New PA Maps In Effect

[Oryxslayer]

I really wish people wouldn't randomly gut Montgomery County.  

Montgomery is significantly overpopulated, so it needs to be cut. A good map would have Montgomery loose pop but still have a Montgomery based seat like the previous map.

[Badger]

Keeping in mind that the swing to Trump really throws off the pvi of these districts, especially in the western part of the state, I think an eerie through Beaver County District would be reasonably competitive. As would a South-Western corner of the state district that creeps into Southern Allegheny County.

Would it be possible to split Allegheny County more or less on a north-south access using the Ohio River as a boundary for the Western half of the county at least? How much if at all would it have to spill over into Westmoreland and / or Butler County to populate to full districts? What would their pvi be depending on how you split the city? There may be a push to include all the predominantly black neighborhoods from the Hill district, homewood-brushton, and Wilkinsburg into a Northern District. I wonder if a black Democrat would have a reasonable chance of winning the primary there and, thereby the general election?

[Virginiá]

Keeping in mind that the swing to Trump really throws off the pvi of these districts, especially in the western part of the state, I think an eerie through Beaver County District would be reasonably competitive. As would a South-Western corner of the state district that creeps into Southern Allegheny County.

Would it be possible to split Allegheny County more or less on a north-south access using the Ohio River as a boundary for the Western half of the county at least? How much if at all would it have to spill over into Westmoreland and / or Butler County to populate to full districts? What would their pvi be depending on how you split the city? There may be a push to include all the predominantly black neighborhoods from the Hill district, homewood-brushton, and Wilkinsburg into a Northern District. I wonder if a black Democrat would have a reasonable chance of winning the primary there and, thereby the general election?

That's a good point. I'd like to see a 2012 PVI for some of these maps. It's not like Democrats will never win PA again. This is actually their lowest point in a generation, so there will be a rebound.

[henster]

ACLU submitted a map too.

[morgieb]

ACLU submitted a map too.

Looks a lot better than the other maps that have been shown here. Suppose they're not strictly a partisan group though.

[publicunofficial]

The forced splits of Allegheny we're seeing in all the maps is likely because both Lamb and Saccone reside there.

[Brittain33]

That ACLU map looks like the naive geographically compact maps on 538. Why would you split Huntingdon and Northumberland county unless they were trying to make some of the middle districts looks round or square?

[Oryxslayer]

Here are a couple other maps we missed yesterday:

From the group "fair democracy," two maps:





Some weird maps from the petitioners:





Governor Wolf's map, which is honestly the most 'least change' we have seen yet:

[Gass3268]

Interesting enough, the League of Women voter's maps have the best compactness scores:

[muon2]

That ACLU map looks like the naive geographically compact maps on 538. Why would you split Huntingdon and Northumberland county unless they were trying to make some of the middle districts looks round or square?

I agree that it looks like the ACLU elevated compactness above the other criteria. The partisan maps include knowledge of incumbent residences and cores of previous districts.

The Jan 22 order specified only the following criteria, and the Feb 7 order specifically said it did not change them:
Contiguous and compact districts;
Districts as nearly equal in population as practicable;
Avoid division of any county, city, incorporated town, borough, township, or ward, except where necessary to ensure equality of population.
These criteria mirror that criteria in the PA constitution governing the creation of legislative districts. Note, that incumbent protection is not one of the criteria.

Contiguous and compact districts are a frequently used phrase, and in the Feb 7 opinion referred the Reock and Polsby-Popper tests of compactness. When these tests are applied to the entire plan one finds that individual districts may not be compact if it facilitates other districts becoming more compact. Polsby-Popper gives weight to the perimeter length and works against natural irregular boundaries such as county lines in a way that the Reock test does not. Perhaps the ACLU gave more weight to that test.

The as nearly equal as practicable standard for population was the subject of Tennant v Jefferson County (2012). The WV plan had a population range of 0.79% of the quota but survived because of the neutral criteria involved, including division of no counties. In PA it is impossible to divide no counties, but it is possible to minimize the division of counties and divide no county subdivisions. That along with contiguity and compactness should make Tennant the standard for interpreting population equality.

As noted it is impossible to avoid the division of counties. To minimize the division one has to decide is the goal to minimize fragments created by county division, or to minimize the number of counties divided. Looking at the record of plans in PA and their analysis it would seem that the latter is the key factor - the total number of divided counties should be minimized. That factor is modified by the grouping of divided counties into counties split 2 ways, 3 ways, 4 ways, etc. The size of Philadelphia makes a 3-way division inevitable, but nothing forces any greater fragmentation of a county. A reasonable way to meet this requirement would be to avoid plans that have more than 2 chops (3 districts) in a county.

With that in mind I applied those criteria to come up with the following plan, which would be my submission if the public were invited to submit plans. There are only 6 chopped counties and none are chopped more than twice. Chops within a county are drawn to maximize compactness while creating no chops to any county subdivision, including wards within Philadelphia. CD-2 meets the VRA with BVAP 52.6%. The population range is 0.58%, within the Tennant range accepted by SCOTUS. CDs 5 and 10 are arguably not compact, but their shape is largely due to the adjacent compact districts comprised of whole counties, and would not unduly hurt the average compactness of the plan.

[Gass3268]

That ACLU map looks like the naive geographically compact maps on 538. Why would you split Huntingdon and Northumberland county unless they were trying to make some of the middle districts looks round or square?

I agree that it looks like the ACLU elevated compactness above the other criteria. The partisan maps include knowledge of incumbent residences and cores of previous districts.

The Jan 22 order specified only the following criteria, and the Feb 7 order specifically said it did not change them:
Contiguous and compact districts;
Districts as nearly equal in population as practicable;
Avoid division of any county, city, incorporated town, borough, township, or ward, except where necessary to ensure equality of population.
These criteria mirror that criteria in the PA constitution governing the creation of legislative districts. Note, that incumbent protection is not one of the criteria.

Contiguous and compact districts are a frequently used phrase, and in the Feb 7 opinion referred the Reock and Polsby-Popper tests of compactness. When these tests are applied to the entire plan one finds that individual districts may not be compact if it facilitates other districts becoming more compact. Polsby-Popper gives weight to the perimeter length and works against natural irregular boundaries such as county lines in a way that the Reock test does not. Perhaps the ACLU gave more weight to that test.

The as nearly equal as practicable standard for population was the subject of Tennant v Jefferson County (2012). The WV plan had a population range of 0.79% of the quota but survived because of the neutral criteria involved, including division of no counties. In PA it is impossible to divide no counties, but it is possible to minimize the division of counties and divide no county subdivisions. That along with contiguity and compactness should make Tennant the standard for interpreting population equality.

As noted it is impossible to avoid the division of counties. To minimize the division one has to decide is the goal to minimize fragments created by county division, or to minimize the number of counties divided. Looking at the record of plans in PA and their analysis it would seem that the latter is the key factor - the total number of divided counties should be minimized. That factor is modified by the grouping of divided counties into counties split 2 ways, 3 ways, 4 ways, etc. The size of Philadelphia makes a 3-way division inevitable, but nothing forces any greater fragmentation of a county. A reasonable way to meet this requirement would be to avoid plans that have more than 2 chops (3 districts) in a county.

With that in mind I applied those criteria to come up with the following plan, which would be my submission if the public were invited to submit plans. There are only 6 chopped counties and none are chopped more than twice. Chops within a county are drawn to maximize compactness while creating no chops to any county subdivision, including wards within Philadelphia. CD-2 meets the VRA with BVAP 52.6%. The population range is 0.58%, within the Tennant range accepted by SCOTUS. CDs 5 and 10 are arguably not compact, but their shape is largely due to the adjacent compact districts comprised of whole counties, and would not unduly hurt the average compactness of the plan.

Did you submit your map to the court?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

It looks like Wolf is trying to make the 9th a little more competitive. That dash of blue in centre County is State College.

We know young people are energized and we are seeing massive D gains in margins so that is a smart move by Tom. 

[Brittain33]

It looks like Wolf is trying to make the 9th a little more competitive. That dash of blue in centre County is State College.

We know young people are energized and we are seeing massive D gains in margins so that is a smart move by Tom. 

I would think that the 9th can't get anywhere near the realm of competitiveness, even with State College.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

It looks like Wolf is trying to make the 9th a little more competitive. That dash of blue in centre County is State College.

We know young people are energized and we are seeing massive D gains in margins so that is a smart move by Tom. 

I would think that the 9th can't get anywhere near the realm of competitiveness, even with State College.

Well obviously, but no doubt what his intentions are.

[muon2]

That ACLU map looks like the naive geographically compact maps on 538. Why would you split Huntingdon and Northumberland county unless they were trying to make some of the middle districts looks round or square?

I agree that it looks like the ACLU elevated compactness above the other criteria. The partisan maps include knowledge of incumbent residences and cores of previous districts.

The Jan 22 order specified only the following criteria, and the Feb 7 order specifically said it did not change them:
Contiguous and compact districts;
Districts as nearly equal in population as practicable;
Avoid division of any county, city, incorporated town, borough, township, or ward, except where necessary to ensure equality of population.
These criteria mirror that criteria in the PA constitution governing the creation of legislative districts. Note, that incumbent protection is not one of the criteria.

Contiguous and compact districts are a frequently used phrase, and in the Feb 7 opinion referred the Reock and Polsby-Popper tests of compactness. When these tests are applied to the entire plan one finds that individual districts may not be compact if it facilitates other districts becoming more compact. Polsby-Popper gives weight to the perimeter length and works against natural irregular boundaries such as county lines in a way that the Reock test does not. Perhaps the ACLU gave more weight to that test.

The as nearly equal as practicable standard for population was the subject of Tennant v Jefferson County (2012). The WV plan had a population range of 0.79% of the quota but survived because of the neutral criteria involved, including division of no counties. In PA it is impossible to divide no counties, but it is possible to minimize the division of counties and divide no county subdivisions. That along with contiguity and compactness should make Tennant the standard for interpreting population equality.

As noted it is impossible to avoid the division of counties. To minimize the division one has to decide is the goal to minimize fragments created by county division, or to minimize the number of counties divided. Looking at the record of plans in PA and their analysis it would seem that the latter is the key factor - the total number of divided counties should be minimized. That factor is modified by the grouping of divided counties into counties split 2 ways, 3 ways, 4 ways, etc. The size of Philadelphia makes a 3-way division inevitable, but nothing forces any greater fragmentation of a county. A reasonable way to meet this requirement would be to avoid plans that have more than 2 chops (3 districts) in a county.

With that in mind I applied those criteria to come up with the following plan, which would be my submission if the public were invited to submit plans. There are only 6 chopped counties and none are chopped more than twice. Chops within a county are drawn to maximize compactness while creating no chops to any county subdivision, including wards within Philadelphia. CD-2 meets the VRA with BVAP 52.6%. The population range is 0.58%, within the Tennant range accepted by SCOTUS. CDs 5 and 10 are arguably not compact, but their shape is largely due to the adjacent compact districts comprised of whole counties, and would not unduly hurt the average compactness of the plan.

Did you submit your map to the court?

I found no address for public submission or I would have. I have a 5 page doc file with the detailed analysis.

[Oryxslayer]

It looks like Wolf is trying to make the 9th a little more competitive. That dash of blue in centre County is State College.

We know young people are energized and we are seeing massive D gains in margins so that is a smart move by Tom. 

I would think that the 9th can't get anywhere near the realm of competitiveness, even with State College.

Yeah, but unless State College is dragged down to Harrisburg, or across to the Wyoming valley, there isn't much one can do with it. Best put the city in the seat with the open  D ancestral Altoona/Johnstown seat and hope for the best.

[henster]

The League of Women Voters maps that is apparently a 9-9 partisan split.

https://www.pubintlaw.org/cases-and-projects/petitioners-propose-constitutional-maps-to-pennsylvania-supreme-court/

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

How is everyone able to get Trump/Clinton numbers for these districts? PVI (as presented on DRA) means nothing to me as the Obama numbers are no longer relevant due to realignment.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

One would probably have to stretch a District from Centre County to Dauphin County to get a Competitive District in the Center of the State, and probably move Cumberland County in too.

[Oryxslayer]

The League of Women Voters maps that is apparently a 9-9 partisan split.

https://www.pubintlaw.org/cases-and-projects/petitioners-propose-constitutional-maps-to-pennsylvania-supreme-court/

I like the East on their first map, andthe west on the second. That said, every time they chop a county you have to scratch your head and say "why this way?"

How is everyone able to get Trump/Clinton numbers for these districts? PVI (as presented on DRA) means nothing to me as the Obama numbers are no longer relevant due to realignment.

PVI on DRA is a excellent tool if you don't have the time to do calculations, its what cook uses and they tend to be good. The number is 2012+2016/2 so that is a fine substitute. If you lack trust in PVI, then it gets complicated. For the politicos and those drawing the maps, they have access to the counties official tabulations from 2016. Politicos like Wasserman and 538 have access to the data files compiled by RI last year. For me, I hand calculated the results using Atlas's county and town results for PA, plus a news site that broke up the philly vote by wards.

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

How is everyone able to get Trump/Clinton numbers for these districts? PVI (as presented on DRA) means nothing to me as the Obama numbers are no longer relevant due to realignment.

PVI on DRA is a excellent tool if you don't have the time to do calculations, its what cook uses and they tend to be good. The number is 2012+2016/2 so that is a fine substitute. If you lack trust in PVI, then it gets complicated. For the politicos and those drawing the maps, they have access to the counties official tabulations from 2016. Politicos like Wasserman and 538 have access to the data files compiled by RI last year. For me, I hand calculated the results using Atlas's county and town results for PA, plus a news site that broke up the philly vote by wards.

Thanks for the help?

Generally as a rule of thumb, from your data, would a D+1 PVI be a good 2016 Trump/Clinton dividing line in the Philly+Philly suburbs and D+5 in NEPA and the Pittsburgh area? I'm trying my hand in drawing districts.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

The League of Women Voters maps that is apparently a 9-9 partisan split.

https://www.pubintlaw.org/cases-and-projects/petitioners-propose-constitutional-maps-to-pennsylvania-supreme-court/

What do they have against Rothfus? Map B is his execution.

[Oryxslayer]

The League of Women Voters maps that is apparently a 9-9 partisan split.

https://www.pubintlaw.org/cases-and-projects/petitioners-propose-constitutional-maps-to-pennsylvania-supreme-court/

What do they have against Rothfus? Map B is his execution.

My map ended up killing Rothfus as well, its kinda unavoidable in most circumstances where Allegheny is cut twice. A triple cut allows the North Philly Suburbs to be pared with a neighboring conservative county. A double cut means they tend to need to be partnered with either Pittsburgh or the left-wing Eastern suburbs. That said, his situation could certainly improve, it looks like the LoWV drew the district straight across the county, no care for lower authorities - generally part of their questionable cuts.

[Oryxslayer]

How is everyone able to get Trump/Clinton numbers for these districts? PVI (as presented on DRA) means nothing to me as the Obama numbers are no longer relevant due to realignment.

PVI on DRA is a excellent tool if you don't have the time to do calculations, its what cook uses and they tend to be good. The number is 2012+2016/2 so that is a fine substitute. If you lack trust in PVI, then it gets complicated. For the politicos and those drawing the maps, they have access to the counties official tabulations from 2016. Politicos like Wasserman and 538 have access to the data files compiled by RI last year. For me, I hand calculated the results using Atlas's county and town results for PA, plus a news site that broke up the philly vote by wards.

Thanks for the help?

Generally as a rule of thumb, from your data, would a D+1 PVI be a good 2016 Trump/Clinton dividing line in the Philly+Philly suburbs and D+5 in NEPA and the Pittsburgh area? I'm trying my hand in drawing districts.

Unfortunately, I don't have much tips, since everything is relative. PA has a lot of areas where Trump and Obama 2012 got similar numbers, so the resulting PVI is close to 0. That said generally anything between R+5 & D+5 can be considered somewhat competitive - naturally the furthur you go from the center, the harder to flip. A +5 seat is similarly safe under most circumstances, with exceptions for a poor incumbent or open seat. Anything beyond that boundary is safe, except for the blue moon (IRL in florida etc)

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Are they trying to screw over Doyle in B?