Re-Districting Information for Governors

[Fritz]

As a publice service, I am providing this information to the Governors for use in the re-districting process.  These are the numbers of registered voters in each state, sorted by district, and the number who actually voted in the past election.  Note these registered voter numbers are post-election; newly added registrants not eligible to vote yet have been added, and those removed for voting inactivity are not counted.

The largest disparity appears to be between districts 1 and 2.  D1 is too large, and D2 is too small.  I do not know how/if this can be fixed through re-districting.  D3 and D4 appear to be just the right size, and D5 is just a wee tad small.


State      Registered      Voted
            
DC      1      1
MD      5      3
NY      15      13
PA      12      7
D1      33      24
            
CT      1      1
MA      5      3
ME      2      2
NH      4      3
NJ      2      1
RI      1      1
VT      1      1
D2      16      12
            
IA      5      4
IL      1      1
MI      6      3
MN      4      4
OH      5      1
WI      4      3
WV      1      1
D3      26      17
            
FL      5      2
GA      2      1
MS      3      2
NC      2      2
SC      1      1
TN      1      1
TX      7      5
VA      5      3
D4      26      17
            
AZ      2      1
CA      9      5
HI      1      1
ID      1      1
NM      1      1
OR      1      1
WA      5      5
D5      20      15

Atlasia      121      85

[Fritz]

The only workable re-districting plan I can see is to move DC, Maryland and Delaware from D1 to D2.  D1 would then be New York and Pennsylvania only.  Leave everything else as is.

[minionofmidas]

District one would then be at 21/16. Would that be enough? (You stated that District 5 at 20/15 was a tad too small - does that mean it's a little too small to be constitutional?) If it's not enough, we might add WV as well.

An alternative might be to put CT and RI into the current first and NY into the current 2nd.

Adding something to the fifth is going to be tough - there's no small state to add, it'd have to be Iowa or MN (or TX, but that's even larger). Which would mean that something would have to be added to the third. So, if the fifth is at all constitutional, better leave it as it is. (Much as I'd welcome an influx of non-UAC Iowan or Minnesotan voters...)

[Bono]

The only workable re-districting plan I can see is to move DC, Maryland and Delaware from D1 to D2.  D1 would then be New York and Pennsylvania only.  Leave everything else as is.

I oppose this shameless geryymandering,

[Akno21]

This leaves D1 with 22 and D2 with 27.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Isn't redistricting done only once ever ten months?  Meaning it won't come until after the next presidential election.

[Fritz]

Every four months.  Check the amendment to the constitution that pertains to this.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I can create several different maps where the maximum population distance between districts is only 1,  and with a population of 121, a map with a adifference of 0 is impossible.  Hence, the maximum possible difference between districts for a constitutional map will be 4, so Senator Akno21's proposal will not pass Constitutional muster at present.  However, we need to agree on what basis we shall apportion.  Technically, we're supposed to conduct a Census, not just rely upon the registration rolls which are constantly changing.  Therefore, I propose to my fellow governors that we open a Census thread to be open from Nov.1 to Nov. 15 where those who wish to be counted may be counted.  Alternatively, if we decided to not use a Census thread, I propose that we use the registration as of noon (EST) Nov. 1 as our official census.

Example Map

[Akno21]

This leaves D1 with 22 and D2 with 27.

Make WV Blue. It's within 4 then, Ernest.

[Platypus]

I like Akno's Blue WV proposal the best, for what its worth.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Akno's revised proposal still isn't legal since it has a 20 person District 5.  There is no way for any district to have only 20 people at present, and that would require at least one other district to have 26 or more people which would exceed the max diff of 4.  District 5 will have to grow and the easiest way for that to happen will be to add Minnesota to that District.  Also, since Fritz released his figures we've had a voter (dubya2004) change his registration from Pennsylvania to Georgia which my map reflects.  Since changing registration figures can throw maps that had been legal and underconsideration out of whack, I think that the first order of business for the governors is to decide what will be used as the count.  I'm not so concerned as to what the count is as that it not change while we're trying to make a decision.

[Jake]

Akno's revised proposal still isn't legal since it has a 20 person District 5.  There is no way for any district to have only 20 people at present, and that would require at least one other district to have 26 or more people which would exceed the max diff of 4.  District 5 will have to grow and the easiest way for that to happen will be to add Minnesota to that District.  Also, since Fritz released his figures we've had a voter (dubya2004) change his registration from Pennsylvania to Georgia which my map reflects.  Since changing registration figures can throw maps that had been legal and underconsideration out of whack, I think that the first order of business for the governors is to decide what will be used as the count.  I'm not so concerned as to what the count is as that it not change while we're trying to make a decision.

Sorry if I messed things up.  Just look at it this way, 1 less person in PA.

[Akno21]

Is this any better?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Don't worry about it W2004, people move and register all the time, if it hadn't been you, it would have someone else.

Better, Akno, but still not quite there because now with District 3 at only 21 people and District 5 at 24, the remaining 76 voters force at least one of the remaining districts to have 26 or more voters, so at least 1 voter needs to be added to District 3. and at least 2 more voters if you insist on keeping District 1 as NY, VT, NH, ME, and MA with 27 voters.  With a 27 voter district and 121 voters, the only legal possibilities are:

• 27, 25, 23, 23, 23
• 27, 24, 24, 23, 23

BTW, my example is just that, an example that shows that it is possible to draw a map where the districts differ by only 1, and hence constitutionally, the max difference is three more than that, 4.  I don't particularly care for it myself.

[Akno21]

Is this any better?

[Fritz]

How about this one?

[Colin]

How about this one?

How about you either move Connecticut to D1 or make PA Blue and add the rest of the northeast to New York and Vermont?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Is this any better?

You're keeping D1 at 27 voters so it depends upon whether you count W04 as having moved.  If you don't, then D2 has 23 voters; if you do, then D2 has 22 voters and the plan isn't legal.

How about this one?

Even if W04 is counted as having moved to Georgia, that map still has a 5 voter difference between the largest and smallest districts as I'm counting thongs, so the gap is too large to be legal.

All these plans are nice, but I truly think that the first order of business for there to be a firm decision as to what set of numbers will be used as the census for reapportionment.  Without  that, I think it's going to be too difficult to do the reapportionment.

[Platypus]

District 1 (ME, NH, VT, NY, NJ): 24
District 2 (DC, DE, MD, PA, RI, MA, CT): 24 (23 without W04)
District 3 (VA, WV, KY, OH, IN, IL, MI, WI, MN): 26
District 4 (NM, TX, OK, AR, LA, MS, AL, TN, NC, SC, GA, FL): 23 (24 with W04)
Dstrict 5 (IA, MO, KS, NE, SD, ND, MT, WY, ID, UT, CO, AZ, NV, CA, OR, WA, AK, HI): 24

It's constitutional, at least-but i'd prefer the upper midwest to be united.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

...  I'd prefer the upper midwest to be united.

I doubt if any plan that tries to only evolve the districts we have isn't going to be able keep the upper midwest together as I think you mean that term.  That said, what do you consider to be the upper midwest?  I'm not wedded to keeping the changes to existing districts to a minimum.

[Platypus]

IA, MN, WI as the core; IL and MI as hangers on.

Still, I can accept another proposal. Just checking, is my plan constitutional, and would it meet with the approval of the southeastern governor? (considering it keept the south almost entriely together)

[WMS]

District 1 (ME, NH, VT, NY, NJ): 24
District 2 (DC, DE, MD, PA, RI, MA, CT): 24 (23 without W04)
District 3 (VA, WV, KY, OH, IN, IL, MI, WI, MN): 26
District 4 (NM, TX, OK, AR, LA, MS, AL, TN, NC, SC, GA, FL): 23 (24 with W04)
Dstrict 5 (IA, MO, KS, NE, SD, ND, MT, WY, ID, UT, CO, AZ, NV, CA, OR, WA, AK, HI): 24

It's constitutional, at least-but i'd prefer the upper midwest to be united.

I'd better practice my southern twang under this plan...

[Platypus]

Are you opposed to it, WMS? There are other options, of course.

[WMS]

Are you opposed to it, WMS? There are other options, of course.

Oh, I like being in D5, although D4 would be OK, too. What I really would like is to not be in the Midwestern Region any more. I mean, seriously, NM in the MidWest?

BTW, who is going to handle redistricting for the MidWest now that PBrunsel is no longer Governor? And no, I don't want the job.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Just checking, is my plan constitutional, and would it meet with the approval of the southeastern governor? (considering it keept the south almost entriely together)

As far as I can see it is constitutional. As for whether I would favor it, I don't know yet.  I'm not committed to the idea of keeping the districting so that the Southeast is only in a single district, if I think another plan would increase our influence more.