How should County chops be counted?

[muon2]

This was split from the fair TN maps discussion and merged with Solid 4096's ideas. It renews a discussion from many years ago.

Tennessee Non-Partisan plan.

My non-partisan redistricting plan for Tennessee. The plan maintains the majority African American district, and only splits 3 counties.

District 1 R+28.01 - 29.2 - 69.3
District 2 R+20.18 - 34.2 - 64.3
District 3 R+18.85 - 36.2 - 62.5
District 4 R+24.20 - 34.9 - 63.3
District 5 D+05.71 - 56.2 - 42.6
District 6 R+20.52 - 34.4 - 64.3
District 7 R+19.55 - 38.3 - 60.2
District 8 R+14.80 - 38.9 - 60.1
District 9 D+20.72 - 71.3 - 28.1 - 58.9 African American

Am I reading this correctly that Anderson county is covered by 4 CDs?

[Torie]

I noticed that too. Just my prejudice, but I don't like lashing out at one county that way myself. It strikes me as unfair, absent pretty compelling circumstances.

[Tintrlvr]

I noticed that too. Just my prejudice, but I don't like lashing out at one county that way myself. It strikes me as unfair, absent pretty compelling circumstances.

Personally, I think it's better. If you take seriously that counties are communities of interest (not something I generally subscribe to, but a lot of other people do, so for the sake of argument), you should prefer to split up one community of interest while preserving others rather than splitting up four different communities of interest since in the aggregate it harms fewer people. (This is why in my view it is generally better to split smaller communities than larger ones also.)

[muon2]

I noticed that too. Just my prejudice, but I don't like lashing out at one county that way myself. It strikes me as unfair, absent pretty compelling circumstances.

Personally, I think it's better. If you take seriously that counties are communities of interest (not something I generally subscribe to, but a lot of other people do, so for the sake of argument), you should prefer to split up one community of interest while preserving others rather than splitting up four different communities of interest since in the aggregate it harms fewer people. (This is why in my view it is generally better to split smaller communities than larger ones also.)

I think the public interest is to have the smallest number of people separated from the rest of their county or other CoI (UCC/metro, geographic region) compatriots. That could be by putting multiple chops in one county, but not usually. The idea of separating as few as possible shows up in lots of redistricting contexts from testimony that I personally heard in 2011 to the WV case of Tennant v Jefferson county. It also matches your view that splitting a smaller community can be better than splitting a larger community, since the chop is likely to be larger in larger community.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Tennessee Non-Partisan plan.

My non-partisan redistricting plan for Tennessee. The plan maintains the majority African American district, and only splits 3 counties.

District 1 R+28.01 - 29.2 - 69.3
District 2 R+20.18 - 34.2 - 64.3
District 3 R+18.85 - 36.2 - 62.5
District 4 R+24.20 - 34.9 - 63.3
District 5 D+05.71 - 56.2 - 42.6
District 6 R+20.52 - 34.4 - 64.3
District 7 R+19.55 - 38.3 - 60.2
District 8 R+14.80 - 38.9 - 60.1
District 9 D+20.72 - 71.3 - 28.1 - 58.9 African American

Am I reading this correctly that Anderson county is covered by 4 CDs?

I noticed that too. Just my prejudice, but I don't like lashing out at one county that way myself. It strikes me as unfair, absent pretty compelling circumstances.

My aim is to split the least number of counties possible. In my opinion it is better to split one county between four districts than three counties each between two districts. Others may prefer splitting many counties in half, but I prefer splitting as few counties as possible.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Tennessee Non-Partisan plan.

My non-partisan redistricting plan for Tennessee. The plan maintains the majority African American district, and only splits 3 counties.

District 1 R+28.01 - 29.2 - 69.3
District 2 R+20.18 - 34.2 - 64.3
District 3 R+18.85 - 36.2 - 62.5
District 4 R+24.20 - 34.9 - 63.3
District 5 D+05.71 - 56.2 - 42.6
District 6 R+20.52 - 34.4 - 64.3
District 7 R+19.55 - 38.3 - 60.2
District 8 R+14.80 - 38.9 - 60.1
District 9 D+20.72 - 71.3 - 28.1 - 58.9 African American

Am I reading this correctly that Anderson county is covered by 4 CDs?

I noticed that too. Just my prejudice, but I don't like lashing out at one county that way myself. It strikes me as unfair, absent pretty compelling circumstances.

My aim is to split the least number of counties possible. In my opinion it is better to split one county between four districts than three counties each between two districts. Others may prefer splitting many counties in half, but I prefer splitting as few counties as possible.

If I had it my way, splitting a County between 3 Districts would count as 3 chops, splitting between 4 Districts would count as 6 chops, splitting between 5 Districts would count as 10 chops, and so on.

Mathematical Formula for math nerds:

C = Function for number of chops
N = number of Districts a County is part of

C(1) = 0
C(n) = C(n - 1) + n - 1 if n > 1

[AustralianSwingVoter]

I noticed that too. Just my prejudice, but I don't like lashing out at one county that way myself. It strikes me as unfair, absent pretty compelling circumstances.

Personally, I think it's better. If you take seriously that counties are communities of interest (not something I generally subscribe to, but a lot of other people do, so for the sake of argument), you should prefer to split up one community of interest while preserving others rather than splitting up four different communities of interest since in the aggregate it harms fewer people. (This is why in my view it is generally better to split smaller communities than larger ones also.)

It's what we do in Australia with local governments. We try our hardest to split as few as possible, and those which are split are generally split between many districts.

[Tintrlvr]

I noticed that too. Just my prejudice, but I don't like lashing out at one county that way myself. It strikes me as unfair, absent pretty compelling circumstances.

Personally, I think it's better. If you take seriously that counties are communities of interest (not something I generally subscribe to, but a lot of other people do, so for the sake of argument), you should prefer to split up one community of interest while preserving others rather than splitting up four different communities of interest since in the aggregate it harms fewer people. (This is why in my view it is generally better to split smaller communities than larger ones also.)

I think the public interest is to have the smallest number of people separated from the rest of their county or other CoI (UCC/metro, geographic region) compatriots. That could be by putting multiple chops in one county, but not usually. The idea of separating as few as possible shows up in lots of redistricting contexts from testimony that I personally heard in 2011 to the WV case of Tennant v Jefferson county. It also matches your view that splitting a smaller community can be better than splitting a larger community, since the chop is likely to be larger in larger community.

The thing is, again, if you take seriously the idea that the county is a community somehow distinct from all other surrounding counties, it shouldn't matter how many times you split the county. Once you've split it once, you've sundered the community, and splitting the county again doesn't do any additional harm to the same group of people because they're already split from some of their county compatriots and have already experienced the harm of dividing the community.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Question for people to think about.

My personal belief:

A split between say District 01 and District 02 should be counted as 1 chop, for obvious reasons.

However, beyond that, I seem to disagree with many people:

A split between say District 01, District 02, and District 03 should be counted as 3 chops:

1 chop for the split between District 01 and District 02.
1 chop for the split between District 01 and District 03.
1 chop for the split between District 02 and District 03.

3 chops total.

With 4 Districts, it counts as 6 chops, with 5 Districts, it counts as 10 chops, and so on.

For math nerds, a formula:

C = function for number of chops
N = number of Districts a County is included within

C(N) = 0
if N = 1

C(N) = C(N-1) + n - 1
if N > 1

[muon2]

I noticed that too. Just my prejudice, but I don't like lashing out at one county that way myself. It strikes me as unfair, absent pretty compelling circumstances.

Personally, I think it's better. If you take seriously that counties are communities of interest (not something I generally subscribe to, but a lot of other people do, so for the sake of argument), you should prefer to split up one community of interest while preserving others rather than splitting up four different communities of interest since in the aggregate it harms fewer people. (This is why in my view it is generally better to split smaller communities than larger ones also.)

I think the public interest is to have the smallest number of people separated from the rest of their county or other CoI (UCC/metro, geographic region) compatriots. That could be by putting multiple chops in one county, but not usually. The idea of separating as few as possible shows up in lots of redistricting contexts from testimony that I personally heard in 2011 to the WV case of Tennant v Jefferson county. It also matches your view that splitting a smaller community can be better than splitting a larger community, since the chop is likely to be larger in larger community.

The thing is, again, if you take seriously the idea that the county is a community somehow distinct from all other surrounding counties, it shouldn't matter how many times you split the county. Once you've split it once, you've sundered the community, and splitting the county again doesn't do any additional harm to the same group of people because they're already split from some of their county compatriots and have already experienced the harm of dividing the community.

I disagree in part. Typically the greater harm is seen by whichever group is smaller than the remainder of the chop. They perceive that their voice is significantly lost without the rest of the county to support them. The remainder only perceives the proportional loss due to the loss of the smaller fragment. If no part perceives themselves to be the remainder, all the fragments can feel like they lost out. That usually happens when no fragment is over half the population of the whole.

But I'm not against multiple chops, for they have their uses. Here are two cases.

A. Consider a doubly-chopped county such that 20% goes into each of the two chops leaving the 60% as a remainder. The two 20% fragments would each feel lost, but the 60% piece is still a majority and would only feel a proportional loss.

B. Consider two chopped counties, each with a 20% chop. Again there are two fragments that feel lost from their county, but now there are two remainders, but the proportions remaining are larger, so their voices as counties are each stronger.

When we looked at chop scoring 5 years ago, their were those who preferred A and those who preferred B. When I looked at how states counted split counties in their plans, I also saw differences in how they counted. I felt that since A and B both had merits, I would count the chops for a score, not the counties chopped or the fragmentation within counties. Both A and B score 2 chops.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

I noticed that too. Just my prejudice, but I don't like lashing out at one county that way myself. It strikes me as unfair, absent pretty compelling circumstances.

Personally, I think it's better. If you take seriously that counties are communities of interest (not something I generally subscribe to, but a lot of other people do, so for the sake of argument), you should prefer to split up one community of interest while preserving others rather than splitting up four different communities of interest since in the aggregate it harms fewer people. (This is why in my view it is generally better to split smaller communities than larger ones also.)

I think the public interest is to have the smallest number of people separated from the rest of their county or other CoI (UCC/metro, geographic region) compatriots. That could be by putting multiple chops in one county, but not usually. The idea of separating as few as possible shows up in lots of redistricting contexts from testimony that I personally heard in 2011 to the WV case of Tennant v Jefferson county. It also matches your view that splitting a smaller community can be better than splitting a larger community, since the chop is likely to be larger in larger community.

The thing is, again, if you take seriously the idea that the county is a community somehow distinct from all other surrounding counties, it shouldn't matter how many times you split the county. Once you've split it once, you've sundered the community, and splitting the county again doesn't do any additional harm to the same group of people because they're already split from some of their county compatriots and have already experienced the harm of dividing the community.

I disagree in part. Typically the greater harm is seen by whichever group is smaller than the remainder of the chop. They perceive that their voice is significantly lost without the rest of the county to support them. The remainder only perceives the proportional loss due to the loss of the smaller fragment. If no part perceives themselves to be the remainder, all the fragments can feel like they lost out. That usually happens when no fragment is over half the population of the whole.

But I'm not against multiple chops, for they have their uses. Here are two cases.

A. Consider a doubly-chopped county such that 20% goes into each of the two chops leaving the 60% as a remainder. The two 20% fragments would each feel lost, but the 60% piece is still a majority and would only feel a proportional loss.

B. Consider two chopped counties, each with a 20% chop. Again there are two fragments that feel lost from their county, but now there are two remainders, but the proportions remaining are larger, so their voices as counties are each stronger.

When we looked at chop scoring 5 years ago, their were those who preferred A and those who preferred B. When I looked at how states counted split counties in their plans, I also saw differences in how they counted. I felt that since A and B both had merits, I would count the chops for a score, not the counties chopped or the fragmentation within counties. Both A and B score 2 chops.

Anderson county, if whole within a congressional district would make up 10.6% of that district. If I was tearing to shreds a county with a population of 400,000 I would agree wholeheartedly with your arguments. But I'm not. I'm tearing into four a county that would make up one tenth of a district whole. And, in my opinion, for a county so small it doesn't matter whether they're whole or split, they don't constitute a significant part of a district regardless.

[muon2]

I noticed that too. Just my prejudice, but I don't like lashing out at one county that way myself. It strikes me as unfair, absent pretty compelling circumstances.

Personally, I think it's better. If you take seriously that counties are communities of interest (not something I generally subscribe to, but a lot of other people do, so for the sake of argument), you should prefer to split up one community of interest while preserving others rather than splitting up four different communities of interest since in the aggregate it harms fewer people. (This is why in my view it is generally better to split smaller communities than larger ones also.)

I think the public interest is to have the smallest number of people separated from the rest of their county or other CoI (UCC/metro, geographic region) compatriots. That could be by putting multiple chops in one county, but not usually. The idea of separating as few as possible shows up in lots of redistricting contexts from testimony that I personally heard in 2011 to the WV case of Tennant v Jefferson county. It also matches your view that splitting a smaller community can be better than splitting a larger community, since the chop is likely to be larger in larger community.

The thing is, again, if you take seriously the idea that the county is a community somehow distinct from all other surrounding counties, it shouldn't matter how many times you split the county. Once you've split it once, you've sundered the community, and splitting the county again doesn't do any additional harm to the same group of people because they're already split from some of their county compatriots and have already experienced the harm of dividing the community.

I disagree in part. Typically the greater harm is seen by whichever group is smaller than the remainder of the chop. They perceive that their voice is significantly lost without the rest of the county to support them. The remainder only perceives the proportional loss due to the loss of the smaller fragment. If no part perceives themselves to be the remainder, all the fragments can feel like they lost out. That usually happens when no fragment is over half the population of the whole.

But I'm not against multiple chops, for they have their uses. Here are two cases.

A. Consider a doubly-chopped county such that 20% goes into each of the two chops leaving the 60% as a remainder. The two 20% fragments would each feel lost, but the 60% piece is still a majority and would only feel a proportional loss.

B. Consider two chopped counties, each with a 20% chop. Again there are two fragments that feel lost from their county, but now there are two remainders, but the proportions remaining are larger, so their voices as counties are each stronger.

When we looked at chop scoring 5 years ago, their were those who preferred A and those who preferred B. When I looked at how states counted split counties in their plans, I also saw differences in how they counted. I felt that since A and B both had merits, I would count the chops for a score, not the counties chopped or the fragmentation within counties. Both A and B score 2 chops.

Anderson county, if whole within a congressional district would make up 10.6% of that district. If I was tearing to shreds a county with a population of 400,000 I would agree wholeheartedly with your arguments. But I'm not. I'm tearing into four a county that would make up one tenth of a district whole. And, in my opinion, for a county so small it doesn't matter whether they're whole or split, they don't constitute a significant part of a district regardless.

What I'm saying is that I treat it the same as if you had chopped three separate counties. That's the compromise between overchopping one county, or chopping too many counties. Then in the case of Anderson it's a chop of the Knoxville metro UCC as well.

[muon2]

Tennessee Non-Partisan plan.

My non-partisan redistricting plan for Tennessee. The plan maintains the majority African American district, and only splits 3 counties.

District 1 R+28.01 - 29.2 - 69.3
District 2 R+20.18 - 34.2 - 64.3
District 3 R+18.85 - 36.2 - 62.5
District 4 R+24.20 - 34.9 - 63.3
District 5 D+05.71 - 56.2 - 42.6
District 6 R+20.52 - 34.4 - 64.3
District 7 R+19.55 - 38.3 - 60.2
District 8 R+14.80 - 38.9 - 60.1
District 9 D+20.72 - 71.3 - 28.1 - 58.9 African American

Am I reading this correctly that Anderson county is covered by 4 CDs?

I noticed that too. Just my prejudice, but I don't like lashing out at one county that way myself. It strikes me as unfair, absent pretty compelling circumstances.

My aim is to split the least number of counties possible. In my opinion it is better to split one county between four districts than three counties each between two districts. Others may prefer splitting many counties in half, but I prefer splitting as few counties as possible.

If I had it my way, splitting a County between 3 Districts would count as 3 chops, splitting between 4 Districts would count as 6 chops, splitting between 5 Districts would count as 10 chops, and so on.

Mathematical Formula for math nerds:

C = Function for number of chops
N = number of Districts a County is part of

C(1) = 0
C(n) = C(n - 1) + n - 1 if n > 1

My response here is the mirror image of my response to ASV. There are two extremes (traininthedistance and Torie took the sides five years ago IIRC). One involves putting all the chops in one county: fine for ASV, bad for Solid. The other involves spreading the chops among many counties: fine for Solid, bad for ASV. My solution splits the difference: just count partitions.