Local vs regional road connections

[muon2]

City planning areas usually work well. We used them in Detroit, and would think they would work in Milwaukee too. Detroit also had smaller neighborhoods that were bypassed in favor of planning areas.

[Torie]

City planning areas usually work well. We used them in Detroit, and would think they would work in Milwaukee too. Detroit also had smaller neighborhoods that were bypassed in favor of planning areas.

OK. There goes the chop of Milwaukee absent the one bite rule.

[jimrtex]

On Muon's map, there were subunits in Puget Sound, offshore Federal Way and Des Moines, but not offshore Normandy Park and Berien, because those two cities have annexed the area in the water. The same thing happens along Lake Washington.

Including these areas creates contiguity, and may foster an impression of connected, for example in this case, with Vashon Island, which should only connect based on the ferry (and the ferry landing).

In Florida, the area within the 3-mile limit is included in their maps, and within their compactness scores. It is gamed, along with the Everglades.

This one confuses me some. We don't do compactness. We require bridge or ferry connections. If we have an instance where municipal water surrounds an area not within the municipality, and that area not within the municipality has adequate connections to another CD, I am leery of using the water to merge that water surrounded area to the municipality, but on this one my views are more tentative.

Erosity is a compactness measurement.

The judge in Florida just approved a plan that used the Everglades to bypass population.

[Torie]

On Muon's map, there were subunits in Puget Sound, offshore Federal Way and Des Moines, but not offshore Normandy Park and Berien, because those two cities have annexed the area in the water. The same thing happens along Lake Washington.

Including these areas creates contiguity, and may foster an impression of connected, for example in this case, with Vashon Island, which should only connect based on the ferry (and the ferry landing).

In Florida, the area within the 3-mile limit is included in their maps, and within their compactness scores. It is gamed, along with the Everglades.

This one confuses me some. We don't do compactness. We require bridge or ferry connections. If we have an instance where municipal water surrounds an area not within the municipality, and that area not within the municipality has adequate connections to another CD, I am leery of using the water to merge that water surrounded area to the municipality, but on this one my views are more tentative.

Erosity is a compactness measurement.

The judge in Florida just approved a plan that used the Everglades to bypass population.

Yes, but we don't use it. It is one of several advantages of using the highway cut proxy as a measurement of erosity. It allows for benign rather than partisan erosity - erosity that is really not about people, but geographic obstacles, or county lines which themselves are erose.

[Torie]

The population limitation is not going to work with respect to the one bite rule. Hoods in Phoenix for example often have 150,000 to 200,000 people. Yet encouraging chops of existing recognized subunits is unorthodox to say the least. But drawing clean lines in large subunits, is accepted. Nobody really cares about these neighborhoods. We use them just to have something objective. Great. But that is the place to get skew down as well as I have said, and where it is appropriate to get it down. What is the Golden Mean on all of this?

I propose the following rule having thought about it some more:

With respect to Subunits that are not Voting Districts in counties that are Macro-Chopped, one division of such Subunits between two CD’s shall not count as a Chop.  Each additional division of such Subunits between such CD’s shall count as a Chop.


Within cities and townships there are no internal Voting Districts. I understand that school districts elect school board members and wards elect alderpersons, and so forth, but even where we use those as the internal subunits, those don't count. All such subunits are not deemed to be Voting Districts. What are Voting Districts, are those entities as to which map drawers have traditionally given cognizance. Tradition! Ignore it at one's peril.

The erosity measurements remain in place.  That will prevent ugly maps that seem facially to be gerrymanders (by having say a prong chop into a neighborhood that in most cases will precipitate another highway cut). The one bite rule does not apply to cities or townships that are recognized Voting Districts that actually elect folks to local office.  It only applies to our artificial subunits that are put in place solely to have some objective way to draw the lines that precludes undesirable gerrymanders. My proposed rule allows for benign gerrymanders as it were, that get at once the SKEW down while not entailing erose maps.  It avoids the occurrence of the population accident nightmare that will enrage the opposition. To me, it is precisely the right balance.

I presume that for non macro-chopped counties, divisions of Subunits are not penalized at all, unless it causes additional state highway cuts. There really is not much partisan action attending non macro-chopped counties anyway.

[jimrtex]

On Muon's map, there were subunits in Puget Sound, offshore Federal Way and Des Moines, but not offshore Normandy Park and Berien, because those two cities have annexed the area in the water. The same thing happens along Lake Washington.

Including these areas creates contiguity, and may foster an impression of connected, for example in this case, with Vashon Island, which should only connect based on the ferry (and the ferry landing).

In Florida, the area within the 3-mile limit is included in their maps, and within their compactness scores. It is gamed, along with the Everglades.

This one confuses me some. We don't do compactness. We require bridge or ferry connections. If we have an instance where municipal water surrounds an area not within the municipality, and that area not within the municipality has adequate connections to another CD, I am leery of using the water to merge that water surrounded area to the municipality, but on this one my views are more tentative.

Erosity is a compactness measurement.

The judge in Florida just approved a plan that used the Everglades to bypass population.

Yes, but we don't use it. It is one of several advantages of using the highway cut proxy as a measurement of erosity. It allows for benign rather than partisan erosity - erosity that is really not about people, but geographic obstacles, or county lines which themselves are erose.

How would you define subunits in Miami-Dade County?

I also think you are too narrowly tied to a particular methodology.

How would you in general define nested sets of units that districts may be composed of?

[muon2]

Torie has been heavily advocating for SKEW reducing plans of late and it's an important concern. I've reviewed our MI scoring from a year ago and the thread is worth a reread (it's only three pages long). The exercise was heavily data driven with tables and some regression analysis applied to the scoring metrics.

One of the things we did was address train's strong concern that inequality matter. I share some of that concern and the solution was to add INEQUALITY to CHOP for that arm of the Pareto test. It provided that a chop was ok if it was making the inequality substantially better. We already were applying the MI rule against multiple shared chops between pairs of districts.

If the goal is to not penalize one-bite chops that lower SKEW, then the obvious solution seems to just add SKEW to CHOP. Couple that with the MI rule that no two districts can share chops with more than one subunit and I think Torie's goal is addressed.

[muon2]

On Muon's map, there were subunits in Puget Sound, offshore Federal Way and Des Moines, but not offshore Normandy Park and Berien, because those two cities have annexed the area in the water. The same thing happens along Lake Washington.

Including these areas creates contiguity, and may foster an impression of connected, for example in this case, with Vashon Island, which should only connect based on the ferry (and the ferry landing).

In Florida, the area within the 3-mile limit is included in their maps, and within their compactness scores. It is gamed, along with the Everglades.

This one confuses me some. We don't do compactness. We require bridge or ferry connections. If we have an instance where municipal water surrounds an area not within the municipality, and that area not within the municipality has adequate connections to another CD, I am leery of using the water to merge that water surrounded area to the municipality, but on this one my views are more tentative.

Erosity is a compactness measurement.

The judge in Florida just approved a plan that used the Everglades to bypass population.

Yes, but we don't use it. It is one of several advantages of using the highway cut proxy as a measurement of erosity. It allows for benign rather than partisan erosity - erosity that is really not about people, but geographic obstacles, or county lines which themselves are erose.

How would you define subunits in Miami-Dade County?

I also think you are too narrowly tied to a particular methodology.

How would you in general define nested sets of units that districts may be composed of?

Since FL has county school districts, they obviously can't be used for subunits. My first inclination for Miami-Dade would be to use the method I used for King, but substitute Census CCDs for school districts. That is I would first make each incorporated muni in the county a subunit, then I would group the contiguous areas in each CCD as a subunit. Small isolated pockets of unincorporated areas would attach to adjacent munis in the same CCD.

[Torie]

How would you define subunits in Miami-Dade County?

I have no idea.

I also think you are too narrowly tied to a particular methodology.

That is too general a comment to respond to. I don't know your reasoning.

How would you in general define nested sets of units that districts may be composed of?

I am not sure what this means. If you are speaking about territory outside identified cities and townships, the ideas about trapped real estate and all make sense that you and Muon2 have batted about. Beyond that, whatever is out there that offers up units of about the right size, that have some stability in lines, and that are not too erose in shape. Ideally such subunits perhaps should be around 100,000 people or so perhaps. With larger sizes, the one bite rule helps to mitigate the disadvantages of that, while units too small perhaps don't constrain as much as they should.

[Torie]

Torie has been heavily advocating for SKEW reducing plans of late and it's an important concern. I've reviewed our MI scoring from a year ago and the thread is worth a reread (it's only three pages long). The exercise was heavily data driven with tables and some regression analysis applied to the scoring metrics.

One of the things we did was address train's strong concern that inequality matter. I share some of that concern and the solution was to add INEQUALITY to CHOP for that arm of the Pareto test. It provided that a chop was ok if it was making the inequality substantially better. We already were applying the MI rule against multiple shared chops between pairs of districts.

If the goal is to not penalize one-bite chops that lower SKEW, then the obvious solution seems to just add SKEW to CHOP. Couple that with the MI rule that no two districts can share chops with more than one subunit and I think Torie's goal is addressed.

Oh my. Ouch! First, inequality does not matter. It has next to zero public policy importance. It should only be used as a tie breaker at the end of the road, and maybe not even that. Perhaps both maps otherwise tied should be put into the eligible to pick pile.

If skew is added as a third prong to the pareto optimal test, we might as well go home. Messy gerrymandered maps with zero skew will be put into the eligible pile. Then what is the point?

I appreciate Muon2's desire for elegance, with every subunit equal in status and so forth, and every rule either a green light or a red light, e.g. bridge chops. But sometimes elegance gets in the way of the practical and the good, and that is the case here. I think my suggested language is the right balance. It will reduce skew without degrading the quality of the maps, and avoid the catastrophic scenario. Folks will be more accepting of accidental population accidents that materially affect partisan balance when it entails respecting the integrity of counties and cities, and to a lessor extent, townships. They will not when it comes to respecting the integrity of these artificial units, unless a map gets too erose.

I know that I am repeating myself. I won't change my mind absent a good reason to do so here, of if I have missed something, or whatever. Change I know is hard, but here it is really, really necessary, in my opinion.

[muon2]

Torie has been heavily advocating for SKEW reducing plans of late and it's an important concern. I've reviewed our MI scoring from a year ago and the thread is worth a reread (it's only three pages long). The exercise was heavily data driven with tables and some regression analysis applied to the scoring metrics.

One of the things we did was address train's strong concern that inequality matter. I share some of that concern and the solution was to add INEQUALITY to CHOP for that arm of the Pareto test. It provided that a chop was ok if it was making the inequality substantially better. We already were applying the MI rule against multiple shared chops between pairs of districts.

If the goal is to not penalize one-bite chops that lower SKEW, then the obvious solution seems to just add SKEW to CHOP. Couple that with the MI rule that no two districts can share chops with more than one subunit and I think Torie's goal is addressed.

Oh my. Ouch! First, inequality does not matter. It has next to zero public policy importance. It should only be used as a tie breaker at the end of the road, and maybe not even that. Perhaps both maps otherwise tied should be put into the eligible to pick pile.

If skew is added as a third prong to the pareto optimal test, we might as well go home. Messy gerrymandered maps with zero skew will be put into the eligible pile. Then what is the point?

I appreciate Muon2's desire for elegance, with every subunit equal in status and so forth, and every rule either a green light or a red light, e.g. bridge chops. But sometimes elegance gets in the way of the practical and the good, and that is the case here. I think my suggested language is the right balance. It will reduce skew without degrading the quality of the maps, and avoid the catastrophic scenario. Folks will be more accepting of accidental population accidents that materially affect partisan balance when it entails respecting the integrity of counties and cities, and to a lessor extent, townships. They will not when it comes to respecting the integrity of these artificial units, unless a map gets too erose.

I know that I am repeating myself. I won't change my mind absent a good reason to do so here, of if I have missed something, or whatever. Change I know is hard, but here it is really, really necessary, in my opinion.

I'm not sure you reread the thread I linked. I hope you did. I think train spoke for what many would consider good public policy goals. You do too, just different ones.

I also think you should see that the addition of inequality did not undermine the impact of the chop count, but it did build in a natural trade. Maps with near zero inequality did not emerge because the chop count would have shot up by more than the inequality came down. By the same token a messy plan with a skew of zero probably requires so many chops that it will easily lose to a good low-chop plan with a slightly higher skew. If a skew of zero doesn't require a bunch of chops, then I think you would agree that it should survive.

In any case, note how we really tabulated the impact of the factors in that MI thread. The same data-based approach would see whether your fears would be realized or not. My concern with the one-bite rule is that it will be abused for political purposes as in MI. My proposal essentially is a one-bite rule that only applies if skew improves.

[Torie]

I will read that thread now, if I can find it, or you linked it. Now you have me more confused. It does not matter who much a map with a better score on one parameter degrades another. Both maps make the cut. So a horrible map to get to a zero skew makes the cut, if there is no less horrible map out there that does.

I think worrying about whether the max variance between two CD's is 4,000 people of 7,000 people, is just ludicrous myself. It is not as if the lower variance map will be better at all, it is just a population accident. If two maps are otherwise precisely equal in everything, and one wants to consider only one map, sure then use inequality as a tie breaker. I think I would like to consider both maps myself, but life will go on if one by the roll of the dice is snatched away from me. There is no problem considering more maps, if it does not degrade their quality materially. Give the political hacks as much choice as possible, consistent with maintaining map quality. Why not?

I am totally baffled how the one bite rule that I described could lead to bad maps or abuse, but I will look at Michigan. The only empty zone is cities, and in Michigan, other than Detroit, and maybe Grand Rapids, no cities are really subject to chops of any size. That is the only real estate that is subject to my one bite rule in Michigan, chops into cities. There has been no chat of creating neighborhoods out of townships has there? If those will be sliced up too (I guess they will be come to think of it), if subject to a macro-chop, will then hey, if it gets the skew down, without entailing undue erosity, than great. That's the whole point! If skew conscious, and until now, not thinking that townships had hoods in them, I would have drawn the map to reduce skew anyway, consistent with satisfying my artistic eye. Now I substitute starring at freaking little roads, and such, rather than honoring artistic standards, but that's life in the big city, and I understand and accept that. I would not if it were guaranteed that I were drawing all the maps personally forever, I assure you.

Ok, read the MI thread. I notice nothing about creating hoods out of townships, but whatever. I get the policy point. I never understood that the pareto optimal test was more than two pronged. I thought skew and inequality were in the tie breaker category, and indeed I remember back then discussing that several times, and expressing un-interest in inequality, and wishing to place it at the bottom of the list. Now, I would prefer I think that it be off the list, but as long as it is on the bottom, even though a negative really, it's no big deal. It is rather unlikely to ever come into play anyway.

[muon2]

I will read that thread now, if I can find it, or you linked it. Now you have me more confused. It does not matter who much a map with a better score on one parameter degrades another. Both maps make the cut. So a horrible map to get to a zero skew makes the cut, if there is no less horrible map out there that does.

I think I see one point of confusion. I was not suggesting SKEW as an independent Pareto variable. I was suggesting that the Pareto variable be CHOP + SKEW. That eliminates the incentive to use a one-bite that does not reduce SKEW, such as protecting a residence of an incumbent.

[Torie]

I will read that thread now, if I can find it, or you linked it. Now you have me more confused. It does not matter who much a map with a better score on one parameter degrades another. Both maps make the cut. So a horrible map to get to a zero skew makes the cut, if there is no less horrible map out there that does.

I think I see one point of confusion. I was not suggesting SKEW as an independent Pareto variable. I was suggesting that the Pareto variable be CHOP + SKEW. That eliminates the incentive to use a one-bite that does not reduce SKEW, such as protecting a residence of an incumbent.

I see. That is a somewhat less insane proposal. But that would have in the population accident scenario, potentially the lower skew map tied with the higher skew map. The lower skew map needs to win. Period. If by a series of accidents, one of them being due to a population accident that avoids any non Voting District subunit chop, one can use a chop to  accommodate an incumbent, well so what? If is very unlikely to happen, and probably there is another map with an identical score with slightly different lines, that will not. In fact there could be a ton of such maps, that vary be a precinct here or there. And no, inequality won't decide, because you can chop precincts to keep the populations identical, assuming that the two CD's in question, or one of them, was at the end of the population bell curve. Which suggests to me, that the map with the "best" PVI should win here, the best being the one that moves the PVI in the direction of the party at the short end of the skew stick, even if not into another skew category.

Am I right there that there is no penalty for chopping subunits for non-macrochops, assuming no more road cuts are in play? I asked that question before.

[muon2]

I will read that thread now, if I can find it, or you linked it. Now you have me more confused. It does not matter who much a map with a better score on one parameter degrades another. Both maps make the cut. So a horrible map to get to a zero skew makes the cut, if there is no less horrible map out there that does.

I think I see one point of confusion. I was not suggesting SKEW as an independent Pareto variable. I was suggesting that the Pareto variable be CHOP + SKEW. That eliminates the incentive to use a one-bite that does not reduce SKEW, such as protecting a residence of an incumbent.

I see. That is a somewhat less insane proposal. But that would have in the population accident scenario, potentially the lower skew map tied with the higher skew map. The lower skew map needs to win. Period. If by a series of accidents, one of them being due to a population accident that avoids any non Voting District subunit chop, one can use a chop to  accommodate an incumbent, well so what? If is very unlikely to happen, and probably there is another map with an identical score with slightly different lines, that will not. In fact there could be a ton of such maps, that vary be a precinct here or there. And no, inequality won't decide, because you can chop precincts to keep the populations identical, assuming that the two CD's in question, or one of them, was at the end of the population bell curve. Which suggests to me, that the map with the "best" PVI should win here, the best being the one that moves the PVI in the direction of the party at the short end of the skew stick, even if not into another skew category.

Am I right there that there is no penalty for chopping subunits for non-macrochops, assuming no more road cuts are in play? I asked that question before.

In the MI exercise each chop at each level counted towards the sum. We didn't allow subunit chops unless there was a macrochop, so the situation in your question couldn't arise. This was our rule then:

Raw CHOP score

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

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, and the subunit of the neighborhood is the VTD.

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: Macrochop. A macrochop exists in a geographic unit when the remainder of a geographic unit after subtracting the population of the largest district in the unit exceeds 5% of the quota.

The CHOP score is the sum of the chops of all counties, plus the chops of all subunits in counties with a macrochop. County subunits may not be chopped in counties that do not have a macrochop.

[Torie]

Well a flat ban makes no sense for subunits in counties not macro-chopped, because sometimes it may not be possible to avoid such a chop. So that rule will not work. For non macro chopped counties, it really does not matter much. I suggest another preference rule, in this case perhaps at the top of the list.

Below is the winning Michigan map. It looks pretty good to the eye, it has a zero skew, it has only 4 safe Dem CD's, no safe Pub CD's and two tossup CD's, so it has a most outstanding polarization score to boot (pity the safe CD's are not more symmetrical, at two for each party, but perfection alas is a metaphysical concept). It has no subunit chops except the mandatory chop of Detroit (and managed miraculously to avoid a Detroit hood chop due to one of those population accidents, this one benign), and the minimum number of county chops. In short, because it does not bring into play any of the rather long list of Torie angst items, the map is a triumph, and a splendid example of the sublime genius of, Muon2 metrics. I would put this map under your pillow, and keep it close at all times, and show it to your friends, particularly your Democratic friends, assuming that you have any Democratic friends. Well, I am a Democrat now.  Am I still a friend?  

So what are we going to do with Michigan now? Do the 2020 census version, or what? To touch this map, would be like interlineating Shakespearean prose, or slapping paint randomly on the Sistine Chapel's ceiling. It would be at once an artistic crime, and a thought crime.

Oh, you wanted to play with Washington. I forgot.

[muon2]

Ah, the classic Torie C. Low erosity in exchange for some chops. With a low SKEW I would think my summation proposal would appeal by making it even stronger. Why leave anything to chance?

Anyway what I want to work on is the erosity metric for the non-township states of the south and west. Is there agreement for my WA subunit creation algorithm?

For example, consider these items for the following section of King.
The unincorporated places south of Seattle are grouped together as a single subunit (pop 32,234).
The small unincorporated areas north and east of Renton are grouped with Renton (pops 494, 2100, and 2884)
Issaquah (pop 30,440) is largely but not completely surrounded by the unincorporated area of its school district (pop 27,338) , so that a district could have an unusual bump if it had one but not the other.

[Torie]

I have trouble reading your maps, and in any event I am in a state of confusion. So I drew my own maps here. I allowed how precincts were nested to guide my mouse in creating subunits on the map. Where a precinct was trapped, and no other jurisdiction seemed to have a claim on it, I merged it with a city. There are some trapped precincts in one city in the middle of another jurisdiction. There are precincts that are not contiguous. There is some unclaimed territory between jurisdictions. I left the problem areas in white. If a group of precincts got nested somehow crossing interior lines, I created a subunit. I don't mean for precinct nesting to be the tail wagging the dog, but it was a way to get going doing something.

So looking at the maps, tell me what you did to modify what I did, or how you approached the policy issues, and your reasoning.

Without the one bite rule, I want small jurisdictions wiped out – all of them. It increases the odds of a population accident.  Mass Lilliputian genocide must be the order of the day. With the one bite rule, I like small jurisdictions. In fact, I love them. It reduces the odds of having a chop. So with the one bite rule, I liked the unclaimed territory, and it should be used to get the population right without having to do a chop. Those little white areas in that category should stay there. Since I doubt I will change my mind on the one bite rule ever, well, you see where I am going with this, in this love-hate dichotomy.

But that still leaves where the lines should go on the unclaimed territory, where via precinct nesting, I just kind of arbitrarily created subunits. That is where I am most interesting in what you did that varies from what I did, and why.

I didn’t color in the cities around Seattle. That was extra work for no purpose.

 

 

 

 

[muon2]

Here's northern King with more contrast.



I started with the incorporated munis, which also have nested precincts. Wholly enclosed unincorporated areas went to those munis.

Then I went to school districts using this map. WA has detailed atlases of the districts online that I used for exact boundaries.


The Northshore school district includes the cities of Bothell, Kenmore (pop 20460), and Woodinville (pop 10938). The single precincts east and west of Bothell were less than 0.5% of the quota and they were added to Bothell (total pop 19244). I could have added the area west of Bothell to Kenmore which is slightly larger, but the area is entirely in the Bothell zip code.

The area south of Bothell in the Northshore district includes 5615 residents (light green precincts), so it is its own subunit. The Cottage Lake area east of Woodinville in the Northshore district includes 20396 residents (spring green precincts), so it is its own subunit.

The Riverview school district includes Carnation and Duvall. The unincorporated area completely surrounds both those cities so they are all grouped as a single subunit with 17502 residents (orange precincts).

The Lake Washington school district includes Kirkland (pop 48787), Redmond, and the majority of Sammamish (pop 45831). The disconnected parts of Redmond are uninhabited conservation land so they are ignored for the purposes of subunits. The precincts between Kirkland and Redmond have less that 0.5% of the quota and are added to Redmond (tot pop 54510) as is the uninhabited precinct for Marymoor park on Lake Sammamish.

The Finn Hill area north of Kirkland in the Lake Washington school district has 30394 residents (orchid precincts), so it is its own subunit. The Bear Creek area east of Redmond has 20501 residents (pale lavender precincts), so it is its own subunit. The ragged spot on the northern edge of the Bear Creek subunit is due to the Meander voting district, a precinct with more population in the Cottage lake subunit.

The subunits described above range in population from 5615 to 54510. The smallest one could arguably be below the minimum, at which point it would be added to Bothell. A threshold of 0.5% of the county population would set the minimum unincorporated subunit at 9656.

[muon2]

Here's my division of central King.



The Renton school district includes the cities of Newcastle (pop 10453) and Renton. The Renton school district barely extends beyond the city limits to the north and east creating small pockets of under 3000 people. They are merged into Renton (tot pop 96459). The Bryn Mawr-Skyway unincorporated area to the west is its own subunit at 15645 (pale pink precincts).

The Issaquah school district includes the cities of Issaquah and the south half of Sammamish. There is a small enclosed area as well as a small area between Issaquah and Sammamish merged into Issaquah (tot pop 30460). The rest of the school district extends south and east to Mirrormont and it is its own subunit with 27318 (cream precincts).

The Snoqualmie Valley school district includes the small cities of North Bend and Snoqualmie. They are completely enclosed by the unincorporated area of the district so it is all gruped as a single subunit with tot pop 37156.

Note that the incorporated town of Beaux Arts Village is surrounded by Bellevue and was merged into it along with some unincorporated inclusions for tot pop 128192. Shown on the northern map the other small communities of Clyde Hill (2,984), Hunts Point (394), Medina (2,969), and Yarrow Point (1001) were not included since they are not surrounded by Bellevue. It's similar to the Sylvan Lake-Keego Harbor-Orchard Lake Village triad in Oakland county MI.

[muon2]

Here's the high-contrast detail for SW King.



The Federal Way school district has the city of Federal Way (pop 89306) and the unincorporated Lakeland area to the east. Lakeland is in two discontiguous subunits, the north part has 12976 (yellow green precincts), and the south part has 7982 (pale green precincts). If the threshold were raised from 0.5% of a CD to 0.5% of the county, the south part would be merged with Federal Way.

The Fife school district is based in Pierce county, but includes the part of the city of Milton in King (pop 831). It also includes the small unincorporated Trout Lake area with 3592 residents (gold precincts). These two would be merged with the higher population threshold.

The Auburn school district includes the cities of Algona (pop 3014), Auburn (tot pop 63076 with inclusions), and Pacific (pop 6514). The unincorporated Lake Holm area east of Auburn has 6894 residents (lilac precincts) and is a separate subunit at 0.5% of the quota, but would combine with Auburn using a 0.5% of the county standard.

The Enumclaw school district includes the cities of Black Diamond (4151) and Enumclaw. The unincorporated part of the school district completely surrounds Enumclaw but not Black Diamond, so  Enumclaw is merged with the unincorporated area for a total of 23296 residents (red-orange precincts).

The Tahoma school district includes the city of Maple Valley (pop 22753 with inclusions). The rest is the unincorporated Hobart area which forms a subunit with a pop of 14819 (light blue precincts).

The Kent school district includes the cities of Covington (pop 17575) and Kent (tot pop 93012 with inclusions). The unincorporated Berrydale area south of Covington with a pop of 9,981 (beige precincts), and Lake Youngs area north east of Kent with a pop of 48,462 (tan precincts) are separate subunits.

Not entirely on the map is the Highline school district with the cities of Burien (pop 33313), Des Moines (pop 29673), Normandy Park (pop 6335), and Seatac (26909). More significantly the North Highline area between Burien and Seattle is all unincorporated with some separate marked places, but it forms one subunit with a pop of 32254.

[jimrtex]

Here's my division of central King.



Note that the incorporated town of Beaux Arts Village is surrounded by Bellevue and was merged into it along with some unincorporated inclusions for tot pop 128192. Shown on the northern map the other small communities of Clyde Hill (2,984), Hunts Point (394), Medina (2,969), and Yarrow Point (1001) were not included since they are not surrounded by Bellevue. It's similar to the Sylvan Lake-Keego Harbor-Orchard Lake Village triad in Oakland county MI.

Beau Arts Village is not surrounded by Bellevue. It's western border is in the unincorporated portion of the Mercer Island school district.

[jimrtex]

Here's the high-contrast detail for SW King.



The Eunumclaw school district includes the cities of Black Diamond (4151) and Eunumclaw. The unincorporated part of the school district completely surrounds Eunumclaw but not Black Diamond, so  Eunumclaw is merged with the unincorporated area for a total of 23296 residents (red-orange precincts).

Enumclaw (note spelling) has some exclaves, including one that straddles the Pierce-King line. Does that mean the school district doesn't enclose Enumclaw.

[jimrtex]

Based on a threshold of 80%, only Black Diamond, Sammamish, and Newcastle would not be associated with a school district.

This would produce 20 subunits associated with school districts, and three that would be associated with cities. If the adjusted school districts were used, then a tertiary division could use both cities and CDP's. Only 56,000 residents live outside census places.

If the threshold were increased to 90%, Bellevue, Des Moines, and Kent would fail, and if it were increased to 95%, Auburn, Renton, and Tukwila would not qualify. Since 5 of these 6 districts share the name of a city, this would indicate that 80% is a reasonable threshold, and 90% may be too high.

At is almost universal that there are a few stragglers, suggesting that the districts are based on cities, which have subsequently annexed areas after school consolidation. The cities that span districts are further east, and likely reflect that their establishment (or growth) occurred after the districts were created.

There are about 800 persons outside Seattle in the Seattle school district, and a handful of Seattle residents outside the school district.

[muon2]

Here's the high-contrast detail for SW King.



The Eunumclaw school district includes the cities of Black Diamond (4151) and Eunumclaw. The unincorporated part of the school district completely surrounds Eunumclaw but not Black Diamond, so  Eunumclaw is merged with the unincorporated area for a total of 23296 residents (red-orange precincts).

Enumclaw (note spelling) has some exclaves, including one that straddles the Pierce-King line. Does that mean the school district doesn't enclose Enumclaw.

Thank for the spell check. I've fixed it in the main post. The exclave on the county line is a park with no people. I ignored it for connection purposes as I did the exclaves of Redmond.

Beaux Arts Village is contiguous to Mercer Island, but not connected due to Lake Washington. Since the only connection is to Bellevue, it is surrounded.