2020 Redistricting in Pennsylvania

[muon2]

Anyway working with Sev's principles of a fair map I worked hard and finished this fair map. The court will likely not enact this though.

sarcasm

It looks like you have a CD with just Dauphin and York, but that would have too large a population deviation from the quota. The colors make it hard to tell, so is there a chop in Cumberland or somewhere else to bring the population of the Harrisburg CD up towards quota?

It looks like you should be able to shuffle population between the Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, and State College CDs to eliminate one of the chops (probably the one in Lycoming).

There are a few towns in Cumberland I took.

Were you able to keep municipalities whole (except of course for Philly)?

I'll also ask the question I asked sev. What was your population range (difference between largest and smallest CDs)?

1500 to -1200. Probably could reduce it a bit further. it a bit further but its good enough. Did try to keep cities whole as possible although DRA doesn't give all of them.

It sort of does give them all, but it requires work on the part of the user. The city lines on DRA isn't that helpful since it shows census designated places as well as incorporated cities. PA counts all municipalities (cities, boroughs, and townships) as items to avoid chopping, but it doesn't care about census designated places.

The best way to see what is a PA municipality with DRA is to look at the name of the voting district as you hover over it. If the municipality shows just the name, then it has only one voting district. If the name has the word DIST or VTD and a number or direction, then the municipality has multiple precincts, and to keep it intact, you have to find them all by name.

[Former President tack50]

Given the big discussion, here is my attempt at a fair map:



https://davesredistricting.org/join/d1ee3bc5-f0df-4366-a9dc-e796ce5a6ac1

PA-01: Clinton+1, R+1
PA-02: Clinton+64, D+32 (41% black, 32% white, 22% hispanic)
PA-03: Clinton+80, D+39 (55% black)
PA-04: Clinton+23, D+8
PA-05: Clinton+17, D+6
PA-06: Trump+5, R+3
PA-07: Clinton+0, EVEN
PA-08: Trump+12, R+2
PA-09: Trump+16, R+8
PA-10: Trump+43, R+19
PA-11: Trump+19, R+11
PA-12: Trump+10, R+7
PA-13: Trump+45, R+22
PA-14: Trump+31, R+14
PA-15: Trump+35, R+16
PA-16: Trump+22, R+9
PA-17: Clinton+29, D+14

In theory this should be a map with 5 Titanium D districts, 6 titanium R districts, 3 tossups and 2 districts that are heavily R but are as of now held by Dems (you could consider those R districts, Trump did win by double digits after all).

Overall, a 5D-8R-3S map. Not the fairest thing in terms of party numbers, but as in many other states geography goes against Dems here, who are concentrated to a large degree in supermajority dem districts in Philadelphia.

And as when doing a fair map, here is my attempt at identifying the COI represented:

PA-01: Bucks & North Philadelphia
PA-02: Central Philadelphia
PA-03: South Philadelphia, Philadelphia black VRA district
PA-04: Montgomery County
PA-05: Delaware County & East Chester County
PA-06: Berks & West Chester County
PA-07: Allentown area
PA-08: Scranton & Wilkes-Barre area / Northwest PA
PA-09: Harrisburg
PA-10: North central rural PA
PA-11: Lancaster & East York (tried to have York city in this district, but many suburbs had to be left out unfortunately)
PA-12: West Pittsburgh suburbs and Beaver County
PA-13: South central rural PA
PA-14: Southwest PA
PA-15: North Central Rural PA (but to the west of PA-10)
PA-16: Erie area & Northwest PA
PA-17: Pittsburgh & East Pittsburgh suburbs

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Given the big discussion, here is my attempt at a fair map:



https://davesredistricting.org/join/d1ee3bc5-f0df-4366-a9dc-e796ce5a6ac1

PA-01: Clinton+1, R+1
PA-02: Clinton+64, D+32 (41% black, 32% white, 22% hispanic)
PA-03: Clinton+80, D+39 (55% black)
PA-04: Clinton+23, D+8
PA-05: Clinton+17, D+6
PA-06: Trump+5, R+3
PA-07: Clinton+0, EVEN
PA-08: Trump+12, R+2
PA-09: Trump+16, R+8
PA-10: Trump+43, R+19
PA-11: Trump+19, R+11
PA-12: Trump+10, R+7
PA-13: Trump+45, R+22
PA-14: Trump+31, R+14
PA-15: Trump+35, R+16
PA-16: Trump+22, R+9
PA-17: Clinton+29, D+14

In theory this should be a map with 5 Titanium D districts, 6 titanium R districts, 3 tossups and 2 districts that are heavily R but are as of now held by Dems (you could consider those R districts, Trump did win by double digits after all).

Overall, a 5D-8R-3S map. Not the fairest thing in terms of party numbers, but as in many other states geography goes against Dems here, who are concentrated to a large degree in supermajority dem districts in Philadelphia.

And as when doing a fair map, here is my attempt at identifying the COI represented:

PA-01: Bucks & North Philadelphia
PA-02: Central Philadelphia
PA-03: South Philadelphia, Philadelphia black VRA district
PA-04: Montgomery County
PA-05: Delaware County & East Chester County
PA-06: Berks & West Chester County
PA-07: Allentown area
PA-08: Scranton & Wilkes-Barre area / Northwest PA
PA-09: Harrisburg
PA-10: North central rural PA
PA-11: Lancaster & East York (tried to have York city in this district, but many suburbs had to be left out unfortunately)
PA-12: West Pittsburgh suburbs and Beaver County
PA-13: South central rural PA
PA-14: Southwest PA
PA-15: North Central Rural PA (but to the west of PA-10)
PA-16: Erie area & Northwest PA
PA-17: Pittsburgh & East Pittsburgh suburbs

Boo!  Also, this is like drawing a fair map for Wisconsin.  It's a fun exercise, but that's not what is going to happen.

[SevenEleven]

What's to make it fair?

[muon2]

The problem is sometimes what is fair as opposed to what is neutral. People tend to think of fair in partisan terms, but that can run up against neutral mapping principles. I use the term skew to measure the lack of partisan fairness in a plan.

Skew in PA comes naturally from the city of Philly, especially with the necessary Black-majority CD. That VRA-mandated CD must be placed almost entirely in the city, and often is completely within the city. In fact, most neutral mapping efforts would put 2 CDs either entirely or mostly in the city for reasons of compactness or community of interest. Any plan that feathered more than 2 Philly CDs into the surrounding counties would smack of gerrymandering. And other than going into Bucks, those Philly CDs would have to feather out quite a ways to dilute the Dem pool in the city.

To show the impact look at the 2012/2016 PVI of the whole state: R+0.38, and without Philly R+4.95. That's a big shift. Moreover consider that the rest of the state would get 15 CDs. At R+5 the usual analysis (50%+ 2*PVI) would lead to the expectation that the Pubs would hold a PVI advantage in 60% of those seats, which is 9. So despite the effectively even statewide number Pubs should hold a 9-8 advantage in most scenarios.

[SevenEleven]

The problem is sometimes what is fair as opposed to what is neutral. People tend to think of fair in partisan terms, but that can run up against neutral mapping principles. I use the term skew to measure the lack of partisan fairness in a plan.

Skew in PA comes naturally from the city of Philly, especially with the necessary Black-majority CD. That VRA-mandated CD must be placed almost entirely in the city, and often is completely within the city. In fact, most neutral mapping efforts would put 2 CDs either entirely or mostly in the city for reasons of compactness or community of interest. Any plan that feathered more than 2 Philly CDs into the surrounding counties would smack of gerrymandering. And other than going into Bucks, those Philly CDs would have to feather out quite a ways to dilute the Dem pool in the city.

To show the impact look at the 2012/2016 PVI of the whole state: R+0.38, and without Philly R+4.95. That's a big shift. Moreover consider that the rest of the state would get 15 CDs. At R+5 the usual analysis (50%+ 2*PVI) would lead to the expectation that the Pubs would hold a PVI advantage in 60% of those seats, which is 9. So despite the effectively even statewide number Pubs should hold a 9-8 advantage in most scenarios.

That's basically what my map is, although Lamb and Cartwright could conceivably win their Trump districts, and Fitzpatrick could potentially hold his Bucks Clinton district.

Although "fair" could mean other things, such as adequate minority representation, keeping metro areas whole, etc. Philly metro is essentially six districts +6000 so there's no reason to break it up in my mind.

[Sol]

Given the big discussion, here is my attempt at a fair map:

I actually think this map is pretty decent! The only nitpicks I'd have are:
1. I don't think the cut in Somerset is necessary--if you send the 12th deeper into Butler you can keep more of the Pittsburgh area in Pittsburgh districts, and do a cut somewhere between 15 and 13.
2. Luzerne-Lackawanna-Pike-Monroe is exactly the size of 1 district, and it's a decent CoI. Carbon is a better fit with the Lehigh Valley district than with Scranton.

[muon2]

The problem is sometimes what is fair as opposed to what is neutral. People tend to think of fair in partisan terms, but that can run up against neutral mapping principles. I use the term skew to measure the lack of partisan fairness in a plan.

Skew in PA comes naturally from the city of Philly, especially with the necessary Black-majority CD. That VRA-mandated CD must be placed almost entirely in the city, and often is completely within the city. In fact, most neutral mapping efforts would put 2 CDs either entirely or mostly in the city for reasons of compactness or community of interest. Any plan that feathered more than 2 Philly CDs into the surrounding counties would smack of gerrymandering. And other than going into Bucks, those Philly CDs would have to feather out quite a ways to dilute the Dem pool in the city.

To show the impact look at the 2012/2016 PVI of the whole state: R+0.38, and without Philly R+4.95. That's a big shift. Moreover consider that the rest of the state would get 15 CDs. At R+5 the usual analysis (50%+ 2*PVI) would lead to the expectation that the Pubs would hold a PVI advantage in 60% of those seats, which is 9. So despite the effectively even statewide number Pubs should hold a 9-8 advantage in most scenarios.

That's basically what my map is, although Lamb and Cartwright could conceivably win their Trump districts, and Fitzpatrick could potentially hold his Bucks Clinton district.

Although "fair" could mean other things, such as adequate minority representation, keeping metro areas whole, etc. Philly metro is essentially six districts +6000 so there's no reason to break it up in my mind.

The more compact Philly metro doesn't include Berks, but you are correct that adding that makes a nearly perfect fit for 6 CDs. With the 2010 Census and 18 CDs that same cluster with Berks was only 67 people over the quota for 6 CDs.

I also prefer to use no more than 4 CDs to cover the Pittsburgh metro, since it is just barely larger than 3 CDs. In addition there are 4 mid-sized 2-county metros I try to keep in 1 CD: Allentown (Lehigh and Northampton), Scranton (Lackawanna and Luzerne), and Harrisburg (Dauphin and Cumberland). I consider all of these to be communities of interest and separating them dilutes their voting strength just as chopping a mid-size county dilutes its voting strength.

[cvparty]

Since everybody is in on it I guess I'll post my map. I tried putting Chesco with Delco since they're so similar demographically instead Lancaster or Berks (which just aren't similar to Chesco in any way). It actually works out really well and places together similar areas such as eastern Delco+West Philly (creates a second AA seat), NE Philly+Lower Bucks, Montco/Central Bucks, and Upper Bucks/Montco+Berks. There's an inevitable GOP tilt, but CDs 4/10/17 look like they'll be competitive

I have 2020 numbers but I'll save that for later

[muon2]

Since everybody is in on it I guess I'll post my map. I tried putting Chesco with Delco since they're so similar demographically instead Lancaster or Berks (which just aren't similar to Chesco in any way). It actually works out really well and places together similar areas such as eastern Delco+West Philly (creates a second AA seat), NE Philly+Lower Bucks, Montco/Central Bucks, and Upper Bucks/Montco+Berks. There's an inevitable GOP tilt, but CDs 4/10/17 look like they'll be competitive

I have 2020 numbers but I'll save that for later

I like the shapes, but when two counties share the same two districts, it is always possible to shift population to reduce the number of chops. If the PA court looks at this coming cycle with the same methodology that was given to the special master, they'll call that type of sharing into question.

In your map both York and Cumberland have parts of 10 and 13. Both Bucks and Montgomery have parts of 1 and 4.

[dpmapper]

Given the big discussion, here is my attempt at a fair map:

I actually think this map is pretty decent! The only nitpicks I'd have are:
1. I don't think the cut in Somerset is necessary--if you send the 12th deeper into Butler you can keep more of the Pittsburgh area in Pittsburgh districts, and do a cut somewhere between 15 and 13.
2. Luzerne-Lackawanna-Pike-Monroe is exactly the size of 1 district, and it's a decent CoI. Carbon is a better fit with the Lehigh Valley district than with Scranton.

I agree, but would add that Schuylkill doesn't fit so well with Harrisburg/York/Lancaster, and would be better appended to your 10th so that the 9th and 11th can take more of Cumberland/York counties. 

[S019]

Since everybody is in on it I guess I'll post my map. I tried putting Chesco with Delco since they're so similar demographically instead Lancaster or Berks (which just aren't similar to Chesco in any way). It actually works out really well and places together similar areas such as eastern Delco+West Philly (creates a second AA seat), NE Philly+Lower Bucks, Montco/Central Bucks, and Upper Bucks/Montco+Berks. There's an inevitable GOP tilt, but CDs 4/10/17 look like they'll be competitive

I have 2020 numbers but I'll save that for later

Bucks will not be cut, it has been left whole since like the 1950's, and a court drawn map is not splitting it and in a bipartisan map, the GOP will want it whole because Fitzpatrick lives in the heavily Democratic southern part of the county, if he lived in the north, then maybe it would happen, but him living in the South guarantees that it won't. This map double bunks him and Boyle and that would lead to loud protest from the GOP and the court would not split Bucks, especially not to pair it with Philadelphia, and eliminate a minority access seat.

[cvparty]

I like the shapes, but when two counties share the same two districts, it is always possible to shift population to reduce the number of chops. If the PA court looks at this coming cycle with the same methodology that was given to the special master, they'll call that type of sharing into question.

In your map both York and Cumberland have parts of 10 and 13. Both Bucks and Montgomery have parts of 1 and 4.

my main goal in the map is to keep together COIs. bucks is comprised of three parts that are each very distinct from each other. i prioritize COIs slightly over following an absolute adherence to county lines, which can also mess up compactness. i do follow county lines for the most part, just not to the absolute maximum

[cvparty]

Bucks will not be cut, it has been left whole since like the 1950's, and a court drawn map is not splitting it and in a bipartisan map, the GOP will want it whole because Fitzpatrick lives in the heavily Democratic southern part of the county, if he lived in the north, then maybe it would happen, but him living in the South guarantees that it won't. This map double bunks him and Boyle and that would lead to loud protest from the GOP and the court would not split Bucks, especially not to pair it with Philadelphia, and eliminate a minority access seat.

honestly don’t care about incumbency; my map is exploring a fair map without conditions. also, it becomes harder and harder to preserve the same configurations as a state continues to bleed seats. bucks county is not an inherent COI. also, i didn’t remove a minority access seat lol? the map has two majority AA seats

[S019]

Bucks will not be cut, it has been left whole since like the 1950's, and a court drawn map is not splitting it and in a bipartisan map, the GOP will want it whole because Fitzpatrick lives in the heavily Democratic southern part of the county, if he lived in the north, then maybe it would happen, but him living in the South guarantees that it won't. This map double bunks him and Boyle and that would lead to loud protest from the GOP and the court would not split Bucks, especially not to pair it with Philadelphia, and eliminate a minority access seat.

honestly don’t care about incumbency; my map is exploring a fair map without conditions. also, it becomes harder and harder to preserve the same configurations as a state continues to bleed seats. bucks county is not an inherent COI. also, i didn’t remove a minority access seat lol? the map has two majority AA seats

This map isn't fair though, cutting Berks three ways is a nonstarter, and Delaware can and should be kept whole. A CD connecting Reading with Berks should just not happen, they have little in common.

[muon2]

Since you have been kind enough to let me quiz you on your maps, it's only fair that you get to poke at mine. As with most of you this is based on DRA with the 2018 ACS data and is close to the 2016 estimates.

I started by setting as my primary goal the preservation of the metro communities of interest as quantified by the Urban County Clusters (UCCs). Counties were grouped around the UCCs to make regions within a half a percent of the population quota for a whole number of districts. The more regions, the fewer the number of county chops. This plan chops only 7 counties (Allegheny, Butler, Chester, Montgomery, Philadelphia, Schuylkill, and York) for a total of 11 chops. No municipalities (cities, boroughs, or townships) where chopped except Philadelphia which has the minimum number of 2 chops. A secondary consideration was to minimize the erosity when chopping counties.

The percentage deviation was set to comply with SCOTUS rulings on allowable population range - 0.79% in Karcher v Daggett (1983) and 0.78% in Tennant v Jefferson County (2012) - when strict neutral redistricting criteria are followed. This plan has a range of 0.69% while strictly preserving UCCs and municipalities and minimizing county chops. If challenged in court for population deviation the Tennant opinion suggests that an alternate plan would have to be presented that meets those strict criteria with a smaller population range to defeat this plan.

Staistically districts that are D+1, EVEN or R+1 (up to 1.49% including rounding) are equally likely to go for either party and I classify them as highly competitive. PVIs of 2 through 5 are competitive districts. PVI of 6 or higher are uncompetitive districts, though strong incumbents of the other party have been known to succeed in such districts. This plan has 8 uncompetitive R districts, 5 uncompetitive D districts, and 4 highly competitive districts (1, 5, 7, 8 ).

[Boss_Rahm]

Since you have been kind enough to let me quiz you on your maps, it's only fair that you get to poke at mine.

This is a very good map. My only quibble is probably the 3-way split of York. I would instead put a bit of northwestern Lancaster County in the 10th district, as that area is more closely tied to Harrisburg than to the city of Lancaster.

[SevenEleven]

My first thought is that district 9 kind of feels like a "leftovers" district. I did try some rotation around York and Lancaster to pair Cumberland with Dauphin but overall deemed it unnecessary. I also dislike the double cut into Montgomery, I'm sure it's for optimal population purposes but I blanket ban double cutting from my fair maps.

[muon2]

Since you have been kind enough to let me quiz you on your maps, it's only fair that you get to poke at mine.

This is a very good map. My only quibble is probably the 3-way split of York. I would instead put a bit of northwestern Lancaster County in the 10th district, as that area is more closely tied to Harrisburg than to the city of Lancaster.

My first thought is that district 9 kind of feels like a "leftovers" district. I did try some rotation around York and Lancaster to pair Cumberland with Dauphin but overall deemed it unnecessary. I also dislike the double cut into Montgomery, I'm sure it's for optimal population purposes but I blanket ban double cutting from my fair maps.

That's a tough call that I spent some time thinking about. Initially I had Lebanon with Lancaster which meant the Harrisburg CD picked up the city of York. The number of chops is the same either way. But it was an erose chop into York, and I could be more compact putting both chops in York county. Since compactness matters, too, I went in the direction of the double chop. As far as using part of Lancaster, the Fairview Park/Newberry corner of York is advertised as part of suburban Harrisburg these days, so that was another factor.

[SevenEleven]

Since you have been kind enough to let me quiz you on your maps, it's only fair that you get to poke at mine.

This is a very good map. My only quibble is probably the 3-way split of York. I would instead put a bit of northwestern Lancaster County in the 10th district, as that area is more closely tied to Harrisburg than to the city of Lancaster.

My first thought is that district 9 kind of feels like a "leftovers" district. I did try some rotation around York and Lancaster to pair Cumberland with Dauphin but overall deemed it unnecessary. I also dislike the double cut into Montgomery, I'm sure it's for optimal population purposes but I blanket ban double cutting from my fair maps.

That's a tough call that I spent some time thinking about. Initially I had Lebanon with Lancaster which meant the Harrisburg CD picked up the city of York. The number of chops is the same either way. But it was an erose chop into York, and I could be more compact putting both chops in York county. Since compactness matters, too, I went in the direction of the double chop. As far as using part of Lancaster, the Fairview Park/Newberry corner of York is advertised as part of suburban Harrisburg these days, so that was another factor.

I guess my point is that keeping counties together doesn't mean very much if you're picking and choosing from opposite ends (MontCo).

[muon2]

Since you have been kind enough to let me quiz you on your maps, it's only fair that you get to poke at mine.

This is a very good map. My only quibble is probably the 3-way split of York. I would instead put a bit of northwestern Lancaster County in the 10th district, as that area is more closely tied to Harrisburg than to the city of Lancaster.

My first thought is that district 9 kind of feels like a "leftovers" district. I did try some rotation around York and Lancaster to pair Cumberland with Dauphin but overall deemed it unnecessary. I also dislike the double cut into Montgomery, I'm sure it's for optimal population purposes but I blanket ban double cutting from my fair maps.

That's a tough call that I spent some time thinking about. Initially I had Lebanon with Lancaster which meant the Harrisburg CD picked up the city of York. The number of chops is the same either way. But it was an erose chop into York, and I could be more compact putting both chops in York county. Since compactness matters, too, I went in the direction of the double chop. As far as using part of Lancaster, the Fairview Park/Newberry corner of York is advertised as part of suburban Harrisburg these days, so that was another factor.

I guess my point is that keeping counties together doesn't mean very much if you're picking and choosing from opposite ends (MontCo).

I put one district entirely within MontCo. Nesting districts entirely within a county when possible is a big issue with some neutral mapping schemes, though I can be flexible on that. I wasn't going to chop municipal Philly more than necessary, since that creates a potential legal weakness. Given the cluster around Philly, I didn't see a better option that moved the second Montco chop to another county.

[SevenEleven]

Since you have been kind enough to let me quiz you on your maps, it's only fair that you get to poke at mine.

This is a very good map. My only quibble is probably the 3-way split of York. I would instead put a bit of northwestern Lancaster County in the 10th district, as that area is more closely tied to Harrisburg than to the city of Lancaster.

My first thought is that district 9 kind of feels like a "leftovers" district. I did try some rotation around York and Lancaster to pair Cumberland with Dauphin but overall deemed it unnecessary. I also dislike the double cut into Montgomery, I'm sure it's for optimal population purposes but I blanket ban double cutting from my fair maps.

That's a tough call that I spent some time thinking about. Initially I had Lebanon with Lancaster which meant the Harrisburg CD picked up the city of York. The number of chops is the same either way. But it was an erose chop into York, and I could be more compact putting both chops in York county. Since compactness matters, too, I went in the direction of the double chop. As far as using part of Lancaster, the Fairview Park/Newberry corner of York is advertised as part of suburban Harrisburg these days, so that was another factor.

I guess my point is that keeping counties together doesn't mean very much if you're picking and choosing from opposite ends (MontCo).

I put one district entirely within MontCo. Nesting districts entirely within a county when possible is a big issue with some neutral mapping schemes, though I can be flexible on that. I wasn't going to chop municipal Philly more than necessary, since that creates a potential legal weakness. Given the cluster around Philly, I didn't see a better option that moved the second Montco chop to another county.

What I'm talking about is district 1 cutting into both Northern MontCo and southern MontCo. The county cut should be contiguous.

To a lesser extent, I also would try to make the district 5 MontCo cut to an area bordering both Berks and Chester.

[muon2]

Since you have been kind enough to let me quiz you on your maps, it's only fair that you get to poke at mine.

This is a very good map. My only quibble is probably the 3-way split of York. I would instead put a bit of northwestern Lancaster County in the 10th district, as that area is more closely tied to Harrisburg than to the city of Lancaster.

My first thought is that district 9 kind of feels like a "leftovers" district. I did try some rotation around York and Lancaster to pair Cumberland with Dauphin but overall deemed it unnecessary. I also dislike the double cut into Montgomery, I'm sure it's for optimal population purposes but I blanket ban double cutting from my fair maps.

That's a tough call that I spent some time thinking about. Initially I had Lebanon with Lancaster which meant the Harrisburg CD picked up the city of York. The number of chops is the same either way. But it was an erose chop into York, and I could be more compact putting both chops in York county. Since compactness matters, too, I went in the direction of the double chop. As far as using part of Lancaster, the Fairview Park/Newberry corner of York is advertised as part of suburban Harrisburg these days, so that was another factor.

I guess my point is that keeping counties together doesn't mean very much if you're picking and choosing from opposite ends (MontCo).

I put one district entirely within MontCo. Nesting districts entirely within a county when possible is a big issue with some neutral mapping schemes, though I can be flexible on that. I wasn't going to chop municipal Philly more than necessary, since that creates a potential legal weakness. Given the cluster around Philly, I didn't see a better option that moved the second Montco chop to another county.

What I'm talking about is district 1 cutting into both Northern MontCo and southern MontCo. The county cut should be contiguous.

To a lesser extent, I also would try to make the district 5 MontCo cut to an area bordering both Berks and Chester.

I looked at both those issues. I couldn't easily find one that didn't split municipalities and kept the districts within the population quotas. If you can see one, I'd gladly adjust my plan.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Did an incumbent-protection-mander setting up a fight between Wild and Cartwright. Everyone else is in their own very winnable district.

[cvparty]

Bucks will not be cut, it has been left whole since like the 1950's, and a court drawn map is not splitting it and in a bipartisan map, the GOP will want it whole because Fitzpatrick lives in the heavily Democratic southern part of the county, if he lived in the north, then maybe it would happen, but him living in the South guarantees that it won't. This map double bunks him and Boyle and that would lead to loud protest from the GOP and the court would not split Bucks, especially not to pair it with Philadelphia, and eliminate a minority access seat.

honestly don’t care about incumbency; my map is exploring a fair map without conditions. also, it becomes harder and harder to preserve the same configurations as a state continues to bleed seats. bucks county is not an inherent COI. also, i didn’t remove a minority access seat lol? the map has two majority AA seats

This map isn't fair though, cutting Berks three ways is a nonstarter, and Delaware can and should be kept whole. A CD connecting Reading with Berks should just not happen, they have little in common.

Think you mean Bucks, but I promise you Delco is not a COI, what do Darby and Newtown have in common at all. Same for Levittown and Buckingham in Bucks County. Treating highly populous counties as monolithic is a bit reductive. I'd also say a CD connecting Reading with Chesco just shouldn't happen, because they have little in common