Fair redistricting: New York

[jimrtex]

I misread the deadline as 8 pm.

Maine 1 (whole counties)

ME-1 +1.19%
ME-2 -1.19%
Standard Deviation 1.19%

ME-1 1.00R
ME-2 6.94D

Narrative:

Uses whole counties, and keeps Portland UCC (Cumberland+York) whole. Adds in Androscoggin (Lewiston-Auburn), plus Sagahadoc and Lincoln for population. Most of northern district is connected by I-95, from Augusta through Bangor and places north.

The SCOTUS has never defined what "equal as practicable" means, but has required justification from the state. In 'Kirkpatrick v. Preisler' and 'Karcher v Daggett', there were other factors. For example in 'Kirpatrick v. Preisler' it was pointed out that St.Louis City and County had a population equivalent to 3 districts, but had been divided in four, in other places, simple swaps might have improved the equality (the analysis is confusing, because it appears that improving one district might have made another worse). The state also used the wrong data, and made claims they were accounting for future population changes, but had not made any systematic analysis. They did not claim that at a tiger ate their map.

In 'Karcher v Daggett' the Democrats had hurriedly put together a second map. As in Missouri, swapping towns could improve equality. The state claimed the equality was within the MOE for the census population. But that simply does not matter. if the two estimates are within say 2%, and the MOE for each is 3%, then that causes the possibility of even greater inequality. It is better to assume the census data is 100% correct. Justice Stephens in his concurrence suggests that the map was a partisan gerrymander. He was the decisive vote in a 5:4 decision.

It appears that map-drawers interpreted 'Karcher v Doggett' as meaning, "there is no way that you can satisfy the SCOTUS". The district judge cited Bob Dylan as forming the basis for her reasoning.
The SCOTUS categorically rejected that viewpoiint in "Tennant v Jefferson County", where they did not even bother with oral arguments.

There is no evidence that the map drawer deviated from the lodestar of practicable equality. After placing Cumberland and York in one district, other combinations of counties were tried, and no other combination approached the level of equality, unless there are bizarre combinations that would bypass both Androscoggin and Kennebec. The 1.19% deviation is less than half the population of the least populous county of Piscataquis. There is no evidence that political factors influenced the boundary, It was only in transcribing the map into DRA that I even knew what the result would be.

The commission should approve this map. There is always the pandermander solution of moving Monmouth and Litchfield if necessary to dupe the SCOTUS.

[jimrtex]

4) Second round: The remaining maps are ranked à la instant runoff and the most popular map wins

I suggest that Condorcet be used. Each panel member ranks the proposals, just like under IRV (all proposals must be ranked). You then calculate the pairwise preference for each combination of two proposals. (e.g. how many panelists prefer proposal A to proposal B, and vice versa). The proposal that has more support is considered the "winner" for that pair. You can keep standings, and the proposal with the best record wins. This will help out a proposal that is everyone's second choice, but nobody's first choice, which is eliminated under IRV.

[jimrtex]

The Panel has voted and if we're using a ranked choice system here going 4, 3, 2, 1, 0 the results are as follows:

Torie- 13
Muon- 11
TimTurner- 10
Singletxguyforfun- 8
StarPaul- 8

These are unoffical, I may have made a mistake, but if someone can second confirm this, Torie's map is the winner for Maine!

Next we're off to my homestate of New Hampshire!

This is known as a Borda count.

An alternative method is to add up the rankings, with the lowest score winning. If R_i is the ranking for a candidate by theith, then the score that you are using is (5-R_i).

The score you are assigning is 25-sum(R).

Summing ranks the results are:

Torie 12
Muon 14
TimTurner 15
Singletxguyforfun 17
StarPaul 17

Which you can confirm are 25 - sums you calculated.

[jimrtex]

I find it bothersome that of the 5 maps that made it to the final round for Maine, the winning map was the map (and the only map) that had more than 1000 population deviation, which I believe should be a hard cap at what is allowed.

We do have a cap but it varies. It’s always no more than 0.5% though so 1000 falls under that threshold

The SCOTUS has said that their can be NO de minimis standard.

Swapping Otisfield for Fryeburg would reduce deviation to 290.

Once the Maine commission decided to require breaching of a county border, what standard were they using?

[jimrtex]

New Hampshire has regional planning commissions, which correspond to planning regions delineated by the Office of Strategic Initiatives, in consultation with the towns. County governments are relative weak in New Hampshire, with limited delegated responsibilities (sheriff, nursing homes, and prisons). The planning regions represent modern economic reality, with strong ties to transportation links for commuting and shopping.



The three southeastern regions: Nashua, Southern (Manchester), and Rockingham (Portsmouth) have a population equivalent to 1.004 districts. Nashua and Manchester are closely linked, and along with Rockingham have the closest ties to Boston.

To equalize population, Francestown and Mason on the western fringe of the Manchester and Nashua areas were moved to District 1. I did not attempt swaps that would have brought rural towns into an urban district at the expense of urban voters being expelled from their community of interest in a moronic pursuit of population equality.

Piercemander





Population Deviiation;

1 (North): +0.09%
2 (South): -0.09%

Standard Deviation 0.09%

PVI

1 (North) 2.97 D
2 (South) 3.01 R

[jimrtex]

One of the criteria is that towns be not merely contiguous, but also connected.

It is?

Also, *update* New Hampshire submissions will only be open for one day instead of two (we pretty much already have all the possible schemes); this will probably go for most small states. Rhode Island and Connecticut have also moved ahead of Massachusetts in the state order now.

BAD IDEA

You're not the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. I happened to have finished my NH map, and decided to go ahead and submit it today. But I might not have and would have missed out.

As an alternative, set the deadlines for future states NOW, with the following RULE. If you post a map prior to the period of active consideration, then it will be disqualified. So you might set the deadlines for RI as 2/20; CT 2/22; MA 2/25 and be thinking about deadlines for NJ and PA.

Perhaps you can sweet talk the moderators into having more threads. While the panel is evaluating NH plans, open a thread for submission of RI plans. The NH thread could continue to be used for post mortem discussion.

So you might end up with threads for:

General Discussion.
ME-NH-PA-GA-KY
RI-MD-WV-IL
CT-VA-OH-WI
MA-NC-MI-MN
NJ-SC-IN-IA

Or perhaps you could regionalize the threads, and be skipping around the country.

Northeast: Census Northeast Region + MD (9 states 85 districts)
Midwest: Census Midwest Region (10 states 92 districts)
Southeast: South Atlantic (VA to FL) + WV and AL (7 states 82 districts)
Southwest: Remainder of Census South Region + AZ and NM (9 states 82 districts)
West: Census West Region minus AZ and NM (8 states 87 districts)

You could initiate each thread with smaller states like NE, WV, NM, and ID and then continue on in each:

ME-NH-RI-CT-MA-NJ-MD-PA-NY
WV-AL-SC-VA-NC-GA-FL
NE-KS-IA-MN-WI-MO-IN-MI-OH-IL
NM-MS-AR-OK-KY-LA-TN-AZ-TX
ID-HI-UT-NV-OR-CO-WA-CA

[jimrtex]

I happened to have finished my NH map, and decided to go ahead and submit it today. But I might not have and would have missed out.

24 hours is honestly enough time for a smol 2-district state. I always have the current status easily accessible in the OP. there aren't many ways to draw NH; we already have pretty much every viable plan and we need to move quickly. the point is that one is supposed to have these maps ready to submit, not wait until the deadline is imminent each time to make the map. this was specified in the OP. of course, there will be 2+ days for bigger/average states

I don't see what honesty has to do with it. You announced a deadline, then changed it to a day earlier. As I noted, I had drawn the map two days before the deadline, and had even transcribed it to the DRA Paint Program. I don't ordinarily re-read the first message in a thread, as it will lose the place marker for new messages, and this will become increasingly unlikely as other states are added.

I suggested a way of handling multiple states at once.

[jimrtex]

is it possible I could join this?

Anyone can submit a plan, assuming they know how to use DRA.

There are 5 "commissioners" who are evaluating plans and choosing plans from among plans submitted by the "public". So you can be part of the "public" and submit a plan, or also comment on plans submitted by other public persons. Some of the commissioners are also submitting plans, but that is up to them, and presumably they are evaluating them objectively.

It is too late for NH, but you could be drawing a map for RI, CT, or MA.

[jimrtex]

I believe this is the final table for NH. The SPICE scores allow simple comparison between plans. They aren't designed to pick a winner, but they are designed to weed out weak plans.

The usual way to interpret the scores is that if any plan has values that are in at least one case higher and in no case lower than another plan then it would be eliminated from consideration. I've highlighted those plans in the table. For example Starpaul20 has higher inequality and erosity than HCP while all other values are equal (red). Starpaul20 would be eliminated based on its SPICE scores. Similarly TimTurner and LimoLiberal are eliminated by muon2-A on chops and erosity (green). jimrtex would be eliminated by cvparty on polarization, inequality and erosity (blue). By using a smaller set of scores, such as just one of the chop scores or ignoring the polarization additional eliminations can be made to get a final competition set for voting.

Here's a table for the submitted NH plans as I fill each in. The erosity is based on the town connection map. The NECTA chop is based on the NECTA map reflecting Census groupings of towns. The key is S:Skew, P:Polarization, I:Inequality, CC:Chop (Counties/UCC), CN:Chop (NECTA), E:Erosity. Low scores are better.

Plan	-S-	-P-	-I-	-CC	-CN	-E-
Solid4096	0	0	5	1	4	29
Singletxguyforfun	0	2	4	3	2	21
TimTurner	0	0	2	3	4	30
cvparty	0	0	4	4	3	23
Sol	0	0	3	5	3	20
HCP	0	2	2	2	2	25
LimoLiberal	0	0	3	2	4	30
Starpaul20	0	2	3	2	2	27
Gallatine	0	2	7	4	2	19
muon2-A	0	0	2	1	4	28
muon2-B	0	2	1	4	0	24
jimrtex	0	2	5	4	3	24

Edit: Solid4096 was overlooked and is now added. It would also be eliminated based on SPICE scores from muon2-A.

NECTA's are arbitrary because they largely ignore commuting patterns.

Conjoined Urbanized Areas were separated based on pre-2000 MSA's. Remember that before 2000, MSA's in New England were town-based. Beginning with the 2000 Census, urban areas were delineated based on continuous semi-dense settlement. This in effect would produce a Bosnywash urbanized area stretching from Portland to Richmond. To avoid this, the Census Bureau decided to separate urbanized areas based on the pre-2000 MSA's. NECTA's are based on the urban areas at their core. Because of the scale of towns and also patterns of development and settlement fewer non-densely settled areas are captured based solely on commuting.

This is not analogous to UCC's since even when there is a non-separated urbanized area grandfathered (see Livingston, MI) the proto-MSA can be captured based on commuting. But that is not possible with NECTA's, since Nashua is too big to be captured by Manchester and vice versa.

The NECTA boundary between Springfield and Hartford is clearly misplaced based on commuting patterns (there is only one town in Connecticut where people mostly drive north in the morning).

Since one of the prime responsibilities of RPC's is transportation planning, they inherently provide better definitions of communities of interest.

If the goal is blind equality at the expense of community of interest, then add Dunbar to NH-2, put Francestown back in NH-2, and move Wilton to NH-1.



NH-1 (north) -0.004%
NH-2 (south) +0.004%

Standard Deviation 0.004%

NH-1 (north) D 3.02%
NH-2 (south) R 3.04%

[jimrtex]

I believe this is the final table for NH. The SPICE scores allow simple comparison between plans. They aren't designed to pick a winner, but they are designed to weed out weak plans.

The usual way to interpret the scores is that if any plan has values that are in at least one case higher and in no case lower than another plan then it would be eliminated from consideration. I've highlighted those plans in the table. For example Starpaul20 has higher inequality and erosity than HCP while all other values are equal (red). Starpaul20 would be eliminated based on its SPICE scores. Similarly TimTurner and LimoLiberal are eliminated by muon2-A on chops and erosity (green). jimrtex would be eliminated by cvparty on polarization, inequality and erosity (blue). By using a smaller set of scores, such as just one of the chop scores or ignoring the polarization additional eliminations can be made to get a final competition set for voting.

Here's a table for the submitted NH plans as I fill each in. The erosity is based on the town connection map. The NECTA chop is based on the NECTA map reflecting Census groupings of towns. The key is S:Skew, P:Polarization, I:Inequality, CC:Chop (Counties/UCC), CN:Chop (NECTA), E:Erosity. Low scores are better.

Plan	-S-	-P-	-I-	-CC	-CN	-E-
Solid4096	0	0	5	1	4	29
Singletxguyforfun	0	2	4	3	2	21
TimTurner	0	0	2	3	4	30
cvparty	0	0	4	4	3	23
Sol	0	0	3	5	3	20
HCP	0	2	2	2	2	25
LimoLiberal	0	0	3	2	4	30
Starpaul20	0	2	3	2	2	27
Gallatine	0	2	7	4	2	19
muon2-A	0	0	2	1	4	28
muon2-B	0	2	1	4	0	24
jimrtex	0	2	5	4	3	24

Edit: Solid4096 was overlooked and is now added. It would also be eliminated based on SPICE scores from muon2-A.

Does this say that Gallatine could not be beaten so long as no one beat his erosity score?

[jimrtex]

Okay, I'm probably going to start a buncha regional threads to speed up this process, although we need to gather a functional, active panel first. How does this look?

You might want to distinguish the panels on some common elements. 20 states have Census-defined county subdivisions recognized by their states, and the rest don't. With a few switches you can group those together. I've kept IA in the Midwest since they only recently dropped their minor civil divisions with the Census. I split the large southern region into two so that TX and FL are in different threads.

This could balance the groups more (the switch of MD takes in account that we've already done two Northeastern states.

Northeast 81/7
Midwest 92/10
South Atlantic 82/7
Southwest 82/9
West 87/8

[jimrtex]

Everyone's map passes lmao

Maybe the first two steps can be combined. Let no judge approve more than half the submitted plans, and then go to the ranking phase.

[jimrtex]

NECTA's are arbitrary because they largely ignore commuting patterns.

Conjoined Urbanized Areas were separated based on pre-2000 MSA's. Remember that before 2000, MSA's in New England were town-based. Beginning with the 2000 Census, urban areas were delineated based on continuous semi-dense settlement. This in effect would produce a Bosnywash urbanized area stretching from Portland to Richmond. To avoid this, the Census Bureau decided to separate urbanized areas based on the pre-2000 MSA's. NECTA's are based on the urban areas at their core. Because of the scale of towns and also patterns of development and settlement fewer non-densely settled areas are captured based solely on commuting.

This is not analogous to UCC's since even when there is a non-separated urbanized area grandfathered (see Livingston, MI) the proto-MSA can be captured based on commuting. But that is not possible with NECTA's, since Nashua is too big to be captured by Manchester and vice versa.

The NECTA boundary between Springfield and Hartford is clearly misplaced based on commuting patterns (there is only one town in Connecticut where people mostly drive north in the morning).

Since one of the prime responsibilities of RPC's is transportation planning, they inherently provide better definitions of communities of interest.

The UCCs are a refinement of the Census MSAs that we originally looked at for determining clusters of counties that represented a community of interest. Nominally the NECTAs are based on the same analysis by the Census as MSAs, at least as I read their defintions:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just as there are MSAs where we might spot individual counties that might be better placed elsewhere, I have no doubt that we might find towns that look like they should go elsewhere based on state planning documents. We didn't do that with the MSAs as they became UCCs because that would remove the objective standard developed by the Census. However, if we wanted to take on the exercise of refining the NECTAs using the MSA to UCC metrics that would be a logical step.

It is not clear that analogous criteria were used. The Census Delineation tables do not define Central and Outlying towns for NECTA.

The reason we did not use MSA's (rather than UCC's) is that MSA's can include remote rural areas based on commuting. Adjacent areas with a modest city may be able to have enough local jobs that the percentage of commuters is low. Mille Lacs does not belong with the Twin Cities. If you rented a B&B during the Super Bowl that included transportation, you would likely find that the transportation was a dog sled. But it is possible that NECTA's include towns based on commuting.

The reason we did not use Central Counties (rather than UCC's) is that the Central Counties are defined based on the footprint of Urbanized Areas which form the "core" of a Core-Based Statistical Area. When the delineation of Urbanized Areas was changed in 2000 to be based strictly on continuous population density, existing Urbanized Areas were grandfathered in, and the separation was based on county lines associated with previous MSA's. Thus you have the South Lyon-Howell Urbanized Area roughly based in Livingston County (though bizarrely South Lyon is in Oakland County). So Livingston ended up as the Central County of a proto-MSA. The entire MSA was captured by Detroit MSA based on commuting, and Livingston was converted to an Outlying County.

But the UCC definition captures the two concepts of dense settlement and economic links measured by commuting. There is a community of interest because of the continuous settlement and cross-border commuting.

This does not work for NECTA's because (1) the Urbanized Area footprint does not match actual commuting patterns, and once the proto-NECTA are defined, they are too large to flip (or you ignored that they were flipped). There is no Nashua NECTA. There is a Nashua Urbanized Area, but the proto-NECTA was captured by the Boston NECTA. You used a NECTA division. But we didn't use Metropolitan Divisions for UCCs.

Just because a criteria is objective does not necessarily mean that it is rational or has utility. It just means that it can be judged by two individuals, and be scored the same way. Consider the three-point line in basketball. Different referees should be able to determine whether the shooter's feet were behind the line, and whether a basket is scored or not. We don't add style points or shot difficulty. In fact, teams often endeavor to make the easiest possible shot.

While it is an objective criteria, it is subjective whether there should be a 3-poiint FG, or where the line should be placed. Different variants of basketball rules have placed the line at different locations.

Let's assume we want a regional community of interest measure. In New England, counties are not that useful because government was never organized on a county basis. In New Hampshire, counties are only responsible for the sheriff, nursery homes, and prisons, functions that can not be handled at the town level. Counties have been abolished in Connecticut, and in most of Massachusetts. In both, court jurisdictions sometimes follow the former counties, but that is all.

Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Massachusetts have well defined regional planning commissions recognized by statute (I don't know if your thoughts on this issue is affected by Illinois's lack of structure in this regard).

[jimrtex]

I believe this is the final table for NH. The SPICE scores allow simple comparison between plans. They aren't designed to pick a winner, but they are designed to weed out weak plans.

The usual way to interpret the scores is that if any plan has values that are in at least one case higher and in no case lower than another plan then it would be eliminated from consideration. I've highlighted those plans in the table. For example Starpaul20 has higher inequality and erosity than HCP while all other values are equal (red). Starpaul20 would be eliminated based on its SPICE scores. Similarly TimTurner and LimoLiberal are eliminated by muon2-A on chops and erosity (green). jimrtex would be eliminated by cvparty on polarization, inequality and erosity (blue). By using a smaller set of scores, such as just one of the chop scores or ignoring the polarization additional eliminations can be made to get a final competition set for voting.

Here's a table for the submitted NH plans as I fill each in. The erosity is based on the town connection map. The NECTA chop is based on the NECTA map reflecting Census groupings of towns. The key is S:Skew, P:Polarization, I:Inequality, CC:Chop (Counties/UCC), CN:Chop (NECTA), E:Erosity. Low scores are better.

Plan	-S-	-P-	-I-	-CC	-CN	-E-
Solid4096	0	0	5	1	4	29
Singletxguyforfun	0	2	4	3	2	21
TimTurner	0	0	2	3	4	30
cvparty	0	0	4	4	3	23
Sol	0	0	3	5	3	20
HCP	0	2	2	2	2	25
LimoLiberal	0	0	3	2	4	30
Starpaul20	0	2	3	2	2	27
Gallatine	0	2	7	4	2	19
muon2-A	0	0	2	1	4	28
muon2-B	0	2	1	4	0	24
jimrtex	0	2	5	4	3	24

Edit: Solid4096 was overlooked and is now added. It would also be eliminated based on SPICE scores from muon2-A.

Does this say that Gallatine could not be beaten so long as no one beat his erosity score?

The elimination is based on Pareto equivalency. Any plan that is best in a particular aspect is guaranteed to survive. Another plan might also survive if surpasses in one aspect but not in others, that is if the plan is on the Pareto frontier.

What is the rationale for this?

Is it like we can lease all of the people some of the time, or some of the people all the time, but we can't please all of the people all of the time, and conclude that if we can please one person all the time (or at least more times than all other persons) it is indistinguishable from if we can please more people on one occasion than any other. That is we can not weight the measures?

Would a plan that made Pittsburg town a district, with erosity one (assuming that Pittsburg and Atkinson and Gilmanton Academy are not connected) survive?

What is the basis for using discrete values for the various criteria and providing different resolution for each?

[jimrtex]

Let's assume we want a regional community of interest measure. In New England, counties are not that useful because government was never organized on a county basis. In New Hampshire, counties are only responsible for the sheriff, nursery homes, and prisons, functions that can not be handled at the town level. Counties have been abolished in Connecticut, and in most of Massachusetts. In both, court jurisdictions sometimes follow the former counties, but that is all.

Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Massachusetts have well defined regional planning commissions recognized by statute (I don't know if your thoughts on this issue is affected by Illinois's lack of structure in this regard).

I have no problem with regional planning commissions as a geographic unit. When I look at subdivisions of large cities I first look at their planning departments to see if there are accepted boundaries for such subdivisions.

traininthedistance suggested NECTAs when Sol started on an exercise similar to this one in 2013. I used them on another thread that same month, and hadn't heard a better suggestion to replace UCCs in the New England states. One aspect suggested by train was that NECTAs would avoid purely rural areas much like UCCs.

I had been reviewing your use of NECTA's in Connecticut, but like many things had never completed it. I had played around with basing areas on larger towns, and then adding towns based on commuting direction. You may get into a problem with secondary commuting chaining areas further out (e.g. let's say that people in Kankakee are commuting into Will (Joliet). This provides incomes for people to live in Kankakee, requiring more schools, Walmart's etc. This in turn provides some other people in Iroquois with jobs, and you could reach an never ending expansion.

Nobody commutes into Bridgeport. Bridgeport provides jobs to most people in the city (who have jobs) so it isn't a suburb, but has no suburbs either. Commuting among the towns further west is not strongly directed, in effect it is among exurbs if NYC that have grown to be non-concentrated employment centers.

I don't know that UCC's not including all counties is either a problem or a feature. Larger UCC's are probably large enough to force districts to be concentrated in them either in them or nearby. A significant purpose was to prevent creation of districts stretching outward from the edges of MSA's, either chopping the MSA or pushing inordinate amounts of more rural areas into urban dominate districts.

If there were defined rural communities of interest, then they might provide an alternative to county-based compactness measures.

[jimrtex]

lol sol you ranked every map
but anyway, Gallatine's map wins for New Hampshire! (mine comes in second cri)

Next is Rhode Island COUNTIES DON'T MATTER! You should really focus on towns. Big municipalities like Warwick can be split, but in a sensible way.

For Condorcet

Gal 6-0 (defeated all in pairwise comparisons)
CVP 4-1-1 (defeated all below, except tied Sol)
Sol 3-1-2 (defeated all below, except tied MuA, tied CVP)
Sin 3-3 (defeated all below)
HCP 2-4 (defeated all below)
MuB 1-5 (defeated all below)
MuA 0-5-1 (defeated no one, tied Sol)

For inverted Borda (low score wins)

Gal 15.5
Tie Sol, CVP 17
HCP 19.5
Sin 20
MuA 23
MuB 27

For IRV

Gall 1 1 1 2 3
MuA 1 1 1 1 1
MuB 1 1 1 1 1
HCP 0.5 1 1 1 x
CVP 0.5 0.5 1 x
Sol 0.5 0.5 x
Sin 0.5 x

[jimrtex]

Status

★ Our current state is Rhode Island ★

Submissions are OPEN until 2/23, 12:00 AM EST! Feel free to submit up to TWO maps maximum, add a narrative/explanation to your map, and give feedback on other people's maps!

Is this 0500 UTC 2/23?

[jimrtex]

Map 1 Plantationmander



RI-1 (Providence) -0.89% D 15.51
RI-2 (Wastefulness) +0.89% D 5.18

Features 1 county split; no town splits.

[jimrtex]

Map 2 LittleRhodyMander



RI-1 (Providence) +0.28% R 16.34
RI-2 (Wastefulness) -0.28% R 4.08

No town splits. RI-1 compact includes all of towns adjacent to Providence.

[jimrtex]

y'all didn't include two of the maps...there are ten of them

also, scarlet has told me that she cannot commit as a panelist if anyone is interested in taking her place please notify me.

There are 12 of them. I assume Singletxguyforfun meant to rank the other four (HCP 2/B, TimTurner 2, Kevinstat, and Jimrtex 1) last.

I suggest that you count the Top 6 for each panelist as approval, and then rank any that had approval from three or more panelists.

[jimrtex]

y'all didn't include two of the maps...there are ten of them

also, scarlet has told me that she cannot commit as a panelist if anyone is interested in taking her place please notify me.

There are 12 of them. I assume Singletxguyforfun meant to rank the other four (HCP 2/B, TimTurner 2, Kevinstat, and Jimrtex 1) last.

I suggest that you count the Top 6 for each panelist as approval, and then rank any that had approval from three or more panelists.

I think you are waiting for rankings by Sol, yourself, and the Dem-Replacement.

[jimrtex]

y'all didn't include two of the maps...there are ten of them

also, scarlet has told me that she cannot commit as a panelist if anyone is interested in taking her place please notify me.

There are 12 of them. I assume Singletxguyforfun meant to rank the other four (HCP 2/B, TimTurner 2, Kevinstat, and Jimrtex 1) last.

I suggest that you count the Top 6 for each panelist as approval, and then rank any that had approval from three or more panelists.

I think you are waiting for rankings by Sol, yourself, and the Dem-Replacement.

I was under the impression that we were supposed to submit our votes over PM, which I've already done.

I missed that subtlety. Previously all the votes had been public.

[jimrtex]

y'all didn't include two of the maps...there are ten of them

also, scarlet has told me that she cannot commit as a panelist if anyone is interested in taking her place please notify me.

There are 12 of them. I assume Singletxguyforfun meant to rank the other four (HCP 2/B, TimTurner 2, Kevinstat, and Jimrtex 1) last.

I suggest that you count the Top 6 for each panelist as approval, and then rank any that had approval from three or more panelists.

I think you are waiting for rankings by Sol, yourself, and the Dem-Replacement.

I was under the impression that we were supposed to submit our votes over PM, which I've already done.

I missed that subtlety. Previously all the votes had been public.

it's nothing shady, it's just so everything's in one place and we don't all have to go posting in all the threads and then I don't have to try to find everyone's scattered votes. the votes for any state can be requested any time if you think I'm rigging them

I just figured you had got busy, and hadn't had a chance to nag.

[jimrtex]

Connecticut has nine regional councils of government.



These were grouped into five areas that very roughly have populations equivalent to a congressional district:



1: (0.985) Western, Northwest Hills
2: (1.073) Metropolitan, Naugatuck Valley
3: (0.797) South Central
4: (1.363) Capitol Region
5: (0.782) Lower Connecticut River Valley, Southeastern, Northeastern

The two western areas are close, and need some tweaks, while the New Haven and eastern areas are short. The Capitol Region has an excess. The regional councils have been reorganized, with the Capitol Region extending eastward from Hartford, likely because of a lack of focus, as you add in Hartford suburbs, the remaining rural areas don't have much population.

Areas 4 and 5 collectively have a population of 2.145, suggesting that Area 5 can make its deficit up from Area 4. Areas 3, 4, and 5 have a population equivalent to 2.942 indicating that they cam form three districts.

CT-1 and CT-2 were adjusted to get close to the ideal size. CT-3 (New Haven was extended nortthward into Beacon and Prospect; then Southington and Berlin. This meant that CT-3 had less less to be shifted east, and in turn CT-5 less to the west.

There were a few swaps to get the populations equal.



CT-1 (Western, Stamford, Norwalk, Danbury, Torrington): +0.20%; D+3.32; A77; H12; B5; As4; O 1.

CT-2 (West Central, Bridgeport Waterbury): -0.04%, D+2.87; A70, H15, B11, As3, O2.

CT-3 (Southern, New Haven, Meriden): +0.19%; D+8.23; A75; H10; B10; As4; O1.

CT-4 (Northern, Hartford) -0.12%; D+14.18; A65, H15, B14, As3, O1.

CT-5 (Eastern, New London, Norwich) -0.23%; D+3.89; A85, H6, B4. AS3, O1.

Standard Deviation 0.17%

[jimrtex]

This is an alternative that switches the western districts to north-south, and makes minor changes to the New Haven district.



CT-1 (Coastal, Stamford, Norwalk, Bridgeport): -0.03%; D+8.14; A65, H17, B12, aS5, 02.

CT-2 (Northwest, Danbury, Waterbury, Torrington): +0.25%, R+2.05; A82, H10, B4, As2, O2.

CT-3 (Southern, New Haven, Meriden): +0.13%; D+8.67; A74; H11; B10; As4; O2.

CT-4 (Northern, Hartford) -0.12%; D+14.18; A65, H15, B14, As3, O1.

CT-5 (Eastern, New London, Norwich) -0.23%; D+3.89; A85, H6, B4. AS3, O1.

Standard Deviation 0.17%.