Fair redistricting: New York

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I find it bothersome that of the 5 maps that made it to the final round for Maine, the winning map was the map (and the only map) that had more than 1000 population deviation, which I believe should be a hard cap at what is allowed.

[Strudelcutie4427]

I find it bothersome that of the 5 maps that made it to the final round for Maine, the winning map was the map (and the only map) that had more than 1000 population deviation, which I believe should be a hard cap at what is allowed.

We do have a cap but it varies. It’s always no more than 0.5% though so 1000 falls under that threshold

[LimoLiberal]

PVIs:
NH-01: D+0.78
NH-02: R+0.74

NH-01 is +133 people, NH-02 is -133.

Both voted for Obama in 2008 54-45.

Two county splits; Merrimack and Sullivan.

[cvparty]

I find it bothersome that of the 5 maps that made it to the final round for Maine, the winning map was the map (and the only map) that had more than 1000 population deviation, which I believe should be a hard cap at what is allowed.

0.005 deviation is rather negligible compared with the other goals

[cvparty]

We’re getting some variety this time unlike in Maine. I can’t wait to see what some of the bigger states will look like. Also, I’m gonna start an MS paint file featuring the winning maps for each state, just to see if our bipartisan and fair maps look better on a national scale

hey pm me the national map after each state and i’ll put it in the op

[jimrtex]

The Panel has voted and if we're using a ranked choice system here going 4, 3, 2, 1, 0 the results are as follows:

Torie- 13
Muon- 11
TimTurner- 10
Singletxguyforfun- 8
StarPaul- 8

These are unoffical, I may have made a mistake, but if someone can second confirm this, Torie's map is the winner for Maine!

Next we're off to my homestate of New Hampshire!

This is known as a Borda count.

An alternative method is to add up the rankings, with the lowest score winning. If R_i is the ranking for a candidate by theith, then the score that you are using is (5-R_i).

The score you are assigning is 25-sum(R).

Summing ranks the results are:

Torie 12
Muon 14
TimTurner 15
Singletxguyforfun 17
StarPaul 17

Which you can confirm are 25 - sums you calculated.

[Starpaul20]

Here's mine for NH:

One county split (Hillsborough).

Stats:
CD 1 (blue): Pop. 658,153 (deviation -82) PVI D+2.78
CD 2 (green): Pop. 658,317 (deviation +82) PVI R+2.75

[jimrtex]

I find it bothersome that of the 5 maps that made it to the final round for Maine, the winning map was the map (and the only map) that had more than 1000 population deviation, which I believe should be a hard cap at what is allowed.

We do have a cap but it varies. It’s always no more than 0.5% though so 1000 falls under that threshold

The SCOTUS has said that their can be NO de minimis standard.

Swapping Otisfield for Fryeburg would reduce deviation to 290.

Once the Maine commission decided to require breaching of a county border, what standard were they using?

[muon2]

If a plan is considering UCCs the only one with multiple counties in NH is the Portsmouth/Boston UCC consisting of Rockingham and Strafford. Hillsborough is separate.

In NH counties exist, but are less important than in ME. The Census Bureau has a measure that is like MSAs built on counties, but is built around towns instead. They are called NECTAs and here is a map showing them in NH. The red, orange and yellow areas are subdivisions of the Boston NECTA.

[cvparty]

For reference and to help y'all group communities with similar interests, here's also a map of NH's town trends in the 2016 election, you can see a pretty clear strip of pink in the southeast

[muon2]

One of the criteria is that towns be not merely contiguous, but also connected. Here is a map showing which towns are connected by road (excluding the northern end in Coos).

[cvparty]

One of the criteria is that towns be not merely contiguous, but also connected.

It is?

Also, *update* New Hampshire submissions will only be open for one day instead of two (we pretty much already have all the possible schemes); this will probably go for most small states. Rhode Island and Connecticut have also moved ahead of Massachusetts in the state order now.

[Gallatine]

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.

[muon2]

One of the criteria is that towns be not merely contiguous, but also connected.

It is?

When you suggested that contiguity by water required a bridge, I suggested that contiguity by land should have a road, too, and no one objected.

[muon2]

My first submitted plan [muon2-A] aims to minimize county and UCC chops, create highly competitive districts, while minimizing erosity and deviation. The deviation is 29, PVI R+0.93, D+0.96, erosity 28 (town-based). There are 5 NECTA chops.




My second submission [muon2-B] recognizes that the NECTAs are a better measure of community of interest than counties, so it keeps them together with no NECTA chops. That results in 3 county chops plus the UCC chop. The districts are slightly less competitive: PVI D+1.56, R+1.73. It does allow for lower erosity: 24 (town-based). The deviation is only 1 person.

[muon2]

This is basically a compact urban-rural scheme, with the densely populated southeast in the second district. I made this map very carefully from looking election maps, trend maps, and population distribution maps
PVI is D+0.8 and R+0.86, so v competitive for both
also, anyone who separates Dover and Portsmouth is a MONSTER

If I might suggest, you should swap the town of Epping (Rockingham) with the town of Lee (Strafford). It doesn't change the shape of your districts in a meaningful way and it reduces the deviation from 1966 to 115. It's the sort of detail that matters in court challenges, too.

I agree about Portsmouth and Dover. There's a reason that Rockingham and Strafford are in the same UCC. Though I would add Rochester to that pair, since it's more attached to Dover economically than Dover is to Portsmouth.

[jimrtex]

New Hampshire has regional planning commissions, which correspond to planning regions delineated by the Office of Strategic Initiatives, in consultation with the towns. County governments are relative weak in New Hampshire, with limited delegated responsibilities (sheriff, nursing homes, and prisons). The planning regions represent modern economic reality, with strong ties to transportation links for commuting and shopping.



The three southeastern regions: Nashua, Southern (Manchester), and Rockingham (Portsmouth) have a population equivalent to 1.004 districts. Nashua and Manchester are closely linked, and along with Rockingham have the closest ties to Boston.

To equalize population, Francestown and Mason on the western fringe of the Manchester and Nashua areas were moved to District 1. I did not attempt swaps that would have brought rural towns into an urban district at the expense of urban voters being expelled from their community of interest in a moronic pursuit of population equality.

Piercemander





Population Deviiation;

1 (North): +0.09%
2 (South): -0.09%

Standard Deviation 0.09%

PVI

1 (North) 2.97 D
2 (South) 3.01 R

[cvparty]

When you suggested that contiguity by water required a bridge, I suggested that contiguity by land should have a road, too, and no one objected.

I don't remember that lol

If I might suggest, you should swap the town of Epping (Rockingham) with the town of Lee (Strafford). It doesn't change the shape of your districts in a meaningful way and it reduces the deviation from 1966 to 115. It's the sort of detail that matters in court challenges, too.

I agree about Portsmouth and Dover. There's a reason that Rockingham and Strafford are in the same UCC. Though I would add Rochester to that pair, since it's more attached to Dover economically than Dover is to Portsmouth.

All maps have Dover in the seacoast region with Portsmouth, but only sometimes for Rochester. Also, Rochester swung hard R last election while Dover trended D, much like the Portsmouth region and Nashua suburbs. I would include Rochester in the 1st but there are just too many people in the southeast to include in the district...I figured putting Rochester in the 2nd would make the most sense if I had to leave out a part of the southeast

[jimrtex]

One of the criteria is that towns be not merely contiguous, but also connected.

It is?

Also, *update* New Hampshire submissions will only be open for one day instead of two (we pretty much already have all the possible schemes); this will probably go for most small states. Rhode Island and Connecticut have also moved ahead of Massachusetts in the state order now.

BAD IDEA

You're not the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. I happened to have finished my NH map, and decided to go ahead and submit it today. But I might not have and would have missed out.

As an alternative, set the deadlines for future states NOW, with the following RULE. If you post a map prior to the period of active consideration, then it will be disqualified. So you might set the deadlines for RI as 2/20; CT 2/22; MA 2/25 and be thinking about deadlines for NJ and PA.

Perhaps you can sweet talk the moderators into having more threads. While the panel is evaluating NH plans, open a thread for submission of RI plans. The NH thread could continue to be used for post mortem discussion.

So you might end up with threads for:

General Discussion.
ME-NH-PA-GA-KY
RI-MD-WV-IL
CT-VA-OH-WI
MA-NC-MI-MN
NJ-SC-IN-IA

Or perhaps you could regionalize the threads, and be skipping around the country.

Northeast: Census Northeast Region + MD (9 states 85 districts)
Midwest: Census Midwest Region (10 states 92 districts)
Southeast: South Atlantic (VA to FL) + WV and AL (7 states 82 districts)
Southwest: Remainder of Census South Region + AZ and NM (9 states 82 districts)
West: Census West Region minus AZ and NM (8 states 87 districts)

You could initiate each thread with smaller states like NE, WV, NM, and ID and then continue on in each:

ME-NH-RI-CT-MA-NJ-MD-PA-NY
WV-AL-SC-VA-NC-GA-FL
NE-KS-IA-MN-WI-MO-IN-MI-OH-IL
NM-MS-AR-OK-KY-LA-TN-AZ-TX
ID-HI-UT-NV-OR-CO-WA-CA

[cvparty]

You're not the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

nor does this thread have any practical implications...

I happened to have finished my NH map, and decided to go ahead and submit it today. But I might not have and would have missed out.

24 hours is honestly enough time for a smol 2-district state. I always have the current status easily accessible in the OP. there aren't many ways to draw NH; we already have pretty much every viable plan and we need to move quickly. the point is that one is supposed to have these maps ready to submit, not wait until the deadline is imminent each time to make the map. this was specified in the OP. of course, there will be 2+ days for bigger/average states

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Seeing how muon2 grades each plan is interesting.

[jimrtex]

I happened to have finished my NH map, and decided to go ahead and submit it today. But I might not have and would have missed out.

24 hours is honestly enough time for a smol 2-district state. I always have the current status easily accessible in the OP. there aren't many ways to draw NH; we already have pretty much every viable plan and we need to move quickly. the point is that one is supposed to have these maps ready to submit, not wait until the deadline is imminent each time to make the map. this was specified in the OP. of course, there will be 2+ days for bigger/average states

I don't see what honesty has to do with it. You announced a deadline, then changed it to a day earlier. As I noted, I had drawn the map two days before the deadline, and had even transcribed it to the DRA Paint Program. I don't ordinarily re-read the first message in a thread, as it will lose the place marker for new messages, and this will become increasingly unlikely as other states are added.

I suggested a way of handling multiple states at once.

[muon2]

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

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

How does my plan score?
(I included everything that was needed in the image itself. It's a submission, period).

[cvparty]

I don't see what honesty has to do with it. You announced a deadline, then changed it to a day earlier. As I noted, I had drawn the map two days before the deadline, and had even transcribed it to the DRA Paint Program. I don't ordinarily re-read the first message in a thread, as it will lose the place marker for new messages, and this will become increasingly unlikely as other states are added.

I suggested a way of handling multiple states at once.

That was the deadline I had at the time, I never said "this is the definite deadline which cannot be subject to change." We are still in the early stages so yes things will change (you may read the rules less as time goes on, which actually should be fine bc less changes will be made as the project stabilizes. although I don't see the hassle in looking at the OP status). Unfortunately a number of the panelists are not so responsive such that we can finish in the time desired and know when a state will end, so set dates would just keep changing. I'd rather not have several threads because it would get messy and confusing. I really appreciate the concern and input, I did implement the Condorcet suggestion; apologies for the deadline change, but as I said we're still in the early stages. I don't think it was a big deal considering the circumstances but I will be careful in the future.