Ungerrymandering(and unskewing) squad!

[Bidenworth2020]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

[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

[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!

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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,

[Bidenworth2020]

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.

[Bidenworth2020]

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.

[Bidenworth2020]

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.

[Bidenworth2020]

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.

[Bidenworth2020]

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.

[Bidenworth2020]