Ungerrymandering(and unskewing) squad!

[muon2]

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

I have a whole set of rules on the sticky thread. They are detailed, and maybe more than you want for this exercise. I suggested 3 principles you should decide on VRA districts, county and other political unit integrity, and limits on population inequality. I'll put up simplified version of those from the full muon rules, if you both are interested.

[Strudelcutie4427]

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

I have a whole set of rules on the sticky thread. They are detailed, and maybe more than you want for this exercise. I suggested 3 principles you should decide on VRA districts, county and other political unit integrity, and limits on population inequality. I'll put up simplified version of those from the full muon rules, if you both are interested.

Yeah that would be great! Also do you know how many Vera seats are required for each state?

[muon2]

Let me take these one at a time since how you react to each one tells me how you would react to subsequent metrics. I'll start with the VRA and provide 3 options. The two principals in this exercise should come to agreement on an option, perhaps with simple amendments or clarifications.

Option 1: Count the current number of minority-performing districts and keep the same number. If possible the districts should have at least 50% VAP (60% for HVAP) to be acceptable. This is sort of the pre-2010 understanding of how to satisfy the VRA and the simplest to draw and check.

Option 2: Count the current number of minority-performing districts and provide for no fewer districts than the current number. Districts should have at least 40% VAP (50% HVAP) and a sufficient Dem fraction (usually PVI D+6) so that the minority can control the primary and then use crossover white Dems to win the general election. Think of this in terms of the new VA districts this decade and probably more closely reflects current court thinking.

Option 3: In addition to the metric in option 2, maintain contiguous clusters of rural counties that are at least 40% VAP (50% HVAP) as a community of interest where there is less minority population than needed to form multiple districts (otherwise one could have illegal packing). For example one should maintain the Black Belt counties in AL or northeast NC in one CD without cracking them when possible given other constraints. I have lists for the states where this is a factor. This can be applied to municipalities in an urban area, too.

[libertpaulian]

Indiana, please.  Our gerrymanders SUCK!

[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)

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

The issue isn't the partisan composition--it's how you've diluted black voting power by sinking them in with the coast and Johnston County, and split W-S down the middle. You could draw a map with the same partisan composition but with way less bullsh[inks].

[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)

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

The issue isn't the partisan composition--it's how you've diluted black voting power by sinking them in with the coast and Johnston County, and split W-S down the middle. You could draw a map with the same partisan composition but with way less bullsh[inks].

what do you think about my map? Any ways I could make it better?

Indiana, please.  Our gerrymanders SUCK!

sure thing!

[muon2]

what do you think about my map? Any ways I could make it better?

Don't just report the PVI's - they aren't the only factor that matters. Report on the minority population (BVAP in NC) in those districts designed to be opportunity or influence districts for the minority. Include the population deviation for each district. Include a report of the number of county chops in your plan. Courts and experts look at those factors to determine evidence of gerrymandering.

[jimrtex]

Let me take these one at a time since how you react to each one tells me how you would react to subsequent metrics. I'll start with the VRA and provide 3 options. The two principals in this exercise should come to agreement on an option, perhaps with simple amendments or clarifications.

Option 1: Count the current number of minority-performing districts and keep the same number. If possible the districts should have at least 50% VAP (60% for HVAP) to be acceptable. This is sort of the pre-2010 understanding of how to satisfy the VRA and the simplest to draw and check.

Option 2: Count the current number of minority-performing districts and provide for no fewer districts than the current number. Districts should have at least 40% VAP (50% HVAP) and a sufficient Dem fraction (usually PVI D+6) so that the minority can control the primary and then use crossover white Dems to win the general election. Think of this in terms of the new VA districts this decade and probably more closely reflects current court thinking.

Option 3: In addition to the metric in option 2, maintain contiguous clusters of rural counties that are at least 40% VAP (50% HVAP) as a community of interest where there is less minority population than needed to form multiple districts (otherwise one could have illegal packing). For example one should maintain the Black Belt counties in AL or northeast NC in one CD without cracking them when possible given other constraints. I have lists for the states where this is a factor. This can be applied to municipalities in an urban area, too.

Remember that districts in North Carolina, Virginia, and Alabama have been thrown out because they were drawn to targets.

[muon2]

Let me take these one at a time since how you react to each one tells me how you would react to subsequent metrics. I'll start with the VRA and provide 3 options. The two principals in this exercise should come to agreement on an option, perhaps with simple amendments or clarifications.

Option 1: Count the current number of minority-performing districts and keep the same number. If possible the districts should have at least 50% VAP (60% for HVAP) to be acceptable. This is sort of the pre-2010 understanding of how to satisfy the VRA and the simplest to draw and check.

Option 2: Count the current number of minority-performing districts and provide for no fewer districts than the current number. Districts should have at least 40% VAP (50% HVAP) and a sufficient Dem fraction (usually PVI D+6) so that the minority can control the primary and then use crossover white Dems to win the general election. Think of this in terms of the new VA districts this decade and probably more closely reflects current court thinking.

Option 3: In addition to the metric in option 2, maintain contiguous clusters of rural counties that are at least 40% VAP (50% HVAP) as a community of interest where there is less minority population than needed to form multiple districts (otherwise one could have illegal packing). For example one should maintain the Black Belt counties in AL or northeast NC in one CD without cracking them when possible given other constraints. I have lists for the states where this is a factor. This can be applied to municipalities in an urban area, too.

Remember that districts in North Carolina, Virginia, and Alabama have been thrown out because they were drawn to targets.

I understand, but asking them to draw districts and play the role of VRA lawyers parsing the various decisions seems a bit much for this exercise. DRA doesn't have the data needed to do an ecological analysis or other similar study that might be required to properly assess the districts. Option 1 is closest to the targeting used by the states you mentioned, though they went even further based on section 5 retrogression, so I picked that as the easiest metric.

[Strudelcutie4427]

Our final result for CT. The only county chops are the 3 that make up district 5 outside of Litchfield Co.

1.  Hartford (-70) 60% White, 15% Black, 18% Latino, 5% Asian
2.  Eastern Half (-3969) 83% White, 4% Black, 7% Latino, 3% Asian
3.  New Haven (-1349) 64% White, 14% Black, 17% Latino, 4% Asian
4.  Gold Coast (+1500) 63% White, 12% Black, 18% Latino, 5% Asian
5.  Litchfield (+3980) 85% White, 3% Black, 8% Latino, 3% Asian

[muon2]

Our final result for CT. The only county chops are the 3 that make up district 5 outside of Litchfield Co.

1.  Hartford (-70) 60% White, 15% Black, 18% Latino, 5% Asian
2.  Eastern Half (-3969) 83% White, 4% Black, 7% Latino, 3% Asian
3.  New Haven (-1349) 64% White, 14% Black, 17% Latino, 4% Asian
4.  Gold Coast (+1500) 63% White, 12% Black, 18% Latino, 5% Asian
5.  Litchfield (+3980) 85% White, 3% Black, 8% Latino, 3% Asian

Counties don't matter much in CT, they don't have any recognized government. I haven't checked but assume that you kept all the towns and cities whole. Chopping them is far worse in New England than chopping counties.

You haven't weighed in my initial response to the request for metrics, but the population deviations are pretty large for CT. The quota is 714,819 and a 0.5% deviation is 3574 or 7148 for a 1% range. This plan has a maximum deviation of 3980 (0.56%) and a range of 7949 (1.11%). There would be substantial pressure to justify such large deviations and that would require clear standards or the courts would pitch the map.

For example this plan is in the spirit of your design, but cuts the maximum deviation to under 0.3%.

[Bidenworth2020]

Our final result for CT. The only county chops are the 3 that make up district 5 outside of Litchfield Co.

1.  Hartford (-70) 60% White, 15% Black, 18% Latino, 5% Asian
2.  Eastern Half (-3969) 83% White, 4% Black, 7% Latino, 3% Asian
3.  New Haven (-1349) 64% White, 14% Black, 17% Latino, 4% Asian
4.  Gold Coast (+1500) 63% White, 12% Black, 18% Latino, 5% Asian
5.  Litchfield (+3980) 85% White, 3% Black, 8% Latino, 3% Asian

Counties don't matter much in CT, they don't have any recognized government. I haven't checked but assume that you kept all the towns and cities whole. Chopping them is far worse in New England than chopping counties.

You haven't weighed in my initial response to the request for metrics, but the population deviations are pretty large for CT. The quota is 714,819 and a 0.5% deviation is 3574 or 7148 for a 1% range. This plan has a maximum deviation of 3980 (0.56%) and a range of 7949 (1.11%). There would be substantial pressure to justify such large deviations and that would require clear standards or the courts would pitch the map.

For example this plan is in the spirit of your design, but cuts the maximum deviation to under 0.3%.

the problem is that map undermines the goals of our map. We intentionally cut out Waterbury from the Litchfield Based district. As for the issue of large deviation, how about this?



No towns split, and cuts the deviation range in half. Pretty much the previous map we made with a few minor tweaks.

As for establishing a metric, I still want to make a few more maps and get some more feedback before we make our own standards. With that being said, we are obviously following the legally required rules (Deviation, VRA, etc...).

BTW, a big thanks to you, muon. We really appreciate the help in establishing a metric, as well as the feedback.

[muon2]

the problem is that map undermines the goals of our map. We intentionally cut out Waterbury from the Litchfield Based district. As for the issue of large deviation, how about this?



No towns split, and cuts the deviation range in half. Pretty much the previous map we made with a few minor tweaks.

As for establishing a metric, I still want to make a few more maps and get some more feedback before we make our own standards. With that being said, we are obviously following the legally required rules (Deviation, VRA, etc...).

BTW, a big thanks to you, muon. We really appreciate the help in establishing a metric, as well as the feedback.

Your Hartford CD is good, and the division between it and the NW CD is better than the one I showed. The problem you might face is what you mean by "ungerrymandering".

Forcing Waterbury into the New Haven CD while making the deviation and shape worse than the version I put up seems to be solely for political purposes. Your CD in the NW is R+4.0 and mine is R+1.5. Gerrymandering means to draw the districts to get a particular political outcome and yours appears to do exactly that.

CT is only a D+6 state and the SKEW metric would predict an ideal delegation of 3D-2R. The partisan SKEW takes the difference between the partisan totals for the seats and compares it to the ideal difference (1 in favor of the Dems in CT). Your plan is 4D-1R and mine was 4D-1even, so your SKEW of 2 is better than mine at 3 for the Dems. If lower SKEW is a primary goal then perhaps your exercise is more along the lines of "unskewing" rather than "ungerrymandering".

[jimrtex]

the problem is that map undermines the goals of our map. We intentionally cut out Waterbury from the Litchfield Based district. As for the issue of large deviation, how about this?

An alternative interpretation is that you placed Waterbury in a a New Haven-dominated district.

While you can draw an eastern district that avoids cities other than smallish New London, I don't think you can do this in the northwest. My preference would be to minimize the intrusion on Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven.

[Bidenworth2020]

the problem is that map undermines the goals of our map. We intentionally cut out Waterbury from the Litchfield Based district. As for the issue of large deviation, how about this?

An alternative interpretation is that you placed Waterbury in a a New Haven-dominated district.

While you can draw an eastern district that avoids cities other than smallish New London, I don't think you can do this in the northwest. My preference would be to minimize the intrusion on Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven.

interesting. what about this?

[muon2]

That's much less gerrymandered. So have you decided to ungerrymander instead of unskew?

What are the deviations and PVIs?

[Bidenworth2020]

That's much less gerrymandered. So have you decided to ungerrymander instead of unskew?

What are the deviations and PVIs?

definitely ungerrymander, but we will do both when possible.

[Sol]

the problem is that map undermines the goals of our map. We intentionally cut out Waterbury from the Litchfield Based district. As for the issue of large deviation, how about this?

An alternative interpretation is that you placed Waterbury in a a New Haven-dominated district.

While you can draw an eastern district that avoids cities other than smallish New London, I don't think you can do this in the northwest. My preference would be to minimize the intrusion on Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven.

interesting. what about this?

I do believe there are a few towns split, but otherwise that looks nice.

[Lachi]

the problem is that map undermines the goals of our map. We intentionally cut out Waterbury from the Litchfield Based district. As for the issue of large deviation, how about this?

An alternative interpretation is that you placed Waterbury in a a New Haven-dominated district.

While you can draw an eastern district that avoids cities other than smallish New London, I don't think you can do this in the northwest. My preference would be to minimize the intrusion on Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven.

interesting. what about this?

I do believe there are a few towns split, but otherwise, that looks nice.

From what I can see, there's actually no town splits in this map

[muon2]

the problem is that map undermines the goals of our map. We intentionally cut out Waterbury from the Litchfield Based district. As for the issue of large deviation, how about this?

An alternative interpretation is that you placed Waterbury in a a New Haven-dominated district.

While you can draw an eastern district that avoids cities other than smallish New London, I don't think you can do this in the northwest. My preference would be to minimize the intrusion on Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven.

interesting. what about this?

I do believe there are a few towns split, but otherwise, that looks nice.

From what I can see, there's actually no town splits in this map

Sol is correct, there are three town chops. Farmington is split between the Hartford and Waterbury CDs. Southington is split between the Hartford and New Haven CDs. Prospect is split between the Waterbury and New Haven CDs.

Since it's possible to make a plan with no chops, that would be preferable to one with three chops.

[muon2]

The city lines in DRA don't reflect all of the towns. Only the precinct names give that info. Here's a map of CT towns. The colors indicate what metro area (Census NECTA) each town is in. That's a better guide than counties in CT.

[Bidenworth2020]

the problem is that map undermines the goals of our map. We intentionally cut out Waterbury from the Litchfield Based district. As for the issue of large deviation, how about this?

An alternative interpretation is that you placed Waterbury in a a New Haven-dominated district.

While you can draw an eastern district that avoids cities other than smallish New London, I don't think you can do this in the northwest. My preference would be to minimize the intrusion on Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven.

interesting. what about this?

I do believe there are a few towns split, but otherwise, that looks nice.

From what I can see, there's actually no town splits in this map

Sol is correct, there are three town chops. Farmington is split between the Hartford and Waterbury CDs. Southington is split between the Hartford and New Haven CDs. Prospect is split between the Waterbury and New Haven CDs.

Since it's possible to make a plan with no chops, that would be preferable to one with three chops.

Alright, this is my final product, thanks for everyone's feedback. This is pretty much the best it gets, not to sound overly braggy



0 towns split, minimal population deviation,

[muon2]

Alright, this is my final product, thanks for everyone's feedback. This is pretty much the best it gets, not to sound overly braggy



0 towns split, minimal population deviation,

Much nicer, but I wouldn't call it minimal population deviation as there are many plans that put all deviations under 1000. What I would say is that it stays under a 0.5% maximum deviation. So I would suggest that your inequality metric not be about lowest deviation, just a low enough deviation.

So to justify a larger deviation than necessary we need to identify the metrics that are more important than population inequality. Metro areas don't seem to be super important here since there are metro area chops that didn't need to happen, such as for New Haven and Enfield (Springfield MA). That suggests that shape is highly important, would you agree?

[muon2]

As an example of what I'm saying, an extreme plan to get minimal deviation with whole towns might be this one. The maximum deviation is 8! Of course the shapes are hideous and metro areas are ignored.



But here the shapes aren't nearly so bad and the maximum deviation is only 11.



Your maximum deviation is over 200 times larger, so a strong erosity metric and/or strict use of metro areas is probably needed to justify the deviation.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Muon2: What is the most compact way you could draw a whole town Connecticut with maximum deviation of 0.05%?