Fair redistricting: New York

[Strudelcutie4427]

I have a crazy idea.

How about we get rid of the permanent panel entirely. Just have the 5 fastest people at any given state be the ones in the panel for that state. Different panel for every state, and ensures that things go quickly.

The panel is to represent partisan interests. If it wasn’t there you could have 5 dems or 5 reps pushing extreme plans through. I’d say the easiest way to narrow it down would be to choose from the 3 best scoring using muons rules

[Bidenworth2020]

https://ibb.co/jOn3Nc


Blue-D+12.66, -557

Green-D+4.34, -558

[jimrtex]

y'all didn't include two of the maps...there are ten of them

also, scarlet has told me that she cannot commit as a panelist if anyone is interested in taking her place please notify me.

There are 12 of them. I assume Singletxguyforfun meant to rank the other four (HCP 2/B, TimTurner 2, Kevinstat, and Jimrtex 1) last.

I suggest that you count the Top 6 for each panelist as approval, and then rank any that had approval from three or more panelists.

I think you are waiting for rankings by Sol, yourself, and the Dem-Replacement.

I was under the impression that we were supposed to submit our votes over PM, which I've already done.

I missed that subtlety. Previously all the votes had been public.

[cvparty]

y'all didn't include two of the maps...there are ten of them

also, scarlet has told me that she cannot commit as a panelist if anyone is interested in taking her place please notify me.

There are 12 of them. I assume Singletxguyforfun meant to rank the other four (HCP 2/B, TimTurner 2, Kevinstat, and Jimrtex 1) last.

I suggest that you count the Top 6 for each panelist as approval, and then rank any that had approval from three or more panelists.

I think you are waiting for rankings by Sol, yourself, and the Dem-Replacement.

I was under the impression that we were supposed to submit our votes over PM, which I've already done.

I missed that subtlety. Previously all the votes had been public.

it's nothing shady, it's just so everything's in one place and we don't all have to go posting in all the threads and then I don't have to try to find everyone's scattered votes. the votes for any state can be requested any time if you think I'm rigging them

[jimrtex]

y'all didn't include two of the maps...there are ten of them

also, scarlet has told me that she cannot commit as a panelist if anyone is interested in taking her place please notify me.

There are 12 of them. I assume Singletxguyforfun meant to rank the other four (HCP 2/B, TimTurner 2, Kevinstat, and Jimrtex 1) last.

I suggest that you count the Top 6 for each panelist as approval, and then rank any that had approval from three or more panelists.

I think you are waiting for rankings by Sol, yourself, and the Dem-Replacement.

I was under the impression that we were supposed to submit our votes over PM, which I've already done.

I missed that subtlety. Previously all the votes had been public.

it's nothing shady, it's just so everything's in one place and we don't all have to go posting in all the threads and then I don't have to try to find everyone's scattered votes. the votes for any state can be requested any time if you think I'm rigging them

I just figured you had got busy, and hadn't had a chance to nag.

[Strudelcutie4427]

On to Connecticut yet?

[cvparty]

I'm going to move on to Connecticut. I'll let everyone know which Rhode Island map wins as soon as TimTurner submits his ranking.

*Connecticut's counties literally do not matter at all*

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Connecticut plan

My non-partisan redistricting plan for Connecticut, only counties larger than a congressional district are split, and only South Windsor Township is split.

District 1 D+14.10 - 67.5 - 31.3
District 2 D+03.61 - 59.6 - 38.9
District 3 D+08.08 - 61.9 - 37.0
District 4 D+08.14 - 60.3 - 39.0
District 5 R+01.27 - 54.1 - 44.6

[cvparty]

Connecticut plan

My non-partisan redistricting plan for Connecticut, only counties larger than a congressional district are split, and only South Windsor Township is split.

District 1 D+14.1 - 67.5 - 31.3
District 2 D+3.61 - 59.6 - 38.9
District 3 D+8.08 - 61.9 - 37.0
District 4 D+8.14 - 60.3 - 39.0
District 5 R+1.27 - 54.1 - 44.6

do you mind uploading your images to the atlas gallery instead? if you use other image hosting websites it doesn't show up and it's a nuisance trying to see it by quoting your post, taking the image link, and pasting it into the omnibox. also county splits don't matter for the small/New England states

[cvparty]

cvparty-A (no town splits)

1: D+17
2: D+3
3: D+9
4: D+9
5: R+2


cvparty-B (CT-04 switches Bridgeport for Danbury to make it more suburban/competitive, no town splits)

1: D+17
2: D+3
3: D+14 (57% white, closest to majority-minority)
4: D+3
5: R+2

[Strudelcutie4427]

Here's my Connecticut. I made sure to keep every town in the state whole and I also took highways into account as well like I do for the rest of New England

1. D+17 (-1655)
2. D+3 (-3317)
3. D+14 (-468)
4. D+3 (2816)
5. R+2 (2626)

[jimrtex]

Connecticut has nine regional councils of government.



These were grouped into five areas that very roughly have populations equivalent to a congressional district:



1: (0.985) Western, Northwest Hills
2: (1.073) Metropolitan, Naugatuck Valley
3: (0.797) South Central
4: (1.363) Capitol Region
5: (0.782) Lower Connecticut River Valley, Southeastern, Northeastern

The two western areas are close, and need some tweaks, while the New Haven and eastern areas are short. The Capitol Region has an excess. The regional councils have been reorganized, with the Capitol Region extending eastward from Hartford, likely because of a lack of focus, as you add in Hartford suburbs, the remaining rural areas don't have much population.

Areas 4 and 5 collectively have a population of 2.145, suggesting that Area 5 can make its deficit up from Area 4. Areas 3, 4, and 5 have a population equivalent to 2.942 indicating that they cam form three districts.

CT-1 and CT-2 were adjusted to get close to the ideal size. CT-3 (New Haven was extended nortthward into Beacon and Prospect; then Southington and Berlin. This meant that CT-3 had less less to be shifted east, and in turn CT-5 less to the west.

There were a few swaps to get the populations equal.



CT-1 (Western, Stamford, Norwalk, Danbury, Torrington): +0.20%; D+3.32; A77; H12; B5; As4; O 1.

CT-2 (West Central, Bridgeport Waterbury): -0.04%, D+2.87; A70, H15, B11, As3, O2.

CT-3 (Southern, New Haven, Meriden): +0.19%; D+8.23; A75; H10; B10; As4; O1.

CT-4 (Northern, Hartford) -0.12%; D+14.18; A65, H15, B14, As3, O1.

CT-5 (Eastern, New London, Norwich) -0.23%; D+3.89; A85, H6, B4. AS3, O1.

Standard Deviation 0.17%

[jimrtex]

This is an alternative that switches the western districts to north-south, and makes minor changes to the New Haven district.



CT-1 (Coastal, Stamford, Norwalk, Bridgeport): -0.03%; D+8.14; A65, H17, B12, aS5, 02.

CT-2 (Northwest, Danbury, Waterbury, Torrington): +0.25%, R+2.05; A82, H10, B4, As2, O2.

CT-3 (Southern, New Haven, Meriden): +0.13%; D+8.67; A74; H11; B10; As4; O2.

CT-4 (Northern, Hartford) -0.12%; D+14.18; A65, H15, B14, As3, O1.

CT-5 (Eastern, New London, Norwich) -0.23%; D+3.89; A85, H6, B4. AS3, O1.

Standard Deviation 0.17%.

[muon2]

Counties are meaningless in CT other than for statistical purposes. The Census defines NECTAs (New England City and Town Areas) in the same fashion as MSAs are defined throughout the country. These are are not refined to the level of a UCC, but it shows where there are natural communities of interest. Just like some counties are not in MSAs, some towns are not in NECTAs.

The Hartford and Bridgeport NECTAs are each too large for a single CD.



Back in 2014 I put together 4 CT plans with whole towns that kept NECTAs together as much as possible. They all did equally well at preserving the NECTAs. They differed by how low was the inequality compared to the erosity. The lower the inequality, the higher the erosity. I'll see if I can decide on which one or two to post - I'll consider requests.

muon2 NECTA-A: range 0.96% -> inequality 12, erosity 49 (most compact)
muon2 NECTA-B: range 0.30% -> inequality 6, erosity 52
muon2 NECTA-C: range 0.14% -> inequality 5, erosity 62 (all deviations under 1000)
muon2 NECTA-D: range 0.03% -> inequality 3, erosity 66 (max deviation 102)

I even drew a plan with all deviations under 10 using whole towns, but it is incredibly erose and doesn't care about communities of interest. I'm not planning on submitting that one.

[muon2]

I'll post my plan B as it offers a good balance between low erosity and inequality. As I noted it is based on preserving NECTAs within as few CDs as possible. Of course the Hartford NECTA takes up so much of the state it invariably gets chopped up.



CD 1: +911; D+10.8
CD 2: -1152; D+5.8
CD 3: -154; D+9.8
CD 4: +984; D+8.8
CD 5: -587; R+3.0

[cvparty]

um, so TimTurner ignored me, technically he would have no vote...in that case cvparty's RI map would win
but I did remember he ranked some of the maps before prematurely in the thread. luckily none of the finalist maps were missing. if you use that as his vote then cvparty, Tim-A and muon2-A tie. using inequality, cvparty's has the lowest average deviation (26.5) and would win.

I've made the spreadsheet as well, although I've only gotten to a few states so far sorry

[jimrtex]

um, so TimTurner ignored me, technically he would have no vote...in that case cvparty's RI map would win
but I did remember he ranked some of the maps before prematurely in the thread. luckily none of the finalist maps were missing. if you use that as his vote then cvparty, Tim-A and muon2-A tie. using inequality, cvparty's has the lowest average deviation (26.5) and would win.

I've made the spreadsheet as well, although I've only gotten to a few states so far sorry

You really need an odd number of panelists. For RI, 9 of 21 pairwise comparisons were tied. How were the finalists determined?

[cvparty]

um, so TimTurner ignored me, technically he would have no vote...in that case cvparty's RI map would win
but I did remember he ranked some of the maps before prematurely in the thread. luckily none of the finalist maps were missing. if you use that as his vote then cvparty, Tim-A and muon2-A tie. using inequality, cvparty's has the lowest average deviation (26.5) and would win.

I've made the spreadsheet as well, although I've only gotten to a few states so far sorry

You really need an odd number of panelists. For RI, 9 of 21 pairwise comparisons were tied. How were the finalists determined?

ya it's not final

[cvparty]

SO...it's pretty evident that 4 panelists is not enough. We'll keep moving and the winners for past states will be announced as soon as a 5th vote comes in. Time for Massachusetts peeps!

[cvparty]

8th is maj-min

1: D+18
2: R+1
3: D+14
4: D+0
5: D+27
6: D+6
7: D+13
8: D+24
9: D+7

[Strudelcutie4427]

MASSACHUSETTS version A

1. D+18
2. R+1
3. D+14
4. D+17
5. D+19
6. D+6
7. D+31 (49% W, 20% B, 19% H)
8. D+4
9. D+2

[muon2]

In MA counties aren't very important, and most have been dissolved. Towns and cities are king. For those who are interested, here is a map showing what towns are connected by road (blue) or ferry (green). The lines close to Boston are pretty fine since there are so many, but the image can be enlarged if you copy it.




The Census also defines NECTAs for MA towns in the same manner as MSA are for counties. They can provide a guide to economic communities of interest. A number of the NECTAs overlap into neighboring states. The Boston NECTA includes a number of sub-regional NECTAs that are shown as clusters of pink or dark red along with the remainder of the Boston NECTA in red.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Suffolk County is extremely close to one CD, just barely under quota, so I added two precincts in Cambridge to bring it within range. I don't think there's any need whatsoever for a majority-minority CD in Boston. I also carved out two R+1 seats, which was my main goal with this map (and the reason MA-04 is so weird looking). I split a town to get MA-05 past R+0.5.
MA-07 also encircles MA-08 on most sides; MA-04 does the roughly the same for MA-07, serving as an exurban Boston+Worcester seat.
I'll post a second submission that completely ignores counties.

[muon2]

In 2013 I took an IA-style approach to MA. IA splits no counties and tries to achieve the lowest possible population deviation within some modest geographical constraints. IA considers no political results in grouping counties. I substituted MA towns instead of IA counties.

In this plan there are no cities or towns chopped, not even Boston. Districts do reasonably well by the IA measure that looks at the difference between the N-S and E-W dimensions. The maximum deviation is 33, the avg deviation is 19.6, and the range is 64.

Here are some observations of the CDs: CDs 1 and 2 are compact and include Springfield and Worcester respectively. CD 3 includes many of the communities that are more in the Providence RI area than in the Boston area. CD 4 is a compact CD with the communities of the south suburbs anchored by Quincy and Brockton. CD 5 follows the I-495 corridor which is a major commuter route between homes and jobs in the outer suburbs (my in-laws live in that corridor). CD 6 is the much of the traditional North Shore. CD 7 is the compact northern inner suburban region including the I-95/Rt 128 corridor (I went to grad school there and my daughter lives there now). CD 8 is Boston and a few adjacent towns to equalize population. CD 9 is the coastal South Shore, Cape and Islands wrapping west along Buzzards Bay to RI.



CD 1: +9; D+16
CD 2: +4; D+6
CD 3: +31; D+4
CD 4: -23; D+7
CD 5: -11; D+7
CD 6: +23; D+11
CD 7: -33; D+24
CD 8: -20; D+28
CD 9: +23; D+4

[Strudelcutie4427]

MASSACHUSETTS version B

Again, my intent was to draw competitive districts but more compactly. This one keeps COIs together and towns in the district are all near main roads connecting to the others. The only town I split was Boston, putting East Boston in with district 5. If any of you have been to Eastie, it has more of a feel similar to Revere and Everett than it does with other parts of the city, so this split makes sense. District 1 is the Rural West district anchored by Springfield and contains almost everything west of the Quabbin Reservoir. District 2 is mostly rural, containing Worcester and a few Rust-beltish type cities like Fitchburg and Gardner. Other than Worcester, it is a bit Trumpy, and this is a potential swing district. District 3 is mainly along I-495 and Route 2 and includes some latte liberal Metrowest towns as well as much of the Tech Corridor centered around Hanscom AFB. Its main cities include Marlboro and Lowell. District 4 is the counterpart to the 3rd as Metrowest-South. Its mainly centered on Route 9 and I-95 west of the city. Its mostly rich liberal towns, but it also includes downtrodden Brockton and Framingham. District 5 is essentially Boston's inner northern suburbs and satellite cities. This is mainly between Rte 16 and the Charles River, then it follows Route 1 up to Salem. There are a tremendous amount of colleges and tech jobs in the area and some minority heavy sections in Northern Suffolk County. Principal cities include Cambridge, Somerville, and Lynn. District 6 is another potential swing district. Its based mainly in Bostons Northern suburbs/exurbs and the far NE of the state. Its well served by both I-93 and I-95 and its main cities are Lawrence, Haverhill, and Gloucester. District 7 is Boston, Quincy, Milton, and Randolph. Not much else to say other than its slightly minority-majority. District 8 is the Bristol County district. This area is probably tied more into Providence than it is to Boston. Main roads here would be Routes 24 and 44 as well as I-195 and I-495. Despite the very heavily democrat south coast and cities like Fall River and New Bedford, this is probably another swing district. Finally we come to District 9, the South Shore, Cape, and Islands. This district follows the Route 3/6 from its beginning in Braintree to its end in Provincetown. Besides the coast it includes most of inland Plymouth County as well. Primary cities would be Barnstable, Plymouth, and Weymouth. It would probably be one of the top targets to flip along with the Worcester seat as it is very Republican down ballot


1. D+18
2. D+2
3. D+12
4. D+16
5. D+22
6. D+5
7. D+28
8. D+4
9. D+2

5 safe dem, 4 potential swing seats.
Incumbents would break down as:
1. Neal (good fit for this seat)
2. McGovern (absolute moonbat could be in trouble in a swingy seat)
3. OPEN (was Tsongas)
4. Kennedy (absolutely safe here)
5. Triple Bunked Capuano, Clark, Moulton
6. OPEN
7. Lynch (probably would retire or move south to challenge Keating)
8. OPEN
9. Keating (perennial target)