Pack and cover rule revisited

[Torie]

I have never done Nebraska before, and here is an example of where the rules would force the Omaha district to do something other than macro-chop Sarpy county (which is the way the lines are drawn now). These maps are just an approximation of what the next census would dictate (Douglas, Lancaster and Sarpy counties have all of the population growth in Nebraska). This will be controversial I suspect. The chop of Sarpy does not make the pareto optimal frontier.



Well, I guess the Sarpy chop map can if no subdivision is chopped, and the alternative map has one chop someplace.

[Torie]

Well that might be the best argument for elevating inequality (which I have been resisting) if the pack penalty is too weak (and one does not want to elevate it further) to keep a map on the pareto optimal frontier that is really what the public square wants when it comes to having a CD wholly within a metro area. It becomes particularly stark where you have a metro area bigger than one CD but smaller than two CD's, and represents a relative large percentage of the state. Coming up with rules that cause something that will instantly result in rejection in a given state is not good.

[Torie]

A lot turns on mathematical accidents involving very few people. That gets me nervous. I like your map though.

[Torie]

"The Pareto choice at the end should further mitigate their impact by placing the aberrations in a set with some more reasonable plans."

 Exactly. And one must make damn sure that it does, rather than get a suck plan, that the black box spits out, that eliminates other options that past the common sense test. Population inequality does not pass the common sense test if it involves de minimus numbers within the 0.5% pad. So its use needs a non obvious side benefit, that will usually avoid the abyss. And we seem to have found one. It would be grand if we could move from "usually" to always." Your example for Idaho would be the abyss if there were but a road from here to there. It would knock out all other maps, no?

I accept allowing a bad map through the filter. But not such a bad map knocking out all other reasonable maps, as seen through the common sense eye of the reasonable person, rather than an elegance freak.

We have a balancing test, between hewing to objectivity, and universal standards, that cannot be characterized as rigged, and avoiding offending common sense. It's not easy. But your work has gotten to a place that might be getting close. Awesome!

Good discussion. Thanks.