Forum Redistricting Commission
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:02:21 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Forum Redistricting Commission
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Author Topic: Forum Redistricting Commission  (Read 26999 times)
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #150 on: December 14, 2014, 05:49:42 AM »
« edited: December 18, 2014, 09:49:43 PM by muon2 »


An alternative definition is provided in the publication Population of States and Counties of the United States, 1790 to 1990.  See Virginia section beginning on publication page 166, PDF page 177.

The BEA standard does provide an objective standard for separating larger cities.   But a state commission would be competent to make its own standard.   I regard the BEA standard for Colonial Heights to be exceptional, rather than other way around.

If creating its own standard based on population of cities, the commission might consider the following:  The largest towns in Virginia are Leesburg and Blacksburg, with populations in the mid-40,000s.   Virginia does not have "independent cities" per se, but rather cities are indepedent of their county, while municipalities which are towns are not.  The independent cities that are of comparable size, Charlottesville, Danville, and Harrisonburg are well interior to their respective counties of Albermarle, Pittsylvania, and Rockingham, such that to even reach the cities with a district boundary, the county would necessarily be split/

The next largest independent city is Lynchburg, with a population of just over 75,000.  A threshold of 50,000 might be used, since that is the threshold for classifying an area as metropolitan statistical area.  On the other hand, metropolitan statistical areas are comprised of counties, so using an independent city is somewhat anomalous, on a national scale.  Lynchburg is also problematic because of its location at the intersection of three counties.   Rather than being treated of a community of interest, it might serve as an attractor for a district boundary.

The 50K threshold is another reasonable alternative to 100K and more consistent with the use of UCCs derived from MSAs. In fact one could go a step further and define an independent city as separate from the county if it has at least 25K in an urbanized area, exactly as for the UCCs. Lynchburg shouldn't be a problem as a border community since the CoI should be addressed by the UCC.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #151 on: December 15, 2014, 09:31:41 AM »

Since the commission seems to be on holiday, I'll add another set of city subdivisions. In the meantime, as jimrtex notes through his suggestions, Item 8 sets the direction of the scoring for chops and erosity, since it defines the primary units that should be preserved. There are at least four variants for the commission to choose from, and the next sets of rules are on hold until this item is resolved.

Here are the subdivisions for Norfolk and adjacent cities south of Hampton Roads. The five Norfolk subdivisions follow the neighborhood service areas. The four Portsmouth subdivisions follow real estate areas. The six Chesapeake subdivisions follow the official boroughs. The seven Virginia Beach subdivisions follow the former boroughs as now used by the city public works department.



City of Norfolk
Neighborhood Area 1: pop 17,545; BVAP 66.4%
Neighborhood Area 2: pop 45,742; BVAP 68.1%
Neighborhood Area 3: pop 40,459; BVAP 54.2%
Neighborhood Area 4: pop 64,574; BVAP 25.9%
Neighborhood Area 5: pop 74,483; BVAP 23.1%

City of Portsmouth
Churchland Area (6): pop 25,739; BVAP 42.4%
Olde Towne Area (7): pop 22,172; BVAP 67.8%
Victory Area ( 8 ): pop 23,816; BVAP 69.3%
Midtown Area (9): pop 23,808; BVAP 24.1%

City of Chesapeake
Western Branch Borough (10): pop 32,624; BVAP 30.0%
Deep Creek Borough (11): pop 36,223; BVAP 35.6%
Pleasant Grove Borough (12): pop 51,806; BVAP 9.5%
South Norfolk Borough (13): pop 23,894; BVAP 53.6%
Washington Borough (14): pop 68,346; BVAP 31.6%
Butts Road Borough (15): pop 9,316; BVAP 23.1%

City of Virginia Beach
Bayside (16): pop 75,350; BVAP 22.7%
Centerville (17): pop 82,741; BVAP 23.6%
Kempsville (18): pop 56,569; BVAP 16.6%
Beach (19): pop 49,317; BVAP 13.6%
Lynnhaven (20): pop 41,511; BVAP 3.9%
Rose Hall (21): pop 66,857; BVAP 26.1%
Princess Anne (22): pop 65,649; BVAP 11.8%
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #152 on: December 18, 2014, 10:37:34 PM »
« Edited: December 18, 2014, 11:28:38 PM by muon2 »

Item 8 is still unresolved, so I want to show how it would impact future rules about scoring. One type of cluster is the urban county cluster (UCC) and is defined as those counties in the same metropolitan statistical area that have an urbanized population of 25K or more or have at least 40% urbanized area. The idea is that UCCs represent a community of interest as important as a county. Chops of a UCC in excess of the minimum required count towards the total chop count. One assumption is that UCCs must consist of more than one county, otherwise a chop of that county results in two chops instead of one, which may be excessive.

Here's the map of VA UCCs.



The pink areas don't depend on whether the independent cities (ICs) are merged into their counties or not. The numbers on those UCCs represent the minimum number of CDs to cover each of those UCCs, so an excess beyond that number creates extra chops. The orange area loses Dinwiddie county if ICs are not merged, but keeps it if Petersburg (32K) is merged into Dinwiddie.

The multiple county rule comes into play when the Item 8 question of ICs is folded in. The tan clusters meet the standard if ICs are always separate, but become single counties if merged for ICs under 25K (Montgomery/Radford) or 50 K (Albemarle/Charlottesville, Frederick/Winchester). The yellow cluster (Roanoke/Roanoke&Salem) at 100K would also become a single county cluster. So mergers could cause these clusters to disappear as UCCs.

The grey clusters would not be UCCs if ICs are separate. However, if their ICs merged they would qualify, but at that point they are just single county clusters. Augusta county has 13K (18%) urbanized and urbanized cities of 23K (Staunton) and 20K (Waynesboro). Campbell county has 17K (32%) urbanized and Lynchburg with 74K. Rockingham county has 18K (23%) urbanized and Harrisonburg with 49K. Washington county has 16K (28%) urbanized and Bristol with 18K.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #153 on: December 18, 2014, 11:36:59 PM »

The status of ICs under Item 8 also affect minority county clusters which is another community of interest. A black MCC consists of connected counties where the BVAP is 40% or or more. Chops of an MCC add to the chop count and discourage cracking the minority population in the MCC.

A BVAP map of VA look like this, with the following key.
yellow 25.0-33.3%
lime 33.4-39.9%
green 40.0%-49.9%
dark green > 50.0%



Contiguous counties across water without a bridge or ferry are not connected. If independent cities are all counted as counties then there are two clusters shown in medium green. If ICs are merged into their counties then the light green areas are added and there is only one large MCC.

Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #154 on: December 20, 2014, 11:21:44 PM »

Nay on item 9
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #155 on: December 22, 2014, 10:31:27 PM »


Since no one else has joined in the discussion, I'd like to get your opinion X as to which elements in item 9 don't work. Is it either or both definitions or their application to the scoring?

The work on county clusters emerged from a thread in 2013 (especially the MI pull out linked on the first page) and evolved in another thread (AL delves into minority communities of interest starting on page 4), leading to the final work on UCCs stickied on this board.

The problem that was observed was that some urban areas that spanned counties were being split just to preserve county lines and it both ignored the natural community of interest of an urban center with its suburbs and tended to wash out medium sized urban vote centers by blending in lots of rural area. The problem in VRA states was to identify areas of counties dominated by a single minority interest to determine a community of interest that recognized race, but didn't make race the predominant factor in drawing a plan. The result from those threads was to identify clusters that could be objectively defined and represented a community of interest that should be given formal consideration in a redistricting plan.

Also, did you have an opinion on Item 8?
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,621
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #156 on: December 23, 2014, 04:17:03 PM »

Hate to say it, but this is getting into really wanky territory. It makes it hard for us commissioners to understand.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #157 on: December 23, 2014, 04:29:16 PM »

Hate to say it, but this is getting into really wanky territory. It makes it hard for us commissioners to understand.

Seconded.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #158 on: December 23, 2014, 05:03:22 PM »

Hate to say it, but this is getting into really wanky territory. It makes it hard for us commissioners to understand.

Seconded.

Thirded

Regarding number nine, my issue was with its application to scoring.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #159 on: December 24, 2014, 05:40:00 AM »

8A) Jimrtex suggested that most should be merged into their original counties which brings the three additional variations. His initial variation merges all but the 7 ICs with populations over 100K (Virginia Beach, Norfolk, Chesapeake, Richmond, Newport News, Alexandria, and Hampton), but that leaves the awkward case of Suffolk which has absorbed all of its county but is only 85K, and Portsmouth which is 95K but has no county to merge into since Chesapeake already took it all.
My original rule would have included cities that had absorbed their original county; and cities with over 100,000 population.   So Suffolk is not an awkward case, while Virginia Beach, Hampton, and Newport News qualify under both criteria.   Portsmouth and Roanoke have at one time had over 100,000 population, so that you could conceivably have had a grandfather clause.  They certainly are of "county scale".   The median Virginia county is around 25,000.  You could make a reasonable case for them remaining "independent" of their county, other than them having spilled over into their surrounding county.

8B) The next variation merges only those cities under 50K, which solves the above problem and also leaves Roanoke and Lynchburg acting as counties for redistricting purposes. Lynchburg is the smallest of these at 75K.
In addition, the largest towns, Blacksburg and Leesburg are just below 50,000.  Lynchburg-Campbell County would remain a UCC.  I had originally set the threshold at 50,000, but had changed it to 100,000 to match the Bureau of Economic Analysis definition.  But it turns out that the BEA does not follow its own criteria in the case of Portsmouth and Roanoke (I was quite sure they must have 100,000 population, until I actually checked).

8C) When we worked on urban areas last year the agreed standard for a county to be urban was for it to have at least 25K urbanized population or 40% urbanized. If the 25K population threshold is applied to ICs, then 6 more ICs would be treated as separate counties: Harrisonburg, Charlottesville, Danville, Manassas, Petersburg, and Winchester. The most important of these is Petersburg since is is overwhelmingly black and whether it is counted as independent or part of Dinwiddie county is likely to affect the scoring of plans dealing with the VRA district.
A problem with this definition is that I deliberately included the surrounding counties when defining the UCC, because the independent cities included enough of the urban areas that the counties were being disqualified.   Yet, without the urbanized areas overlapping the city limit, the 50K threshold to be a metropolitan area would not be met.

The independent cities proper are close 100% urbanized.  If they do have any open areas, very few persons live in them.

The 40%/25K standard should really be read as:

40% or more urban; or if less than 40% urban, at least 25K in urbanized areas.   While mathematically equivalent, the second version connotes the derivation as a county that is substantially (at minimum large plurality) urban or has a large urban presence (1/2 the population needed to qualify as a metropolitan area.

You could also it formulate as:

25K or more urban; or if less than 25K urban, 40% urban.  Mathematically accurate, but missing the point, and in this case, giving Charlottesville, Harrisonburg, and Danville a metropolitan status that they would not have without the surrounding county.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #160 on: December 24, 2014, 06:57:23 AM »

I vote for 8C
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #161 on: December 26, 2014, 09:30:18 AM »
« Edited: December 26, 2014, 10:59:26 AM by muon2 »

Fairfax county is the one county in VA that must have a macrochop. So, it will always need county subdivisions. I used the county GIS to produce this map showing the communities (CDPs) in the county as well as the red areas separate from the communities. The city and town lines on DRA match up with these areas and are the natural subunits for Fairfax. If ICs are merged into the county then Fairfax city and Falls Church would just be additional subunits.



As an example of chop counting I'll use Miles-A. Here's his plan for NoVa.



Fairfax county has 2 chops resulting in three CDs in the county.

CD 10 has the smallest chop in Fairfax with a population of 10,045. It doesn't include all of a CDP, but the remainder is in two VTDs that span CDPs so there is no chop of the county subunit.

CD 8 is the other chop with 368,013 (or 380,345 with Falls Church) and is large enough to be a macrochop. All the CDPs chopped between CD 8 and 11 are due to VTDs that span CDPs so there are no additional subunit chops.

Prince William county is also chopped, and the smaller of the two districts is CD 10 with a population of 149,996 (or 202,090 if Manassas and Manassas Park are merged in). So this is also a macrochop. CDPs don't cover Prince William as completely as they do Fairfax, so some subdivision of the undesignated area would be useful. The simplest would be to use VTDs, in which case there can be no chops of the undesignated part of the county since DRA only maps at the level of VTDs.

The total chop count in NoVa here is 3.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #162 on: December 26, 2014, 10:48:40 AM »

Let me continue to the southern end of Miles-A.



CD 3 has a chop of 80,107 in Henrico so its a macrochop. Within Henrico there is no chop of a CDP, so there is only the one chop.

CD 7 has a chop of 56,374 in Richmond City so it's a macrochop. If the size was kept under 36,368 it wouldn't trigger the macrochop provisions, but let's look at what that does here. By taking the larger chop, neighborhood integrity now matters as much as county integrity in rural areas. The plan chops the Southside, West End and Northside (3,790 just over the microchop limit). As drawn without the benefit of the neighborhoods, it counts as 4 towards the CHOP score. However, it would be easy to put all the West End in CD 7, Southside in CD 3 and only chop Northside, reducing the chop count by 2 but keeping CD 3 BVAP at 50.4%.

CD 7 has a chop of 36,947 in Chesterfield which is just over the threshold for a macrochop. However, there are no chopped CDPs, so there is only one chop.

Neither Dinwiddie nor Prince George are chopped if ICs are considered equal to counties under Item 8. However, if either Item 8A, 8B, or 8C is adopted, putting Hopewell in CD 4 counts as a chop of Prince George. If either Item 8A or 8B is adopted (not 8C) then Dinwiddie is chopped by putting Petersburg in CD 3. Petersburg stays separate in 8C since its population is over 25K.

CD 3 has a chop of 5,900 in James City county. The fact that CD 1 has two disconnected fragments in James City does not affect the CHOP score beyond the chop for CD 3.

CD 2 has a macrochop of 106,560 in Norfolk City. As drawn the plan chops all five neighborhood areas within Norfolk it would gain 5 extra in the CHOP score. As with Richmond, it is easy to reduce the neighborhood chops to 1, and it actually increase BVAP for CD 3.

So as drawn Miles-A scores 13 chops in the SE region as drawn. If the plan is modified to reflect neighborhoods in Richmond and Norfolk then the score drops to 7 in the SE region.

CHOP scores depend on the treatment of ICs under Item 8. If ICs under 25K are merged into their counties for redistricting, the the score goes up by one. If ICs under 50K are merged it goes up 2. This example shows the types of districts that are affected by Item 8.



Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #163 on: December 26, 2014, 12:21:53 PM »

Finally, let me look at Miles-A from the state level and look at the potential impact of Item 9.



All the county and subunit chops are in the two areas of NoVa and SE, and if I use the fully independent version of Item 8 the CHOP score is 3+13 = 16 or it reduces to 10 with the aforementioned neighborhood changes.

The urbanized area of NoVa that meets the definition of the UCC is covered by all or part of 5 CDs (1,7,8,10,11). It could be covered by as few as 4 so the score would increase to 17 if Item 9 were adopted. From a policy standpoint, this would say that it is preferable to keep Fredricksburg with the DC area, and for instance place the Williamsburg area with another CD in the SE unless it saves a county chop.

The Hampton Roads UCC area can be covered by as few three CDs, but in Miles-A is covered by 4 (1,2,3,4). Having CD 1 run from Dale City to Williamsburg could be the cause, and it is the type of district that Item 9 tries to suppress. Then again, the extra CD could also be the result of VRA compliance, and then it isn't optional. Under Item 9 the CHOP is up to 18.

The Richmond UCC can be covered by as few as 2 CDs, and in this plan there are 3 (3,4,7). The issue of Item 8 ICs does not affect Miles-A in this case. The VRA will tend to force a chop of this UCC. Like in large counties, some score increases may be unavoidable so under Item 9 the CHOP is up to 19.

None of the other potential UCCs that depend on Item 8 are affected.

The MCC originated to avoid cracking minority populations that span multiple counties and recognize them as a measurable community of interest. The goal is to discourage splits like the one here that puts Greensville and Brunswick in CD 5, unless it helps avoid chops elsewhere.

If the ICs all remain independent under Item 8 then there are two in VA. If they are merged then there is just one larger MCC. If CVAP is used instead of VAP Norfolk and Hampton are added to the eastern MCC (and the unified one). So there are four options. IC separate+VAP, IC separate+CVAP, IC merged+VAP, and IC merged+CVAP. The last one is 96.6% of the quota so it is difficult to avoid a chop.

IC separate+VAP: 3 CDs cover the western MCC and 2 CDs cover the eastern MCC for a total of 3 chops.

IC separate+CVAP: 3 CDs cover the western MCC and 3 CDs cover the eastern MCC for a total of 4 chops.

IC merged+VAP: 3 CDs cover the MCC for a total of 2 chops.

IC merged+CVAP: 4 CDs cover the MCC for a total of 3 chops.

The merged ICs avoid double counting some of the CDs in the chop count. However, the merged ICs would also increase the direct count for this plan. Without merged ICs under Item 9 the CHOP score would be 22 or 23. With merged ICs the CHOP score would range from 22 to 24.

An important part of the Commission's work is setting the basic rules, even when it gets wonky. In a real commission I would expect more time to be spent on setting the criteria than on evaluating plans. Small changes do have an effect on the balance between different factors, so I hope this example helps guide which way the Commission wants to go.
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,621
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #164 on: December 28, 2014, 02:08:23 AM »

Aye on Item 10.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #165 on: December 28, 2014, 07:42:16 AM »


What's your preference on Item 8, since some version is needed to score Item 10? As Miles-A illustrates in the SE region, the CHOP score depends on whether the ICs are merged into their counties or not.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #166 on: December 28, 2014, 09:08:01 AM »
« Edited: December 28, 2014, 09:18:51 AM by Torie »

Muon2, you should put all your items in one place, preferably perhaps at the start of the thread, so it can be easily found. I can't find your list at all anymore. I am wondering if it was accidentally deleted. A map of all the state highways that measure erosity might also be helpful, along with the map of the UC's  as defined by the agreed metric.  By the way, here is a map of the border of the Hudson "urban cluster." Talk about erosity!  Tongue
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #167 on: December 28, 2014, 10:04:40 AM »
« Edited: December 28, 2014, 10:08:24 AM by muon2 »

Muon2, you should put all your items in one place, preferably perhaps at the start of the thread, so it can be easily found. I can't find your list at all anymore. I am wondering if it was accidentally deleted. A map of all the state highways that measure erosity might also be helpful, along with the map of the UC's  as defined by the agreed metric.  By the way, here is a map of the border of the Hudson "urban cluster." Talk about erosity!  Tongue

I set up a separate thread to hold the approved items a while ago. I placed a link to that thread in the OP a couple of days ago since the items had moved to page 2 of the board. The unapproved items (8,9,10) aren't there yet. The difficulty seems to be that dealing with independent cities gets very technical, yet one can't construct a set of rules for VA without deciding if they are counties, subunits of counties, or either depending on the population.

As your image shows, erosity is not a constraint for the Census Bureau. That's why we look at whole political units as a cluster.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #168 on: December 28, 2014, 10:53:53 AM »

Muon2, you should put all your items in one place, preferably perhaps at the start of the thread, so it can be easily found. I can't find your list at all anymore. I am wondering if it was accidentally deleted. A map of all the state highways that measure erosity might also be helpful, along with the map of the UC's  as defined by the agreed metric.  By the way, here is a map of the border of the Hudson "urban cluster." Talk about erosity!  Tongue

I set up a separate thread to hold the approved items a while ago. I placed a link to that thread in the OP a couple of days ago since the items had moved to page 2 of the board. The unapproved items (8,9,10) aren't there yet. The difficulty seems to be that dealing with independent cities gets very technical, yet one can't construct a set of rules for VA without deciding if they are counties, subunits of counties, or either depending on the population.

As your image shows, erosity is not a constraint for the Census Bureau. That's why we look at whole political units as a cluster.

Perhaps you should sticky it Muon 2, along with helpful maps of urban clusters, and ideally, state highways. I have no idea where it is.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #169 on: December 28, 2014, 12:31:32 PM »

Muon2, you should put all your items in one place, preferably perhaps at the start of the thread, so it can be easily found. I can't find your list at all anymore. I am wondering if it was accidentally deleted. A map of all the state highways that measure erosity might also be helpful, along with the map of the UC's  as defined by the agreed metric.  By the way, here is a map of the border of the Hudson "urban cluster." Talk about erosity!  Tongue

I set up a separate thread to hold the approved items a while ago. I placed a link to that thread in the OP a couple of days ago since the items had moved to page 2 of the board. The unapproved items (8,9,10) aren't there yet. The difficulty seems to be that dealing with independent cities gets very technical, yet one can't construct a set of rules for VA without deciding if they are counties, subunits of counties, or either depending on the population.

As your image shows, erosity is not a constraint for the Census Bureau. That's why we look at whole political units as a cluster.

Perhaps you should sticky it Muon 2, along with helpful maps of urban clusters, and ideally, state highways. I have no idea where it is.

As you initially suggested I had placed it at the top of this thread by means of a link (does the link not work?). I want to limit the stickies since the board has plenty of other active threads. I plan to have another linked thread for plan submissions once the rules are finalized. I do have the sticky thread for jimrtex's UCCs which has been up since 2013, but that is up for debate in the context of the ICs in VA. If this goes well and interest is there for other states, I would provide a more permanent reference for the rules.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #170 on: December 28, 2014, 04:20:06 PM »

OK, thanks, I see. You planning on fleshing out your definition of "erosity" to get in your state highway proxy concept? I don't see the arithmetic difference between a competitive and highly competitive CD. Should not a competitive CD have a .75 score plus or minus, as opposed to 1.0? 
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #171 on: December 28, 2014, 04:48:21 PM »

OK, thanks, I see. You planning on fleshing out your definition of "erosity" to get in your state highway proxy concept? I don't see the arithmetic difference between a competitive and highly competitive CD. Should not a competitive CD have a .75 score plus or minus, as opposed to 1.0? 

I didn't want to overload the commission with erosity measures until the IC/chop issues were dealt with. So, yes we'll get to my connectivity-based measure for erosity.

Highly competitive districts (those of PVI 0 or 1) don't add to either political measure. Uncompetitive districts add twice as much to polarization, but they don't double penalize a plan on skew. In part that would be double counting. I also wanted to make all the scores based on simple integers for clear comparisons.
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,621
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #172 on: December 28, 2014, 05:34:37 PM »


What's your preference on Item 8, since some version is needed to score Item 10? As Miles-A illustrates in the SE region, the CHOP score depends on whether the ICs are merged into their counties or not.
I tend to prefer Item 8A, but I suspect I'm a bit idiosyncratic there.....
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #173 on: December 28, 2014, 06:24:05 PM »

OK, thanks, I see. You planning on fleshing out your definition of "erosity" to get in your state highway proxy concept? I don't see the arithmetic difference between a competitive and highly competitive CD. Should not a competitive CD have a .75 score plus or minus, as opposed to 1.0? 

I didn't want to overload the commission with erosity measures until the IC/chop issues were dealt with. So, yes we'll get to my connectivity-based measure for erosity.

Highly competitive districts (those of PVI 0 or 1) don't add to either political measure. Uncompetitive districts add twice as much to polarization, but they don't double penalize a plan on skew. In part that would be double counting. I also wanted to make all the scores based on simple integers for clear comparisons.


I didn't notice that highly uncompetitive districts get a 2 rather than a 1 for the merely "competitive," as opposed to the "highly" uncompetitive. I will have to reread your text. I do approve that competitiveness just acts as a tie breaker. Ugly gerrymanders to effect competitiveness offends my "artistic" side when it comes to maps. Art rules!  Smiley
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #174 on: January 02, 2015, 06:00:43 AM »

I'm not sure if this process can be resurrected, but here's the current status of items before the commission.

Item 8 (on ICs as counties). Jerry (alt) aye on 8, X aye on 8C, morgieb aye on 8A. So there's no concurrence yet. It's a unique feature of VA and scoring can't happen without it. Should we use ranked voting here?

Item 9 (on county clusters). X nay on their use in scoring. The miles-A example shows some of the tradeoffs this would force mappers to consider.

Item 10 (on chops). morgieb aye. I've put out a pretty detailed example of how it works, so I don't know what else could help the commission decide if this is fine or they want changes.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.073 seconds with 12 queries.