Are embedded congressional districts illegal?

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

They should be illegal, I know that much.

Nonsense. It's not incredibly common, but there are definitely scenarios where embedded districts can be the most fair outcome. Jacksonville is a good example.

It's not the case in Jacksonville, nor anywhere else. A donut is not a community of interest.

it can be.  The suburbs of a city can absoletely be a COI.

Not by any...seriously defined CoI metric. Suburbs share a COI with the city itself, barring extreme circumstances.

Historic examples;
Las Vegas vs. Not Las Vegas (1990s)
Maricopa vs. Not Maricopa (1950s)
Denver vs. Center/Northeast Colorado (1920s - 1960s)
Jacksonville vs. Suburbs (1960s)
Pittsburgh vs. Allegheny county (1870s) *Possibly the lines are hard to tell


All of these are very valid encirclement imo. Especially in the case if you can make a county vs. rest of the county type deal

[jimrtex]

I noticed that DRA flags a district that is completely surrounded by another district (like an island within it).  Is that illegal for some reason?  If so, why is that?

Does it flag the district which is surrounded, or the district that surrounds it?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I noticed that DRA flags a district that is completely surrounded by another district (like an island within it).  Is that illegal for some reason?  If so, why is that?

Does it flag the district which is surrounded, or the district that surrounds it?

The district which is surrounded

[It’s so Joever]

They should be illegal, I know that much.

Ridiculous, suburbs are different from the city proper.
Nonsense. It's not incredibly common, but there are definitely scenarios where embedded districts can be the most fair outcome. Jacksonville is a good example.

It's not the case in Jacksonville, nor anywhere else. A donut is not a community of interest.

it can be.  The suburbs of a city can absoletely be a COI.

Not by any...seriously defined CoI metric. Suburbs share a COI with the city itself, barring extreme circumstances.

[Tintrlvr]

They should be illegal, I know that much.

Nonsense. It's not incredibly common, but there are definitely scenarios where embedded districts can be the most fair outcome. Jacksonville is a good example.

It's not the case in Jacksonville, nor anywhere else. A donut is not a community of interest.

Sorry, that's not the case at all. Suburbs have common interests, and urban areas have common interests, and sometimes, when the geography and population figures work out, it makes the most sense for them to be separate. You're just making up rules that make no sense and chanting them.

Point in particular for an example like Jacksonville is that the area outside the city is pretty low-density, so it doesn't really look like a donut. If you stretched a thin district around another one, that would in most circumstances be unreasonable.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/fb2ec4c2-9f7a-4eff-89e0-288ffb2c065f

[Tintrlvr]

They should be illegal, I know that much.

Nonsense. It's not incredibly common, but there are definitely scenarios where embedded districts can be the most fair outcome. Jacksonville is a good example.

It's not the case in Jacksonville, nor anywhere else. A donut is not a community of interest.

it can be.  The suburbs of a city can absoletely be a COI.

Not by any...seriously defined CoI metric. Suburbs share a COI with the city itself, barring extreme circumstances.

But, when an urban area consists of roughly two districts of population, depending on the distribution of that population, it can be fairest to draw one urban district and one suburban district, rather than two urban-suburban districts that don't respect the interests of either the urban or the suburban population. It's a relatively rare situation where the population and geography allow for it, but it's certainly better than chopping the city and the suburbs in half.

If we took your assertion seriously, a map like the map used in Nevada would also be illegal; why is it the case that surrounding *one* urban district with one suburban-rural district is always unreasonable, but surrounding *two* (or three) urban districts with one suburban-rural district is not?

[SevenEleven]

They should be illegal, I know that much.

Nonsense. It's not incredibly common, but there are definitely scenarios where embedded districts can be the most fair outcome. Jacksonville is a good example.

It's not the case in Jacksonville, nor anywhere else. A donut is not a community of interest.

it can be.  The suburbs of a city can absoletely be a COI.

Not by any...seriously defined CoI metric. Suburbs share a COI with the city itself, barring extreme circumstances.

Historic examples;
Las Vegas vs. Not Las Vegas (1990s)
Maricopa vs. Not Maricopa (1950s)
Denver vs. Center/Northeast Colorado (1920s - 1960s)
Jacksonville vs. Suburbs (1960s)
Pittsburgh vs. Allegheny county (1870s) *Possibly the lines are hard to tell


All of these are very valid encirclement imo. Especially in the case if you can make a county vs. rest of the county type deal

I only know of the Las Vegas one but that was an awful map.

[MaxQue]

They should be illegal, I know that much.

Nonsense. It's not incredibly common, but there are definitely scenarios where embedded districts can be the most fair outcome. Jacksonville is a good example.

It's not the case in Jacksonville, nor anywhere else. A donut is not a community of interest.

it can be.  The suburbs of a city can absoletely be a COI.

Not by any...seriously defined CoI metric. Suburbs share a COI with the city itself, barring extreme circumstances.

Historic examples;
Las Vegas vs. Not Las Vegas (1990s)
Maricopa vs. Not Maricopa (1950s)
Denver vs. Center/Northeast Colorado (1920s - 1960s)
Jacksonville vs. Suburbs (1960s)
Pittsburgh vs. Allegheny county (1870s) *Possibly the lines are hard to tell


All of these are very valid encirclement imo. Especially in the case if you can make a county vs. rest of the county type deal

I only know of the Las Vegas one but that was an awful map.

Again, nothing to support your opinion, but BAAD. THIS IS BAAAAD.

[SevenEleven]

They should be illegal, I know that much.

Nonsense. It's not incredibly common, but there are definitely scenarios where embedded districts can be the most fair outcome. Jacksonville is a good example.

It's not the case in Jacksonville, nor anywhere else. A donut is not a community of interest.

it can be.  The suburbs of a city can absoletely be a COI.

Not by any...seriously defined CoI metric. Suburbs share a COI with the city itself, barring extreme circumstances.

But, when an urban area consists of roughly two districts of population, depending on the distribution of that population, it can be fairest to draw one urban district and one suburban district, rather than two urban-suburban districts that don't respect the interests of either the urban or the suburban population. It's a relatively rare situation where the population and geography allow for it, but it's certainly better than chopping the city and the suburbs in half.

If we took your assertion seriously, a map like the map used in Nevada would also be illegal; why is it the case that surrounding *one* urban district with one suburban-rural district is always unreasonable, but surrounding *two* (or three) urban districts with one suburban-rural district is not?

When did I ever say that?

Anyway, suburbs shouldn't be split from the urban core. Indeed, two urban-suburban districts would be superior to a donut. Northern suburbs have more in common with the city than they do southern suburbs, being a suburb is not materially enough to create a CoI. Suburbs, by very nature of the word itself, are linked to the urban area they are dependent on and any fair map would reflect that.

[SevenEleven]

Bad:


Good:

[Tintrlvr]

Bad:


Good:

Glad you admit you have no argument except "bad" and "good".

[SevenEleven]

Glad you admit you have no argument except "bad" and "good".

You could always try reading my other posts, lol.

The communities in southern Nevada are entirely dependent on Las Vegas and contain all the travel routes from California and Arizona into Las Vegas. There is no reason to group these areas with Reno instead of Las Vegas. The idea that because Primm is in the middle of nowhere it should be grouped with rural areas is peak "barely passed demography 101".

[MaxQue]

Glad you admit you have no argument except "bad" and "good".

You could always try reading my other posts, lol.

The communities in southern Nevada are entirely dependent on Las Vegas and contain all the travel routes from California and Arizona into Las Vegas. There is no reason to group these areas with Reno instead of Las Vegas.

Yes, but putting southern Las Vegas suburbs with Las Vegas would require putting northern urban Las Vegas with Reno, in that case.

[SevenEleven]

Glad you admit you have no argument except "bad" and "good".

You could always try reading my other posts, lol.

The communities in southern Nevada are entirely dependent on Las Vegas and contain all the travel routes from California and Arizona into Las Vegas. There is no reason to group these areas with Reno instead of Las Vegas.

Yes, but putting southern Las Vegas suburbs with Las Vegas would require putting northern urban Las Vegas with Reno, in that case.

Which is fine, as places like Nye County and such are also dependent on Las Vegas (really, the entire state is) and Reno+Carson City didn't have enough population to merit its own district. If Las Vegas' sphere of influence reaches that far, it should be reflected properly in the distribution of political power, rather than being diluted by concentration.

[SevenEleven]

What a bizarre opinion.

What's your proposal for the Jacksonville area?

I already gave you a link to my Florida map.

[MaxQue]

Glad you admit you have no argument except "bad" and "good".

You could always try reading my other posts, lol.

The communities in southern Nevada are entirely dependent on Las Vegas and contain all the travel routes from California and Arizona into Las Vegas. There is no reason to group these areas with Reno instead of Las Vegas.

Yes, but putting southern Las Vegas suburbs with Las Vegas would require putting northern urban Las Vegas with Reno, in that case.

Which is fine, as places like Nye County and such are also dependent on Las Vegas (really, the entire state is) and Reno+Carson City didn't have enough population to merit its own district. If Las Vegas' sphere of influence reaches that far, it should be reflected properly in the distribution of political power, rather than being diluted by concentration.

But borth southern suburban Las Vegas and north urban Las Vegas are Las Vegas. There is no dilution.

[Alcibiades]

They should be illegal, I know that much.

Nonsense. It's not incredibly common, but there are definitely scenarios where embedded districts can be the most fair outcome. Jacksonville is a good example.

It's not the case in Jacksonville, nor anywhere else. A donut is not a community of interest.

it can be.  The suburbs of a city can absoletely be a COI.

Not by any...seriously defined CoI metric. Suburbs share a COI with the city itself, barring extreme circumstances.

But, when an urban area consists of roughly two districts of population, depending on the distribution of that population, it can be fairest to draw one urban district and one suburban district, rather than two urban-suburban districts that don't respect the interests of either the urban or the suburban population. It's a relatively rare situation where the population and geography allow for it, but it's certainly better than chopping the city and the suburbs in half.

If we took your assertion seriously, a map like the map used in Nevada would also be illegal; why is it the case that surrounding *one* urban district with one suburban-rural district is always unreasonable, but surrounding *two* (or three) urban districts with one suburban-rural district is not?

When did I ever say that?

Anyway, suburbs shouldn't be split from the urban core. Indeed, two urban-suburban districts would be superior to a donut. Northern suburbs have more in common with the city than they do southern suburbs, being a suburb is not materially enough to create a CoI. Suburbs, by very nature of the word itself, are linked to the urban area they are dependent on and any fair map would reflect that.

But what about if you have a large, rural district which forms a clear CoI, and right in the middle of that district is a city with a population large enough for its own district. Surely it makes more sense to have a nested district than splitting the city in two?

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Glad you admit you have no argument except "bad" and "good".

You could always try reading my other posts, lol.

The communities in southern Nevada are entirely dependent on Las Vegas and contain all the travel routes from California and Arizona into Las Vegas. There is no reason to group these areas with Reno instead of Las Vegas. The idea that because Primm is in the middle of nowhere it should be grouped with rural areas is peak "barely passed demography 101".

What do you think of the Denver district that existed for about half of the 1900s?

[SevenEleven]

They should be illegal, I know that much.

Nonsense. It's not incredibly common, but there are definitely scenarios where embedded districts can be the most fair outcome. Jacksonville is a good example.

It's not the case in Jacksonville, nor anywhere else. A donut is not a community of interest.

it can be.  The suburbs of a city can absoletely be a COI.

Not by any...seriously defined CoI metric. Suburbs share a COI with the city itself, barring extreme circumstances.

But, when an urban area consists of roughly two districts of population, depending on the distribution of that population, it can be fairest to draw one urban district and one suburban district, rather than two urban-suburban districts that don't respect the interests of either the urban or the suburban population. It's a relatively rare situation where the population and geography allow for it, but it's certainly better than chopping the city and the suburbs in half.

If we took your assertion seriously, a map like the map used in Nevada would also be illegal; why is it the case that surrounding *one* urban district with one suburban-rural district is always unreasonable, but surrounding *two* (or three) urban districts with one suburban-rural district is not?

When did I ever say that?

Anyway, suburbs shouldn't be split from the urban core. Indeed, two urban-suburban districts would be superior to a donut. Northern suburbs have more in common with the city than they do southern suburbs, being a suburb is not materially enough to create a CoI. Suburbs, by very nature of the word itself, are linked to the urban area they are dependent on and any fair map would reflect that.

But what about if you have a large, rural district which forms a clear CoI, and right in the middle of that district is a city with a population large enough for its own district. Surely it makes more sense to have a nested district than splitting the city in two?

I'd probably split the city. "Suburban" and "Rural" are not communities of interest on their own. Among rural areas, you have deserts, agrarian farmlands, mountainous resort areas, old mining areas, Southern "black belt" areas, etc. and simply being "rural" isn't enough to merit tying such areas together.

It's a bit of a weird hypothetical since the only places where this could reasonably apply are say, Colorado if it had only two districts, or Omaha if Nebraska took in huge portions of Iowa. And at that point you're dealing with districts that could no longer be considered CoIs at all. Perhaps there's some state level situations where this is possible, I don't know. I doubt a donut is the answer.

[SevenEleven]

Glad you admit you have no argument except "bad" and "good".

You could always try reading my other posts, lol.

The communities in southern Nevada are entirely dependent on Las Vegas and contain all the travel routes from California and Arizona into Las Vegas. There is no reason to group these areas with Reno instead of Las Vegas. The idea that because Primm is in the middle of nowhere it should be grouped with rural areas is peak "barely passed demography 101".

What do you think of the Denver district that existed for about half of the 1900s?

Hard to know without having the pop figures and seeing what other solutions were possible.

[Sol]

What's also worth discussing: keeping cities whole. I can sort of buy the argument that the extremities have more in common with a city than with each other, particularly in cases where a metro area has certain quirky geographical tendencies or strong cultural divides--i.e. splitting Atlanta is probably better than donuting Atlanta, in a hypothetical world where that's possible.

However, there are lots of cases where different suburbs are decently interconnected and similar. In that case, often times the most distinctive divide you can find is the inner city vs. the suburbs. Essentially you're arguing that this:



is worse than this:

[Tintrlvr]

What's also worth discussing: keeping cities whole. I can sort of buy the argument that the extremities have more in common with a city than with each other, particularly in cases where a metro area has certain quirky geographical tendencies or strong cultural divides--i.e. splitting Atlanta is probably better than donuting Atlanta, in a hypothetical world where that's possible.

However, there are lots of cases where different suburbs are decently interconnected and similar. In that case, often times the most distinctive divide you can find is the inner city vs. the suburbs. Essentially you're arguing that this:



is worse than this:

I will say that on that Charlotte map it would probably be better to have the "city" district go all the way to the state border and the "suburbs" district wrap around only on the north side.

[lfromnj]

A state legislative example is Rochester MN which either has to be split or donuted.

[Sol]

I will say that on that Charlotte map it would probably be better to have the "city" district go all the way to the state border and the "suburbs" district wrap around only on the north side.

That's true, though I'm not sure exactly how that'd be really substantively different from a donut seat under Sev's critique.

IMO South Charlotte probably does belong in that 9th, though Pineville seems like a better fit with the 12th.

[Former President tack50]

I mean, this depends a lot on the circumstances, but you'd essencially need a lot of things to happen at the same time. The textbook example like others have mentioned would be if Colorado somehow had only 2 seats, though there are definitely more at the state legislative level.

Trying to think at my times when doing redistricting and experimenting a bit, some donut districts that can be at least somewhat justified (even when other options are 100% better) include (only doing the western half of the US):

>Albuquerque vs Northeast New Mexico
>Colorado Springs vs Southeast Colorado (takes the Denver suburban county of Douglas, so far from an ideal solution)
>Tulsa vs eastern Oklahoma (this can easily be avoided by taking a different set of suburbs, but the donut district is not exactly horrible)

Like I said, a donut district is often not the most ideal solution. However a donut district is not an automatically bad district, it's just a kind of district that is hard to justify. It can be done depending on circumstances, but it needs to be in the right place, with the right population distribution