Fair Redistricting (PA aftermath)

[Strudelcutie4427]

I tried to move it along by giving the panel something to practice on earlier today - the panel rules. None have even voted on them yet, and the only two who commented on them didn't agree. I'm not sure if you all want any organization to your panel and submissions.

I vote to approve the rules. That should be 3/5 majority

[muon2]

I tried to move it along by giving the panel something to practice on earlier today - the panel rules. None have even voted on them yet, and the only two who commented on them didn't agree. I'm not sure if you all want any organization to your panel and submissions.

I vote to approve the rules. That should be 3/5 majority

Does that include the amendment to go to 2 submissions per person? TimTurner should also vote on cvparty's revised amendment that the submission limit applies to all. Even though their votes are not necessary, it would be nice to see panelists Ted Bessell and LimoLiberal weigh in to confirm their continued interest.

[Torie]

Regarding Maine, I am not sure using towns is a very good idea. Many of the towns are defunct, although where the lines are drawn between CD's, in all probability the towns involved will have some governmental life to them (the defunct towns are mostly in the very low population density north woods). But even using block groups on the DRA rather than election districts (which are larger), the block groups do not necessarily match the town lines. For example, looking at the maps below, if I added the town of Sweden in Oxford county to the blue CD, I would get very close to exact population equality (Sweden has a population of 391). But I can't do that. There are two block groups that together cover Sweden and Lovell, but the line between the two block groups does not match the town line between Sweden and Lovell. Other block groups combine more than one town, as one can see with the block group that takes in Stow, South Oxford and Stoneham.

Sure, one could invite participants to search out the town maps on the internet, figure out which towns still have meaning rather than having been consigned to the ash heap of history, look up the populations, and then photoshop the map to draw a line chopping a block group, and adjust the population accordingly. I doubt you guys want to have that level of complexity here, particularly with tight time frames, which might discourage participants who want to play, but don't want this activity to be their chief hobby in life.

Iowa by the way has towns (townships). They are all defunct so far as I know (and I do know they are in Madison County).



[url=https://ibb.co/d42kD7]

[muon2]

Given some of the uncertainty with the timing and participation I would suggest that the initial schedule only take up the New England states. They all rely heavily on town integrity more than county integrity so it's easier to look at them in a common way. There aren't any minority issues to consider and the partisan composition is going to be less of a factor than in more polarized states. By going in the order ME-NH-RI-CT-MA you can get to a medium-sized state relatively soon and get a better sense of any kinks in the process. After New England is done you can assess the process, make revisions as needed, and set the rest of the schedule.

[muon2]

Regarding Maine, I am not sure using towns is a very good idea. Many of the towns are defunct, although where the lines are drawn between CD's, in all probability the towns involved will have some governmental life to them. But even using block groups on the DRA rather than election districts (which are larger), the block groups do not necessarily match the town lines. For example, looking at the maps below, if I added the town of Sweden in Oxford county to the blue CD, I would get very close to exact population equality (Sweden has a population of 391). But I can't do that. There are two block groups that together cover Sweden and Lovell, but the line between the two block groups does not match the town line between Sweden and Lovell. Other block groups combine more than one town, as one can see with the block group that takes in Stow, South Oxford and Stoneham.

I use the 2010 voting districts option, not block groups. ME consolidates its voting districts across towns for polling efficiency. I believe that when towns are consolidated into a voting district the voting district consists only of whole towns so no chops are needed. In any case the panel has expressed less interest in exact equality as long is the maximum deviation is under 0.5%. So going from under 400 deviation to under 100 deviation may not carry much weight.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Damn I wish I'd seen this earlier... Would it be okay to make room for a third D and R?

[Torie]

It might carry weight which map is more exact if the maps otherwise tie, but whatever. And you might be right, that there is no voting district that takes in parts (slices, dices, bits, pieces, fragments) of two towns (are you sure?). But the participants will have to figure out digging out the town maps, which voting districts chop a town, and which do not (see map below where one town (South Oxford) is split into two voting districts, with one voting district therein also taking in another town (Stoneham) to confuse matters further). Good luck with that. The voting district numbers give no clue as to whether a split is involved or not.

[cvparty]

It might carry weight which map is more exact if the maps otherwise tie, but whatever. And you might be right, that there is no voting district that takes in parts (slices, dices, bits, pieces, fragments) of two towns (are you sure?). But the participants will have to figure out digging out the town maps, which voting districts chop a town, and which do not (see map below where one town (South Oxford) is split into two voting districts, with one voting district therein also taking in another town (Stoneham) to confuse matters further). Good luck with that. The voting district numbers give no clue as to whether a split is involved or not.

All the town shapes are pretty square so you could probably use intuition and see the town lines. I figure it's not ridiculously difficult to look up "maine's towns map." Actually, you can just click a NE county in the 2016 election results on this site to see the towns with voting info

also, to anyone seeing this thread, here is the official thread for map submissions and discussions

[Torie]

Perhaps you could provide a link to where one finds all these town maps.

[muon2]

It might carry weight which map is more exact if the maps otherwise tie, but whatever. And you might be right, that there is no voting district that takes in parts (slices, dices, bits, pieces, fragments) of two towns (are you sure?). But the participants will have to figure out digging out the town maps, which voting districts chop a town, and which do not (see map below where one town (South Oxford) is split into two voting districts, with one voting district therein also taking in another town (Stoneham) to confuse matters further). Good luck with that. The voting district numbers give no clue as to whether a split is involved or not.

Ah well. I had hope that one grouping might be better than the other.

So this would be my initial submission. I checked the town maps and there is only one county chop and no town chops and does not chop a UCC. CD 1 (blue) has a deviation of +75. I think this is as low as I can get erosity using counties as the primary unit and towns as the subunit.

[cvparty]

Perhaps you could provide a link to where one finds all these town maps.

here click the state, then the county and you have the towns

[muon2]

Perhaps you could provide a link to where one finds all these town maps.

I search for them separately, eg franklin county maine town map. I can usually find one in the images. There are too many in ME overall to see them clearly on a state map.

[Torie]

Perhaps you could provide a link to where one finds all these town maps.

here click the state, then the county and you have the towns

This is so much fun. I see that part of South Oxford has morphed into something called "Albany UT" (what is a UT?), with the balance split into two bits that are greyed out. So a poster puts up a map that has Albany UT in one CD (let's assume that the voting district takes in only the geography of Albany UT for purposes of this hypothetical (it doesn't quite actually, but maybe that is Leips being a tad sloppy with the lines) and the grey bits in another, and a competing poster after the deadline, points out the chop digging out the real town maps, rather than the inaccurate ones on the Leips site.

[Torie]

Perhaps you could provide a link to where one finds all these town maps.

I search for them separately, eg franklin county maine town map. I can usually find one in the images. There are too many in ME overall to see them clearly on a state map.

You of course love all this navigating of the maze I understand. My map beats yours on equality, if I get to chop a voting district, to tease out the glorious town of Sweden.  Yours no doubt wins on erosity using your metric, which has not been adopted by the panel. Rather their metric is more alone the lines of the pornography test, that you know it when you see it. Some might think something that is elongated, traversing the state from north to south in an emaciated way, but scores will using your metric, because it hugs a state line, is more erotic than your metric scoring. But that is part of the fun I guess. 

Anyway, just out of curiosity, can a poster chop a voting district in the way I did, or not?  What is the rule?

[cvparty]

Perhaps you could provide a link to where one finds all these town maps.

here click the state, then the county and you have the towns

This is so much fun. I see that part of South Oxford has morphed into something called "Albany UT" (what is a UT?), with the balance split into two bits that are greyed out. So a poster puts up a map that has Albany UT in one CD (let's assume that the voting district takes in only the geography of Albany UT for purposes of this hypothetical (it doesn't quite actually, but maybe that is Leips being a tad sloppy with the lines) and the grey bits in another, and a competing poster after the deadline, points out the chop digging out the real town maps, rather than the inaccurate ones on the Leips site.

UT is unorganized territory. South Oxford is a UT. Albany Township, Mason Township, and Batchelder's Grant are the three areas that comprise South Oxford. So it really doesn't matter if you decided to keep all three in the same district or not, you're not splitting a town. I think Leip's lines are fine

[cvparty]

and you can't split south oxford in DRA anyway...

[Torie]

and you can't split south oxford in DRA anyway...

Actually I showed above that you can. But whether the Leips map is accurate or not, pretending that it is, makes total sense to me. Looking for other maps on the internet does not. That still leaves the question, as to whether a participant can chop a voting district, in order to avoid a town chop, or to take in just one of several towns that are in the voting district.

It is odd that Leaps calls Albany an unorganized township the Leips map rules, and you say assume any designation of UT thereon, as being no different from where it says "Town," than that puts that matter to bed.

Actually, Albany is an unorganized town with no functions these days ("defrocked" some time ago as a real town). But if, along with the other two bits that you mentioned as constituting the "unorganized territory" of South Oxford (which other two bits might not even have a UT status (I can't find that out on the internet), that does not matter, we can cease to worry about that.

[Strudelcutie4427]

Here’s one of all of New England just for reference. They aren’t labeled but in Maine the towns usually have slants, curves, and other irregular shapes while the very small thinly populated townships are the endless sea of squares in the large northern counties and also in Hancock/Washington

[cvparty]

and you can't split south oxford in DRA anyway...

Actually I showed above that you can. But whether the Leips map is accurate or not, pretending that it is, makes total sense to me. Looking for other maps on the internet does not. That still leaves the question, as to whether a participant can chop a voting district, in order to avoid a town chop, or to take in just one of several towns that are in the voting district.

It is odd that Leaps calls Albany an unorganized township, while you say it is a genuine organized town, with the larger South Oxford entity the real UT. But if the Leips map rules, and you say assume any designation of UT thereon, as being no different from where it says "Town," than that puts that matter to bed.

oh you're right I was looking at the map wrong. I think you should just use the voting districts, some do contain parts of different towns but that's the understood limitation in DRA. So I wouldn't complicate things and try to split the district. Just try to keep towns together to your ability within DRA. And no Albany is an unorganized township, South Oxford is an unorganized territory, there's no municipal government.

[Torie]

and you can't split south oxford in DRA anyway...

Actually I showed above that you can. But whether the Leips map is accurate or not, pretending that it is, makes total sense to me. Looking for other maps on the internet does not. That still leaves the question, as to whether a participant can chop a voting district, in order to avoid a town chop, or to take in just one of several towns that are in the voting district.

It is odd that Leaps calls Albany an unorganized township, while you say it is a genuine organized town, with the larger South Oxford entity the real UT. But if the Leips map rules, and you say assume any designation of UT thereon, as being no different from where it says "Town," than that puts that matter to bed.

oh you're right I was looking at the map wrong. I think you should just use the voting districts, some do contain parts of different towns but that's the understood limitation in DRA. So I wouldn't complicate things and try to split the district. Just try to keep towns together to your ability within DRA. And no Albany is an unorganized township, South Oxford is an unorganized territory, there's no municipal government.

So one uses the voting districts, they cannot be chopped, and for whether or not you have chopped a municipal unit, just compare the lines of the voting districts, to the "town" lines on the Leips map, and whatever that indicates, is what matters, and nothing else. Right?

[LimoLiberal]

I tried to move it along by giving the panel something to practice on earlier today - the panel rules. None have even voted on them yet, and the only two who commented on them didn't agree. I'm not sure if you all want any organization to your panel and submissions.

I vote to approve the rules. That should be 3/5 majority

Does that include the amendment to go to 2 submissions per person? TimTurner should also vote on cvparty's revised amendment that the submission limit applies to all. Even though their votes are not necessary, it would be nice to see panelists Ted Bessell and LimoLiberal weigh in to confirm their continued interest.

I vote to approve the rules as well.

[cvparty]

and you can't split south oxford in DRA anyway...

Actually I showed above that you can. But whether the Leips map is accurate or not, pretending that it is, makes total sense to me. Looking for other maps on the internet does not. That still leaves the question, as to whether a participant can chop a voting district, in order to avoid a town chop, or to take in just one of several towns that are in the voting district.

It is odd that Leaps calls Albany an unorganized township, while you say it is a genuine organized town, with the larger South Oxford entity the real UT. But if the Leips map rules, and you say assume any designation of UT thereon, as being no different from where it says "Town," than that puts that matter to bed.

oh you're right I was looking at the map wrong. I think you should just use the voting districts, some do contain parts of different towns but that's the understood limitation in DRA. So I wouldn't complicate things and try to split the district. Just try to keep towns together to your ability within DRA. And no Albany is an unorganized township, South Oxford is an unorganized territory, there's no municipal government.

So one uses the voting districts, they cannot be chopped, and for whether or not you have chopped a municipal unit, just compare the lines of the voting districts, to the "town" lines on the Leaps map, and whatever that indicates, is what matters, and nothing else. Right?

wait, no, in your example there isn't a district that contains fragments of multiple towns. There are combinations of towns but it doesn't divide any. (South Oxford is UT so not a town) So I don't think there should be a problem.

[Strudelcutie4427]

and you can't split south oxford in DRA anyway...

Actually I showed above that you can. But whether the Leips map is accurate or not, pretending that it is, makes total sense to me. Looking for other maps on the internet does not. That still leaves the question, as to whether a participant can chop a voting district, in order to avoid a town chop, or to take in just one of several towns that are in the voting district.

It is odd that Leaps calls Albany an unorganized township, while you say it is a genuine organized town, with the larger South Oxford entity the real UT. But if the Leips map rules, and you say assume any designation of UT thereon, as being no different from where it says "Town," than that puts that matter to bed.

oh you're right I was looking at the map wrong. I think you should just use the voting districts, some do contain parts of different towns but that's the understood limitation in DRA. So I wouldn't complicate things and try to split the district. Just try to keep towns together to your ability within DRA. And no Albany is an unorganized township, South Oxford is an unorganized territory, there's no municipal government.

So one uses the voting districts, they cannot be chopped, and for whether or not you have chopped a municipal unit, just compare the lines of the voting districts, to the "town" lines on the Leaps map, and whatever that indicates, is what matters, and nothing else. Right?

wait, no, in your example there isn't a district that contains fragments of multiple towns. There are combinations of towns but it doesn't divide any. (South Oxford is UT so not a town) So I don't think there should be a problem.

Voting districts shouldn’t be an issue to use. Most of these towns are so small that they’re combined with other towns. The only ones we should avoid splitting are the towns with more than one precinct (Portland, Bangor, Lewiston, etc)

[Torie]

and you can't split south oxford in DRA anyway...

Actually I showed above that you can. But whether the Leips map is accurate or not, pretending that it is, makes total sense to me. Looking for other maps on the internet does not. That still leaves the question, as to whether a participant can chop a voting district, in order to avoid a town chop, or to take in just one of several towns that are in the voting district.

It is odd that Leaps calls Albany an unorganized township, while you say it is a genuine organized town, with the larger South Oxford entity the real UT. But if the Leips map rules, and you say assume any designation of UT thereon, as being no different from where it says "Town," than that puts that matter to bed.

oh you're right I was looking at the map wrong. I think you should just use the voting districts, some do contain parts of different towns but that's the understood limitation in DRA. So I wouldn't complicate things and try to split the district. Just try to keep towns together to your ability within DRA. And no Albany is an unorganized township, South Oxford is an unorganized territory, there's no municipal government.

So one uses the voting districts, they cannot be chopped, and for whether or not you have chopped a municipal unit, just compare the lines of the voting districts, to the "town" lines on the Leaps map, and whatever that indicates, is what matters, and nothing else. Right?

wait, no, in your example there isn't a district that contains fragments of multiple towns. There are combinations of towns but it doesn't divide any. (South Oxford is UT so not a town) So I don't think there should be a problem.

No, the remaining issue was chopping a voting district that contains multiple towns to get better population equality by cherry picking only some of the towns in the VD. But you said no. It is probably true that no voting district chops a unorganized town, so that distinction does not matter. If a VD did, than it would matter as to whether or not an unorganized town is treated the same as an organized town.

[Torie]

and you can't split south oxford in DRA anyway...

Actually I showed above that you can. But whether the Leips map is accurate or not, pretending that it is, makes total sense to me. Looking for other maps on the internet does not. That still leaves the question, as to whether a participant can chop a voting district, in order to avoid a town chop, or to take in just one of several towns that are in the voting district.

It is odd that Leaps calls Albany an unorganized township, while you say it is a genuine organized town, with the larger South Oxford entity the real UT. But if the Leips map rules, and you say assume any designation of UT thereon, as being no different from where it says "Town," than that puts that matter to bed.

oh you're right I was looking at the map wrong. I think you should just use the voting districts, some do contain parts of different towns but that's the understood limitation in DRA. So I wouldn't complicate things and try to split the district. Just try to keep towns together to your ability within DRA. And no Albany is an unorganized township, South Oxford is an unorganized territory, there's no municipal government.

So one uses the voting districts, they cannot be chopped, and for whether or not you have chopped a municipal unit, just compare the lines of the voting districts, to the "town" lines on the Leaps map, and whatever that indicates, is what matters, and nothing else. Right?

wait, no, in your example there isn't a district that contains fragments of multiple towns. There are combinations of towns but it doesn't divide any. (South Oxford is UT so not a town) So I don't think there should be a problem.

Voting districts shouldn’t be an issue to use. Most of these towns are so small that they’re combined with other towns. The only ones we should avoid splitting are the towns with more than one precinct (Portland, Bangor, Lewiston, etc)

Those are cities, so that is an easy case.