Poll re 2020 Ohio CD Map

[Torie]

Why not put Lorain and Elyria in OH-10 and Wood County (and maybe some of Seneca and/or Huron for population) in OH-09 (and rearrange OH-08 to fit)? Probably requires a few other counties moved around, but there are Toledo suburbs in Wood County that belong with Lucas, and Lorain and Elyria, while not exactly Cleveland suburbs themselves, have much closer ties with the Cleveland suburbs than with Toledo (and certainly much closer ties with the Cleveland suburbs than Mount Vernon does!). Might need to rearrange the OH-08/OH-04 boundary a bit for neatness, too, but that border is pretty arbitrary.

Also, I guess you can't fit all of New Philadelphia in the Akron-Canton district? Because that would be neater than going into Carroll County.

Two words, because of erosity issues and to avoid local splits. Wood has a lot of population, and to remove it from OH-04 makes the CD even more erose than it is. If you put those Lorain bits in OH-10 (yes, I know where you are going you Dem you), which CD is going to take what OH-10 needs to shed?  Where is Knox county going to go if you shed that county from OH-10? To OH-13, making it more erose?  And that is not enough of a shed. What else? Again, you get more erosity. I have tried all the possibilities, and your suggestions when I tried them were a fail. Sorry. Think about rectangles, and think about them some more. They are beautiful things. Cut out Carroll from OH-12, and OH-13 gets more erose, while Tuscalorosa remains split. All of New Philadelphia is now in OH-13. It is not split.  Anti erosity rules are a great impediment to partisan instincts. That is why they need to be written into law.

As to the OH-04 and OH-08 boundaries, I don't think there is a better solution. Play with them, and you will see just how difficult it is. That assumes of course that you care about erosity. You play the communities of interest game (interests between different communities, at the cost of erosity, and you get well - partisan gamesmanship). For example,  have you made one suggestion yet that would help the Pubs, as opposed to the Dems? Just one?  See what I mean?  

You should draw your own map, because it should clarify these issues for you. I will even email to you my data file. Cheers.

[Benj]

I don't have partisan motivations, though your comments make me suspect you do. How else would call a Cleveland to Mount Vernon district "not erose"? Anyway, I've been working on an alternative map that looks a lot like traininthedistance's, but I'd be glad to work from your base and show how wrong you are about your complaints.

[Torie]

I don't have partisan motivations, though your comments make me suspect you do. How else would call a Cleveland to Mount Vernon district "not erose"? Anyway, I've been working on an alternative map that looks a lot like traininthedistance's, but I'd be glad to work from your base and show how wrong you are about your complaints.

PM me your email address, and I will send you my data file. Erosity by the way, means jagged and elongated. OH-10 is not erose; it's a nice rectangle. Your complaint is about communities of interest. If you add Knox to OH-08, you lose, because of erosity factors. I just know that you are just itching to do that. Ditto adding it to OH-13.  What is going to block your agenda, or much of it, is the shape of  OH-08. You can make a case sort of for your agenda for OH-12 on the south end, and maybe get another 15 or 20 basis points for the Dems, because while there is more erosity for OH-13, it's not bad, although Tuscalarosa will be basically cut in half, which is something you don't do to counties absent good reason.

Did you have any suggestion that helps the Pubs by the way that I missed?  Just asking. Of course another possibility is that you are neutral, like a good judge, and I'm a Pub hack. So many possibilities, so little time. Your map will tell the tale.

In the meantime, here is a screen shot of the population variances. And here is a link to the county population projections for the counties in 2020. Just select Ohio from the list of states drop down to get the county numbers for Ohio. Remember if you switch out population growth counties, for population losing ones, you will need to make adjustments. Good luck.

[

[Benj]

I don't have partisan motivations, though your comments make me suspect you do. How else would call a Cleveland to Mount Vernon district "not erose"? Anyway, I've been working on an alternative map that looks a lot like traininthedistance's, but I'd be glad to work from your base and show how wrong you are about your complaints.

PM me your email address, and I will send you my data file. Erosity by the way, means jagged and elongated. OH-10 is not erose; it's a nice rectangle. Your complaint is about communities of interest. If you add Knox to OH-08, you lose, because of erosity factors. I just know that you are just itching to do that. Ditto adding it to OH-13.

In the meantime, here is a screen shot of the population variances. And here is a link to the county population projections for the counties in 2020. Just select Ohio from the list of states drop down to get the county numbers for Ohio. Good luck.

[

I know what erosity means. You don't need to talk down to me. It's rude and juvenile.

And it is erose as it stands--you can't possibly argue otherwise. Yes, adding it to OH-08 without changing anything else would make OH-08 even more erose--but that's not what I'm proposing. OH-08 becomes a north-central Ohio district that stays at least two counties away from Indiana and OH-04 covers the western border. Which are more sensible communities of interest anyway, since Lima and rural western Ohio are the uber-Catholic regions while rural north-central Ohio (Mansville, Marion, Mount Vernon, Marysville; lots of Ms) has none of that.

[Torie]

I await your map. Your comment about OH-10 was about communities of interest, and not erosity, so that is why I wondered if you knew what it meant. I don't consider OH-10 erose myself, although yes, it would be less erose without Knox, and adding the balance of Lorain, but as I suspect you will see, it will wreck havoc with other CD's vis a vis erosity if you do that.

I notice that you refer to communities of interest again, now about religion. I don't consider that a legitimate criteria - certainly not in the context you mention, but if you can do it without more erosity, more power to you. You are not going to mess with OH-03 are you? That CD is just perfect. If you mess with that, you in mind mind violate the first principle, which is keeping metro areas together, assuming it can be done without egregious erosity. Again, good luck. Prove the old man a senile dunderhead. Go for it!

[Benj]

I await your map. Your comment about OH-10 was about communities of interest, and not erosity, so that is why I wondered if you knew what it meant. I don't consider OH-10 erose myself, although yes, it would be less erose without Knox, and adding the balance of Lorain, but as I suspect you will see, it will wreck havoc with other CD's vis a vis erosity if you do that.

I notice that you refer to communities of interest again, now about religion. I don't consider that a legitimate criteria - certainly not in the context you mention, but if you can do it without more erosity, more power to you. You are not going to mess with OH-03 are you? That CD is just perfect. If you mess with that, you in mind mind violate the first principle, which is keeping metro areas together, assuming it can be done without egregious erosity. Again, good luck. Prove the old man a senile dunderhead. Go for it!

I like OH-03 on that map, so no, unless it turns out I can do it better. I haven't fiddled around with the Cincinnati area, so I'm not sure what's possible, but that split looks appropriate to me.

Frankly, if communities of interest aren't a concern, I don't know why you don't just use the DRA rectangles function and be done with it.

[Torie]

Reread my post about the parameters. You can vary from rectangles, but if it is not about population density issues, or county splits at the margins, etc., you start getting into this subjective area, where the partisan juices are allowed far too much room to spin. Pending your map, that is about all I have seen so far. But hey, I could be wrong. Of course if you have different parameters, then of course our maps will vary. You push to pass your redistricting law, and I will push to pass mine. Over time, I have learned what I think is necessary.

[Sbane]

I like the way Jimrtex broke down the different areas in Ohio based on population change. I am constructing a map currently using those boundaries. I will post it when I am finished.

The last map you posted is acceptable, Torie, but of course I can make it better.

[Torie]

I like the way Jimrtex broke down the different areas in Ohio based on population change. I am constructing a map currently using those boundaries. I will post it when I am finished.

The last map you posted is acceptable, Torie, but of course I can make it better.

Good luck to you too. Are you using the 2020 census projection numbers?  I see what Benj is trying to do, to make OH-10 more Dem. I don't think it will work, but maybe if he goes from the NW corner all the way down to the Butler County line.  If he manages it, it will look like a dildo.   Or he could make OH-09 go south rather than east I guess, chopping up the Lake CD some more, with OH-08 appending the lake. But then that would chop up those Catholics he is concerned about. We shall see.

[muon2]

Well, my work is done I think. Below I believe is the best possible map that can be drawn. Well, one possible alternative is to have OH-07 kick OH-05 out of Franklin County entirely. I will try that later to see how the erosity looks.

I consider keeping metro areas together as the most compelling factor, and then after that minimizing erosity, although some additional erosity is OK if it reduces county splits (and secondarily the size of the split). Minimizing erosity is a good discipline. As you draw the lines say in the county chop, you always try to minimize erosity except where it involves a locality split, and that you might tolerate a tad more. Ditto when you add counties.  You add the counties that minimize erosity, where you can.

Then I minimize county splits, and then try to minimize the size of the split (keep as high a percentage of a county in one CD as opposed to the other, as you can, but I accept a sizable split if necessary to hew to more important factors.

I would strongly suggest that you rearrange OH 1 and 2 to avoid the bridge through Warren. We had lots of discussion on bridges and I thought there was general agreement that they should be avoided. Also my version of 1 and 2 is definitely less erose than yours and I still keep Cinci intact. If erosity is more important than the size of county split, then that warrants my suggested rearrangement. In any case your split of Hamilton seems very small. My projection is that Hamilton will be about 28K larger than a CD in 2020.

A minor quibble is splitting Ashland from Mansfield as they function together as a CoI from my visits. But I would agree that should be secondary to erosity concerns.

I'll see if I can put together the muon2 erosity formula for your map sometime this weekend.

[Benj]

Here we go:



There are a few more county splits than necessary as I do not shy away from them, but cutting down the county splits (around, say, OH-10) would make very little difference overall.

Here are the variances. I did rough calculations in my head based on your figures and the major counties I shifted around rather than doing all the math out, but there shouldn't be more than a 10k or so difference for any district. Estimating more accurately than that 8 years in advance is pretty futile anyway.



I altered every district except the southwestern three and the Columbus district at least slightly.


And, partisanship for the altered districts, if we're curious:

OH-04: 36-62 McCain
OH-05: 41-57 M
OH-07: 44-54 M
OH-08: 41-57 M
OH-09: 59-39 Obama
OH-10: 53-45 O
OH-11: 79-20 O (51-41, White-Black on VAP, a marginal increase in Black % on Torie's map)
OH-12: 57-42 O
OH-13: 47-50 M
OH-14: 56-42 O
OH-15: 49-50 M

[Brittain33]

I'm not too familiar here with the geography but is Warren here serving as a bridge or is that cut helping make a suburban concentric circle around Cincinnati? Does the Warren/Montgomery border also delineate a difference in mentalities between Dayton and Cincy?

[Benj]

I'm not too familiar here with the geography but is Warren here serving as a bridge or is that cut helping make a suburban concentric circle around Cincinnati? Does the Warren/Montgomery border also delineate a difference in mentalities between Dayton and Cincy?

I agree; I think the split of Warren is justified by much more than a "bridge". The suburban district has to split one of Warren, Butler or Clermont, and Warren is the most natural choice, being closest to Dayton. The fact that it's in the middle is sort of irrelevant. Most of the population of Warren is in the Cincinnati suburbs district, too, not the Dayton district.

You could argue a split of both Warren and Butler to put Middletown into the Dayton district and then put only the Franklin area in Warren with Dayton, which I think would be slightly better on COI but not enough better to necessarily be worth doing.

[Torie]

Nice Dem gerrymander Benj.  Very good indeed. I particularly like OH-10, and the way you made sure it picked up Parma to seal the deal for the Dems (creating more erosity when Strongsville Township is closer), and forcing OH-14 to do that little spike to the west, while also having OH-14 chop Portage to bits (which fails the minimizing the size of the chops rule, which needs to be in play along with limiting the number of chops). You have an extra chop I see for OH-14. It should not go into Medina the way you have it. OH-14, OH-13 and OH-05 fail the erosity test, and arguably OH-04 (it's just too long). OH-10 I see has five county chops, yes five. Wow! OH-04 has no chop at all for some reason. Did its population just turn out to be 779,000?  Union County is not a Columbus metro county, but I guess one can justify that by arguing that east Licking is not part of the metro area either that you deleted, even though it is part of a metro county. Not good, but not terrible that bit.

Anyway, this all is an object lesson why one needs tight rules for redistricting - very tight. So called non partisan groups suck because the temptation is just too great to come up with justifications for what is in the best interest of their favorite party based on what they think/claim just belongs together (the arguments and counter arguments being endless, just like when it comes to macro-economic issues and how to structure medical services subsidies), erosity and the finer points of chop rules be damned. Humans are just so flawed and biased.

Thanks for doing the map though. This has been a fun and very instructive exercise so far. Someday, Muon2 and I need to finish coming up with a set of rules that are easy to understand, and box in what the map drawers are allowed to do in a way that cannot be finessed. Process rules as we have seen are just not enough. It's been subpar to an outright fail in state after state, where human discretion is allowed to be given too much play.

[Benj]

Nice Dem gerrymander Benj.  Very good indeed. I particularly like OH-10, and the way you made sure it picked up Parma to seal the deal for the Dems (creating more erosity when Strongsville Township is closer), and forcing OH-14 to do that little spike to the west, while also having OH-14 chop Portage to bits (which fails the minimizing the size of the chops rule, which needs to be in play along with limiting the number of chops). You have an extra chop I see for OH-14. It should not go into Medina the way you have it. OH-14, OH-13 and OH-05 fail the erosity test, and arguably OH-04 (it's just too long). OH-10 I see has five county chops, yes five. Wow! OH-04 has no chop at all for some reason. Did its population just turn out to be 779,000?  Union County is not a Columbus metro county, but I guess one can justify that by arguing that east Licking is not part of the metro area either that you deleted, even though it is part of a metro county. Not good, but not terrible that bit.

I actually did Parma to avoid township splitting. That made OH-15 exactly the right size without any splits. I tried a few other arrangements, but none worked out. Your map split a few townships that were unnecessary. That's why I split a bit off of Medina County, too. Towns are more cohesive than counties in suburban areas. I had an alternative that didn't split Medina County or go into Parma but did take a town from Summit into OH-10. It was definitely less favorable to the Democrats than this version, but I gave it up because it was messier and also didn't reduce county splits. You can try fiddling around with that area if you want, but there's no good way to do it other than this way without splitting municipalities.

I also have no idea why you're concerned about the split of Portage for partisan reasons. If anything, it favors the Republicans, as it strands heavily Democratic Kent in a McCain district that's unwinnable for the Democrats. And it's actually not really a big split--the vast majority of the population of Portage is in OH-15.

My OH-13 and OH-05 are less erose than yours, so you need to justify your complaints. OH-14 is just a rectangle and very clearly reasonable set of areas. Your map contains three extremely erose districts, OH-10, OH-08 and OH-04 while there is no comparably erose district on my map.

Also, calling a 6D-9R map a Democratic gerrymander is a bit rich, at the very least. But your 4D-11R (edit: sorry, 5D-10R once you were shamed into not splitting up the Akron-Canton area) map is completely fair and not malicious at all, you swear!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, a lesson in why your map is more erose and also more gerrymandered than mine. You are an unpleasantly arrogant and hypocritical person.

[Torie]

Yes, I knew you would not like my post Benj. Btw, I actually did not think of the Ashtabula solution for OH-14 believe it or not (yes, I know you don't believe it), but when I did, yes, it's clearly superior. Maybe Muon2 has a mathematical formula for measuring the erosity of our respective OH-04 and OH-08 CD's (e;g., what percentage of the CD fits within a perfect square, with the portion outside of it given negative points the farther outside the square on an exponential basis perhaps - Muon2 is much better at this stuff than I). The point however is to minimize erosity given other constraints (like minimizing chops). I don't think your map did that overall (the lines between OH-10 and OH-14 are an example, and OH-13 is particularly, and unnecessarily erose as another example), even if OH-04 and OH-08 themselves in your map are comparable in erosity to mine), but whatever.

We shall see what Sbane comes up with, vis a vis following the parameters that I outlined. Of course, if one rejects the parameters, or come up with others, than all bets are off. Then nobody is on a parallel course, and it's kind of apples to oranges. Without tight agreed upon rules, playing this game of drawing "good government" maps becomes kind of pointless really. Nobody will agree on anything, and, as here, it can even get acrimonious. Not good.

[Torie]

Well, my work is done I think. Below I believe is the best possible map that can be drawn. Well, one possible alternative is to have OH-07 kick OH-05 out of Franklin County entirely. I will try that later to see how the erosity looks.

I consider keeping metro areas together as the most compelling factor, and then after that minimizing erosity, although some additional erosity is OK if it reduces county splits (and secondarily the size of the split). Minimizing erosity is a good discipline. As you draw the lines say in the county chop, you always try to minimize erosity except where it involves a locality split, and that you might tolerate a tad more. Ditto when you add counties.  You add the counties that minimize erosity, where you can.

Then I minimize county splits, and then try to minimize the size of the split (keep as high a percentage of a county in one CD as opposed to the other, as you can, but I accept a sizable split if necessary to hew to more important factors.

I would strongly suggest that you rearrange OH 1 and 2 to avoid the bridge through Warren. We had lots of discussion on bridges and I thought there was general agreement that they should be avoided. Also my version of 1 and 2 is definitely less erose than yours and I still keep Cinci intact. If erosity is more important than the size of county split, then that warrants my suggested rearrangement. In any case your split of Hamilton seems very small. My projection is that Hamilton will be about 28K larger than a CD in 2020.

A minor quibble is splitting Ashland from Mansfield as they function together as a CoI from my visits. But I would agree that should be secondary to erosity concerns.

I'll see if I can put together the muon2 erosity formula for your map sometime this weekend.

Where is your map? 

The Warren bridge is justified to keep the Dayton metro area together. That is a reasonable exception. The other options also did not work for me. The erosity of OH-02 is justified because it keeps the Cinci burbs together. That too is a reasonable exception. Keeping metro areas together is job one to me, unless it wrecks havoc to the map elsewhere. However, slicing Hamilton more deeply  as long as the burbs are kept together is OK too, if it reduces erosity. I kept Hamilton together, because I knew if I did otherwise, it would smack of partisanship even if the partisan numbers don't vary that much. Just look at my exchange with Benj as it is.

You are right about the Hamilton numbers. I forgot to adjust when I made the county whole again, rather than having the city part of OH-02, where I assumed the population loss would be more relatively speaking, since the only growth area to speak of would be smallish Clermont. The burbs in Hamilton have far more population than Clermont. So Hamilton does have 21,000 too many people, which would push OH-03 out of Clark, and a bit of Greene. Greene is a tough chop, because its east side is empty, and before you know it, you are squeezing the county seat.  Most of the population in the county, like 95%, is either in the Dayton burbs or the smallish county seat. But the change is good because it will erase, or mostly erase,  the Hilliard chop for OH-05.

[Benj]

Here's another way to edit the Cleveland area to remove the Medina split and put Parma in OH-14 while not splitting any municipalities. Of course, I don't think Torie would approve on partisanship; OH-14 is now a 50-49 Obama district while OH-10 is still 52-46 Obama.

You could do it with fewer changes from my original map if you kept Parma Heights in OH-10 while putting Parma in OH-14 (and putting Strongsville and Hinckley in OH-10), but that's definitely more erose (and has basically identical partisan numbers to this map).

[Torie]

Better. The partisan result does not matter for this exercise. You have diluted down the black percentage some for OH-11 I see. I suppose that is allowed under the VRA, but to me that is a negative. I know the black politicians won't like it.

[Sbane]

I like the way Jimrtex broke down the different areas in Ohio based on population change. I am constructing a map currently using those boundaries. I will post it when I am finished.

The last map you posted is acceptable, Torie, but of course I can make it better.

Good luck to you too. Are you using the 2020 census projection numbers?  I see what Benj is trying to do, to make OH-10 more Dem. I don't think it will work, but maybe if he goes from the NW corner all the way down to the Butler County line.  If he manages it, it will look like a dildo.   Or he could make OH-09 go south rather than east I guess, chopping up the Lake CD some more, with OH-08 appending the lake. But then that would chop up those Catholics he is concerned about. We shall see.

I am using the boundaries Jimrtex created in his first map using the 2020 projections. It's still a work in progress.

[Benj]

Better. The partisan result does not matter for this exercise. You have diluted down the black percentage some for OH-11 I see. I suppose that is allowed under the VRA, but to me that is a negative. I know the black politicians won't like it.

No, it's up, not down from your original map. Only very marginally, but it's up by about a thousand black voters. Yours is 50.6% white, 40.5% black; mine is 50.3% white, 40.6% black (on VAP for both).

Ah, I see. It only went up with my edits. Missed that Mayfield Heights has a non-negligible black population of about 10% (was in both of our OH-14s but is now in my OH-11 after the Parma-related edits). Well, it's up now. You had also left out 8% black Walton Hills from OH-11 (probably because it voted for McCain). I did put in the super-white Valley View, but that was to keep the Cuyahoga River boundary. It was awkward to have only Valley View on the east side of the river in OH-14. There might be a way to remove it, but you'd end up putting in some other super-white eastern suburb if you don't split municipalities. The western suburbs are all too big; Valley View's only a couple thousand people.

[TJ in Oregon]

Ah, I see. It only went up with my edits. Missed that Mayfield Heights has a non-negligible black population of about 10% (was in both of our OH-14s but is now in my OH-11 after the Parma-related edits). Well, it's up now. You had also left out 8% black Walton Hills from OH-11 (probably because it voted for McCain). I did put in the super-white Valley View, but that was to keep the Cuyahoga River boundary. It was awkward to have only Valley View on the east side of the river in OH-14. There might be a way to remove it, but you'd end up putting in some other super-white eastern suburb if you don't split municipalities. The western suburbs are all too big; Valley View's only a couple thousand people.

By 2020, I would assume Walton Hills to have a substantially larger black population than it does today and no longer vote Republican. Walton Hills is part of the Bedford City School District, which services almost only black areas with Walton Hills as the only exception.

However, I would assume Valley View to be maybe 5% black by then with largely the same voting patterns. While it is on the eastern shore of the Cuyahoga, it is geographically isolated from the other eastern suburbs by a railroad, several large industrial sites, and forests. It is part of the Cuyahoga Heights school district with Cuyahoga Heights and Brooklyn Heights. These three are all isolated, overwhelmingly white, and in my opinion unlikely to change much by 2020.

[muon2]

Well, my work is done I think. Below I believe is the best possible map that can be drawn. Well, one possible alternative is to have OH-07 kick OH-05 out of Franklin County entirely. I will try that later to see how the erosity looks.

I consider keeping metro areas together as the most compelling factor, and then after that minimizing erosity, although some additional erosity is OK if it reduces county splits (and secondarily the size of the split). Minimizing erosity is a good discipline. As you draw the lines say in the county chop, you always try to minimize erosity except where it involves a locality split, and that you might tolerate a tad more. Ditto when you add counties.  You add the counties that minimize erosity, where you can.

Then I minimize county splits, and then try to minimize the size of the split (keep as high a percentage of a county in one CD as opposed to the other, as you can, but I accept a sizable split if necessary to hew to more important factors.

I would strongly suggest that you rearrange OH 1 and 2 to avoid the bridge through Warren. We had lots of discussion on bridges and I thought there was general agreement that they should be avoided. Also my version of 1 and 2 is definitely less erose than yours and I still keep Cinci intact. If erosity is more important than the size of county split, then that warrants my suggested rearrangement. In any case your split of Hamilton seems very small. My projection is that Hamilton will be about 28K larger than a CD in 2020.

A minor quibble is splitting Ashland from Mansfield as they function together as a CoI from my visits. But I would agree that should be secondary to erosity concerns.

I'll see if I can put together the muon2 erosity formula for your map sometime this weekend.

Where is your map? 

The Warren bridge is justified to keep the Dayton metro area together. That is a reasonable exception. The other options also did not work for me. The erosity of OH-02 is justified because it keeps the Cinci burbs together. That too is a reasonable exception. Keeping metro areas together is job one to me, unless it wrecks havoc to the map elsewhere. However, slicing Hamilton more deeply  as long as the burbs are kept together is OK too, if it reduces erosity. I kept Hamilton together, because I knew if I did otherwise, it would smack of partisanship even if the partisan numbers don't vary that much. Just look at my exchange with Benj as it is.

You are right about the Hamilton numbers. I forgot to adjust when I made the county whole again, rather than having the city part of OH-02, where I assumed the population loss would be more relatively speaking, since the only growth area to speak of would be smallish Clermont. The burbs in Hamilton have far more population than Clermont. So Hamilton does have 21,000 too many people, which would push OH-03 out of Clark, and a bit of Greene. Greene is a tough chop, because its east side is empty, and before you know it, you are squeezing the county seat.  Most of the population in the county, like 95%, is either in the Dayton burbs or the smallish county seat. But the change is good because it will erase, or mostly erase,  the Hilliard chop for OH-05.

My map was on page 1 of this thread. You'll see that I swap the west side of Hamilton for Clermont. It reduces erosity and I would claim that the Clermont suburbs/exurbs are comparable to the area in Hamilton from White Oak to Harrison.

I'm not a huge fan of the northeastern corner you have for all three maps.  Districts 10 and 11 seem reasonable, but 12, 14, and 15 strike me as a very poor representation of how that region naturally divides.  In particular, I would lobby for an Akron-Canton district, instead of your District 14, which just screams gerrymander.

I think what I'd do is:

* Pull 15 out of Summit, and let it drop down closer to Youngstown and Cleveland (pushing 11 west, oh well)
* Have 14 withdraw from Akron and go south instead, possibly even eating into the northern portion of 13, which seems to me a better cultural fit.
* 12 becomes Summit, Stark, and whatver leftovers are necessary
* 10 can go south to Wayne, then, or further west pushing on 9.

I'd also consider a Dayton-Springfield district in the southwest.

The above sounds like a Dem gerrymander. Putting aside combining Akron and Canton (but then the Youngstown-Warren CD gets very erose as it will have to wander way down the Ohio River without the 243,000 folks it garners Summit County), there is nowhere for OH-15 to go without slamming into Warren, or diluting the black percentage in OH-11. Plus Akron and Youngstown/Warren have a lot in common, more so than with Canton, although Canton is closer. Combining Clark and Montgomery is what the Dem's would want to do in a Dem  gerrymander of course, but no map would support that combo that I can think of beyond Dem gerrymandering interests.  The population numbers just don't play out that way, without generating erosity. Concern about limiting erosity and county splits is what keeps one honest. Other than that, it's gamesmanship time, as each side tries to put lipstick on its favorite gerrymandering pigs.

If you draw your map, you will see what I mean.

I also am not a fan of the NE corner. It looks too much like a Pub gerrymander. I decided to push county splits and erosity down to the point that only two counties are split other than the big three. All the districts get to within 1% of the projected ideal. I also avoid putting the southern district into either the Cinci or Columbus suburbs, which could answer all those concerns. I did split Cleve but it was to make a clean NE corner with a relatively low erosity and only a single split of Summit beyond the needed split of Cuyahoga.

I didn't use any partisan data to draw it, but looking at the DRA '08 numbers there are 5 districts with Obama ran 4% or more over his national numbers and 6 districts where Obama ran 4% or more under his national numbers. If I get a chance I'll look at the 2012 numbers for a better read on the partisan breakdown.

[Torie]

Yes, I like your Cinci map better than mine Mike (it's less erose while keeping the burbs together, and that should take precedence over the size of the Hamilton County chop). I don't like your OH-6 however. It's too erose. Ditto to a lessor extent you OH-07. And it looks like you chopped the city of Columbus. That CD should all be in the city.  Did you do a number of the black percentage in OH-14 and OH-15? I like my OH-14 (your OH-12) better myself. I guess one source of variance is that you give higher weight to minimizing the size of chops than erosity, while I do the reverse. I prefer my approach of course.

[Benj]

I think I like Torie's design for Cincinnati better, but that isn't horrible. It looks like you might have split off some of the black areas in northern Hamilton County from the Cincinnati district, though. That's absolutely out of the question and would constitute dilution (not in a VRA sense, of course, but it's definitely worse than splitting counties).

Ah, I see. It only went up with my edits. Missed that Mayfield Heights has a non-negligible black population of about 10% (was in both of our OH-14s but is now in my OH-11 after the Parma-related edits). Well, it's up now. You had also left out 8% black Walton Hills from OH-11 (probably because it voted for McCain). I did put in the super-white Valley View, but that was to keep the Cuyahoga River boundary. It was awkward to have only Valley View on the east side of the river in OH-14. There might be a way to remove it, but you'd end up putting in some other super-white eastern suburb if you don't split municipalities. The western suburbs are all too big; Valley View's only a couple thousand people.

By 2020, I would assume Walton Hills to have a substantially larger black population than it does today and no longer vote Republican. Walton Hills is part of the Bedford City School District, which services almost only black areas with Walton Hills as the only exception.

However, I would assume Valley View to be maybe 5% black by then with largely the same voting patterns. While it is on the eastern shore of the Cuyahoga, it is geographically isolated from the other eastern suburbs by a railroad, several large industrial sites, and forests. It is part of the Cuyahoga Heights school district with Cuyahoga Heights and Brooklyn Heights. These three are all isolated, overwhelmingly white, and in my opinion unlikely to change much by 2020.

Well, then Valley View should probably be in the Cleveland district anyway, as Cuyahoga Heights pretty much has to go in the Cleveland district due to geography, and I also moved Brooklyn Heights into the Cleveland district in my recent edits.

Definitely true that in general the Cleveland district should be reaching mostly or entirely into the eastern suburbs rather than the western. That's where the black population is moving.