Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style

[Torie]

Moderators note. This thread has been pulled from threads on MI and WI since the focus is on scoring rules for chops and erosity. An earlier discussion of MI using rules followed after the definition of UCCs.

 I wonder how the map below would score under the new Muon2 scoring system. No township or city chops other than Detroit (although the avoidance of a chop between MI-10 and MI-11 was at the cost I suspect of more state or US highway chops, so not sure if the avoidance of a chop helps or hurts the score; ditto for the line between MI-10 and MI-09), no chops of major metro areas other than Grand Rapids and Detroit which are unavoidable, all CD's within a 1% deviation, and if competitiveness is a less than 5 PVI, everything is  competitive other than the two black CD's and MI-05 and MI-07 (well MI-02 has a Pub PVI of 5.02% per the 2008 numbers). I don't remember what the cut off was for an uber competitive CD. Was that 1.5 PVI or less? If so, MI-04 and MI-06 are uber competitive.


 

[muon2]

I wonder how the map below would score under the new Muon2 scoring system. No township or city chops other than Detroit (although the avoidance of a chop between MI-10 and MI-11 was at the cost I suspect of more state or US highway chops, so not sure if the avoidance of a chop helps or hurts the score; ditto for the line between MI-10 and MI-09), no chops of major metro areas other than Grand Rapids and Detroit which are unavoidable, all CD's within a 1% deviation, and if competitiveness is a less than 5 PVI, everything is  competitive other than the two black CD's and MI-05 and MI-07 (well MI-02 has a Pub PVI of 5.02% per the 2008 numbers). I don't remember what the cut off was for an uber competitive CD. Was that 1.5 PVI or less? If so, MI-04 and MI-06 are uber competitive.


 

I'm not set up for the MI calculations at the moment, but the main thing to watch out for is the size of the chop. 0.5% or less of the quota is a microchop - no chop penalty, can add minimally to erosity. Over 0.5% up to 5.0% is a regular chop - chop penalty, but minimal erosity addition. Over 5.0% is a macrochop - chop penalty and it causes the map to look at townships as if they were counties so that the Detroit districts get treated on the same basis as the large rural ones. That increases erosity scores. You want to avoid macrochops outside the Detroit MCC.

edit: nb. I took a quick look and I think you can rid yourself of one macrochop by moving Missaukee and Osceola to CD 2 (reducing the Kent chop), then pushing CD 4 southeast. The Jackson macrochop is harder to deal with given the Lansing UCC.

[Torie]

Don't see how you can do that, without creating another macro chop or an extra county chop. But that doesn't mean it can't be done. I just don't see it.

If you reduce the chop in Kent, there will be an offsetting macro-chop into the Grand Rapids metro area elsewhere, plus maybe another county chop.

[muon2]

Don't see how you can do that, without creating another macro chop or an extra county chop. But that doesn't mean it can't be done. I just don't see it.

If you reduce the chop in Kent, there will be an offsetting macro-chop into the Grand Rapids metro area elsewhere, plus maybe another county chop.

I found a number of choices that kept the raw chop count the same. By raw chop count, I meant not counting UCC chops. That count is somewhat relevant, since there is still the outstanding question as to how to count chops in single-county UCCs. Is a chop into the rural part of Clinton county (Lansing UCC) worse than a chop into Jackson (Jackson UCC)?

[Torie]

Don't see how you can do that, without creating another macro chop or an extra county chop. But that doesn't mean it can't be done. I just don't see it.

If you reduce the chop in Kent, there will be an offsetting macro-chop into the Grand Rapids metro area elsewhere, plus maybe another county chop.

I found a number of choices that kept the raw chop count the same. By raw chop count, I meant not counting UCC chops. That count is somewhat relevant, since there is still the outstanding question as to how to count chops in single-county UCCs. Is a chop into the rural part of Clinton county (Lansing UCC) worse than a chop into Jackson (Jackson UCC)?

I am not too excited about single county UCC's myself - at least ones hosting cities that are really not that sizable. LA County is another matter assuming it were a single county UCC.   Anyway, I didn't realize Jackson was a UCC. Too many UCC's, particularly single county ones, and it really limits flexibility.

[Torie]

Your suggestion about UCC chops seems reasonable. When I looked it up, Lapeer was in the Detroit UCC by the way. That is why the chop was there - to make a good faith attempt to have but one chop into the Detroit UCC. Which suggests that while having one chop in a multi county UCC area should count as but one chop, having two chops into it perhaps should be penalized, and count for three chops. 

[muon2]

Your suggestion about UCC chops seems reasonable. When I looked it up, Lapeer was in the Detroit UCC by the way. That is why the chop was there - to make a good faith attempt to have but one chop into the Detroit UCC. Which suggests that while having one chop in a multi county UCC area should count as but one chop, having two chops into it perhaps should be penalized, and count for three chops. 

Lapeer is in the Detroit metro MSA, but not the UCC. To be in the UCC it must have either 25K or 40% population in an urbanized area. Lapeer has only 71 people, 0.08% in the urbanized area so it isn't included. I stickied jimrtex's master list of UCCs after he created it.

[traininthedistance]

I wonder how the map below would score under the new Muon2 scoring system. No township or city chops other than Detroit (although the avoidance of a chop between MI-10 and MI-11 was at the cost I suspect of more state or US highway chops, so not sure if the avoidance of a chop helps or hurts the score; ditto for the line between MI-10 and MI-09), no chops of major metro areas other than Grand Rapids and Detroit which are unavoidable, all CD's within a 1% deviation, and if competitiveness is a less than 5 PVI, everything is  competitive other than the two black CD's and MI-05 and MI-07 (well MI-02 has a Pub PVI of 5.02% per the 2008 numbers). I don't remember what the cut off was for an uber competitive CD. Was that 1.5 PVI or less? If so, MI-04 and MI-06 are uber competitive.


 

I wonder if there's a less erose way to draw the metro Detroit CDs (don't have the time to fiddle around ATM but might look at it at some point), but the rest of the state looks quite reasonable at a first glance.

[Torie]

My metric was to keep the BVAP about the same for both majority minority CD's.  That might not fit the scoring system, but comports with the intent of the VRA. Something to think about with your scoring system. This is about the the internal lines within the city of Detroit right?

[muon2]

My metric was to keep the BVAP about the same for both majority minority CD's.  That might not fit the scoring system, but comports with the intent of the VRA. Something to think about with your scoring system. This is about the the internal lines within the city of Detroit right?

My understanding and observation is that to satisfy the VRA the districts must provide the opportunity for the minority to elect the representative of choice. In practice, without a lot of precinct data to analyze, a BVAP at 50%+1 is sufficient. In IL the VRA districts were not designed to equalize BVAP, just to provide sufficient opportunity in each district.

So since Detroit must be chopped, there needs to be some antigerrymandering protection within the city. Thus there are city subdivisions, which I took from the city's planning department. They look suitably neutral. Treat them like you would separate suburbs for scoring purposes.

[jimrtex]

Here's how I would write that into a scoring rule for MI.

Definition: Urban County Cluster (UCC). A UCC is a geographic unit within an MSA. It is made up of those counties in the MSA such that each county has either 25,000 population or 40% of its population in an urbanized area. the geographic subunit of a UCC are its counties.

Urban County Cluster (UCC). A UCC is one or more counties within a metropolitan statistical area (MSA).  A county is included in a UCC if at least 40% of the population of the county is in urbanized areas; or if at least 25,000 persons live in urbanized areas.

Changed to recognize that urbanized areas may be plural.  Also MSA also stands for micropolitan statistical area.

Definition: Subunit. The geographic subunit of a county are the census-defined county subdivisions. Except for Detroit, the geographic subunit of county subdivisions are the vote tabulation districts (VTD). The geographic subunit of Detroit is city-defined neighborhood cluster, the subunit of the neighborhood cluster is the neighborhood, and the subunit of the neighborhood is the VTD.

In Michigan aren't townships the subunits of counties?

I think when expressed this way, it tends lose focus on whole counties as an ideal.  See the Ohio Constitution and how in practice there are an extremely unnecessary number of county cuts.

Definition: Chop. A single chop is the division of a geographic unit between two districts. A second chop divides the unit between three districts. In general the number of chops is equal to the number of districts in that unit less one.

Definition: Minimum Number of Districts (MND).  The minimum number of districts to cover a geographic unit is the number of districts that could be wholly contained in the unit, rounded up to the next whole number.   ie MND = ceil (population_of_unit / quota).  For geographic units with a population less than the quota, MND is one.

I think that there should be a distinction made between excessive divisions, and necessary divisions, even if they are mathematically equivalent for arithmetic comparison.

Definition: Microchop. A microchop is a chop where a district has less than 0.5% of the quota in a geographic unit.
[/url]
I don't understand why microchops are treated separately from mesochops.  You have violated the integrity of the political subdivision.  Why not increase the maximum deviation to 1% and do away with microchops.

Definition: Macrochop. A macrochop is a chop where the remainder of a geographic unit after subtracting the population of the largest district in the unit exceeds 5% of the quota.

Is this true for counties that could have more than one whole districts (eg Wayne).

What is the reason for distinguishing macrochops?

[muon2]

A fundamental problem for measuring compactness (or erosity) is scaling. Districts should have a similar measure regardless of the scale of the district. If only the boundary is considered, small, but irregular districts are favored over large but rather compact ones. One solution is to compare the boundary to the area, and many compactness measures do that, but lack the ability to handle districts that have a dense area at one end and rural at the other. Erosity at the urban end doesn't get weighted appropriately.

The solution to this is to shift the scale of granularity based on the population density. Ideally as the density increases the measure of the boundary uses smaller units. Practically if one is using the granularity of counties in less dense areas one wants to shift to smaller units - townships and cities when the population gets too dense.

My specific solution is to recognize that in dense areas, the large population of a county will tend to support a large chop - a macrochop. The macrochop becomes the threshold to determine when the scale factor changes.

[Torie]

Thought Holly was a city. Didn't realize I chopped Lennox. Why is Lennox a microchop, and Holly isn't? Your rules as written are hard to understand. I wish they could be more clearly stated.

[muon2]

Thought Holly was a city. Didn't realize I chopped Lennox. Why is Lennox a microchop, and Holly isn't? Your rules as written are hard to understand. I wish they could be more clearly stated.

Definition: Microchop. A microchop is a chop where a district has less than 0.5% of the quota in a geographic unit.

Example: In MI for CDs 0.5% of the quota for one CD is 0.005*705,974 = 3,529.87. So if a district has less than 3,530 in the county, township or city, or neighborhood cluster under consideration it's a microchop.

I'm open to suggestions for how to write the definition more clearly, but the definition should apply to states that don't have the same geographic units as MI (eg. states without townships) and don't have the same quota.

In Lenox twp, I count 8,817 people in CD 9 and 1,653 in CD 10. So CD 10 is a microchop of Lenox twp.

In Holly twp, I count 5,238 people in CD 10 and 6,079 in CD 11. Both are over the microchop limit so it's just a regular chop.

[Torie]

Well, based on all of the above chit chat, and assuming no double chop penalty for a macro-chop into a multi-county UCC (and thus being able to chop Clinton County), I came up with the below, with the only intra-county macro-chop being one in Detroit that I don't think can be avoided.

One potential problem with this point count structure, is that it rewards doing an otherwise unnecessary micro county chop in order to get the population of a CD adjusted enough to effect an intra-county micro chop in lieu of a macro one. Not good. Or does a micro chop of a county count the same as a macro-chop? If not, does a micro chop of a county count the same as a macro chop of a city or township? I would rather have a macro chop of a city or township than a county micro-chop. The point count rules needs to work through all of this carefully and clearly to avoid playing these undesirable types of games. I am not sure the rules are adequate with respect to these considerations.

"Definition: The initial map for counties chops consists of UCCs and counties not in UCCs. The CHOP score is determined by counting the chops excluding microchops. In units with a macrochop, the CHOP score is increased by the chops of its subunits. If any of the subunits have a macrochop, its subunits are considered for the purposes of the CHOP score."

I don't see any penalty for doing a double macro chop into a multi county UCC, which I think should be considered. It also seems that there is no penalty for a county micro-chop, and there should be in my view, although less than the penalty for a macro-chop - perhaps a half point. Sure it is more complicated, but we already are complicated, and the idea is to generate the best results, is it not?


Is there a state and US highway cut count for with respect to CD lines that bisect counties by the way?

And is it impossible to do a maco-chop of a county with less than 1% of the ideal population size of a CD? If so, that too seems undesirable, since there would then be an incentive to chop mini counties. I suggest that the rule be, if it is not already, that a micro chop is where one portion of a county chop is less than the micro chop quota, and the other portion is more than the micro-chop quota, as opposed to both portions being less.

[muon2]

Well, based on all of the above chit chat, and assuming no double chop penalty for a macro-chop into a multi-county UCC (and thus being able to chop Clinton County), I came up with the below, with the only intra-county macro-chop being one in Detroit that I don't think can be avoided.

It isn't easy, but you managed a double penalty in Clinton as you drew it. The threshold for a macrochop is 5% of the quota which is 35,298.7 so any chop larger than that into a geographic unit triggers the macrochop provision. The chop of the UCC by CD 3 is 35,478, so it is just barely a macrochop.

The chop into the UCC is a macrochop so it adds a point and causes the UCC to be treated as individual counties. If the chop was 200 people less then it would be a simple chop and the counting would end with one point for the UCC chop. I know it seems arbitrary, but the threshold has to be somewhere and 5% has some rationale, so it's slightly less arbitrary than say 6%.

Since the macrochop causes the UCC to be considered as counties, the chop in Clinton counts again in the score. Had the initial chop been 200 people less, then we wouldn't get to this stage. The two pieces of Clinton are 35,478 and 39,904. You managed to get both over 5% so it's a macrochop of Clinton, too, which is tough for a county with less than 11% of the quota. That causes the county to be treated as a collection of townships and cities, but there are no chops there so the chop count stops at two.

Double chops into a UCC are more likely to trigger a macrochop provision, so they are more likely to get a double penalty. You just happened to pick a chop right over the threshold so it impacts your map as well. If you shift one township in Jackson from CD 8 to CD 7, and one township in Clinton from CD 3 to CD 8, your chop score goes back to the single point chop of the Lansing UCC.

[Torie]

Does the below make the macro-chop for Clinton magically disappear by exploiting the 0.5% leeway in CD populations? If so, we have a problem, and such a result would never survive public square derision at this “anomaly.” Maybe having a 5% rule plus whatever play there is in adjacent CD’s given the 0.5% rule would resolve that. And if Jackson is a macro-shop, maybe a double one if a single county UCC generates a double penalty, does the second map “solve” that problem?  Don’t like that either, but I suppose that if single county UCC’s don’t matter, that is OK, and this version is more likely to have highway cuts, and a higher erosity score, which is good, so the prior map would have a higher score.

Can you avoid a macro-chop into a UCC by having two smaller chops into a multi county UCC, so instead of avoiding a second chop into a UCC, and searching for a chop elsewhere, you actually arrange the second chop to be into the UCC to get down below 25K plus per chop? If so, that rewards two smaller chops into a UCC. Don't like that one either. It should either be neutral, or penalized. I prefer just one chop into a multi county UCC myself.

This uber complicated system needs to be entirely scrubbed to avoid all of this game playing potential that I am exploring in this series of posts I am making, and needs to be taken seriously in my opinion.

I posed some other questions above which were not responded to btw. Cheers.

 

[muon2]

Does the below make the macro-chop for Clinton magically disappear by exploiting the 0.5% leeway in CD populations? If so, we have a problem, and such a result would never survive public square derision at this “anomaly.” Maybe having a 5% rule plus whatever play there is in adjacent CD’s given the 0.5% rule would resolve that. And if Jackson is a macro-shop, maybe a double one if a single county UCC generates a double penalty, does the second map “solve” that problem?  Don’t like that either, but I suppose that if single county UCC’s don’t matter, that is OK, and this version is more likely to have highway cuts, and a higher erosity score, which is good, so the prior map would have a higher score.

Can you avoid a macro-chop into a UCC by having two smaller chops into a multi county UCC, so instead of avoiding a second chop into a UCC, and searching for a chop elsewhere, you actually arrange the second chop to be into the UCC to get down below 25K plus per chop? If so, that rewards two smaller chops into a UCC. Don't like that one either. It should either be neutral, or penalized. I prefer just one chop into a multi county UCC myself.

This uber complicated system needs to be entirely scrubbed to avoid all of this game playing potential that I am exploring in this series of posts I am making, and needs to be taken seriously in my opinion.

I posed some other questions above which were not responded to btw. Cheers.

 

Your map here for Jackson was one of things I was looking at originally when I suggested you could reduce macrochops. I think this reduced chop of Jackson is preferable to your original version, and the swap of Branch and Hillsdale is a reasonable price to pay since CD 7 and 8 aren't significantly more erose with your new version.

The nub in Clinton is an artifact of the fact that you just happen to be right at the edge of the threshold. Any scoring system will have thresholds and strange effects right near their limit, due to the fact that we want to keep whole counties and whole townships when counties are split. It a problem common to any discrete system. Compared to the type of gerrymandering that otherwise occurs I'm not really put off by the nub.

I'll try to put together a flowchart of the scoring system. It's actually much simpler than one that has a long list of exceptions to try to accommodate every possible geography. The complexity is that it is recursive which helps me solve the erosity issue between rural and urban areas.

[muon2]

Here a word version of the process flow to get the CHOP score.

1. Begin with a map consisting of UCCs and counties not in UCCs as geographic units.
2. Set the chop count to zero.
3. Select a geographic unit that has not been tested.
4. Is there more than one district in the unit?
    Yes, continue to 5
    No, skip to 14
5. Count the number of districts in the unit, subtract one, and add that to the chop count.
6. Do any districts in the unit have a population less than 0.5% of the quota?
    Yes, continue to 7
    No, skip to 9
7. The districts in the unit with less than 0.5% of the quota are microchops.
8. Subtract the number of microchop districts in the unit from the chop count.
9. Subtract the district with the largest population in the district from the total population of the district.
10. Is that difference in step 9 greater than 5% of the quota?
    Yes, continue to 11
    No, skip to 14
11. The unit has a macrochop. Replace the unit by its subunits.
12. Treat each subunit as a new, untested unit.
13. Skip to step 15.
14. Mark the unit as tested.
15. Are there any untested units left?
    Yes, return to 3
    No, continue to 16
16. Report chop count as the CHOP score

And here's a diagram of the core process.

[Torie]

Nicely done. Much clearer.

 "Maybe having a 5% rule plus whatever play there is in adjacent CD’s given the 0.5% rule would resolve that."

I am not sure why you don't accept theaddendum revising the definition of a macrochop, so we don't have to do the nub, which is just plain silly to me, since you end up at once with both the nub, and more population deviations in the CD's from the ideal population number.

Your system seems to favor as many microchops as possible in order to avoid a non microchop. That strikes me as problematical. We really have a 1% play here if I understand this, since first you are allowed a .5% population deviation in CD's with no chops, and then  another .5% bite for microchops, with microchops having no scoring penalty at all apparently. I think there should be some penalty for microchops. To me having two fewer microchops should be scored the same as one macrochop (although with a macrochop it makes sense to worry about internal county subunits - in fact even with a non micro, non macro chop (an "intermediate chop"), it makes sense to worry about internal county subdivsions.

 Perhaps we will just have to disagree on this one. I don't think a zero penalty regime for microchops will sell in the public square. I favor the distinction between macrochops, intermediate chops and microchops, but microchops  should not be a get out of jail free regime in my opinion.

In reading your system again, there seems to be no penalty for a macro chop versus an intermediate chop as long as you have no chops of internal county subdivisions, as opposed to incurring another chop penalty, which surprises me. Am I misinterpreting your text?  If so, playing the nub game appears to be unnecessary if the macrochop entails no concomitant internal county chops.

Have I stated the policy choice fairly here, or am I still getting it wrong, or missing something, as to the effect of your system, and the policy choices made?

I still don't have an answer to my intra county chop erosity question. In your metric, do you count intra-county highway cuts?

And oh yes, this issue is still hanging out there unanswered:

"And is it impossible to a maco-chop [incur a chop penalty] of a county with less than 1% of the ideal population size of a CD? If so, that too seems undesirable, since there would then be an incentive to chop mini counties. I suggest that the rule be, if it is not already, that a micro chop is where one portion of a county chop is less than the micro chop quota, and the other portion is more than the micro-chop quota, as opposed to both portions being less."

Don't you care about the evisceration of mini counties?   In fact, why can't you microchop every connty in the state just for spite, or to collect some CD population adjustments bit by bit over many counties, so in the end all you have are a zillion microchops and nothing else, because you can without penalty?

[muon2]

Let me address the microchop concerns you raise. One thing you may be missing is that CHOP is not the only measure used to judge a plan. Microchops don't increase the chop count, but they do impact erosity, and generally microchops will increase erosity.

If a plan added a lot of gratuitous microchops, it is highly likely that the erosity increases. Suppose there are two plans, but one adds a bunch of microchops. If they keep the same chop count, then by the Pareto rule the morearose plan is excluded. Thus the gratuitous microchop plan is eliminated.

If one plan adds a bunch of microchops, increasing erosity but reducing chops, then both can go forward as they are pareto equivalent. Rarely a microchop reduces erosity, but it does in your Lenox township example, but if you look at the shape that makes sense. The indent for CD 9 was reduced by the microchop.

That said, a modification that adds one chop when the sum of all microchops in a unit exceeds 0.5% of the quota may make sense.

On your concern about the 1% effect, that is valid on its face. However, there is also a measure of inequality used as a ties breaker if the chops and erosity are the same. A plan that stretches to 1% with microchops would be competingagainst plans that use microchops to decrease inequality, and could be eliminated by them.

[Torie]

Let me address the microchop concerns you raise. One thing you may be missing is that CHOP is not the only measure used to judge a plan. Microchops don't increase the chop count, but they do impact erosity, and generally microchops will increase erosity.

If a plan added a lot of gratuitous microchops, it is highly likely that the erosity increases. Suppose there are two plans, but one adds a bunch of microchops. If they keep the same chop count, then by the Pareto rule the morearose plan is excluded. Thus the gratuitous microchop plan is eliminated.

If one plan adds a bunch of microchops, increasing erosity but reducing chops, then both can go forward as they are pareto equivalent. Rarely a microchop reduces erosity, but it does in your Lenox township example, but if you look at the shape that makes sense. The indent for CD 9 was reduced by the microchop. I tend to doubt there are enough state highways around (that is your proxy still for erosity right?), to be a panacea for microchop city. You might ponder this one some more.

That said, a modification that adds one chop when the sum of all microchops in a unit exceeds 0.5% of the quota may make sense.  That would help to fix the issue.

On your concern about the 1% effect, that is valid on its face. However, there is also a measure of inequality used as a ties breaker if the chops and erosity are the same. A plan that stretches to 1% with microchops would be competingagainst plans that use microchops to decrease inequality, and could be eliminated by them.  Is that in the text somewhere?  I am not sure just being a tie breaker is good enough, if a bunch of microchops are used to avoid a non microchop somewhere. I think this comment of mine should be taken seriously. It just won't be accepted in the public square.

Still waiting for responses to my other questions which you keep ignoring.

[muon2]

Let me address the microchop concerns you raise. One thing you may be missing is that CHOP is not the only measure used to judge a plan. Microchops don't increase the chop count, but they do impact erosity, and generally microchops will increase erosity.

If a plan added a lot of gratuitous microchops, it is highly likely that the erosity increases. Suppose there are two plans, but one adds a bunch of microchops. If they keep the same chop count, then by the Pareto rule the morearose plan is excluded. Thus the gratuitous microchop plan is eliminated.

If one plan adds a bunch of microchops, increasing erosity but reducing chops, then both can go forward as they are pareto equivalent. Rarely a microchop reduces erosity, but it does in your Lenox township example, but if you look at the shape that makes sense. The indent for CD 9 was reduced by the microchop. I tend to doubt there are enough state highways around (that is your proxy still for erosity right?), to be a panacea for microchop city. You might ponder this one some more. There are two types of connectivity used for erosity - local which utilizes public roads, and regional which utilizes state highways. During our work over a year ago it became clear that in urban areas there aren't enough state highways to establish connections where there is high population density. Therefore subunit connections need only be local. This was the mechanism used in the New England town-based thread last year. Top level connections between counties and UCCs are regional.

That said, a modification that adds one chop when the sum of all microchops in a unit exceeds 0.5% of the quota may make sense.  That would help to fix the issue.

On your concern about the 1% effect, that is valid on its face. However, there is also a measure of inequality used as a ties breaker if the chops and erosity are the same. A plan that stretches to 1% with microchops would be competing against plans that use microchops to decrease inequality, and could be eliminated by them.  Is that in the text somewhere?  I am not sure just being a tie breaker is good enough, if a bunch of microchops are used to avoid a non microchop somewhere. I think this comment of mine should be taken seriously. It just won't be accepted in the public square. We've been using microchops in this fashion for almost two years now on multiple threads, so I'm not sure I see the problem. The use of the INEQUALITY score as a tie breaker for plans with matching CHOP and EROSITY scores is in the approved rules for the VA Forum Commission.

Still waiting for responses to my other questions which you keep ignoring. If I can get past one set of questions I can move on to the others. That includes an example of erosity in one of your mixed districts I've been trying to complete for over a day now.

[Torie]

Speaking of my dislike for two chops into a UCC, I also dislike any county that is not a UCC taking a two chop hit, and try to avoid that myself. It seems unfair to the county being cut up. Thus, it might be considered to levy an extra chop penalty when one does double chop a county or UCC. Find some other county to chop. And within a UCC, can one chop counties galore without penalty, as if one county, absent there being a macrochop into the UCC?  That really gives an incentive to do multiple microchops into a UCC, or at least intermediate chops. And the Detroit UCC has no chops into it at all, just a chop out into Lapeer County. So does that mean anything goes chop wise with the UCC, other than worrying about erosity?  If so, that is not good. Why was I spanked for not respecting Detroit hoods, if there is no penalty attached.

[muon2]

Speaking of my dislike for two chops into a UCC, I also dislike any county that is not a UCC taking a two chop hit, and try to avoid that myself. It seems unfair to the county being cut up. Thus, it might be considered to levy an extra chop penalty when one does double chop a county or UCC. Find some other county to chop. And within a UCC, can one chop counties galore without penalty, as if one county, absent there being a macrochop into the UCC?  That really gives an incentive to do multiple microchops into a UCC, or at least intermediate chops. And the Detroit UCC has no chops into it at all, just a chop out into Lapeer County. So does that mean anything goes chop wise with the UCC, other than worrying about erosity?  If so, that is not good. Why was I spanked for not respecting Detroit hoods, if there is no penalty attached.

I can try to find the thread from a couple of years ago, but we looked at a number of models for chops back then. On one extreme one can count fragments which favors plans that put all the chops in a few counties. On the other extreme one can count the number of counties that are chopped. We reached a consensus that a chop into a new county has the same value as a chop into an already chopped county. The only change I've made since then is to say if the sum of the chops gets too large, it's a macrochop and the plan will take a hit in erosity and perhaps additional chops. That tends to spread the chops out but doesn't force the issue.

On your Detroit question, you have the minimum number of chops of the Detroit UCC so you get the lowest possible chop score at the UCC level (5 points in the flow chart above). Suppose instead a plan added Monroe to the Metro districts to get a better shaped CD. That would force a chop into the Detroit UCC and there would be at least one extra chop assessed compared to your plan. So it does matter.

Unlike VA where I was busy putting out neighborhood maps to guide any plans, you jumped to MI before I put out a corresponding Detroit map. So you are forgiven. Those neighborhoods can be chopped and points assessed just like anywhere else, so if time permits, you could tidy up those boundaries in the city. No harm, no foul.