What principle is more important in creating a fair map?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Oftentimes, compact maps are better by default than maps drawn with crazy lines purposely meant to dilute some voters, but oftentimes in some states, the most compact map can still lead to skewed partisan results. Take Wisconsin for instance. A compact map would put Madison and Milwaukee both into their own districts, while the remaining districts would all balance out as R-leaning districts. A true 4D-4R map is very difficult with Wisconsin's geography, and you'd need to use some very ugly lines to make it possible, and split up the communities of Madison and Milwaukee. However, the Representation would actually be representative of how the state votes overall; 4Rs and 4Ds in a normal cycle for a narrowly balanced state.

So which of these 2 principles should take precedent in drawing fair maps?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Oftentimes, compact maps are better by default than maps drawn with crazy lines purposely meant to dilute some voters, but oftentimes in some states, the most compact map can still lead to skewed partisan results. Take Wisconsin for instance. A compact map would put Madison and Milwaukee both into their own districts, while the remaining districts would all balance out as R-leaning districts. A true 4D-4R map is very difficult with Wisconsin's geography, and you'd need to use some very ugly lines to make it possible, and split up the communities of Madison and Milwaukee. However, the Representation would actually be representative of how the state votes overall; 4Rs and 4Ds in a normal cycle for a narrowly balanced state.

So which of these 2 principles should take precedent in drawing fair maps?

Strictly speaking compactness is still easy to provide for in a 4D-4R map. Just divide Madison and Milwaukee using straight lines.

[muon2]

Ideally you should draw a suite of maps that are based on a handful of objective, non-political criteria. If any map is worse in all the criteria it should be discarded, but if some maps are better in some criteria but worse in others they should stay in the mix. Then the remaining maps can be evaluated based on the political criteria.

The partisan skew is not the only relevant political metric. The amount of polarization matters, too. If a map in an even state is 4-4 but has no ability to swing in a wave election, that is arguably as bad or worse than a map that is skewed but has a number of districts that can respond to the changing mood of the electorate. In both cases the will of the public isn't represented.

[beesley]

Neither - but compactness should be considered when determining communities of interest. Partisan representation shouldn't be considered at all - the issue of representation is far greater than simply political party representation.

[Torie]

Muon2 locked me in a cell and brainwashed me (arduous work that on his part, but the guy is wired to be perseverant), so his opinion and mine are co-extensive. Thus I abstain from the "false" choice in the poll. Thank you.

[jimrtex]

Neither matters much at all. My leading criteria, aside from equal representation, are perceptual coherence (i.e. does the district make sense to the people who live in it) and ease of travel throughout.

Equal population and districts that make sense to the people who live in it are contradictory.

[jimrtex]

Neither matters much at all. My leading criteria, aside from equal representation, are perceptual coherence (i.e. does the district make sense to the people who live in it) and ease of travel throughout.

Equal population and districts that make sense to the people who live in it are contradictory.

Nice try but you're not getting your own district just for being a character.

The idea that the latter criterion can be taken into consideration while adhering to the former criterion is so trivial that I struggle to understand why you bothered with this response.

I will try to assist you in your struggles.

There was an applicant for the California redistricting commission in 2010 who had done the redistricting of supervisor districts in Plumas County for several decades.

He had particular experience in redistricting and had convinced the Census Bureau to make changes specific to the situation in Plumas County.

Plumas County is in the Sierras and the population clumps in loose settlements, mining towns, logging camps, resort areas. Generally these are in valleys where they are accessible by road. The Census Bureau likes to use roads and streams as block boundaries, whereas in mountain areas, the roads which were what united the community. It might be dozens of miles around a mountain ridge to your supposed neighbors in the same census block, while the neighbor across the road (on the side with the mail boxes) was in a different census block. So he got the Census Bureau to recognize ridge-lines as block boundaries.

In addition he got the Census Bureau to recognize 47 CDP's in the county (it only has one incorporated place). These CDP's could then be aggregated into supervisor districts.

But it meant that in order to have five supervisor districts, it required dividing one larger CDP. When he presented his proposals to the public, he explained about the population equality requirement (its in the Constitution).

The public would look at his maps, and ask why are you splitting our community? One old hermit who lived in a shanty up by his mining claim scratched his beard, and said, "I dint have but a sixth grade schooling, but these here districts don't have perceptual coherence", by which he meant that they didn't make sense to him.

They simply could not comprehend the two incompatible criteria.

The applicant for the redistricting commission was screened out for being too dogmatic (plus likely other reasons).

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Competitive districts. Everything else is secondary other than representing minority communities which should take precedence given historic discrimination.

[jimrtex]

I will try to assist you in your struggles.

There was an applicant for the California redistricting commission in 2010 who had done the redistricting of supervisor districts in Plumas County for several decades.

He had particular experience in redistricting and had convinced the Census Bureau to make changes specific to the situation in Plumas County.

Plumas County is in the Sierras and the population clumps in loose settlements, mining towns, logging camps, resort areas. Generally these are in valleys where they are accessible by road. The Census Bureau likes to use roads and streams as block boundaries, whereas in mountain areas, the roads which were what united the community. It might be dozens of miles around a mountain ridge to your supposed neighbors in the same census block, while the neighbor across the road (on the side with the mail boxes) was in a different census block. So he got the Census Bureau to recognize ridge-lines as block boundaries.

In addition he got the Census Bureau to recognize 47 CDP's in the county (it only has one incorporated place). These CDP's could then be aggregated into supervisor districts.

But it meant that in order to have five supervisor districts, it required dividing one larger CDP. When he presented his proposals to the public, he explained about the population equality requirement (its in the Constitution).

The public would look at his maps, and ask why are you splitting our community? One old hermit who lived in a shanty up by his mining claim scratched his beard, and said, "I dint have but a sixth grade schooling, but these here districts don't have perceptual coherence", by which he meant that they didn't make sense to him.

They simply could not comprehend the two incompatible criteria.

The applicant for the redistricting commission was screened out for being too dogmatic (plus likely other reasons).

This is why I didn't include a unanimous consensus as a criterion. That said, considering that the man in your example seems to have been removed from the conversation immediately, perhaps he would have been worth hearing out?

I do think that it's a mistake to be overly rigid about equal population, and would prefer a wider level of acceptable variation than US law generally requires. That's especially true in areas with uneven population growth patterns, where once-per-decade redistricting provides ample opportunity for what we could call "prospective malapportionment" in places where officials have a strong sense of where rapid growth or decline will take place and how that will affect vote totals. I'm not sure how much that has been discussed on this board.

It is unlikely that persons who live in the district that has been adjusted for equal population reasons will perceive it as coherent. They might accept equality of population in the abstract, but will revert back to their perception.

An advantage of weighted voting is that it can be updated on a continuing basis, with reconfiguration of districts relatively infrequent when districts get out of acceptable population bands.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I will try to assist you in your struggles.

There was an applicant for the California redistricting commission in 2010 who had done the redistricting of supervisor districts in Plumas County for several decades.

He had particular experience in redistricting and had convinced the Census Bureau to make changes specific to the situation in Plumas County.

Plumas County is in the Sierras and the population clumps in loose settlements, mining towns, logging camps, resort areas. Generally these are in valleys where they are accessible by road. The Census Bureau likes to use roads and streams as block boundaries, whereas in mountain areas, the roads which were what united the community. It might be dozens of miles around a mountain ridge to your supposed neighbors in the same census block, while the neighbor across the road (on the side with the mail boxes) was in a different census block. So he got the Census Bureau to recognize ridge-lines as block boundaries.

In addition he got the Census Bureau to recognize 47 CDP's in the county (it only has one incorporated place). These CDP's could then be aggregated into supervisor districts.

But it meant that in order to have five supervisor districts, it required dividing one larger CDP. When he presented his proposals to the public, he explained about the population equality requirement (its in the Constitution).

The public would look at his maps, and ask why are you splitting our community? One old hermit who lived in a shanty up by his mining claim scratched his beard, and said, "I dint have but a sixth grade schooling, but these here districts don't have perceptual coherence", by which he meant that they didn't make sense to him.

They simply could not comprehend the two incompatible criteria.

The applicant for the redistricting commission was screened out for being too dogmatic (plus likely other reasons).

This is why I didn't include a unanimous consensus as a criterion. That said, considering that the man in your example seems to have been removed from the conversation immediately, perhaps he would have been worth hearing out?

I do think that it's a mistake to be overly rigid about equal population, and would prefer a wider level of acceptable variation than US law generally requires. That's especially true in areas with uneven population growth patterns, where once-per-decade redistricting provides ample opportunity for what we could call "prospective malapportionment" in places where officials have a strong sense of where rapid growth or decline will take place and how that will affect vote totals. I'm not sure how much that has been discussed on this board.

It is unlikely that persons who live in the district that has been adjusted for equal population reasons will perceive it as coherent. They might accept equality of population in the abstract, but will revert back to their perception.

An advantage of weighted voting is that it can be updated on a continuing basis, with reconfiguration of districts relatively infrequent when districts get out of acceptable population bands.

There is something to this. People in Simi Valley objected to them being placed in CA-25 in 2011 despite this being necessary for population equality reasons.

[muon2]

Competitive districts. Everything else is secondary other than representing minority communities which should take precedence given historic discrimination.

In 2010 OH, this philosophy would result in a map with one congressional district that would reliably support the candidate of the Black population, 11 CDs with partisan margins within 3% (PVI 0 or 1), and 4 CDs that were uncompetitive R districts. Some would say that this was too skewed to the right, but I agree that this would best reflect swings in public opinion (potentially 12-4 Dem in 2018 after 15-1 Pub in 2014).

BTW this could be done while keeping districts compact and minimizing county splits. I know, since it reflects the winning plan in the public 2011 Ohio Redistricting Competition. The Oh Senate Dems filed a similar plan as an alternative to the Pub plan. Is this what you have in mind?

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Competitive districts. Everything else is secondary other than representing minority communities which should take precedence given historic discrimination.

In 2010 OH, this philosophy would result in a map with one congressional district that would reliably support the candidate of the Black population, 11 CDs with partisan margins within 3% (PVI 0 or 1), and 4 CDs that were uncompetitive R districts. Some would say that this was too skewed to the right, but I agree that this would best reflect swings in public opinion (potentially 12-4 Dem in 2018 after 15-1 Pub in 2014).

BTW this could be done while keeping districts compact and minimizing county splits. I know, since it reflects the winning plan in the public 2011 Ohio Redistricting Competition. The Oh Senate Dems filed a similar plan as an alternative to the Pub plan. Is this what you have in mind?

I think something like that would be ideal, make sure that a representive has to either build a unique brand and connection with the district to remain elected and preven them coasting from partisanship.

Now this is ofcourse bad for any single state because of the house seniority system which is honestly something that should probably be abolished but in an ideal world every state should be districted to ensure the maximum number of competive races with reasonably compact lines.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Other: Preserving communities of interest and maintaining spatial coherence.

[beesley]

Competitive districts. Everything else is secondary other than representing minority communities which should take precedence given historic discrimination.

What makes you say that?

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Competitive districts. Everything else is secondary other than representing minority communities which should take precedence given historic discrimination.

What makes you say that?

Gives meaning to elections and ensures that everyone is happy sometime. The vast majority of even safe districits in the US are 60-40 with signifcant minorites who will probably never have representation they like. Creating competitive district ensures that they will recive at representation at least sometime.