Ungerrymandering(and unskewing) squad!

[jimrtex]

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.

Who drew the current Arkansas map?

[muon2]

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.

I also chose my words carefully. I said that drawing districts to get a particular political outcome is a gerrymander even if it is for good public purpose. I also was referring to my earlier exchange in this thread that one can have a goal of unskewing the political bias in a map, but that is not the same as ungerrymandering a map.

My map was drawn without looking at political data, just a spreadsheet of populations and a map of what counties were adjacent. So if my AR map is a GOP rig then a politically neutral computer program drawing maps for AR would also meet your definition of a GOP rig. Using a map and data without political numbers is how IA draws its map, and I've never heard any serious claim that it is a partisan rig. I don't think the UK boundary commission tries to balance the political parties when it draws lines either, but that doesn't make them rigged.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

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.

I also chose my words carefully. I said that drawing districts to get a particular political outcome is a gerrymander even if it is for good public purpose. I also was referring to my earlier exchange in this thread that one can have a goal of unskewing the political bias in a map, but that is not the same as ungerrymandering a map.

My map was drawn without looking at political data, just a spreadsheet of populations and a map of what counties were adjacent. So if my AR map is a GOP rig then a politically neutral computer program drawing maps for AR would also meet your definition of a GOP rig. Using a map and data without political numbers is how IA draws its map, and I've never heard any serious claim that it is a partisan rig. I don't think the UK boundary commission tries to balance the political parties when it draws lines either, but that doesn't make them rigged.

Fair enough if you just wanted to do that, but a submission of this to be the map would be ludicrous. Life is interesting, it does not matter as much the intention as is the outcome. And that map would be incredibly unfair towards dems.

[muon2]

Fair enough if you just wanted to do that, but a submission of this to be the map would be ludicrous. Life is interesting, it does not matter as much the intention as is the outcome. And that map would be incredibly unfair towards dems.

I don't see how you can say the a map consistent with one a computer might generate is unfair, other than to say that life is unfair. I would say that it is skewed due to natural geographic distribution in the state, but that doesn't make it unfair. Would you expect a UK Boundary Commission to ignore its neutral requirements if one party was becoming unfavored due to the distribution of voters in that region? Should the CA redistricting commission consider political data (which they currently may not) to insure a partisan division consistent with the statewide results?

[PragmaticPopulist]

I wasn't going by the muon rules when I made this, but basically, I was trying to do the same thing that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was trying to do when they drew the new map, except with NC. I feel pretty good about this, although I'm not an expert on redistricting.


1. D+5.69 (Majority-minority Northeast)
2. D+9.77 (Raleigh)
3. R+13.45 (Outer Banks)
4. D+12.05 (Durham
5. R+20.61 (Boone)
6. R+12.51 (Suburban Triangle)
7. R+4.5 (Southeastern NC)
8. R+3.74 (Fayetteville-Goldsboro)
9. R+13.18 (Suburban Charlotte)
10. R+18.83 (Hickory)
11. R+8.53 (Western NC)
12. D+17.51 (Charlotte)
13. D+6.62 (Winston-Salem-Greensboro)

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

I wasn't going by the muon rules when I made this, but basically, I was trying to do the same thing that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was trying to do when they drew the new map, except with NC. I feel pretty good about this, although I'm not an expert on redistricting.


1. D+5.69 (Majority-minority Northeast)
2. D+9.77 (Raleigh)
3. R+13.45 (Outer Banks)
4. D+12.05 (Durham
5. R+20.61 (Boone)
6. R+12.51 (Suburban Triangle)
7. R+4.5 (Southeastern NC)
8. R+3.74 (Fayetteville-Goldsboro)
9. R+13.18 (Suburban Charlotte)
10. R+18.83 (Hickory)
11. R+8.53 (Western NC)
12. D+17.51 (Charlotte)
13. D+6.62 (Winston-Salem-Greensboro)

5-8 is a pretty good split for a Lean R state. 

[muon2]

I wasn't going by the muon rules when I made this,

5-8 is a pretty good split for a Lean R state. 

The ideal map in terms of the expected partisan split is 7R-5D-1 even. The muon rules can generate that type of map as I posted last month.

Good news. I found the DRA file and can load it to read the current stats.



CD 1: D+3.1 (BVAP 40.3%)
CD 2: R+2.6
CD 3: R+8.1
CD 4: D+14
CD 5: R+8.8
CD 6: D+2.2
CD 7: R+8.7
CD 8: D+1.0
CD 9: R+19
CD 10: R+19
CD 11: R+8.9
CD 12: D+5.0
CD 13: D+4.8

The districts are 1 uncompetitive D, 4 competitive D, 1 highly competitive, 1 competitive R, 6 uncompetitive R.  The current NC PVI is R+3, so with these PVI's the plan has a skew of 0, as fair as one can get by that measure.

Note that there are only 4 county chops, and only 2 beyond the 2 that are required (Wake and Mecklenburg). The maximum deviation is 0.337% of the quota.

[jimrtex]

I wasn't going by the muon rules when I made this,

5-8 is a pretty good split for a Lean R state. 

The ideal map in terms of the expected partisan split is 7R-5D-1 even. The muon rules can generate that type of map as I posted last month.

Good news. I found the DRA file and can load it to read the current stats.



CD 1: D+3.1 (BVAP 40.3%)
CD 2: R+2.6
CD 3: R+8.1
CD 4: D+14
CD 5: R+8.8
CD 6: D+2.2
CD 7: R+8.7
CD 8: D+1.0
CD 9: R+19
CD 10: R+19
CD 11: R+8.9
CD 12: D+5.0
CD 13: D+4.8

The districts are 1 uncompetitive D, 4 competitive D, 1 highly competitive, 1 competitive R, 6 uncompetitive R.  The current NC PVI is R+3, so with these PVI's the plan has a skew of 0, as fair as one can get by that measure.

Note that there are only 4 county chops, and only 2 beyond the 2 that are required (Wake and Mecklenburg). The maximum deviation is 0.337% of the quota.

What is racial composition of the two parts of Mecklenburg? (i.e. have you racially cracked the black population). In Wake, most of the black population is in your NC-13. Though, you may have split Raliegh (and Cary?) NC-5 seems kind of odd, wrapping around from west of Greensboro to almost Durham and Raleigh.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Fair enough if you just wanted to do that, but a submission of this to be the map would be ludicrous. Life is interesting, it does not matter as much the intention as is the outcome. And that map would be incredibly unfair towards dems.

I don't see how you can say the a map consistent with one a computer might generate is unfair, other than to say that life is unfair. I would say that it is skewed due to natural geographic distribution in the state, but that doesn't make it unfair. Would you expect a UK Boundary Commission to ignore its neutral requirements if one party was becoming unfavored due to the distribution of voters in that region? Should the CA redistricting commission consider political data (which they currently may not) to insure a partisan division consistent with the statewide results?

Regardless of the intent or process, the result looks unfair, like many things the result is what matters the most, I guess you could attribute it to life being unfair. So yes, I would support drawing maps that attempt to represent the populace fairly. Like I think MD should be a 5-3 map for dems instead of 6-1, and I think MA should be at least 7 to 2 for dems, and CT, should be 4-1 (just because anything close to a 3-2 is really ugly to draw) and Oregon should get another solid GOP district, and a few others. So this is not just a dem vs GOP thing for me, I want more accurate representation. Sadly that won't occur anytime soon .

[muon2]

Fair enough if you just wanted to do that, but a submission of this to be the map would be ludicrous. Life is interesting, it does not matter as much the intention as is the outcome. And that map would be incredibly unfair towards dems.

I don't see how you can say the a map consistent with one a computer might generate is unfair, other than to say that life is unfair. I would say that it is skewed due to natural geographic distribution in the state, but that doesn't make it unfair. Would you expect a UK Boundary Commission to ignore its neutral requirements if one party was becoming unfavored due to the distribution of voters in that region? Should the CA redistricting commission consider political data (which they currently may not) to insure a partisan division consistent with the statewide results?

Regardless of the intent or process, the result looks unfair, like many things the result is what matters the most, I guess you could attribute it to life being unfair. So yes, I would support drawing maps that attempt to represent the populace fairly. Like I think MD should be a 5-3 map for dems instead of 6-1, and I think MA should be at least 7 to 2 for dems, and CT, should be 4-1 (just because anything close to a 3-2 is really ugly to draw) and Oregon should get another solid GOP district, and a few others. So this is not just a dem vs GOP thing for me, I want more accurate representation. Sadly that won't occur anytime soon .

Fair enough, and we can agree to disagree. I'm willing to concede MA and MD to the Dems, while AR skews to the Pubs due to geography. The bigger Dem beef is the lack of base outside of urban cores which overconcentrates their power. But the Pub advantage with the 'burbs is not likely to hold going forward, and without that their rural gains won't be as much of a geographic win. With Dems competitive in the 'burbs, neutral maps will produce more balanced results on a national scale. We may well be back in agreement in 2021.

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

Is there any way to guarantee a 4-4 delegation in Wisconsin (an even PVI state) without egregiously cracking WOW?  This is a state that geographically lends itself to a 2 Dem-6 GOP delegation.

[TJ in Oregon]

Is there any way to guarantee a 4-4 delegation in Wisconsin (an even PVI state) without egregiously cracking WOW?  This is a state that geographically lends itself to a 2 Dem-6 GOP delegation.

Basically you need a third Dem in Ron Kind or similar and have to get sorta lucky for #4. Pulling WI-1 south and west is probably the best bet.

[muon2]

Is there any way to guarantee a 4-4 delegation in Wisconsin (an even PVI state) without egregiously cracking WOW?  This is a state that geographically lends itself to a 2 Dem-6 GOP delegation.

It isn't hard to get 4 D districts. First split Milwaukee City and attach Ozaukee, Sheboygan and Manitowoc to the north side while attaching Racine to the south side. Both CDs are over D+7. Then split Dane, with the southern side of Dane (but none of Madison) linked to the southern border counties and Iowa county for a D+5 CD. Madison and the rest of Dane links up to La Crosse for a D+14 CD. Waukesha, Washington, Jefferson, Dodge, and Green Lake are almost perfect for a CD as an R+17 sink. That leaves the northern part of the state to divide into 3 CDs each around R+6.

Here's the map. All CDs are within 0.5% of the quota and the only other chops are to keep Native populations together on their reservations.

I would classify this as a gerrymander, but one designed to unskew partisan effects. Plans for WI will naturally tend towards 5R-2D-1E unless one takes particular care in placing Milwaukee and/or Dane.

[Bidenworth2020]