Ungerrymandering(and unskewing) squad!

[Bidenworth2020]

Me (democrat) and Singletxguyforfun (republican) want to ungerrymander congressional maps! any suggestions for states?

[muon2]

How would these maps be different from the many neutral maps completed during cvparty's exercise a few months ago?

[Sol]

Singletxguyforfun (republican)

Unique perspective.

[Lachi]

lol ok

[Zaybay]

Me (democrat) and Singletxguyforfun (republican) want to ungerrymander congressional maps! any suggestions for states?

do one D gerrymander and one R gerrymander for the first ones.

IL/TX would be great.

[Bidenworth2020]

How would these maps be different from the many neutral maps completed during cvparty's exercise a few months ago?

2 people, less red tape to making maps.

Me (democrat) and Singletxguyforfun (republican) want to ungerrymander congressional maps! any suggestions for states?

do one D gerrymander and one R gerrymander for the first ones.

IL/TX would be great.

nah the goal is to make fair maps

[Zaybay]

How would these maps be different from the many neutral maps completed during cvparty's exercise a few months ago?

2 people, less red tape to making maps.

Me (democrat) and Singletxguyforfun (republican) want to ungerrymander congressional maps! any suggestions for states?

do one D gerrymander and one R gerrymander for the first ones.

IL/TX would be great.

nah the goal is to make fair maps

No, I mean to take two states that are already gerrymanders, and turn them into fair maps.

[cvparty]

new jersey

[Nyvin]

What's the metrics used to determine "fair"?

[Bidenworth2020]

What's the metrics used to determine "fair"?

I was thinking we could make this like the california model. people in this thread advocate for certain, nonpartisan boundaries (keeping a county whole or something) and we do it.

[Starpaul20]

new jersey

[muon2]

What's the metrics used to determine "fair"?

I was thinking we could make this like the california model. people in this thread advocate for certain, nonpartisan boundaries (keeping a county whole or something) and we do it.

That's not quite how the CA commission worked. It was quite complicated TBH. An IA or OH system with an agreed set of metrics is much easier to manage. There's always the muon rules as a starting point to create a set of metrics if you don't want theirs.

[Bidenworth2020]

What's the metrics used to determine "fair"?

I was thinking we could make this like the california model. people in this thread advocate for certain, nonpartisan boundaries (keeping a county whole or something) and we do it.

That's not quite how the CA commission worked. It was quite complicated TBH. An IA or OH system with an agreed set of metrics is much easier to manage. There's always the muon rules as a starting point to create a set of metrics if you don't want theirs.

my problem with that type of system is that I believe making good maps is a much more nuanced process, specific to each state. I do, however, plan to follow simple rules like trying to keep counties as whole CD's, like a whole Hamilton county and a whole Jefferson county.

[muon2]

What's the metrics used to determine "fair"?

I was thinking we could make this like the california model. people in this thread advocate for certain, nonpartisan boundaries (keeping a county whole or something) and we do it.

That's not quite how the CA commission worked. It was quite complicated TBH. An IA or OH system with an agreed set of metrics is much easier to manage. There's always the muon rules as a starting point to create a set of metrics if you don't want theirs.

my problem with that type of system is that I believe making good maps is a much more nuanced process, specific to each state. I do, however, plan to follow simple rules like trying to keep counties as whole CD's, like a whole Hamilton county and a whole Jefferson county.

The problem with nuance is that it is incredibly subjective. Real commissions have introduced measurable bias into their maps because they don't appreciate the subjectivity of their sense of the nuance (hello AZ).

There's no doubt that different states have different priorities. The metrics for IA and OH aren't the same, but they are both clear and directly measurable. I advocate for metrics that can produce multiple equally good plans based on the metrics. That then gives the state control over which plan best matches their unique priorities. As I've observed the states during the last two cycles, I can firmly say that picking metrics first then dealing with nuance later gives far less controversial results than trying to sort out nuance without clear metrics.

[Bidenworth2020]

What's the metrics used to determine "fair"?

I was thinking we could make this like the california model. people in this thread advocate for certain, nonpartisan boundaries (keeping a county whole or something) and we do it.

I can try to follow the muon rues then
That's not quite how the CA commission worked. It was quite complicated TBH. An IA or OH system with an agreed set of metrics is much easier to manage. There's always the muon rules as a starting point to create a set of metrics if you don't want theirs.

my problem with that type of system is that I believe making good maps is a much more nuanced process, specific to each state. I do, however, plan to follow simple rules like trying to keep counties as whole CD's, like a whole Hamilton county and a whole Jefferson county.

The problem with nuance is that it is incredibly subjective. Real commissions have introduced measurable bias into their maps because they don't appreciate the subjectivity of their sense of the nuance (hello AZ).

There's no doubt that different states have different priorities. The metrics for IA and OH aren't the same, but they are both clear and directly measurable. I advocate for metrics that can produce multiple equally good plans based on the metrics. That then gives the state control over which plan best matches their unique priorities. As I've observed the states during the last two cycles, I can firmly say that picking metrics first then dealing with nuance later gives far less controversial results than trying to sort out nuance without clear metrics.

[muon2]

Some metrics are easier to judge than others, and some are more important to establish as ground rules.

One of the important is compliance with the VRA. Real maps have to do this, but the exact measurement is hard without a data set more detailed than DRA.

Population equality is an easy metric to measure and required for all real maps. The questions are what is the maximum deviation or range permitted for a plan, and will a map be judged better for less inequality.

County integrity has been mentioned and many states require that the county chop or fragment count be included in any report on a redistricting plan. Many also recognize town, townships, and cities as entities to be counted in a chop report. It's a relatively easy metric to measure.

There are others like geometric shape of districts and political performance, but they come with more variations on how one measures them. Agreeing on the three I listed above would go a long way to cut down on subjectivity without sacrificing state-specific flexibility.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Me (democrat) and Singletxguyforfun (republican) want to ungerrymander congressional maps! any suggestions for states?

lol sure

[Bidenworth2020]

Me (democrat) and Singletxguyforfun (republican) want to ungerrymander congressional maps! any suggestions for states?

lol sure

Don't worry Imma keep him in check

[Bidenworth2020]

[Strudelcutie4427]

1. D+9 (Raleigh)
2. D+13 (Durham)
3. R+1 (E of Raleigh)
4. R+6 (Outer Banks)
5. R+10 (Wilmington)
6. D+1 (Fayetteville)
7. R+12 (E of Charlotte)
8. R+18 (Center of State)
9. D+17 (Charlotte)
10. D+5 (Greensboro)
11. R+15 (Northwest)
12. R+18 (Gastonia)
13. R+9 (Asheville)

[Sol]

1. D+9 (Raleigh)
2. D+13 (Durham)
3. R+1 (E of Raleigh)
4. R+6 (Outer Banks)
5. R+10 (Wilmington)
6. D+1 (Fayetteville)
7. R+12 (E of Charlotte)
8. R+18 (Center of State)
9. D+17 (Charlotte)
10. D+5 (Greensboro)
11. R+15 (Northwest)
12. R+18 (Gastonia)
13. R+9 (Asheville)

Lol what a joke

[muon2]

1. D+9 (Raleigh)
2. D+13 (Durham)
3. R+1 (E of Raleigh)
4. R+6 (Outer Banks)
5. R+10 (Wilmington)
6. D+1 (Fayetteville)
7. R+12 (E of Charlotte)
8. R+18 (Center of State)
9. D+17 (Charlotte)
10. D+5 (Greensboro)
11. R+15 (Northwest)
12. R+18 (Gastonia)
13. R+9 (Asheville)

Lol what a joke

Which makes my point. Without predefined principles there's nothing to support a particular map other than one's personal taste. That's not a recipe to ungerrymander a plan. It's a recipe to create a plan with different (and unwritten) biases than those of the original map.

[Nyvin]

1. D+9 (Raleigh)
2. D+13 (Durham)
3. R+1 (E of Raleigh)
4. R+6 (Outer Banks)
5. R+10 (Wilmington)
6. D+1 (Fayetteville)
7. R+12 (E of Charlotte)
8. R+18 (Center of State)
9. D+17 (Charlotte)
10. D+5 (Greensboro)
11. R+15 (Northwest)
12. R+18 (Gastonia)
13. R+9 (Asheville)

Yeah...my faith in this project has dropped to zero.

[Strudelcutie4427]

1. D+9 (Raleigh)
2. D+13 (Durham)
3. R+1 (E of Raleigh)
4. R+6 (Outer Banks)
5. R+10 (Wilmington)
6. D+1 (Fayetteville)
7. R+12 (E of Charlotte)
8. R+18 (Center of State)
9. D+17 (Charlotte)
10. D+5 (Greensboro)
11. R+15 (Northwest)
12. R+18 (Gastonia)
13. R+9 (Asheville)

Yeah...my faith in this project has dropped to zero.

It’s effectively a 7-6/8-5 map. That’s what a light red state should probably be

[Bidenworth2020]

1. D+9 (Raleigh)
2. D+13 (Durham)
3. R+1 (E of Raleigh)
4. R+6 (Outer Banks)
5. R+10 (Wilmington)
6. D+1 (Fayetteville)
7. R+12 (E of Charlotte)
8. R+18 (Center of State)
9. D+17 (Charlotte)
10. D+5 (Greensboro)
11. R+15 (Northwest)
12. R+18 (Gastonia)
13. R+9 (Asheville)

Lol what a joke

Which makes my point. Without predefined principles there's nothing to support a particular map other than one's personal taste. That's not a recipe to ungerrymander a plan. It's a recipe to create a plan with different (and unwritten) biases than those of the original map.

Do you have any rules we could follow