Ungerrymandering(and unskewing) squad!
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:58:50 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Ungerrymandering(and unskewing) squad!
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: Ungerrymandering(and unskewing) squad!  (Read 5222 times)
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: September 05, 2018, 09:48:24 PM »

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

Do you really mean 0.05%? We typically use 0.5% as a maximum since that is reasonably consistent with SCOTUS decisions like Tennant.
Logged
America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS
Solid4096
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,730


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: September 05, 2018, 10:04:08 PM »

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

Do you really mean 0.05%? We typically use 0.5% as a maximum since that is reasonably consistent with SCOTUS decisions like Tennant.
0.05% as a middle ground between trying to get as low of a deviation as possible and trying to keep things somewhat compact.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: September 05, 2018, 10:49:52 PM »

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

Do you really mean 0.05%? We typically use 0.5% as a maximum since that is reasonably consistent with SCOTUS decisions like Tennant.
0.05% as a middle ground between trying to get as low of a deviation as possible and trying to keep things somewhat compact.

I have a formula in the muon rules that correlates the range with the number of counties or other subdivisions per district. The idea is to measure the chop and the inequality scores and separately measure erosity. Optimal plans will not be able to be improved on one of those measures without making the other larger. That's a better way to find a middle ground than picking a specific value for inequality.
Logged
Bidenworth2020
politicalmasta73
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,407
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: September 05, 2018, 11:21:00 PM »

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?
Ideally I could have better population deviation, but I feel like my map achieved my goals the best they possibly could. The general groupings I wanted were...

1-eastern counties
2.Litchfield+Surrounding areas
3. Most of Fairfield
4. Most of New Haven
5. Most of Hartford

 I know you said counties don't matter, but I really do like these types of groupings, and I definitely would sacrifice near-perfect equality for an otherwise bad map.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: September 06, 2018, 05:51:20 AM »

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?
Ideally I could have better population deviation, but I feel like my map achieved my goals the best they possibly could. The general groupings I wanted were...

1-eastern counties
2.Litchfield+Surrounding areas
3. Most of Fairfield
4. Most of New Haven
5. Most of Hartford

 I know you said counties don't matter, but I really do like these types of groupings, and I definitely would sacrifice near-perfect equality for an otherwise bad map.

Here are the stats on your CDs (it's hard to read them in the screen shot):
New London (+2435) D+3.6
Litchfield (-1945) R+2.4
Fairfield (+1500) D+8.5
New Haven (-778) D+8.9
Hartford (-1210) D+14
The population range is 4380 or 0.61% of the quota. The average deviation is 1573.6 or 0.22%.

Your goals are fine, but it is hard to measure how well you met them. WV succeeded in their case with a large deviation because the court could compare the challengers' maps to the state's map based on specific numeric goals. Here's something like what I think you have so far:

1. Towns are not chopped.
2. Counties should only be chopped if they are larger than one district.
3. Counties should have a whole district within them whenever possible.

These don't exactly match your map, since you don't have a district entirely within New Haven county. Is there a reason why? If you did stick to a district entirely within New Haven and kept deviations down it would probably be defensible as the best plan.

Here's a modification of a map I posted earlier that would meet those goals. Not only does it meet the goals above, but it has a lower range and average deviation than your plan. If you don't want the court to replace your plan with this one with then there needs to be a measurable reason to keep yours.

New London (+2435) D+3.6
Litchfield (-1588) R+1.5
Fairfield (-227) D+8.1
New Haven (+708) D+8.1
Hartford (-1326) D+15
The population range is 4023 or 0.56% of the quota. The average deviation is 1256.8 or 0.18%.

Logged
Boobs
HCP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,509


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: September 06, 2018, 11:48:24 AM »



Litchfield (-47) R+2.24
Bridgeport (+984) D+8.78
New Haven (-483) D+9.96
Hartford (-571) D+13.7
New London (+119) D+2.52

The population range is 1,555 , or 0.21% of the quota. The average deviation is 441, or 0.06% of the quota.

I don't believe any towns are split.
Logged
Bidenworth2020
politicalmasta73
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,407
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: September 06, 2018, 03:51:10 PM »

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?
Ideally I could have better population deviation, but I feel like my map achieved my goals the best they possibly could. The general groupings I wanted were...

1-eastern counties
2.Litchfield+Surrounding areas
3. Most of Fairfield
4. Most of New Haven
5. Most of Hartford

 I know you said counties don't matter, but I really do like these types of groupings, and I definitely would sacrifice near-perfect equality for an otherwise bad map.

Here are the stats on your CDs (it's hard to read them in the screen shot):
New London (+2435) D+3.6
Litchfield (-1945) R+2.4
Fairfield (+1500) D+8.5
New Haven (-778) D+8.9
Hartford (-1210) D+14
The population range is 4380 or 0.61% of the quota. The average deviation is 1573.6 or 0.22%.

Your goals are fine, but it is hard to measure how well you met them. WV succeeded in their case with a large deviation because the court could compare the challengers' maps to the state's map based on specific numeric goals. Here's something like what I think you have so far:

1. Towns are not chopped.
2. Counties should only be chopped if they are larger than one district.
3. Counties should have a whole district within them whenever possible.

These don't exactly match your map, since you don't have a district entirely within New Haven county. Is there a reason why? If you did stick to a district entirely within New Haven and kept deviations down it would probably be defensible as the best plan.

Here's a modification of a map I posted earlier that would meet those goals. Not only does it meet the goals above, but it has a lower range and average deviation than your plan. If you don't want the court to replace your plan with this one with then there needs to be a measurable reason to keep yours.

New London (+2435) D+3.6
Litchfield (-1588) R+1.5
Fairfield (-227) D+8.1
New Haven (+708) D+8.1
Hartford (-1326) D+15
The population range is 4023 or 0.56% of the quota. The average deviation is 1256.8 or 0.18%.


I like this map about as much as I like my map, so I would definitely approve of that map.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: September 06, 2018, 04:32:24 PM »


Here's something like what I think you have so far:

1. Towns are not chopped.
2. Counties should only be chopped if they are larger than one district.
3. Counties should have a whole district within them whenever possible.

These don't exactly match your map, since you don't have a district entirely within New Haven county. Is there a reason why? If you did stick to a district entirely within New Haven and kept deviations down it would probably be defensible as the best plan.

Here's a modification of a map I posted earlier that would meet those goals. Not only does it meet the goals above, but it has a lower range and average deviation than your plan. If you don't want the court to replace your plan with this one with then there needs to be a measurable reason to keep yours.

New London (+2435) D+3.6
Litchfield (-1588) R+1.5
Fairfield (-227) D+8.1
New Haven (+708) D+8.1
Hartford (-1326) D+15
The population range is 4023 or 0.56% of the quota. The average deviation is 1256.8 or 0.18%.


I like this map about as much as I like my map, so I would definitely approve of that map.

OK. Does your partner agree with that and the goals I stated to generate the map?

For population would you prefer to measure the range of the average deviation? The range is more straightforward and basically says that the districts with the greatest deviations above and below the quota set the scale for the map and other districts don't play a role for the inequality.
Logged
Bidenworth2020
politicalmasta73
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,407
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: September 06, 2018, 05:03:20 PM »


Here's something like what I think you have so far:

1. Towns are not chopped.
2. Counties should only be chopped if they are larger than one district.
3. Counties should have a whole district within them whenever possible.

These don't exactly match your map, since you don't have a district entirely within New Haven county. Is there a reason why? If you did stick to a district entirely within New Haven and kept deviations down it would probably be defensible as the best plan.

Here's a modification of a map I posted earlier that would meet those goals. Not only does it meet the goals above, but it has a lower range and average deviation than your plan. If you don't want the court to replace your plan with this one with then there needs to be a measurable reason to keep yours.

New London (+2435) D+3.6
Litchfield (-1588) R+1.5
Fairfield (-227) D+8.1
New Haven (+708) D+8.1
Hartford (-1326) D+15
The population range is 4023 or 0.56% of the quota. The average deviation is 1256.8 or 0.18%.


I like this map about as much as I like my map, so I would definitely approve of that map.

OK. Does your partner agree with that and the goals I stated to generate the map?

For population would you prefer to measure the range of the average deviation? The range is more straightforward and basically says that the districts with the greatest deviations above and below the quota set the scale for the map and other districts don't play a role for the inequality.
That makes sense to me, and no, singletxguy has not.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: September 07, 2018, 01:52:43 AM »

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?
Ideally I could have better population deviation, but I feel like my map achieved my goals the best they possibly could. The general groupings I wanted were...

1-eastern counties
2.Litchfield+Surrounding areas
3. Most of Fairfield
4. Most of New Haven
5. Most of Hartford

 I know you said counties don't matter, but I really do like these types of groupings, and I definitely would sacrifice near-perfect equality for an otherwise bad map.

Here are the stats on your CDs (it's hard to read them in the screen shot):
New London (+2435) D+3.6
Litchfield (-1945) R+2.4
Fairfield (+1500) D+8.5
New Haven (-778) D+8.9
Hartford (-1210) D+14
The population range is 4380 or 0.61% of the quota. The average deviation is 1573.6 or 0.22%.

Your goals are fine, but it is hard to measure how well you met them. WV succeeded in their case with a large deviation because the court could compare the challengers' maps to the state's map based on specific numeric goals. Here's something like what I think you have so far:

1. Towns are not chopped.
2. Counties should only be chopped if they are larger than one district.
3. Counties should have a whole district within them whenever possible.

These don't exactly match your map, since you don't have a district entirely within New Haven county. Is there a reason why? If you did stick to a district entirely within New Haven and kept deviations down it would probably be defensible as the best plan.

Here's a modification of a map I posted earlier that would meet those goals. Not only does it meet the goals above, but it has a lower range and average deviation than your plan. If you don't want the court to replace your plan with this one with then there needs to be a measurable reason to keep yours.

New London (+2435) D+3.6
Litchfield (-1588) R+1.5
Fairfield (-227) D+8.1
New Haven (+708) D+8.1
Hartford (-1326) D+15
The population range is 4023 or 0.56% of the quota. The average deviation is 1256.8 or 0.18%.


This was my map. The southwestern districts are the same. Standard deviation is 0.17%, average deviation is 0.15%. Your competitive districts are marginally more competitive 0.3% and 0.5%).

Your two competitive districts are marginally more competitive.


Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: September 07, 2018, 02:27:13 AM »

For population would you prefer to measure the range of the average deviation? The range is more straightforward and basically says that the districts with the greatest deviations above and below the quota set the scale for the map and other districts don't play a role for the inequality.
Use of the range is pandering to innumeracy, and has led to map drawers targeting the limits when applied to legislative districts.

We can think of drawing districts as analogous to shooting arrows at a target. We're supposed to be aiming toward the center of the target. Setting a range is like having an inner ring count as 10 points.

But gerryarchers have discovered that you can drive down to the target in a golf cart and put all the blue arrows on one side touching the ring, and all the red arrows on the other. Or even worse they move the target to the left or right so that the ring is still X inches across but is displaced to one side.

Using average deviation, you can have two districts both with 0.3% deviation, and then swap population between the districts and have zero effect on the average deviation. 0.0% and 0.6% is just as good as 0.3% and 0.3%. But if you move one additional person, suddenly the average deviation starts increasing. You have a discontinuity in the first derivative.

Standard deviation penalizes more extreme deviations, like range, but doesn't encourage targeting the limits and doesn't limits the measurement to two values.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: September 07, 2018, 05:51:53 AM »

For population would you prefer to measure the range of the average deviation? The range is more straightforward and basically says that the districts with the greatest deviations above and below the quota set the scale for the map and other districts don't play a role for the inequality.
Use of the range is pandering to innumeracy, and has led to map drawers targeting the limits when applied to legislative districts.

We can think of drawing districts as analogous to shooting arrows at a target. We're supposed to be aiming toward the center of the target. Setting a range is like having an inner ring count as 10 points.

But gerryarchers have discovered that you can drive down to the target in a golf cart and put all the blue arrows on one side touching the ring, and all the red arrows on the other. Or even worse they move the target to the left or right so that the ring is still X inches across but is displaced to one side.

Using average deviation, you can have two districts both with 0.3% deviation, and then swap population between the districts and have zero effect on the average deviation. 0.0% and 0.6% is just as good as 0.3% and 0.3%. But if you move one additional person, suddenly the average deviation starts increasing. You have a discontinuity in the first derivative.

Standard deviation penalizes more extreme deviations, like range, but doesn't encourage targeting the limits and doesn't limits the measurement to two values.

Numeracy starts with the basics. Standard deviation is a fine measure, but if the mapper isn't comfortable calculating square roots, it's likely to get ignored as the plan is drawn. Average deviation requires nothing beyond division and range only requires subtraction. I'd rather see someone apply subtraction than use no math at all, and if using range gets people to think about more math as they draw maps, that's a plus for numeracy.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: September 07, 2018, 06:50:04 AM »
« Edited: September 07, 2018, 06:53:46 AM by muon2 »

While I wait for singletxguyforfun to weigh in on the goals and map, I thought I'd share what I did for CT based on the muon rules in 2014. For New England I use NECTAs not counties and minimize the chops. The size of Hartford and Bridgeport require each of those NECTAs to be chopped and my plans each make two additional NECTA chops. The four plans vary in terms of inequality and erosity, so that decreasing inequality increases erosity.


muon2 A: range 0.96%, average deviation 1920.4. Score Inequality 17, Chops 4, Erosity 49.


muon2 B: range 0.30%, average deviation 757.6. Score I 15, C 4, E 52.



One observation from the set of maps above is that the lowest erosity plans all involved putting both extra chops on the Hartford NECTA. To get a significantly lower inequality I had to move one of those two chops to another NECTA and I put it on the New Haven NECTA. That cost a lot of erosity.

As a second attempt I tried to place the second extra chop on the Bridgeport NECTA to see if that could also give lower inequalities. I found that it did, and with less increase in erosity than I had with the New Haven chop.

muon 2 C: range 0.14%, average deviation 234.4. Score I 12, C 4, E 62.


muon2 D: range of 0.03%, average deviation 54.4. Score I 9, C 4, E 66.

Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: September 09, 2018, 10:31:26 AM »

For population would you prefer to measure the range of the average deviation? The range is more straightforward and basically says that the districts with the greatest deviations above and below the quota set the scale for the map and other districts don't play a role for the inequality.
Use of the range is pandering to innumeracy, and has led to map drawers targeting the limits when applied to legislative districts.

We can think of drawing districts as analogous to shooting arrows at a target. We're supposed to be aiming toward the center of the target. Setting a range is like having an inner ring count as 10 points.

But gerryarchers have discovered that you can drive down to the target in a golf cart and put all the blue arrows on one side touching the ring, and all the red arrows on the other. Or even worse they move the target to the left or right so that the ring is still X inches across but is displaced to one side.

Using average deviation, you can have two districts both with 0.3% deviation, and then swap population between the districts and have zero effect on the average deviation. 0.0% and 0.6% is just as good as 0.3% and 0.3%. But if you move one additional person, suddenly the average deviation starts increasing. You have a discontinuity in the first derivative.

Standard deviation penalizes more extreme deviations, like range, but doesn't encourage targeting the limits and doesn't limits the measurement to two values.

Numeracy starts with the basics. Standard deviation is a fine measure, but if the mapper isn't comfortable calculating square roots, it's likely to get ignored as the plan is drawn. Average deviation requires nothing beyond division and range only requires subtraction. I'd rather see someone apply subtraction than use no math at all, and if using range gets people to think about more math as they draw maps, that's a plus for numeracy.

You may not have experienced it because Illinois requires near perfect equality between legislative districts, but it is explained to legislators that they can be within 10% range if the smallest district is 90.5% and all the others are less than 100.5%. They then use the limits as targets.  The main reason that the SCOTUS has refused to set a de minimis standard for congressional districts is because they know that lawyers and legislators will cheat.

In practice, one simply makes sure that the districts are within a 95% to 105% band and don't even bother with a range calculation unless one needs to shift the band slightly to conform to some other rule.

Range is a measure of the two most extreme districts, and provides zero information about the practicable equality of the other districts.

Average absolute deviation is better, but it has the problem that when adjusting population between two districts, the average may not change. Standard deviation has the property that if any two districts are made closer in population the standard deviation decreases.

I don't understand your concern about being able to hand calculate the values. I certainly wouldn't. If hand computing range, I would likely miss the maximum or minimum value and thus compute the wrong range. I would not compute average deviation by hand. I doubt that I have ever calculated a square root by hand. I'd use a slide rule or log tables, or if available a calculator. Any polynomial expansions would be a beginning problem in programming perhaps with recursion.

Today, I would use a spreadsheet, or the calculation would be built into the mapping program, just as measurements of compactness are.
Logged
America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS
Solid4096
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,730


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: September 09, 2018, 10:44:36 AM »

I thought the standard for legislative districts was 90% to 110%.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: September 09, 2018, 10:49:42 AM »

I thought the standard for legislative districts was 90% to 110%.

That would be 20%. The standard is a 10% variation.
Logged
America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS
Solid4096
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,730


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: September 09, 2018, 10:56:54 AM »

I thought the standard for legislative districts was 90% to 110%.

That would be 20%. The standard is a 10% variation.

10% variation means 90% to 110%.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: September 09, 2018, 12:22:41 PM »

IL does not require exact equality for legislative districts. The ILSC has ruled that the IL constitution requires a maximum deviation of 0.5%. However, there was a successful case challenging a plan as being arbitrary in design (ie partisan) and not as exact as it could be. The interpretation was ILSC would allow 0.5% if it came with a set of uniformly applied criteria. To avoid losing a partisan plan to a population inequality challenge the districts are drawn with near exact equality.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: September 11, 2018, 12:41:43 PM »

I thought the standard for legislative districts was 90% to 110%.
The standard was based on a Texas case where the districts ranged from 105.1% to 95.1%, The SCOTUS later observed that they seemed to have accepted a 10% range.

What they have said is that a State can go outside the 10% range, but has to justify it.

Below 10% the plaintiffs have to show that they can reduce the deviation AND achieve the State's goals.
Logged
Bidenworth2020
politicalmasta73
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,407
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: September 16, 2018, 06:04:03 PM »

Arkansas Map that is fair, if a bit dem leaning. What the legislature should have drawn in 2018. Sures up Ross and keeps the Little Rock district possible for Dems.

Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: September 16, 2018, 09:22:00 PM »

Arkansas Map that is fair, if a bit dem leaning. What the legislature should have drawn in 2018. Sures up Ross and keeps the Little Rock district possible for Dems.



That looks more like unskewing than ungerrymandering. Here's a version that keeps all the population deviations under 200 with whole counties and without chopping the Little Rock UCC.

Logged
Bidenworth2020
politicalmasta73
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,407
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: September 16, 2018, 09:29:19 PM »

Arkansas Map that is fair, if a bit dem leaning. What the legislature should have drawn in 2018. Sures up Ross and keeps the Little Rock district possible for Dems.



That looks more like unskewing than ungerrymandering. Here's a version that keeps all the population deviations under 200 with whole counties and without chopping the Little Rock UCC.


I realize that you could probably make better maps. I meant more that this map is pretty fair, but also if it was drawn in 2010, it would have made Ross pretty darn safe. Hence why it should have been the map the democratic legislature should have drawn.
Logged
Co-Chair Bagel23
Bagel23
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,369
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.48, S: -1.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: September 16, 2018, 09:41:33 PM »

Arkansas Map that is fair, if a bit dem leaning. What the legislature should have drawn in 2018. Sures up Ross and keeps the Little Rock district possible for Dems.



That looks more like unskewing than ungerrymandering. Here's a version that keeps all the population deviations under 200 with whole counties and without chopping the Little Rock UCC.



Any map that does not have a seat that is less than an R+3 or so in Arkansas is a GOP rig. Arkansas should really have at least 1 cd with a weak d pvi.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: September 16, 2018, 09:50:33 PM »

Arkansas Map that is fair, if a bit dem leaning. What the legislature should have drawn in 2018. Sures up Ross and keeps the Little Rock district possible for Dems.



That looks more like unskewing than ungerrymandering. Here's a version that keeps all the population deviations under 200 with whole counties and without chopping the Little Rock UCC.



Any map that does not have a seat that is less than an R+3 or so in Arkansas is a GOP rig. Arkansas should really have at least 1 cd with a weak d pvi.

Gerrymandering is the process of drawing districts to get a particular political outcome. Drawing a plan to insure one seat with a Dem PVI is therefore a form of gerrymandering, even if it is for a good public purpose. That's why I pointed out that the plan was more designed to unskew AR rather than ungerrymander it.
Logged
Co-Chair Bagel23
Bagel23
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,369
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.48, S: -1.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: September 16, 2018, 11:15:16 PM »

Arkansas Map that is fair, if a bit dem leaning. What the legislature should have drawn in 2018. Sures up Ross and keeps the Little Rock district possible for Dems.



That looks more like unskewing than ungerrymandering. Here's a version that keeps all the population deviations under 200 with whole counties and without chopping the Little Rock UCC.



Any map that does not have a seat that is less than an R+3 or so in Arkansas is a GOP rig. Arkansas should really have at least 1 cd with a weak d pvi.

Gerrymandering is the process of drawing districts to get a particular political outcome. Drawing a plan to insure one seat with a Dem PVI is therefore a form of gerrymandering, even if it is for a good public purpose. That's why I pointed out that the plan was more designed to unskew AR rather than ungerrymander it.


Hey, notice how I chose my words carefully and I did not say gerrymander. Your map is a shameless GOP rig just like the current one. I said a GOP rig, and imo an Arkansas map without a tossup to highly competitive seat is a GOP rig. I point out issues on both sides of the aisle and think the maps in MA, CT, MD, and OR are reprehensible and actually drew a Massachusetts with a McCain seat. Shame that people on all sides pull out excuses to allow this. I have no idea why a 3-1 GOP majority delegation would be so controversial unless one just loves being unfair and unrepresentative.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.099 seconds with 11 queries.