Local vs regional road connections (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:46:45 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Local vs regional road connections (search mode)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9
Author Topic: Local vs regional road connections  (Read 47638 times)
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« on: December 06, 2015, 04:08:11 PM »

There are paved roads between the two counties, just not state highways. Don't those count? I thought they did. I believe that they should, even if not for erosity purposes. I don't see the policy reason why not, given the further limitation on flexibility, and potentially forcing chops elsewhere. Yes, the alternative is to chop into Mecklenberg, but then that chops into Charlotte, which is the same as a county chop.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2015, 05:46:00 PM »

There are paved roads between the two counties, just not state highways. Don't those count? I thought they did. I believe that they should, even if not for erosity purposes. I don't see the policy reason why not, given the further limitation on flexibility, and potentially forcing chops elsewhere. Yes, the alternative is to chop into Mecklenberg, but then that chops into Charlotte, which is the same as a county chop.

Whole counties have to be regionally connected, ie by means of all-season numbered state/federal highways or ferries. The policy is useful to eliminate weaker local connections across natural barriers like mountains, rivers and deserts and as a proxy for the relative amount of contiguity two counties have. The only exception we've made in the past is for counties that are in the same UCC, where local connections are sufficient. The alternative for flexibility would be to assess additional chop penalties to discourage inter-county linkage based only on local connections.

I am not sure I agree with that. The compromise, which is reasonable, is no erosity issue without state highway cuts, but no prohibition of links either if paved. It seems a bit too arbitrary, and reduces flexibility, which is needed here to hew to the urban cluster rules. This metric would force a deviation. I think respecting urban clusters is more important myself.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #2 on: December 07, 2015, 07:33:27 AM »

No, what makes sense is requiring a paved public road between counties. That is a bright line test. I see no reason to preclude that. A connection is a connection. We will just have to disagree on this one.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #3 on: December 07, 2015, 12:48:51 PM »

I know you don't wish to change your rules now. That's fine. It is not as if legislation or something had been passed. So unless and until there is, this remains all a work in progress. I am satisfied or have deferred to almost all of your other rules, because most seem to work well, and on others, I see no alternative that is superior. This issue is an exception.  We will just have to part ways on this one.

But yes, the burden of proof is on the one asserting that there is a paved road connection. I know there was between the two counties in NC that gave rise to this issue, because I could see the dirt that had slipped over part of the subject paved road from a connecting dirt road. (There was moved than one such paved road in fact.) So I was satisfied that it was paved and maintained. I do not wish to limit flexibility in the way you advocate.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #4 on: December 07, 2015, 01:52:37 PM »
« Edited: December 07, 2015, 02:27:15 PM by Torie »

Are you now ok with the CA county connections that I mentioned? As I said the rule arose in discussion about mountains out west, where such connections were not seen as good policy. The rule was tested in Midwestern states (MI in particular) with counties that had minimal overlaps of boundaries, no highway connections, but nonetheless had local roads.

I ask since it changes the algorithmic nature of finding a neutral map - often in significant ways. For instance it would change the scoring of our MI efforts. It opens up new combinations that can reduce inequality and chops at the cost of erosity, putting them on the Pareto frontier. Going full local also increases erosity for existing plans that took advantage of gaps in the transportation network that are representative of divisions in CoIs, especially those that might not rise to the level of UCCs. Is that change to measured erosity ok in your mind?

It may not be legislation, but I am working on scholarly articles, so details like this matter to me. For instance, I don't really care for the UCC pack rule, but I've accepted the observations of those who are building the maps.

I am always open to examples, that show allowing paved non state paved road connections will lead to mischief. New facts do have the potential to change my mind. Who knew? Smiley  I do agree that a cut of a non state road should not incur an erosity penalty. So the incentive is there to cut such local roads rather that state highways other things being equal.

Below is a nice little screen shot from Goggle earth. Isn't that county yellow brick road pretty? Heck it even has a county number (well two of them as it goes in and out of Rowan County, with each county having its own number). If either of us are in the hood, we should take a drive on it, and take some pics. Smiley

Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #5 on: December 07, 2015, 03:06:49 PM »
« Edited: December 07, 2015, 03:13:51 PM by Torie »

I really did not understand your post. You are the guy who says computers can't be programmed to do it all anyway. There will not be too many county connection issues anyway in most places. It will be a discrete and manageable number. And you can just program into the computer that certain county connections that lack a paved road cause an alert to pop up. I don't consider a rule that counts state highways as road cuts, and other paved highways as not, and that you need a paved highway connection, as particularly complex. It is more in the nature of simple common sense. Road cuts are but a proxy for erosity anyway. It certainly is not as complex as your rules about macrochops, that arguably nobody fully understands but you.

My screen shot was of the wrong two counties. Below is the correct one. There is one yellow road connection, and a couple of white road connections, all paved (except the white road without a number). I am not sure of the difference between the two, other than that wikipedia says that yellow roads are more traveled or bear a road number. But the white roads here have a road number, so what wikipedia says is not precisely accurate.  In any event, the paved roads, be they yellow, or white, are full service roads, with a lane in either direction, divided by a white lane line.  



Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #6 on: December 07, 2015, 03:25:15 PM »

This variable however is not the one that will make matters all that much more complex.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #7 on: December 07, 2015, 03:53:32 PM »

This variable however is not the one that will make matters all that much more complex.

In scoring it does not make it much more complex. In searching for an optimal solution it's as complicated as adding another type of population (like BVAP in a section 2 area) to the basic total population. Most automated redistricting systems ignore or fare poorly on VRA compliance in part for that reason.

It's really close to impossible to automate Section 2 issues I would think. At the margins, it is more of an art than a science, and for that matter, at the margins, different courts at present seem to go different ways. I don't think courts even understand it very well. For example, I consider that new FL-05 CD to be very probably illegal as an erose, choppy racial gerrymander with no partisan impact, but nobody seems to mention that but me. The Virginia courts seem to be at sea about how to handle VA-03 appropriately as well.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2015, 04:19:55 PM »

"One even suggested that if he was to only propose only one change to reduce gerrymandering it would be that it had to be possible to reach all parts of a district by car without leaving the district. That sounds like common sense to me."

Sigh. We all agree on that. That's not the point.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2015, 04:41:01 PM »

In my opinion, you sort of lack standing to complain about complexity. Smiley   And you have not persuaded me, that it is all that much trouble. There are probably in most states, no more than two or three examples of paved roads which are not state highways connecting counties. Perhaps there could be a requirement that the connection be a numbered paved county highway.

I also don't like the idea that for chops, one needs to chop in on a state highway either, which is implied by the rule that you advocate. That might lead to unnecessary chops. I consider avoiding locality chops to be quite important, because when chopped, they are a pain in the ass for local county election boards to administer, because it requires multiple voting rolls, and more variations in the contents of ballots. That is one thing that I have learned since we began this grand, and worthy, enterprise together. Smiley
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2015, 06:07:02 PM »

Erosity is erosty and chops are chops. Two different things. If a using a local county road connection avoids a locality chop, I would like to be able to use it as an option. Having more map options rather than fewer is good thing, not a bad thing.

Regarding traveling chops, rather than just ban them, I think it might be wise to consider allowing them, but if two maps have the same chop count, then the map that avoids traveling chops would be preferred, as superior from a chop standpoint. Again that provides flexibility. My little chop that caused a traveling chop in NC I did not consider a policy problem. So it should be an option, assuming there was no other map with the same chop count that avoided such a traveling chop. And indeed to avoid it, I had to create an extra chop. Minimizing chops should be encouraged, not discouraged.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2015, 09:33:49 PM »
« Edited: December 07, 2015, 09:39:04 PM by Torie »

Erosity is erosty and chops are chops. Two different things. If a using a local county road connection avoids a locality chop, I would like to be able to use it as an option. Having more map options rather than fewer is good thing, not a bad thing.

Regarding traveling chops, rather than just ban them, I think it might be wise to consider allowing them, but if two maps have the same chop count, then the map that avoids traveling chops would be preferred, as superior from a chop standpoint. Again that provides flexibility. My little chop that caused a traveling chop in NC I did not consider a policy problem. So it should be an option, assuming there was no other map with the same chop count that avoided such a traveling chop. And indeed to avoid it, I had to create an extra chop. Minimizing chops should be encouraged, not discouraged.

One query for clarification. I thought we defined traveling chops as those beasts that split two counties between the same two districts. At least that was their meaning when we did the MI exercise. I've used bridge chops to refer to fragments that connect whole counties.

My feeling with both bridge chops and local connections is that since they are used to avoid chops or cluster penalties (which accrue as chops), then if they are permitted they too should come with chop penalties.

I meant bridge chops. Although those are a bit hard to define. Does any chop need to be from a whole county, unless the CD has no whole counties? Or if two fragment counties, does one of the fragments need to be filled in first before chopping elsewhere?  

On your comment about penalties, I really think that if you say, hey, if a bridge chop reduces the chop count below a map without such a bridge chop, then that map wins, and otherwise it loses unless it say reduces an erosity penalty, and then the two maps are tied on chops, and you then compare erosity scores.

Oh, on this road cut thing, it should be quite easy to program come to think of it. You just program in:

1. All CD's must be contiguous, and to be contiguous, they must  be connected within by a land mass that is more than a mere corner, and between counties therein, such counties must be connected by (a) a county, state or federal numbered highway, or b) if divided by water, a bridge or an all season ferry which carries vehicles.

2.Unless otherwise in a county that is wholly within one CD, a land mass that is not connected by a paved road that has a number from a county, state or federal entity, is not deemed contiguous.

3. Adjacent counties that are in separate CD's shall incur one erosty point if connected by a state or federal numbered highway.

That seems to do it, doesn't it?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #12 on: December 08, 2015, 07:03:32 AM »

The local road culture may need to be state specific as to nomenclature. The main thing is publically maintained two lane pavement. If Fresno to San Benito has such a road, than I don't have a problem with it. You still have an incentive to chop there from an erosity standpoint. But using such roads to avoid county chops I think makes it all worthwhile.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #13 on: December 08, 2015, 11:51:03 AM »
« Edited: December 08, 2015, 11:56:59 AM by Torie »

I largely agree with what you say. However, if a state does not have numbered county highways, an accommodation will need to be made that is reasonable.

With respect to macro-chopped counties, job one is to avoid locality chops, because that causes the erosity score to collapse, along with generating a full bore chop for each locality chopped - an utter scoring disaster. So given that, there really isn't much, if any, room to play partisan games. And the rules should be flexible enough to facilitate avoiding such chops. I consider avoiding locality chops to be critically important, and I suspect county election boards will agree with me. And within counties, any paved road will do, no? It is only when crossing into a county, that we have this special metric about what paved roads are allowed to be used.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #14 on: December 08, 2015, 03:17:13 PM »
« Edited: December 08, 2015, 06:46:25 PM by Torie »

Remind me again of what disaster befell Kent by not requiring state highway connectivity between counties? Perhaps you could repost the map. You just said local road connectivity was OK within a county. So I don't see how the issue can be erosity within a county. Nor do I see how allowing county road connectivity between counties makes the map uglier to the eye per se. In any event, there is an incentive for cuts between counties to be where there are no state highways, since that improves the erosity score.

Of course, it's up to a state to do what it wants. It could allow local highway connections or not, defined as it so chooses, but if it does not allow such local connections, that may well cause more chops as the price. It just seems arbitrary to me. I suspect most legislators would agree, unless allow the Kent example, you can make a good case for it. And unfortunately, I just don't recall the exact details now of that example, to apply again in this context.

For counties with no subunits, how do you assess the score for the chop (other than the erosity score for state highway cuts, with which I agree)?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #15 on: December 08, 2015, 06:44:17 PM »

Remind me again of what disaster befell Kent by not requiring state highway connectivity between counties? Perhaps you could repost the map. You just said local road connectivity was OK within a county. So I don't see how the issue can be erosity within a county. Nor do I see how allowing county road connectivity between counties makes the map uglier to the eye per se. In any event, there is an incentive for cuts between counties to be where there are no state highways, since that improves the erosity score.

Of course, it's up to a state to do what it wants. It could allow local highway connections or not, defined as it so chooses, but if it does not allow such local connections, that may well cause more chops as the price. It just seems arbitrary to me. I suspect most legislators would agree, unless allow the Kent example, you can make a good case for it. And unfortunately, I just don't recall the exact details now of that example, to apply again in this context.

For counties with no subunits, you assess the score for the chop in how (other than the erosity score for state highway cuts, with which I agree)?

Perhaps if time permits one of us can search for the thread. It's not a single map, but a set of maps from the proposals put forth by train, jimrtex, you and I. The Kent chop was a common feature in many and simple enough to analyze for erosity in a way that the Detroit area was not.

We independently ranked the set of submitted maps on how we thought they should turn out for erosity. Then I calculated scores using different definitions of connections. The definition that best matched our preconceived expectations was the one that we adopted for the rest of the MI enterprise. That model generated no controversy when applied to the Detroit area and to more rural stretches. There were even maps at that time that went back due to lack of a regional connection, and I did not detect any complaints. I assumed this was because we thought the issue settled after we all put a lot of time in selecting the right balance between regional and local concerns.

Nothing is ever fully settled for the lawyer class. If it were, we would have nothing to do. Tongue
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #16 on: December 08, 2015, 07:08:09 PM »

I'm giving your model a road test as it were. You should thank me, rather than be annoyed. Smiley
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #17 on: December 09, 2015, 07:13:33 AM »

I'm giving your model a road test as it were. You should thank me, rather than be annoyed. Smiley

Great then we should see how well it performs under the current rules. Wink If it fails to produce a reasonable map in multiple occasions, then it should be modified. One outlier isn't convincing.

Well I have already pointed out some of the downsides based on actual mapping experience. I guess in the end, states if they have any interest in your approach, will make up their own minds. I still think that using the blue roads for erosity testing, and allowing the yellow roads per jimrtex's NC map, for CD's to make use of, is a reasonable and sensible compromise. I would still like to see what you were talking about with Kent. I thought that was about internal connections, not cross county connections.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #18 on: December 09, 2015, 08:37:17 AM »

"and regional connections to adjacent counties."

For purposes of what exactly? Counting chopped roads? As a requirement for the path into the chopped county?  Or both?  If a Kent chop is a mess visually, won't it cut a poor erosity score as it cuts local roads? I would really like to see an example of how allowing local roads for entry and for allowing their use for two counties to be in one CD, creates a bad map, that makes it worthwhile to go for an alternative map with more chop related penalty points.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #19 on: December 09, 2015, 02:35:42 PM »

"OTOH, there are lots of legitimate numbered state highways that aren't "highways"." 

What does that mean?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #20 on: December 09, 2015, 04:06:31 PM »

"Muon2 and I would disagree on the further classification of some of the yellow links, but would likely agree on others."

What do you think your metric is, as compared to his?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #21 on: December 09, 2015, 05:36:12 PM »

That all seems impossibly complicated to administer. And most of it seems more about erosity as what is in issue, ran than a flat out ban on having the two counties in one CD if accessible to each other by a paved road. I suppose there is some merit however as to whether the road is a direct one to the county seat, or directly to a road which connects to the county seat where there are mostly north south roads, so you need to make a turn at some point. That yellow road between Staley and Rowan was circuitous, although one of the white paved roads I think was more direct. The point I guess is whether the paved road heads to some population center in the adjacent county, as opposed to just wandering around farm areas, services the farms and the scattered residences, and is really not used for inter county travel. But again, we are slipping into a more subjective area here. I suppose one could set up the parameters, and then each state decides what roads do what, so they make the more subjective calls.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #22 on: December 10, 2015, 09:16:13 AM »

So you can chop in in a macro chopped county with a local link, but if it is not a macro chop, you need to chop in on a regional link?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #23 on: December 10, 2015, 10:06:18 AM »

What does generally bypass other populations mean precisely? I notice that between Haywood and Madison, there is no state highway that gets to the county seat without departing from Madison again.  In fact there appears to be no paved road at all. The state highway just nicks Madison in its corner, and then departs Madison again. I am surprised Muon2 considers that connected. Maybe he is thinking about a chop that just takes in the connected part. Yet you say that if the state highway does not cut in at the "center" of the county, Muon2 rejects it. What is an example of that? That does not seem consistent in any event with Muon2's acceptance of the Haywood-Madison link.

It seems to me that policy point is to have a paved highway that is designed to get from county seat to county seat however it is numbered, even if you have to make a turn on to another highway of some sort. And maybe under that standard, nicks are OK, provided there is some other paved connection that is paved that does not force a departure from the county (the idea that you can travel from county to county within a district without ever leaving the district that that guy Muon2 paraphrased stated). Or perhaps not.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #24 on: December 10, 2015, 01:13:43 PM »

Would you allow the nick of Cabarrus to suffice if there were no road connections at all between Rowan and Staley?  Would you reject a link that went to the county seat, but made a wiggle to avoid a closer population node in the county?  And you would reject a connection, if there were a more direct connection that went through another county I take it. Is that correct?  How do you define what is too large a population for a nick to work?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.048 seconds with 13 queries.