Fair redistricting: New York

[muon2]

CD1 (Rochester, Dover, Concord) - D+2.6
CD2 (Portsmouth, Manchester, Nashua) - R+2.7

Deviation is ±1257.

Basically a choppier version of HCP's map - three county chops (Rockingham, Merrimack, Hillsborough), but all towns are intact and IMO looks better with chops than following Rockingham and Merrimack Lines.

For those of the judges who are uncomfortable with the deviations of this plan, you can perhaps pretend you're voting for this



or this



I'm sorry, I couldn't resist posting these maps, which I made midday yesterday but hadn't gotten around to saving in the Atlas Gallery and then posting here.  You probably can't pretend you're voting on something other than what you're actually voting on.

In fairness to Gallatine, to reduce the inequality as you suggest would increase the erosity by 1 and 3 points respectively.

[cvparty]

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist posting these maps, which I made midday yesterday but hadn't gotten around to saving in the Atlas Gallery and then posting here.  You probably can't pretend you're voting on something other than what you're actually voting on.

oh that's fine your map can be allowed, but most of the panelists have voted already. speaking of which, we are still waiting on two of them to cast valid votes...

nothing personal against ted bessell but he seems very busy. I'll still give him time to see if this continues, but he's repeatedly been slow to respond from the start. there is someone who has expressed interest in being a panelist and can take his place. would anyone have objections to replacing ted if he proves to be too inactive?

[jimrtex]

I believe this is the final table for NH. The SPICE scores allow simple comparison between plans. They aren't designed to pick a winner, but they are designed to weed out weak plans.

The usual way to interpret the scores is that if any plan has values that are in at least one case higher and in no case lower than another plan then it would be eliminated from consideration. I've highlighted those plans in the table. For example Starpaul20 has higher inequality and erosity than HCP while all other values are equal (red). Starpaul20 would be eliminated based on its SPICE scores. Similarly TimTurner and LimoLiberal are eliminated by muon2-A on chops and erosity (green). jimrtex would be eliminated by cvparty on polarization, inequality and erosity (blue). By using a smaller set of scores, such as just one of the chop scores or ignoring the polarization additional eliminations can be made to get a final competition set for voting.

Here's a table for the submitted NH plans as I fill each in. The erosity is based on the town connection map. The NECTA chop is based on the NECTA map reflecting Census groupings of towns. The key is S:Skew, P:Polarization, I:Inequality, CC:Chop (Counties/UCC), CN:Chop (NECTA), E:Erosity. Low scores are better.

Plan	-S-	-P-	-I-	-CC	-CN	-E-
Solid4096	0	0	5	1	4	29
Singletxguyforfun	0	2	4	3	2	21
TimTurner	0	0	2	3	4	30
cvparty	0	0	4	4	3	23
Sol	0	0	3	5	3	20
HCP	0	2	2	2	2	25
LimoLiberal	0	0	3	2	4	30
Starpaul20	0	2	3	2	2	27
Gallatine	0	2	7	4	2	19
muon2-A	0	0	2	1	4	28
muon2-B	0	2	1	4	0	24
jimrtex	0	2	5	4	3	24

Edit: Solid4096 was overlooked and is now added. It would also be eliminated based on SPICE scores from muon2-A.

NECTA's are arbitrary because they largely ignore commuting patterns.

Conjoined Urbanized Areas were separated based on pre-2000 MSA's. Remember that before 2000, MSA's in New England were town-based. Beginning with the 2000 Census, urban areas were delineated based on continuous semi-dense settlement. This in effect would produce a Bosnywash urbanized area stretching from Portland to Richmond. To avoid this, the Census Bureau decided to separate urbanized areas based on the pre-2000 MSA's. NECTA's are based on the urban areas at their core. Because of the scale of towns and also patterns of development and settlement fewer non-densely settled areas are captured based solely on commuting.

This is not analogous to UCC's since even when there is a non-separated urbanized area grandfathered (see Livingston, MI) the proto-MSA can be captured based on commuting. But that is not possible with NECTA's, since Nashua is too big to be captured by Manchester and vice versa.

The NECTA boundary between Springfield and Hartford is clearly misplaced based on commuting patterns (there is only one town in Connecticut where people mostly drive north in the morning).

Since one of the prime responsibilities of RPC's is transportation planning, they inherently provide better definitions of communities of interest.

If the goal is blind equality at the expense of community of interest, then add Dunbar to NH-2, put Francestown back in NH-2, and move Wilton to NH-1.



NH-1 (north) -0.004%
NH-2 (south) +0.004%

Standard Deviation 0.004%

NH-1 (north) D 3.02%
NH-2 (south) R 3.04%

[muon2]

NECTA's are arbitrary because they largely ignore commuting patterns.

Conjoined Urbanized Areas were separated based on pre-2000 MSA's. Remember that before 2000, MSA's in New England were town-based. Beginning with the 2000 Census, urban areas were delineated based on continuous semi-dense settlement. This in effect would produce a Bosnywash urbanized area stretching from Portland to Richmond. To avoid this, the Census Bureau decided to separate urbanized areas based on the pre-2000 MSA's. NECTA's are based on the urban areas at their core. Because of the scale of towns and also patterns of development and settlement fewer non-densely settled areas are captured based solely on commuting.

This is not analogous to UCC's since even when there is a non-separated urbanized area grandfathered (see Livingston, MI) the proto-MSA can be captured based on commuting. But that is not possible with NECTA's, since Nashua is too big to be captured by Manchester and vice versa.

The NECTA boundary between Springfield and Hartford is clearly misplaced based on commuting patterns (there is only one town in Connecticut where people mostly drive north in the morning).

Since one of the prime responsibilities of RPC's is transportation planning, they inherently provide better definitions of communities of interest.

The UCCs are a refinement of the Census MSAs that we originally looked at for determining clusters of counties that represented a community of interest. Nominally the NECTAs are based on the same analysis by the Census as MSAs, at least as I read their defintions:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just as there are MSAs where we might spot individual counties that might be better placed elsewhere, I have no doubt that we might find towns that look like they should go elsewhere based on state planning documents. We didn't do that with the MSAs as they became UCCs because that would remove the objective standard developed by the Census. However, if we wanted to take on the exercise of refining the NECTAs using the MSA to UCC metrics that would be a logical step.

[Strudelcutie4427]

Do we have our narrowed down NH options?

[cvparty]

no, ted and tim are holdin us up

[Strudelcutie4427]

no, ted and tim are holdin us up

Should we add alternate panelists in the event that a main one is unable to vote? Or just defer to a 3 vote count for now?

[cvparty]

no, ted and tim are holdin us up

Should we add alternate panelists in the event that a main one is unable to vote? Or just defer to a 3 vote count for now?

idrk if anyone would want to just be a stand-in lol...but I know someone who wants to be a panelist and can replace one of the Ds. And anyone else who has interest in being the other D panelist can let it be known!! If you want, we can finish with the three panelists that are responding (just for this state). In that case, we could use all the maps that passed muon's evaluation

[Strudelcutie4427]

no, ted and tim are holdin us up

Should we add alternate panelists in the event that a main one is unable to vote? Or just defer to a 3 vote count for now?

idrk if anyone would want to just be a stand-in lol...but I know someone who wants to be a panelist and can replace one of the Ds. And anyone else who has interest in being the other D panelist can let it be known!! If you want, we can finish with the three panelists that are responding (just for this state). In that case, we could use all the maps that passed muon's evaluation

I’d be fine with using muons rules for this one. We can choose from the top 3 or 4 (or lowest based off his scores) most of those ones are pretty similar looking anyway

[cvparty]

For this special situation in which two of the panelists are unresponsive, the remaining will complete this state. Panelists, vote yes or no to each of these maps to make it to the final round...only a simple 1/2 approval is required. If one of the absent panelists happens to become active again, they may vote, and 1/2 approval will be needed. This is my vote:

Singletxguyforfun - Y
cvparty - Y
Sol - Y
HCP - Y
Gallatine - Y
muon2-A - N
muon2-B - Y

[Strudelcutie4427]

For this special situation in which two of the panelists are unresponsive, the remaining will complete this state. Panelists, vote yes or no to each of these maps to make it to the final round...only a simple 1/2 approval is required. If one of the absent panelists happens to become active again, they may vote, and 1/2 approval will be needed. This is my vote:

Singletxguyforfun - Y
cvparty - Y
Sol - Y
HCP - Y
Gallatine - Y
muon2-A - N
muon2-B - Y

CV- Y
Singletxguy-Y
Sol- N
HCP- Y
Gallatin- Y
Muon A- Y
Muon B- N

[jimrtex]

I believe this is the final table for NH. The SPICE scores allow simple comparison between plans. They aren't designed to pick a winner, but they are designed to weed out weak plans.

The usual way to interpret the scores is that if any plan has values that are in at least one case higher and in no case lower than another plan then it would be eliminated from consideration. I've highlighted those plans in the table. For example Starpaul20 has higher inequality and erosity than HCP while all other values are equal (red). Starpaul20 would be eliminated based on its SPICE scores. Similarly TimTurner and LimoLiberal are eliminated by muon2-A on chops and erosity (green). jimrtex would be eliminated by cvparty on polarization, inequality and erosity (blue). By using a smaller set of scores, such as just one of the chop scores or ignoring the polarization additional eliminations can be made to get a final competition set for voting.

Here's a table for the submitted NH plans as I fill each in. The erosity is based on the town connection map. The NECTA chop is based on the NECTA map reflecting Census groupings of towns. The key is S:Skew, P:Polarization, I:Inequality, CC:Chop (Counties/UCC), CN:Chop (NECTA), E:Erosity. Low scores are better.

Plan	-S-	-P-	-I-	-CC	-CN	-E-
Solid4096	0	0	5	1	4	29
Singletxguyforfun	0	2	4	3	2	21
TimTurner	0	0	2	3	4	30
cvparty	0	0	4	4	3	23
Sol	0	0	3	5	3	20
HCP	0	2	2	2	2	25
LimoLiberal	0	0	3	2	4	30
Starpaul20	0	2	3	2	2	27
Gallatine	0	2	7	4	2	19
muon2-A	0	0	2	1	4	28
muon2-B	0	2	1	4	0	24
jimrtex	0	2	5	4	3	24

Edit: Solid4096 was overlooked and is now added. It would also be eliminated based on SPICE scores from muon2-A.

Does this say that Gallatine could not be beaten so long as no one beat his erosity score?

[cvparty]

Okay, I'm probably going to start a buncha regional threads to speed up this process, although we need to gather a functional, active panel first. How does this look?

[muon2]

I believe this is the final table for NH. The SPICE scores allow simple comparison between plans. They aren't designed to pick a winner, but they are designed to weed out weak plans.

The usual way to interpret the scores is that if any plan has values that are in at least one case higher and in no case lower than another plan then it would be eliminated from consideration. I've highlighted those plans in the table. For example Starpaul20 has higher inequality and erosity than HCP while all other values are equal (red). Starpaul20 would be eliminated based on its SPICE scores. Similarly TimTurner and LimoLiberal are eliminated by muon2-A on chops and erosity (green). jimrtex would be eliminated by cvparty on polarization, inequality and erosity (blue). By using a smaller set of scores, such as just one of the chop scores or ignoring the polarization additional eliminations can be made to get a final competition set for voting.

Here's a table for the submitted NH plans as I fill each in. The erosity is based on the town connection map. The NECTA chop is based on the NECTA map reflecting Census groupings of towns. The key is S:Skew, P:Polarization, I:Inequality, CC:Chop (Counties/UCC), CN:Chop (NECTA), E:Erosity. Low scores are better.

Plan	-S-	-P-	-I-	-CC	-CN	-E-
Solid4096	0	0	5	1	4	29
Singletxguyforfun	0	2	4	3	2	21
TimTurner	0	0	2	3	4	30
cvparty	0	0	4	4	3	23
Sol	0	0	3	5	3	20
HCP	0	2	2	2	2	25
LimoLiberal	0	0	3	2	4	30
Starpaul20	0	2	3	2	2	27
Gallatine	0	2	7	4	2	19
muon2-A	0	0	2	1	4	28
muon2-B	0	2	1	4	0	24
jimrtex	0	2	5	4	3	24

Edit: Solid4096 was overlooked and is now added. It would also be eliminated based on SPICE scores from muon2-A.

Does this say that Gallatine could not be beaten so long as no one beat his erosity score?

The elimination is based on Pareto equivalency. Any plan that is best in a particular aspect is guaranteed to survive. Another plan might also survive if surpasses in one aspect but not in others, that is if the plan is on the Pareto frontier.

[LimoLiberal]

CV- Y
Singletxguy-Y
Sol- Y
HCP- N
Gallatin- N
Muon A- Y
Muon B- Y

[Strudelcutie4427]

Okay, I'm probably going to start a buncha regional threads to speed up this process, although we need to gather a functional, active panel first. How does this look?

Im in favor of that. This thread would be way too long by the time we got to the West Coast

[cvparty]

Everyone's map passes lmao
Panelists, please rank the final maps. You can rank maps equally. Please follow the format below, using > and = symbols in your ranking. My vote:

Sol=cvparty>Gallatine>Singletxguyforfun>HCP>muon2-B>muon2-A

[muon2]

Okay, I'm probably going to start a buncha regional threads to speed up this process, although we need to gather a functional, active panel first. How does this look?

You might want to distinguish the panels on some common elements. 20 states have Census-defined county subdivisions recognized by their states, and the rest don't. With a few switches you can group those together. I've kept IA in the Midwest since they only recently dropped their minor civil divisions with the Census. I split the large southern region into two so that TX and FL are in different threads.

[cvparty]

I was actually considering using those exact divisions but decided just to go with four. I understand the importance of the groupings in most situations, but these sections are more just about having approximately equal numbers so I didn't think culture and history were really relevant in this context. Five might be a lot to do simultaneously. but if people prefer that, that's fine

[Mike Thick]

Hi. Going to drop in one last time to say that there's really no excuse for dropping the ball like I did. I'm respectfully withdrawing from the panel to avoid holding you guys up further, since it's pretty clear that I will not be able to balance the level of commitment this requires with what have proven to be some unexpectedly hefty IRL obligations.

And no, I did not look at any of the maps for New Hampshire before voting, which was pretty terrible.

[jimrtex]

Okay, I'm probably going to start a buncha regional threads to speed up this process, although we need to gather a functional, active panel first. How does this look?

You might want to distinguish the panels on some common elements. 20 states have Census-defined county subdivisions recognized by their states, and the rest don't. With a few switches you can group those together. I've kept IA in the Midwest since they only recently dropped their minor civil divisions with the Census. I split the large southern region into two so that TX and FL are in different threads.

This could balance the groups more (the switch of MD takes in account that we've already done two Northeastern states.

Northeast 81/7
Midwest 92/10
South Atlantic 82/7
Southwest 82/9
West 87/8

[jimrtex]

Everyone's map passes lmao

Maybe the first two steps can be combined. Let no judge approve more than half the submitted plans, and then go to the ranking phase.

[cvparty]

Maybe the first two steps can be combined. Let no judge approve more than half the submitted plans, and then go to the ranking phase.

this is what I'm thinkin

[Sol]

I'd be interested in one of the open Democratic spaces on the panel if that's alright.

[Strudelcutie4427]

HCP=singletxguy>Gallatine>cvparty>Muon2-A>Sol>muon2-B