Based on 2012 results only, which state gerrymander flipped the most seats?

[muon2]

You still have the issue of the Rowan-Stanly link. They are contiguous so NC would allow it as a matter of law (NC law even allows point contiguity, ugh). However, there is no highway connection between them, so the strict rules forbid reliance on the link. That means that strict scoring rejects the plan (as it would a bridge/traveling chop).

I'm assuming you would like something more generous to allow these defective plans to be scored. Presumably both these defects could in general be remedied with different chop (eg the switch in Mecklenburg). In that case, I suggest that they should be no better, and preferably worse than a simple chop. I'd advocate for a double chop penalty to discourage their use.

Edit: Discussion about this point has been split to a separate thread.

[Torie]

Moving right along from the battle of North Carolina, here is my Louisiana map. A pack penalty of the New Orleans metro area was unavoidable, and to avoid a cover and pack penalty for Baton Rouge, I needed to do an artificial chop into St. John the Baptist Parish with LA-01. And voila, here is an example of where two counties cannot be connected, even though it would have solved some problems for me, to wit, between St. James and Assumption Parishes. There is no road connection between them at all. And I did keep in one CD the 4 black Mississippi River counties in the NE corner of the state as well.

An interesting question is with St. John the Baptist parish, is that the southern bit has no road connection to the balance of the parish. Does putting that portion of the parish into another CD count that is connected by a road count as a chop? It's moot here, because I needed to put another precinct in the parish across the river into LA-02 to make the numbers work, but it could have potentially been an issue. Louisiana is a bit of a challenge given the relatively lack of road connections in the Bayou area. But hey, that is why some Cajuns travel by boat.

The Dems are shut out here. LA-01 has a Pub PVI of about 2%. I do not consider that there is a Section 2 CD in play connecting the black areas of Baton Rouge and New Orleans. There are white areas in between. Even if there were not, arguably connecting two black metro areas with a rural bridge is not even then a Section 2 CD. But with a white blockade, there almost certainly is not in my opinion.

So the Dems picked up a seat over what a Muon2 metric map would have given them. And this map does not rely on a non state road paved connection.

[muon2]

Moving right along from the battle of North Carolina, here is my Louisiana map. A pack penalty of the New Orleans metro area was unavoidable, and to avoid a cover and pack penalty for Baton Rouge, I needed to do an artificial chop into St. John the Baptist Parish with LA-01. And voila, here is an example of where two counties cannot be connected, even though it would have solved some problems for me, to wit, between St. James and Assumption Parishes. There is no road connection between them at all. And I did keep in one CD the 4 black Mississippi River counties in the NE corner of the state as well.

An interesting question is with St. John the Baptist parish, is that the southern bit has no road connection to the balance of the parish. Does putting that portion of the parish into another CD count that is connected by a road count as a chop? It's moot here, because I needed to put another precinct in the parish across the river into LA-02 to make the numbers work, but it could have potentially been an issue. Louisiana is a bit of a challenge given the relatively lack of road connections in the Bayou area. But hey, that is why some Cajuns travel by boat.

The Dems are shut out here. LA-01 has a Pub PVI of about 2%. I do not consider that there is a Section 2 CD in play connecting the black areas of Baton Rouge and New Orleans. There are white areas in between. Even if there were not, arguably connecting two black metro areas with a rural bridge is not even then a Section 2 CD. But with a white blockade, there almost certainly is not in my opinion.

So the Dems picked up a seat over what a Muon2 metric map would have given them. And this map does not rely on a non state road paved connection.

Interestingly at the time of redistricting in 2011 there was a LADoT ferry between Reserve and Edgard that would count as a state highway connection. It had closed in 2007 due to levee repairs, and other issues kept it closed until it reopened in Jan 2011. It closed again for state budget reasons in July 2013.

[Torie]

How on earth did you come across that trivia? Assuming there was no ferry, does it count as a chop or not in your opinion?

[muon2]

How on earth did you come across that trivia? Assuming there was no ferry, does it count as a chop or not in your opinion?

It counts as a chop, but there is no link created so it adds nothing to erosity. It may even reduce erosity depending on which parts are attached to which other areas. St John the Baptist parish is complicated in that the county seat (Edgard) is not the seat of government (LaPlace).

[Torie]

How on earth did you come across that trivia? Assuming there was no ferry, does it count as a chop or not in your opinion?

It counts as a chop, but there is no link created so it adds nothing to erosity. It may even reduce erosity depending on which parts are attached to which other areas. St John the Baptist parish is complicated in that the county seat (Edgard) is not the seat of government (LaPlace).

You seem to be an expert on this county.  I actually have visited it, when I toured the Evergreen Plantation. The docent was Cajun, and had something of a French accent, which was cool. She said about a third of the visitors were French in fact. What was cool, is the teenaged boys when they got to be about 14, stayed in separate quarters, with its own entrance. I wish I had had such quarters at that age, alas.

[Torie]

And here is Georgia. All of the chops are in the Atlanta urban cluster – seven chops, four of which are macrochops, three in Fulton, and one in Gwinnett.  There are no locality chops, and no urban cluster associated penalty points, including any chops of 40% plus BVAP rural county clusters. There are two nodes of such clusters, one in my GA-10, and another in GA-6.  It was quite laborious to map them out.

GA-10 has a Pub PVI of 1.4%, so ala Connecticut, the Dems lose a half a half seat with a Muon2 metric map (they have 3.5 seats, rather than 4 seats). GA-10 is not a section 2 CD, so that ends any discussion of whether Section 2 would otherwise require GA-10 crossing into Macon over a white bridge.  Chopping into Macon does not get the BVAP up to 50%.  My GA-11 has a 38.2% BVAP, but it went 63.6% Obama, so presumably a black would be nominated in a Dem primary, and obtain enough white votes to get elected. The other two black CD’s are a bit over 50% BVAP.

I must say Muon2’s system is proving to work quite well. However, it is increasingly obvious that using it is not going to harvest the Dems many more seats as compared to the present regime.  And in most cases it is not really due to the VRA, but geography. The VRA did not hurt the Dems in Georgia.  In fact, the only thing that helped the Dems in Georgia was Muon2’s 40% BVAP rural county cluster metric, which shoved GA-10 into the tossup category.  Otherwise, it would probably have ended up Pub.

 

[Torie]

Notice that chop into Paulding County? A chop along the state highway does not work. I see no problem with such a chop. It should be allowed assuming there is the requisite paved road connecting the chopped portion to the adjacent county (here it is county road number 381). (I am not even sure there needs to be anything but a paved road, assuming there is the requisite number county highway at least somewhere connecting to the two counties, but let's leave that one alone for now.) In all events, the constraint that one must follow a state highway in, makes no sense to me. It might cause a locality chop. But I guess that is a moot point, if we are going to allow county road connections. So we are left with whether any paved road will do for a chop in (assuming there is a county road connection somewhere else between the two counties), if necessary to avoid a locality chop.

Oh, I missed that I chopped Atlanta in the map. To avoid that, we are back to the bridge chop issue. Again, I suggest that they be allowed, but if one can avoid the bridge chop with the same number of chops, the bridge chop map loses, unless the bridge improves a map's erosity score, and then the two maps are tied, and one looks to erosity scores to ascertain the superior map. If that is tied too, then the bridge chop map again loses. A bridge chop map loses unless it is at least tied on one of the scores, and superior on the other, in other words. Again the idea is to improve scores, and particularly chop scores.

[muon2]

Notice that chop into Paulding County? A chop along the state highway does not work. I see no problem with such a chop. It should be allowed assuming there is the requisite paved road connecting the chopped portion to the adjacent county (here it is county road number 381). (I am not even sure there needs to be anything but a paved road, assuming there is the requisite number county highway at least somewhere connecting to the two counties, but let's leave that one alone for now.) In all events, the constraint that one must follow a state highway in, makes no sense to me. It might cause a locality chop. But I guess that is a moot point, if we are going to allow county road connections. So we are left with whether any paved road will do for a chop in (assuming there is a county road connection somewhere else between the two counties), if necessary to avoid a locality chop.

A chop along a state highway works fine in the real world in Paulding and there are a number of choices that wouldn't impinge on an incorporated community. The problem looks like it's due to the constraints of the precincts used by DRA. GA doesn't have townships to drive the creation of precincts,  and the GA cities don't have any bearing on the precincts. Real redistricting would ignore the precincts for a chop into Paulding.

[Torie]

Notice that chop into Paulding County? A chop along the state highway does not work. I see no problem with such a chop. It should be allowed assuming there is the requisite paved road connecting the chopped portion to the adjacent county (here it is county road number 381). (I am not even sure there needs to be anything but a paved road, assuming there is the requisite number county highway at least somewhere connecting to the two counties, but let's leave that one alone for now.) In all events, the constraint that one must follow a state highway in, makes no sense to me. It might cause a locality chop. But I guess that is a moot point, if we are going to allow county road connections. So we are left with whether any paved road will do for a chop in (assuming there is a county road connection somewhere else between the two counties), if necessary to avoid a locality chop.

A chop along a state highway works fine in the real world in Paulding and there are a number of choices that wouldn't impinge on an incorporated community. The problem looks like it's due to the constraints of the precincts used by DRA. GA doesn't have townships to drive the creation of precincts,  and the GA cities don't have any bearing on the precincts. Real redistricting would ignore the precincts for a chop into Paulding.

That's fine, but in some cases that will not be the case. Since we will allow county highways for connectivity, they should be allowed for chop ins as well. I raise again the bridge chop issue above btw.

In Gwinnett, there seem to be townships by the way. At least groups of precincts have the same proper name, and I drew my chop line there accordingly.

[muon2]

Notice that chop into Paulding County? A chop along the state highway does not work. I see no problem with such a chop. It should be allowed assuming there is the requisite paved road connecting the chopped portion to the adjacent county (here it is county road number 381). (I am not even sure there needs to be anything but a paved road, assuming there is the requisite number county highway at least somewhere connecting to the two counties, but let's leave that one alone for now.) In all events, the constraint that one must follow a state highway in, makes no sense to me. It might cause a locality chop. But I guess that is a moot point, if we are going to allow county road connections. So we are left with whether any paved road will do for a chop in (assuming there is a county road connection somewhere else between the two counties), if necessary to avoid a locality chop.

A chop along a state highway works fine in the real world in Paulding and there are a number of choices that wouldn't impinge on an incorporated community. The problem looks like it's due to the constraints of the precincts used by DRA. GA doesn't have townships to drive the creation of precincts,  and the GA cities don't have any bearing on the precincts. Real redistricting would ignore the precincts for a chop into Paulding.

That's fine, but in some cases that will not be the case. Since we will allow county highways for connectivity, they should be allowed for chop ins as well. I raise again the bridge chop issue above btw.

In Gwinnett, there seem to be townships by the way. At least groups of precincts have the same proper name, and I drew my chop line there accordingly.

The current Gwinnett precincts have numbers only according to the county website, and there isn't township government. I would guess that the DRA names are from the previous decade and reference historic townships that may once have had a role in government but no longer do. In any case those names don't always match well with the actual cities. I assume that real world redistricting would define sub areas based on the present cities.

[Torie]

Here is my map for Colorado. It was rather tricky to effect to avoid chops up there in the Rockies.  I think the existing map was put in place by a judge who asked each party to submit a map, and he would pick one of the two. He picked the Dem map. Anyway, it was not favorable to the Pubs. In this map, the tossup Coffman seat (my CO-03), goes from tossup to rather comfortably Pub (McCain carried it by a couple of thousand votes), and the strong lean Dem seat, the Perlmutter seat, drops down to barely Dem, at a 1.6% Dem PVI (my CO-02).  So the Dems lose another half seat in Colorado, and almost lost a full seat.

[muon2]

Here's my take on CO. I reduced some erosity by swapping a pack point for a county chop. I also avoided a questionable link between Gilpin and Clear Lake. The districts are 2D, 1d, 1e, 3R compared to the actual 2D, 1d, 1e, 1r, 2R. Yes the 1e is R+0 in mine compared to D+1, but I don't see a substantial change.

[jimrtex]

Here's my take on CO. I reduced some erosity by swapping a pack point for a county chop. I also avoided a questionable link between Gilpin and Clear Lake. The districts are 2D, 1d, 1e, 3R compared to the actual 2D, 1d, 1e, 1r, 2R. Yes the 1e is R+0 in mine compared to D+1, but I don't see a substantial change.

That is a four lane highway built by Central City to provide access from Clear Creek County (I-70 and Denver really).

[muon2]

Here's my take on CO. I reduced some erosity by swapping a pack point for a county chop. I also avoided a questionable link between Gilpin and Clear Lake. The districts are 2D, 1d, 1e, 3R compared to the actual 2D, 1d, 1e, 1r, 2R. Yes the 1e is R+0 in mine compared to D+1, but I don't see a substantial change.

That is a four lane highway built by Central City to provide access from Clear Creek County (I-70 and Denver really).

And that's an area where our definitions conflict. The Central City Parkway is neither numbered nor a state highway, though it was built locally to provide a more convenient and direct connection. I can imagine at some future point the state taking over the highway, at which point it would meet both our definitions. I'm willing to miss a few like this in the interest of a simpler definition.

In any case I went for lower erosity for the same chop count.

[Torie]

Here's my take on CO. I reduced some erosity by swapping a pack point for a county chop. I also avoided a questionable link between Gilpin and Clear Lake. The districts are 2D, 1d, 1e, 3R compared to the actual 2D, 1d, 1e, 1r, 2R. Yes the 1e is R+0 in mine compared to D+1, but I don't see a substantial change.

Well done. Clearly a superior map. I made an error in mine, accidentally chopping a precinct off Denver, so I had to redo the musical chairs dance of the Denver burbs between the three CD's to make it work again without a locality chop. Now the Jeffco CD is a tossup, about D +1, so the skew in my map is off by more than yours as well as having a lower erosity score.

Yor guys a bit of a pain in the butt on the road connection thing. There is nothing "questionable" about the link between Gilpin and Clear Lake. There is a state highway link. I am going to come up with my own system, that will be as precisely and automatic as possible, and post it when I am done.

What I am thinking about is that a state highway that does nick through another county, but directly links a population center in one county with one in the adjacent county, and the two counties also have direct local paved road links, is enough to append the two counties in one CD. If there is just a local paved road link, without the state highway link that nicks another county, that road must also be designed to link  population centers in each of the counties, without wandering around (as the links do between Staley and Carrubus counties in NC). So those two counties need the nick state highway road to be linked.  I guess we will each end up with our own systems. Jimrtex's is way too vague however at the moment to be workable.

FWIW, allowing Staley and Carrubus to be linked does make for a much nicer looking map then Muon2's in NC (and presumably a superior erosty score in addition to having one less chop point penalty), assuming you also allow bridge chops, that are only penalized to the extent that a map a map with an equal chop score while avoiding a bridge chop wins, unless the bridge chop avoids a locality chop, and then the two maps are tied on chop scores.

I also see absolutely no reason to ban chops into counties that do not follow state highways. When I see some examples that allowing such causes bad maps, I may change my mind. I really don't care about communities of interests, which is what you guys are talking about with these highway rules. What I care about are avoiding chops and erosity. That's my focus.

I am putting up my NC map first, then Muon2's version of NC, and then my corrected Colorado map, which does admittedly lose to Muon2's version.

[muon2]

Why not avoid the whole bridge chop issue in Randolph and put the chop in northern Rowan?

Never mind. it's the UCC.

I still think that bridge chops are bad and invite mischief. A UCC penalty is preferable to a bridge chop IMO.

I thought your version with the Moore chop was a good solution, and lower erosity to boot.

[Torie]

Why not avoid the whole bridge chop issue in Randolph and put the chop in northern Rowan?

Because that generates a cover penalty.

[muon2]

Why not avoid the whole bridge chop issue in Randolph and put the chop in northern Rowan?

Because that generates a cover penalty.

I noticed at the same time as your post. See above.

[Torie]

Why not avoid the whole bridge chop issue in Randolph and put the chop in northern Rowan?

Never mind. it's the UCC.

I still think that bridge chops are bad and invite mischief. A UCC penalty is preferable to a bridge chop IMO.

I thought your version with the Moore chop was a good solution, and lower erosity to boot.

That's an empirical issue, that requires examples. I think the mischief is contained by the bridge chop losing if the maps are tied in chops as I described. And absent the UCC penalty, then of course the chop would be in Rowan, unless that generated a locality chop, and then the maps are still tied, and one looks at erosity. Between all those constraints, color me skeptical as to the mischief caused.

The Moore chop map has one more chop than my map above (causing that map with my scoring scheme to tie rather than beat yours on chop count). I stole your idea about NC-02 to lose that chop.

[muon2]

Why not avoid the whole bridge chop issue in Randolph and put the chop in northern Rowan?

Never mind. it's the UCC.

I still think that bridge chops are bad and invite mischief. A UCC penalty is preferable to a bridge chop IMO.

I thought your version with the Moore chop was a good solution, and lower erosity to boot.

That's an empirical issue, that requires examples. I think the mischief is contained by the bridge chop losing if the maps are tied in chops as I described. And absent the UCC penalty, then of course the chop would be in Rowan, unless that generated a locality chop, and then the maps are still tied, and one looks at erosity. Between all those constraints, color me skeptical as to the mischief caused.

The Moore chop map has one more chop than my map above (causing that map with my scoring scheme to tie rather than beat yours on chop count). I stole your idea about NC-02 to lose that chop.

The mischief in bridge chops is allow one to more easily link two separate areas of the same political persuasion by avoiding a population of the other political persuasion. I think that's the essence of political gerrymandering. You weren't doing it in Randolph for that reason, but I can point to one of your earlier NC maps where you kept most of Charlotte together (ignoring the connection issues). That plan resulted in a bipartisan gerrymander in the Charlotte area that created a solid district for each side with no opportunity for competition. Our more recent non-bridge chops of Mecklenburg forced a more competitive district, which I think is good policy.

[Torie]

Why not avoid the whole bridge chop issue in Randolph and put the chop in northern Rowan?

Never mind. it's the UCC.

I still think that bridge chops are bad and invite mischief. A UCC penalty is preferable to a bridge chop IMO.

I thought your version with the Moore chop was a good solution, and lower erosity to boot.

That's an empirical issue, that requires examples. I think the mischief is contained by the bridge chop losing if the maps are tied in chops as I described. And absent the UCC penalty, then of course the chop would be in Rowan, unless that generated a locality chop, and then the maps are still tied, and one looks at erosity. Between all those constraints, color me skeptical as to the mischief caused.

The Moore chop map has one more chop than my map above (causing that map with my scoring scheme to tie rather than beat yours on chop count). I stole your idea about NC-02 to lose that chop.

The mischief in bridge chops is allow one to more easily link two separate areas of the same political persuasion by avoiding a population of the other political persuasion. I think that's the essence of political gerrymandering. You weren't doing it in Randolph for that reason, but I can point to one of your earlier NC maps where you kept most of Charlotte together (ignoring the connection issues). That plan resulted in a bipartisan gerrymander in the Charlotte area that created a solid district for each side with no opportunity for competition. Our more recent non-bridge chops of Mecklenburg forced a more competitive district, which I think is good policy.

There was no way to do a bridge chop there that reduced total chops, so that map was a fail. Even absent that, in other instances, the end result might have been the reverse anyway. End partisan results in a map that a computer generates are all presumably quite random across the Fruited Plain I would think. Mischief making bridge chops would also tend to tank the erosity score. I await examples of where a winning map has a mischief making bridge chop. We both are into data based decision making, no? 

[muon2]

Why not avoid the whole bridge chop issue in Randolph and put the chop in northern Rowan?

Never mind. it's the UCC.

I still think that bridge chops are bad and invite mischief. A UCC penalty is preferable to a bridge chop IMO.

I thought your version with the Moore chop was a good solution, and lower erosity to boot.

That's an empirical issue, that requires examples. I think the mischief is contained by the bridge chop losing if the maps are tied in chops as I described. And absent the UCC penalty, then of course the chop would be in Rowan, unless that generated a locality chop, and then the maps are still tied, and one looks at erosity. Between all those constraints, color me skeptical as to the mischief caused.

The Moore chop map has one more chop than my map above (causing that map with my scoring scheme to tie rather than beat yours on chop count). I stole your idea about NC-02 to lose that chop.

The mischief in bridge chops is allow one to more easily link two separate areas of the same political persuasion by avoiding a population of the other political persuasion. I think that's the essence of political gerrymandering. You weren't doing it in Randolph for that reason, but I can point to one of your earlier NC maps where you kept most of Charlotte together (ignoring the connection issues). That plan resulted in a bipartisan gerrymander in the Charlotte area that created a solid district for each side with no opportunity for competition. Our more recent non-bridge chops of Mecklenburg forced a more competitive district, which I think is good policy.

There was no way to do a bridge chop there that reduced total chops, so that map was a fail. Even absent that, in other instances, the end result might have been the reverse anyway. End partisan results in a map that a computer generates are all presumably quite random across the Fruited Plain I would think. Mischief making bridge chops would also tend to tank the erosity score. I await examples of where a winning map has a mischief making bridge chop. We both are into data based decision making, no? 

The data requires agreed metrics and goals. You used to subscribe to the idea that if all else is equal (Pareto equivalent) then increasing the number competitive districts is a preferred goal. Since I envision a political body picking from Pareto equivalent maps, I'd like to discourage "flexibility" that serves to put partisan or bipartisan gerrymanders on the list. What is your feeling on reducing the potential for partisan gerrymanders as a policy goal?

There's another issue of goals that I'm trying to reconcile. You clearly prefer avoiding UCC penalties compared to county chops - they are equal so that's your choice. But UCCs are a proxy for a type of CoI, they wouldn't exist but for a concern about objective CoI. Yet there is this quote from our other thread (emphasis added).

You need to try to fashion precise definitions for your categories. It all seems too subjective to me. I always try to formulate such precision in categories in my mind as I think this through, and what seems right, and what will be the impact on maps. I am less concerned with COI issues per se, except as a by product for rules that can be applied objectively, without having to otherwise make such judgments.

Isn't what jimrtex and I trying to do each in our own way build CoI into connections in the same way we built urban areas into UCCs? UCCs are not a byproduct of other objective rules, but a specific rule created toward a policy goal related to CoI. If there is less concern about CoI, why not prefer whole counties to UCC penalties?

[Torie]

I am not persuaded that the rules I propose would systematically reduce the number of competitive districts, or increase the skew for that matter. That is your claim, but so far, I don't see any evidence of that. What my rules I think would do is reduce chop penalty scores. There is no flexibility in the sense that it involves humans. It involves a computer. A computer does not have a partisan bias, unless programmed for it.

I do have a preference for UCC integrity, but if after the penalty points, another map is superior, as your Colorado map was, splendid. It takes a bit more creativity to do what you did, because if you hew to UCC integrity, the remaining options are fewer.

[muon2]

I am not persuaded that the rules I propose would systematically reduce the number of competitive districts, or increase the skew for that matter. That is your claim, but so far, I don't see any evidence of that. What my rules I think would do is reduce chop penalty scores. There is no flexibility in the sense that it involves humans. It involves a computer. A computer does not have a partisan bias, unless programmed for it.

I do have a preference for UCC integrity, but if after the penalty points, another map is superior, as your Colorado map was, splendid. It takes a bit more creativity to do what you did, because if you hew to UCC integrity, the remaining options are fewer.

You avoided both my questions. This is not merely a computer exercise, but one that could be applied as a crowdsourcing activity. It's as a way to engage the public in a constrained fashion that I envisage a set of rules. I'll restate my questions.

Question one. You used to hold that if all else is equal, competitive districts were better than uncompetitive districts. You called plans with more competitive districts "the cat's meow" IIRC. Do you still feel that way?

Question two. On one hand you prefer UCC as an objective proxy for a CoI, and the UCC was not a byproduct of other rules. On the other hand in the context of connections you have stated that you are not concerned with CoI except as a byproduct of other objective rules. Should there be specific objective rules designed solely as proxies for CoI?