.

When you originally split the Lansing UCC, you went all the way to the Ingham-Eaton line.  There is clear distinction between that, and chopping 5% of the county's population.

I don't see any difference in a policy standpoint from having two districts extending outside the Detroit UCC, and just one.  Keeping whole districts within a county might make sense for the Ohio and Texas houses, where you have many house districts, per county.  And in Ohio, it was the only part of the constitution that they followed faithfully since it was an absolute standard.

The main difference between our scoring systems is that I'm focusing on trying to achieve whole county districts, and stranding the minimum number of people outside their counties.  I think we should compare to West Virginia rather than Iowa.  First and foremost, we want to have whole county districts.   If we can achieve this in multiple ways, we prefer less erose maps.  But if we can't achieve whole county districts, shouldn't we try to make the smallest adjustments, rather than try to drive down to Iowa equality standards, just because we can once we breach county boundaries?

I understand what you are suggesting and that is equivalent to saying that there is a priority among criteria. I agree that there are states that approach it that way. I am suggesting a model that balances criteria with little priority between them. The result would be a small set of balanced alternatives that would go to a commission or legislature for final selection.

For example, Torie's plans use more chops than others, but push erosity quite low. train's plans choose to preserve counties and UCCs, but tend to be more erose. I'm ok with both types of plans going forward. In your model UCC preservation becomes so strongly favored that it is hard to see if there are reasonable trades to make in other parameters that violate UCCs.

You must not understand my model to suggest that I favor UCC's over other "reasonable" trades.

While you claim that your approach is balanced, you disregard the magnitude of chops.  Why, in your opinion, should county splits be disfavored?

Let me suggest a simpler model for UCC chops that doesn't entail all the complexity of your scoring.

An excessive UCC chop is when there are more districts that contain a portion of the UCC, than the minimum necessary.   The excessive chops are the county parts of the excess districts with the smallest share of the UCC population.   

For example, if the 7th district in the Detroit UCC included a portion of Livingston in the 7th district, the chop is the portion in the 7th district, even if it is the major portion, or entirety of the county.  If the 7th district included all of Livingston and a portion of the Oakland than this would be scored as two excessive UCC chops.

A county remnant is the portion of a county that remains after an excessive UCC chop.

An excessive UCC chop is a primary chop.

An excessive county chop is when there are more districts that contain a portion of a county (or county remnant) than the minimum necessary.  The excessive chops are the county parts with the smallest share of the county (or county) remnant population.

An excessive county chop is a primary chop.

Note: For a single-county UCC, the chop would be scored as an excessive UCC chop, and not a county chop.  However, for simplicity of understanding, we could only have excessive UCC chops in multi-county UCCs.

It is possible to have excessive county chops and excessive UCC chops in a UCC.  For example, imagine that an excessive UCC chop took enough of Macomb County such that the remnant of the county had a population less than the quota.  Then if the remnant were divided between two districts, the smaller portion would be an excessive county chop.

Then, in my opinion, the criterion that should be considered is the population in primary chops, and not the number of chops.   In a state like Iowa or West Virginia, the population in primary chops will be zero, at which point, population equality may be used in its place.

[jimrtex]

You must not understand my model to suggest that I favor UCC's over other "reasonable" trades.

While you claim that your approach is balanced, you disregard the magnitude of chops.  Why, in your opinion, should county splits be disfavored?

In state after state that I see, splits of counties and munis are the things that appear in reports and in the media. It isn't the size of the split that first matters, just that there is a split.

But people vote, not cities or counties.  Isn't the fundamental harm of county chops that they crack political communities.  People are disassociated from their neighbors.   Candidates may not visit the county because there are fewer votes available.   The political base is split.

When counties must be split, shouldn't the harm to voters be minimized?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In terms of counting chops, I don't see how this differs from what I do, other than it starts at the minimum number of districts for a large county. It seems the same for the UCC until one gets to the point of counting the population in the chop as opposed to the chop itself. It also doesn't address the concern about fanning out from a UCC that is addressed by looking at the pack count as well as the cover count.
[/quote]
If you have a 7th district coming into the Detroit UCC, one or more of the other districts will be forced to fan out.  But that is only to the extent of the size of the excess chop from the 7th district.  That is why chop size matters.

If there are only 3 districts in Wayne County, it is a matter of necessity.  I don't see the point of assessing what would reasonably perceived as penalty points for doing what is necessary.