If every state had NC-style clusters, what would they end up like?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:43:02 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  If every state had NC-style clusters, what would they end up like?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: If every state had NC-style clusters, what would they end up like?  (Read 2000 times)
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 24, 2021, 12:18:57 AM »

For purposes of this exercise just imagine the numbers of seats in every state legislature remains the same.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2021, 02:50:45 AM »

I drew this up for Michigan House:
1-seat
Leelanau+Benzie+Manistee+Mason
Oceana+Newaygo+Lake
Grand Traverse
Charlesvoix+Antrim+Otsego+Kalkaska
Oscoda+Crawford+Roscommon+Missaukee+Wexford
Lapeer

2 seats
Calhoun+Branch
Gratiot+Montcalm+Ionia
Keweenaw+Houghton+Ontonagon+Gogebic+Baraga+Iron+Dickinson+Marquette+Alger
Menominee+Delta+Schoolcraft+Luce+Mackinac+Chippewa+Cheboygan+Emmet
Isabella+Clare+Gladwin+Osceola+Mecosta

3 seats
Berrien+Cass+St. Joseph
Kalamazoo
Shiawassee+Livingston
Tuscola+Bay+Arenac+Iosco+Ogemaw+Alcona+Alpena+Montmorency+Presque Isle
Saginaw+Midland

4 seats
Washtenaw
Eaton+Barry+Allegan+Van Buren
Clinton+Ingham

5 seats
Monroe+Lenawee+Hillsdale+Jackson
Muskegon+Ottawa

7 seats
Kent

12 seats
Huron+Sanilac+St. Clair+Macomb

18 seats
Oakland+Genesee

20 seats
Wayne

56 seats out of 110 are assigned to Biden-voting clusters.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/97526c36-13bc-4608-8197-e5a71e610511
Logged
CookieDamage
cookiedamage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,998


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2021, 09:58:47 PM »

What's an NC cluster?
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2021, 10:46:20 PM »

North Carolina minimizes county splits on state legislative level by having groups of counties in which a given number of seats must be nested. These are typically as small as possible.
Logged
OBD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,575
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2021, 11:19:56 PM »



This is what I came up with for Oregon. As Senate and House seats are nested, this is the Senate distribution - each cluster has twice as many House seats as Senate seats.

Oregon is a difficult state to do this for, with a relatively small number of counties, significant amounts of cases where larger counties block connections to other counties, as well as many issues with road contiguity (unfortunately Benton-Linn-Deschutes is not contiguous by road, but couldn't think of a way around it without screwing up the other clusters).

Of note is that just 6 of the 30 districts are in clusters that voted for Trump 2020 (though Polk-Marion and Benton-Linn-Deschutes are Trump-Biden cluters).
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2021, 12:35:28 AM »



This is what I came up with for Oregon. As Senate and House seats are nested, this is the Senate distribution - each cluster has twice as many House seats as Senate seats.

Oregon is a difficult state to do this for, with a relatively small number of counties, significant amounts of cases where larger counties block connections to other counties, as well as many issues with road contiguity (unfortunately Benton-Linn-Deschutes is not contiguous by road, but couldn't think of a way around it without screwing up the other clusters).

Of note is that just 6 of the 30 districts are in clusters that voted for Trump 2020 (though Polk-Marion and Benton-Linn-Deschutes are Trump-Biden cluters).
This is what I came up for the House with if one disregards nesting.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/47cc61ea-3d41-4728-a7bb-23af432d2e7c
All the clusters that border California, Nevada, and/or Idaho voted for Trump. All others voted for Biden. The former clusters have 11 seats out of 60, the latter have 49.
Logged
OBD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,575
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2021, 01:00:12 AM »



This is what I came up with for Oregon. As Senate and House seats are nested, this is the Senate distribution - each cluster has twice as many House seats as Senate seats.

Oregon is a difficult state to do this for, with a relatively small number of counties, significant amounts of cases where larger counties block connections to other counties, as well as many issues with road contiguity (unfortunately Benton-Linn-Deschutes is not contiguous by road, but couldn't think of a way around it without screwing up the other clusters).

Of note is that just 6 of the 30 districts are in clusters that voted for Trump 2020 (though Polk-Marion and Benton-Linn-Deschutes are Trump-Biden cluters).
This is what I came up for the House with if one disregards nesting.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/47cc61ea-3d41-4728-a7bb-23af432d2e7c
All the clusters that border California, Nevada, and/or Idaho voted for Trump. All others voted for Biden. The former clusters have 11 seats out of 60, the latter have 49.
Nice. Pretty similar to what I got, though I opted for some larger, weirder clusters for lower pop deviation. Think I lumped Josephine and the southeastern counties with Jackson, pushed Lincoln with Lane and Linn, and gave Hood to Multnomah, among other changes.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2021, 07:31:52 AM »
« Edited: November 26, 2021, 02:03:49 PM by Southern Delegate Punxsutawney Phil »



This is what I came up with for Oregon. As Senate and House seats are nested, this is the Senate distribution - each cluster has twice as many House seats as Senate seats.

Oregon is a difficult state to do this for, with a relatively small number of counties, significant amounts of cases where larger counties block connections to other counties, as well as many issues with road contiguity (unfortunately Benton-Linn-Deschutes is not contiguous by road, but couldn't think of a way around it without screwing up the other clusters).

Of note is that just 6 of the 30 districts are in clusters that voted for Trump 2020 (though Polk-Marion and Benton-Linn-Deschutes are Trump-Biden cluters).
This is what I came up for the House with if one disregards nesting.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/47cc61ea-3d41-4728-a7bb-23af432d2e7c
All the clusters that border California, Nevada, and/or Idaho voted for Trump. All others voted for Biden. The former clusters have 11 seats out of 60, the latter have 49.
Nice. Pretty similar to what I got, though I opted for some larger, weirder clusters for lower pop deviation. Think I lumped Josephine and the southeastern counties with Jackson, pushed Lincoln with Lane and Linn, and gave Hood to Multnomah, among other changes.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/badac52c-ca31-46d5-97c4-038085d94a07
This is a neutral map using such nestings.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/12fbd651-45b0-4e99-8b83-20b1be677631
Dem hack map. Only 13 Republican seats.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2021, 10:04:53 AM »

North Carolina minimizes county splits on state legislative level by having groups of counties in which a given number of seats must be nested. These are typically as small as possible.
The North Carolina constitution forbids division of counties. It does permit multi-member districts and multi-county districts.

In larger counties, VRA requirements likely require single-member districts. Formerly (before 2010) VRA districts were drawn in rural areas. There are very few counties with a majority black population, so these districts tended to snake across the landscape trying to connect areas with a majority black population, perhaps dividing small cities based on where the black population lives.

Over time the rural black population has declined, moving first to Washington, Philadelphia, New York, and other northern cities, and now to cities such as Atlanta, Charlotte, and Raleigh where there are better economic opportunities. The overall increase in the total population has required larger legislative districts. If you have stretched across multiple counties to create a black-majority district, and you have to add population, you may be unable to maintain a black majority. This has particularly happened in southeastern North Carolina. At some point you may be assigning persons to districts based on race.

In rural areas of the northeast where there is a substantial black population, you might not have to draw snakes, because you may be packing. If a county is 50% black, the areas where blacks predominate may be 60% or 70% black. In addition, the Gingles condition that whites vote as bloc to prevent election of the black candidate of choice may no  longer hold. With black turnout as high as or exceeding white turnout in many areas, there might be a relatively small cross-over vote needed.

Through 2010, and the initial 2010 redistricting, the VRA districts were drawn first, and then county clusters were drawn around them. After mid-decade litigation, the snakes were eliminated and pure county clustering was used.

The reason for county clustering is that it minimizes county cutting which violates the NC Constitution. Unlike in Texas, where single-member districts in large counties is considered to be a constitutional manner regulation, it is considered a violation of the NC Constitution. Nevertheless, if you draw a whole number of districts in Wake or Mecklenburg or other large counties you avoid an additional split of a district that crosses a county line.

The NC Supreme Court has also ruled that 2-member districts violate equal protection (this might be under the NC Constitution rather than the US Constitution) because it lets some voters vote for two representatives rather than just one, even if there twice as many of them. You might have previously been able to draw a group of counties that had a population equal to two representatives and elected them at large, this is no longer possible. Instead you are going to split one of the counties.

Generally more clusters means fewer county cuts. If you have a county cluster entitled to three representatives, and you can split it on county lines such that one cluster has two representatives, and the other one, and have eliminated a cut.

If clusters have fewer counties, this will tend to produce more of them. There is a belief in North Carolina that you should draw the one county clusters first, then the two-county clusters, and so on. This might not produce the minimum number of clusters, but will generally do a fairly good job.

However it may force fewer clusters and greater deviation. Whenever you set off one cluster you must also ensure that any remaining contiguous groups of counties can be apportioned a whole number of representatives.

This may increase the deviation and require more county cuts. Imagine that you apportion five representatives to an area entitled to 4.85 representatives. This creates an unreasonable -3.0% deviation. But it also forces the 0.15 representatives to be placed in other districts. And what if that area is entitled to 3.15 representatives. Each district must have a population of exactly 1.0500000 quotas. You may be forcing another cut. If the area was entitled to 3.08 representatives you might have been able to divide it on a county line.

This happened in North Carolina in the mid-2010 redistricting. If you look at the area south of Raleigh you will find such districts where little nibbles of counties were bitten off to get exact populations just as offensive as when doing congressional redistricting.

If I were scoring a North Carolina clustering plan, I would score it based on implied county cuts and lowest standard deviation.

Or better based on Texas, I would only penalize division of smaller counties - less than a quota. Ties would be broken based on lowest standard deviation.
Logged
Sorenroy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,697
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -5.91

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 26, 2021, 12:31:52 PM »


North Carolina minimizes county splits on state legislative level by having groups of counties in which a given number of seats must be nested. These are typically as small as possible.

The North Carolina constitution forbids division of counties. It does permit multi-member districts and multi-county districts.

In larger counties, VRA requirements likely require single-member districts. Formerly (before 2010) VRA districts were drawn in rural areas. There are very few counties with a majority black population, so these districts tended to snake across the landscape trying to connect areas with a majority black population, perhaps dividing small cities based on where the black population lives.

Over time the rural black population has declined, moving first to Washington, Philadelphia, New York, and other northern cities, and now to cities such as Atlanta, Charlotte, and Raleigh where there are better economic opportunities. The overall increase in the total population has required larger legislative districts. If you have stretched across multiple counties to create a black-majority district, and you have to add population, you may be unable to maintain a black majority. This has particularly happened in southeastern North Carolina. At some point you may be assigning persons to districts based on race.

In rural areas of the northeast where there is a substantial black population, you might not have to draw snakes, because you may be packing. If a county is 50% black, the areas where blacks predominate may be 60% or 70% black. In addition, the Gingles condition that whites vote as bloc to prevent election of the black candidate of choice may no  longer hold. With black turnout as high as or exceeding white turnout in many areas, there might be a relatively small cross-over vote needed.

Through 2010, and the initial 2010 redistricting, the VRA districts were drawn first, and then county clusters were drawn around them. After mid-decade litigation, the snakes were eliminated and pure county clustering was used.

The reason for county clustering is that it minimizes county cutting which violates the NC Constitution. Unlike in Texas, where single-member districts in large counties is considered to be a constitutional manner regulation, it is considered a violation of the NC Constitution. Nevertheless, if you draw a whole number of districts in Wake or Mecklenburg or other large counties you avoid an additional split of a district that crosses a county line.

The NC Supreme Court has also ruled that 2-member districts violate equal protection (this might be under the NC Constitution rather than the US Constitution) because it lets some voters vote for two representatives rather than just one, even if there twice as many of them. You might have previously been able to draw a group of counties that had a population equal to two representatives and elected them at large, this is no longer possible. Instead you are going to split one of the counties.

Generally more clusters means fewer county cuts. If you have a county cluster entitled to three representatives, and you can split it on county lines such that one cluster has two representatives, and the other one, and have eliminated a cut.

If clusters have fewer counties, this will tend to produce more of them. There is a belief in North Carolina that you should draw the one county clusters first, then the two-county clusters, and so on. This might not produce the minimum number of clusters, but will generally do a fairly good job.

However it may force fewer clusters and greater deviation. Whenever you set off one cluster you must also ensure that any remaining contiguous groups of counties can be apportioned a whole number of representatives.

This may increase the deviation and require more county cuts. Imagine that you apportion five representatives to an area entitled to 4.85 representatives. This creates an unreasonable -3.0% deviation. But it also forces the 0.15 representatives to be placed in other districts. And what if that area is entitled to 3.15 representatives. Each district must have a population of exactly 1.0500000 quotas. You may be forcing another cut. If the area was entitled to 3.08 representatives you might have been able to divide it on a county line.

This happened in North Carolina in the mid-2010 redistricting. If you look at the area south of Raleigh you will find such districts where little nibbles of counties were bitten off to get exact populations just as offensive as when doing congressional redistricting.

If I were scoring a North Carolina clustering plan, I would score it based on implied county cuts and lowest standard deviation.

Or better based on Texas, I would only penalize division of smaller counties - less than a quota. Ties would be broken based on lowest standard deviation.

I don't want to clip your post, the whole thing does a great job summarizing the history of how the clusters come about, but the examples you give in the bolded paragraph are actually reasonable in deviation under North Carolina's current rules. As long as population does not deviate by more than ±5% off of the ideal district size, it is allowed. So a cluster entitled to 4.85 representatives getting 5 or a cluster entitled to 3.15 representatives getting 3 is actually within that acceptable range. You could even lose a tenth of an entitled delegate in the first example and it would still be fine.

This does create some interesting potentials for states with large counties and lots of reps. Once you start getting up into the double-digit level for entitled representatives, the population deviations start to overlap. A county or county-cluster that is given 10 delegates might be due anywhere from 9.5 to 10.5 based on its population. A district given 11 delegates is due between 10.45 and 11.55 delegates. That overlap on the upper- and lower-ends makes for some variation that depends on the smaller counties and the clusters they make up. So even though county-clusters are determined first, delegates are not necessarily determined until after the clusters are made because potentially larger counties might be given or need to shed a district to optimize down the line.

In North Carolina, our two largest counties are Mechlenburg and Wake, and both received 13 delegates, and both could've only received 13 delegates because they were only within that range. However, in other states where single counties are more dominant, this might come into play. For example, Cook county, Illinois would be entitled to an ideal of ~48.59 districts, but could actually receive between 47 and 51 of the State House's 118 districts depending on what creates optimal later clusters if they were operating under North Carolina's own standards.
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 26, 2021, 02:45:25 PM »

[...]
This may increase the deviation and require more county cuts. Imagine that you apportion five representatives to an area entitled to 4.85 representatives. This creates an unreasonable -3.0% deviation. But it also forces the 0.15 representatives to be placed in other districts. And what if that area is entitled to 3.15 representatives. Each district must have a population of exactly 1.0500000 quotas. You may be forcing another cut. If the area was entitled to 3.08 representatives you might have been able to divide it on a county line.
[...]

I don't want to clip your post, the whole thing does a great job summarizing the history of how the clusters come about, but the examples you give in the bolded paragraph are actually reasonable in deviation under North Carolina's current rules. As long as population does not deviate by more than ±5% off of the ideal district size, it is allowed. So a cluster entitled to 4.85 representatives getting 5 or a cluster entitled to 3.15 representatives getting 3 is actually within that acceptable range. You could even lose a tenth of an entitled delegate in the first example and it would still be fine.
[...]
I think jimrtex may have meant to write reasonable instead of unreasonable in the third sentence in the bolded paragraph. ("This creates a reasonable -3.0% deviation.")  The remainder in his example had no wiggle room, if you are committed to keeping each district within 5% of the ideal population.
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 26, 2021, 04:37:25 PM »
« Edited: November 26, 2021, 05:07:38 PM by Kevinstat »

For the Maine Senate, with 35 members (although under the Maine Constitution that number could also be 33 or 31), there are several NC-style clusters that would work, that don't involve relying on a northern Washington State Cascades-type boundary for contiguity. I would put Aroostook County's boundary with Piscataquis and Somerset counties in that category, as well as (at the congressional and State Senate levels but not the State House level, depending how far into a certain county the crossing district went) the Lincoln-Waldo and Hancock-Knox boundaries. Hancock-Knox, which might be the most easily identifiable "bad" connection as it involves going out to the ocean, is arguably the least egregious of these. Isle Au Haut in Knox County has its ferry connection to Stonington in Hancock County (also on an island but one with a road connection to the mainland) and at the State Senate level Isle Au Haut has alternated between Rockland- and Ellsworth/MDI/(most of the) Blue Hill peninsula-based districts. It will be moving into the latter come next year's primary and general elections. That seems fine to me but I wouldn't want anything else in Knox County being in a Hancock County-based district, or any Hancock County towns being in a Knox County based district. There's also long been an "Island" House district straddling the Knox-Hancock line, but not including Islesboro or any of Waldo County.

Okay, I got sidetracked there. Anyway, in Maine, there are a slew of NC-style clusters that would work, some being alternatives including some of the same counties so obviously you couldn't use the two together but even some of the ones without any counties in common are such that you couldn't do all of them, because it would leave the rest of the state outside of the ±5% range for the number of Senate districts that are left.

Androscoggin (2.8552 or 3×0.9517 quotas, so −4.83% for 3 districts), Cumberland (7.7861 or 8×0.9733 quotas, so −2.67% for 8 districts), Knox (1.0432 quotas, so +4.32% for 1 district), Waldo (1.0175 quotas, so +1.75% for 1 district) and Penobscot (3.9101 or 4×0.9775 quotas, so −2.25% for 4 districts) counties could all be their own cluster. But all of those could potentially be used to shore up counties or groups or counties that would otherwise be out or range or discontiguous, although the ones I've seen involving Waldo County seem rather silly (Franklin-Kennebec-Waldo-Hancock-Washington or Franklin-Kennebec-Somerset-Waldo-Hancock).

One measure of how well one is following the North Carolina method is the number of clusters (counties with no partial districts are their own cluster). The more clusters, the better.  I've come up with a couple "cover plans" for a 35-member Maine Senate with 8 clusters, and I thought I had one with 9 but then I realized I'd left out Piscataquis County.  I'll show what I've come up with in a later post (I'm having some computer power issues at the moment).
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 26, 2021, 05:18:47 PM »
« Edited: November 26, 2021, 05:37:02 PM by Kevinstat »

Some 8-cluster plans for a 35-member Maine Senate I've come up with:

Androscoggin (3 districts; 2.8552 or 3×0.9517 quotas; −4.83%)
Aroostook-Washington-Hancock-Penobscot-Piscataquis (8 districts; 8.2898 or 8×1.0362 quotas; +3.62%)
Cumberland (8 districts; 7.7861 or 8×0.9733 quotas; −2.67%)
Franklin-Somerset (2 districts; 2.0535 or 2×1.0268 quotas; +2.68%)
Kennebec-Lincoln-Sagadahoc (5 districts; 5.0245 or 5×1.0049 quotas; +0.49%)
Waldo (1 district; 1.0175 quotas; +1.75%)
Knox (1 district; 1.0432 quotas; +4.32%)
Oxford-York (7 districts; 6.9300 or 7×0.9900 quotas; −1.00%)

Androscoggin (3 districts; 2.8552 or 3×0.9517 quotas; −4.83%)
Aroostook-Washington-Hancock (4 districts; 3.9481 or 4×0.9870 quotas; −1.30%)
Cumberland-York (13 districts; 13.2318 or 13×1.0178 quotas; +1.78%)
Kennebec-Lincoln-Sagadahoc (5 districts; 5.0245 or 5×1.0049 quotas; +0.49%)
Waldo (1 district; 1.0175 quotas; +1.75%)
Knox (1 district; 1.0432 quotas; +4.32%)
Oxford-Franklin-Somerset-Piscataquis (4 districts; 3.9695 or 4×0.9924 quotas; −0.76%)
Penobscot (4 districts; 3.9101 or 4×0.9775 quotas; −2.25%)

What I thought I had for a 9-cluster plan:

Androscoggin (3 districts; 2.8552 or 3×0.9517 quotas; −4.83%)
Aroostook-Washington-Hancock (4 districts; 3.9481 or 4×0.9870 quotas; −1.30%)
Cumberland (8 districts; 7.7861 or 8×0.9733 quotas; −2.67%)
Franklin-Somerset (2 districts; 2.0535 or 2×1.0268 quotas; +2.68%)
Kennebec-Lincoln-Sagadahoc (5 districts; 5.0245 or 5×1.0049 quotas; +0.49%)
Waldo (1 district; 1.0175 quotas; +1.75%)
Knox (1 district; 1.0432 quotas; +4.32%)
Oxford-York (7 districts; 6.9300 or 7×0.9900 quotas; −1.00%)
Penobscot (4 districts; 3.9101 or 4×0.9775 quotas; −2.25%)
Piscataquis (0 districts; 0.4316 or 0×∞ quotas; +∞%)
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 26, 2021, 05:42:24 PM »

Maine House is interesting. Many counties aren't very far from quota by themselves but have to be combined with others.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 26, 2021, 05:49:27 PM »
« Edited: November 26, 2021, 05:56:49 PM by Southern Delegate Punxsutawney Phil »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/8d9c3eed-aba7-4a2b-8b19-24067e69749c
Arostock+Washington: 11 -1.05% Trump
Hancock: 6 2.49% Biden
Penobscot: 17 -0.77% Trump
Piscataquis+Somerset+Waldo: 12 -1.27% Trump
Franklin+Oxford: 10 -3.31% Trump
Lincoln+Knox+Kennebec: 22 0.50% Biden
Sagadhoc: 4 1.69% Biden
Androscoggin: 12 2.66% Trump
Cumberland: 34 -1.20% Biden
York: 23 2.15% Biden
62/151 seats in Trump clusters
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 26, 2021, 06:03:53 PM »

I don't want to clip your post, the whole thing does a great job summarizing the history of how the clusters come about, but the examples you give in the bolded paragraph are actually reasonable in deviation under North Carolina's current rules. As long as population does not deviate by more than ±5% off of the ideal district size, it is allowed. So a cluster entitled to 4.85 representatives getting 5 or a cluster entitled to 3.15 representatives getting 3 is actually within that acceptable range. You could even lose a tenth of an entitled delegate in the first example and it would still be fine.

This does create some interesting potentials for states with large counties and lots of reps. Once you start getting up into the double-digit level for entitled representatives, the population deviations start to overlap. A county or county-cluster that is given 10 delegates might be due anywhere from 9.5 to 10.5 based on its population. A district given 11 delegates is due between 10.45 and 11.55 delegates. That overlap on the upper- and lower-ends makes for some variation that depends on the smaller counties and the clusters they make up. So even though county-clusters are determined first, delegates are not necessarily determined until after the clusters are made because potentially larger counties might be given or need to shed a district to optimize down the line.

In North Carolina, our two largest counties are Mechlenburg and Wake, and both received 13 delegates, and both could've only received 13 delegates because they were only within that range. However, in other states where single counties are more dominant, this might come into play. For example, Cook county, Illinois would be entitled to an ideal of ~48.59 districts, but could actually receive between 47 and 51 of the State House's 118 districts depending on what creates optimal later clusters if they were operating under North Carolina's own standards.
Yeah, this has been borne out with my Maine House stuff just above. Cumberland could get 34, or 33, all to itself. I had 150 before I added one more seat to Cumberland to get 151.
My general approach is to have the closest to quota number and then adjust when needed.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 28, 2021, 01:56:12 PM »


North Carolina minimizes county splits on state legislative level by having groups of counties in which a given number of seats must be nested. These are typically as small as possible.

The North Carolina constitution forbids division of counties. It does permit multi-member districts and multi-county districts.

In larger counties, VRA requirements likely require single-member districts. Formerly (before 2010) VRA districts were drawn in rural areas. There are very few counties with a majority black population, so these districts tended to snake across the landscape trying to connect areas with a majority black population, perhaps dividing small cities based on where the black population lives.

Over time the rural black population has declined, moving first to Washington, Philadelphia, New York, and other northern cities, and now to cities such as Atlanta, Charlotte, and Raleigh where there are better economic opportunities. The overall increase in the total population has required larger legislative districts. If you have stretched across multiple counties to create a black-majority district, and you have to add population, you may be unable to maintain a black majority. This has particularly happened in southeastern North Carolina. At some point you may be assigning persons to districts based on race.

In rural areas of the northeast where there is a substantial black population, you might not have to draw snakes, because you may be packing. If a county is 50% black, the areas where blacks predominate may be 60% or 70% black. In addition, the Gingles condition that whites vote as bloc to prevent election of the black candidate of choice may no  longer hold. With black turnout as high as or exceeding white turnout in many areas, there might be a relatively small cross-over vote needed.

Through 2010, and the initial 2010 redistricting, the VRA districts were drawn first, and then county clusters were drawn around them. After mid-decade litigation, the snakes were eliminated and pure county clustering was used.

The reason for county clustering is that it minimizes county cutting which violates the NC Constitution. Unlike in Texas, where single-member districts in large counties is considered to be a constitutional manner regulation, it is considered a violation of the NC Constitution. Nevertheless, if you draw a whole number of districts in Wake or Mecklenburg or other large counties you avoid an additional split of a district that crosses a county line.

The NC Supreme Court has also ruled that 2-member districts violate equal protection (this might be under the NC Constitution rather than the US Constitution) because it lets some voters vote for two representatives rather than just one, even if there twice as many of them. You might have previously been able to draw a group of counties that had a population equal to two representatives and elected them at large, this is no longer possible. Instead you are going to split one of the counties.

Generally more clusters means fewer county cuts. If you have a county cluster entitled to three representatives, and you can split it on county lines such that one cluster has two representatives, and the other one, and have eliminated a cut.

If clusters have fewer counties, this will tend to produce more of them. There is a belief in North Carolina that you should draw the one county clusters first, then the two-county clusters, and so on. This might not produce the minimum number of clusters, but will generally do a fairly good job.

However it may force fewer clusters and greater deviation. Whenever you set off one cluster you must also ensure that any remaining contiguous groups of counties can be apportioned a whole number of representatives.

This may increase the deviation and require more county cuts. Imagine that you apportion five representatives to an area entitled to 4.85 representatives. This creates an unreasonable -3.0% deviation. But it also forces the 0.15 representatives to be placed in other districts. And what if that area is entitled to 3.15 representatives. Each district must have a population of exactly 1.0500000 quotas. You may be forcing another cut. If the area was entitled to 3.08 representatives you might have been able to divide it on a county line.

This happened in North Carolina in the mid-2010 redistricting. If you look at the area south of Raleigh you will find such districts where little nibbles of counties were bitten off to get exact populations just as offensive as when doing congressional redistricting.

If I were scoring a North Carolina clustering plan, I would score it based on implied county cuts and lowest standard deviation.

Or better based on Texas, I would only penalize division of smaller counties - less than a quota. Ties would be broken based on lowest standard deviation.

I don't want to clip your post, the whole thing does a great job summarizing the history of how the clusters come about, but the examples you give in the bolded paragraph are actually reasonable in deviation under North Carolina's current rules. As long as population does not deviate by more than ±5% off of the ideal district size, it is allowed. So a cluster entitled to 4.85 representatives getting 5 or a cluster entitled to 3.15 representatives getting 3 is actually within that acceptable range. You could even lose a tenth of an entitled delegate in the first example and it would still be fine.

This does create some interesting potentials for states with large counties and lots of reps. Once you start getting up into the double-digit level for entitled representatives, the population deviations start to overlap. A county or county-cluster that is given 10 delegates might be due anywhere from 9.5 to 10.5 based on its population. A district given 11 delegates is due between 10.45 and 11.55 delegates. That overlap on the upper- and lower-ends makes for some variation that depends on the smaller counties and the clusters they make up. So even though county-clusters are determined first, delegates are not necessarily determined until after the clusters are made because potentially larger counties might be given or need to shed a district to optimize down the line.

In North Carolina, our two largest counties are Mechlenburg and Wake, and both received 13 delegates, and both could've only received 13 delegates because they were only within that range. However, in other states where single counties are more dominant, this might come into play. For example, Cook county, Illinois would be entitled to an ideal of ~48.59 districts, but could actually receive between 47 and 51 of the State House's 118 districts depending on what creates optimal later clusters if they were operating under North Carolina's own standards.
I didn't describe the problem with the cluster that has a population equivalent to 3.15 representatives very well.

In that case the three districts had to have populations of exactly 1.05 quotas. Not only are you going to have to cross county lines, you are going to have to cross any other kind of sensible boundary just to keep all three districts within 5%.

IIRC in the case of North Carolina it was not possible to draw districts cutting only two counties in the cluster with magnitude 3 or they would have been awful.

Or consider a larger area entitled to 5.20 delegates. You might not be able to split it into two clusters because you have to distribute the excess between the clusters. If you have a an cluster with a perfect 2.0 delegates, the other is an excessive 3.20.

The problem in NC is not having cluster, but the particular algorithm they use to identify them (unless they have abandoned that).

I think in your Illinois case you may have an equal protection violation since you will be overpopulating every Cook County district, and underpopulating every downstate district (for this purpose, Lake County is downstate), or vice versa.

Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 28, 2021, 02:18:57 PM »

Some 8-cluster plans for a 35-member Maine Senate I've come up with:

Androscoggin (3 districts; 2.8552 or 3×0.9517 quotas; −4.83%)
Aroostook-Washington-Hancock-Penobscot-Piscataquis (8 districts; 8.2898 or 8×1.0362 quotas; +3.62%)
Cumberland (8 districts; 7.7861 or 8×0.9733 quotas; −2.67%)
Franklin-Somerset (2 districts; 2.0535 or 2×1.0268 quotas; +2.68%)
Kennebec-Lincoln-Sagadahoc (5 districts; 5.0245 or 5×1.0049 quotas; +0.49%)
Waldo (1 district; 1.0175 quotas; +1.75%)
Knox (1 district; 1.0432 quotas; +4.32%)
Oxford-York (7 districts; 6.9300 or 7×0.9900 quotas; −1.00%)

Androscoggin (3 districts; 2.8552 or 3×0.9517 quotas; −4.83%)
Aroostook-Washington-Hancock (4 districts; 3.9481 or 4×0.9870 quotas; −1.30%)
Cumberland-York (13 districts; 13.2318 or 13×1.0178 quotas; +1.78%)
Kennebec-Lincoln-Sagadahoc (5 districts; 5.0245 or 5×1.0049 quotas; +0.49%)
Waldo (1 district; 1.0175 quotas; +1.75%)
Knox (1 district; 1.0432 quotas; +4.32%)
Oxford-Franklin-Somerset-Piscataquis (4 districts; 3.9695 or 4×0.9924 quotas; −0.76%)
Penobscot (4 districts; 3.9101 or 4×0.9775 quotas; −2.25%)

What I thought I had for a 9-cluster plan:

Androscoggin (3 districts; 2.8552 or 3×0.9517 quotas; −4.83%)
Aroostook-Washington-Hancock (4 districts; 3.9481 or 4×0.9870 quotas; −1.30%)
Cumberland (8 districts; 7.7861 or 8×0.9733 quotas; −2.67%)
Franklin-Somerset (2 districts; 2.0535 or 2×1.0268 quotas; +2.68%)
Kennebec-Lincoln-Sagadahoc (5 districts; 5.0245 or 5×1.0049 quotas; +0.49%)
Waldo (1 district; 1.0175 quotas; +1.75%)
Knox (1 district; 1.0432 quotas; +4.32%)
Oxford-York (7 districts; 6.9300 or 7×0.9900 quotas; −1.00%)
Penobscot (4 districts; 3.9101 or 4×0.9775 quotas; −2.25%)
Piscataquis (0 districts; 0.4316 or 0×∞ quotas; +∞%)
How many are Texas-style where you apportion a whole number of districts to large counties, and one district for any surplus or smaller counties. The goal is to avoid dividing counties with a population smaller than a quota.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 02, 2021, 01:33:58 PM »

I'm now willing to take requests.
Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 03, 2021, 12:54:34 PM »


Minnesota?
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2021, 12:56:50 PM »

Ok. Will be doing Minnesota soon. (Both with and without nesting)
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 03, 2021, 03:58:03 PM »
« Edited: December 03, 2021, 04:18:54 PM by Southern Delegate Punxsutawney Phil »

MN, with nestings
quota for Senate is 85,172; for House, 42,586.
Cook+Lake+Carlton+St. Louis: 3 Senate, 6 House
Pine+Kanabec+Aitkin+Mille Lacs: 1 Senate, 2 House
Itasca+Cass+Wadena: 1 Senate, 2 House
Koochiching+Lake of the Woods+Hubbard+Beltrami: 1 Senate, 2 House
Roseau+Kittson+Marshal+Pennington+Red Lake+Polk+Norman: 1 Senate, 2 House
Clearwater+Mahnomen+Becker+Clay+Otter Tail: 2 Senate, 4 House
Crow Wing+Morrison+Todd+Douglas+Grant: 2 Senate, 4 House
Pope+Stevens+Wilkin+Traverse+Big Stone+Lac qui Parle+Yellow Medicine+Lyon+Lincoln: 1 Senate, 2 House
Benton+Stearns+Wright: 4 Senate, 8 House
Isanti+Sherburne+Anoke: 6 Senate, 12 House
Chisago+Washington+Ramsey: 10 Senate, 20 House
Kandiyohi+Swift+Chippewa+Renville: 1 Senate, 2 House
Carver+McLeod+Meeker: 2 Senate, 4 House
Hennipen: 15 Senate, 30 House
Dakota: 5 Senate, 10 House
Scott+Sibley: 2 Senate, 4 House
Redwood+Brown+Watonwan+Cottonwood+Murray+Pipestone: 1 Senate, 2 House
Rock+Nobles+Jackson+Martin+Faribault+Freeborn+Steele+Waseca: 2 Senate, 4 House
Blue Earth+Nicollet+Le Sueur+Rice+Goodhue: 3 Senate, 6 House
Olmsted: 2 Senate, 4 House
Wabasha+Winona+Houston+Fillmore+Dodge+Mower: 2 Senate, 4 House
https://davesredistricting.org/join/b44a3f90-5be7-4db6-800e-6918a01d3a9f
35 SDs and 70 HDs in Biden-voting clusters, out of 67/134 respectively.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 06, 2021, 02:35:38 AM »

MN, with nestings
quota for Senate is 85,172; for House, 42,586.
Cook+Lake+Carlton+St. Louis: 3 Senate, 6 House
Pine+Kanabec+Aitkin+Mille Lacs: 1 Senate, 2 House
Itasca+Cass+Wadena: 1 Senate, 2 House
Koochiching+Lake of the Woods+Hubbard+Beltrami: 1 Senate, 2 House
Roseau+Kittson+Marshal+Pennington+Red Lake+Polk+Norman: 1 Senate, 2 House
Clearwater+Mahnomen+Becker+Clay+Otter Tail: 2 Senate, 4 House
Crow Wing+Morrison+Todd+Douglas+Grant: 2 Senate, 4 House
Pope+Stevens+Wilkin+Traverse+Big Stone+Lac qui Parle+Yellow Medicine+Lyon+Lincoln: 1 Senate, 2 House
Benton+Stearns+Wright: 4 Senate, 8 House
Isanti+Sherburne+Anoke: 6 Senate, 12 House
Chisago+Washington+Ramsey: 10 Senate, 20 House
Kandiyohi+Swift+Chippewa+Renville: 1 Senate, 2 House
Carver+McLeod+Meeker: 2 Senate, 4 House
Hennipen: 15 Senate, 30 House
Dakota: 5 Senate, 10 House
Scott+Sibley: 2 Senate, 4 House
Redwood+Brown+Watonwan+Cottonwood+Murray+Pipestone: 1 Senate, 2 House
Rock+Nobles+Jackson+Martin+Faribault+Freeborn+Steele+Waseca: 2 Senate, 4 House
Blue Earth+Nicollet+Le Sueur+Rice+Goodhue: 3 Senate, 6 House
Olmsted: 2 Senate, 4 House
Wabasha+Winona+Houston+Fillmore+Dodge+Mower: 2 Senate, 4 House
https://davesredistricting.org/join/b44a3f90-5be7-4db6-800e-6918a01d3a9f
35 SDs and 70 HDs in Biden-voting clusters, out of 67/134 respectively.
I would score the Senate plan on (1) number of small county cuts; (2) modest large county cuts; and (3) population equality. There could conceivably be a bonus if a house district can be divided at a county line (e.g. a 2 district senate cluster of smaller counties would require a county split for two house districts, but one or both of the other two districts might be made of whole counties.

Cook+Lake+Carlton+St. Louis, might be scored as one type (2) cut IF you could plausibly locate two whole districts in Saint Louis. I don't know whether you can connect the other three counties by a corridor looping around the Iron Range, or squeezing between the Iron Range and Duluth. It might be preferable to only have one whole district in Saint Louis and one district that is partially in the county along with Carlton, and the other in the county plus the Arrowhead. In that case, it might be OK to accept a larger penalty that other plans can not defeat.

I would count the failure to have two whole districts in Saint Louis as one type (1) cut and two type (2) cuts.

Clearwater+Mahnomen+Becker+Clay+Otter Tail: This is one type (1) cut. I would want a demonstration that the cut (presumably Becker) is plausible in not requiring a township split. You might be able to move the cut to Clay or Otter Tail. It would then come down to communities of interest - but would not score differently so long as only one county was cut.

Crow Wing+Morrison+Todd+Douglas+Grant: One type (1) cut. Demonstrate cut of Morrison is plausible.

Pope+Stevens+Wilkin+Traverse+Big Stone+Lac qui Parle+Yellow Medicine+Lyon+Lincoln. Possible bonus if House districts don't require county cut (e.g. Lyon-Lincoln-Yellow Medicine, other six in the other so long as it is within 5%.

Benton+Stearns+Wright: Two type (2) cuts for Stearns and Wright. I would also require a plausible demonstration of the leftovers district. You might end up with a type (1) cut in Stearns.

Isanti+Sherburne+Anoke: Two type (2) cuts.

Chisago+Washington+Ramsey: The creation of 6 districts in Ramsey and 3 in Washington is fine. Demonstrate the Ramsey-Washington-Chisago district. In addition, it might not be acceptable to treat Washington as having a surplus, since the total surplus for the area is greater than the surplus is greater than for Washington alone.

What happens with Washington and Chisago-Pine? Or perhaps Ramsey-Anoka-Washington with one district at the junction of the three counties.

Kandiyohi+Swift+Chippewa+Renville: This has a -5.03% deviation. I am fine with this so long as overall deviation is OK.

Carver+McLeod+Meeker: One type (2) split.

Dakota - a court would reasonably ask why Washington had a surplus but Dakota did not.

Scott+Sibley - one type (2) split.

Rock+Nobles+Jackson+Martin+Faribault+Freeborn+Steele+Waseca: A type (1) split. Waseca-Steele-Freeborn is a possible senate district. If you drew the map from north to south, you may have trapped yourself in having to get districts in the south barely in range.

Blue Earth+Nicollet+Le Sueur+Rice+Goodhue Two type (1) splits assuming the cuts are in Nicollet/Blue Earth and Rice.

Wabasha+Winona+Houston+Fillmore+Dodge+Mower: One type (1) split.

Wabasha+Winona+Houston+Fillmore+Dodge+Mower: One type (1) split. I might go with Wabasha+Winona+Houston and Fillmore+Dodge+Mower and go with an exceptional deviation. Alternatively place the three river counties with Olmsted, which reduces the deviation, while adding a type (2) split.

Standard deviation is 2.40 which would be high by Texas standards, but perhaps not in Minnesota due to the relative high number of districts relative to number of counties.

The Minnesota Constitution does specify the number of Senate districts, though it does require nesting, though not necessarily 2:1. In the early history the nesting ratio might vary throughout the state, but that would not comply with modern standards of equal population. A similar constitution in Washington, Arizona, and North Dakota has been interpreted as permitting multi-member House districts, either elected by position as in Washington, or as two-member districts like in Arizona and North Dakota.

Senate districts are explicitly single-member. Since there is not the same requirement for House districts it is implicit that the framers wanted to make that optional (rather than be carelessly inconsistent in their language).

It would be interesting to see if a better Minnesota map could be drawn by a slight variation in the Senate size say in the range of 64 to 70.

More radically might be 1:5 ratio with 33 or 34 senators and 165 or 170 representatives to maintain the overall size of the legislature, and to elect the representatives by STV. Senators could be elected by AV.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 06, 2021, 03:58:28 AM »

MN, with nestings
quota for Senate is 85,172; for House, 42,586.
Cook+Lake+Carlton+St. Louis: 3 Senate, 6 House
Pine+Kanabec+Aitkin+Mille Lacs: 1 Senate, 2 House
Itasca+Cass+Wadena: 1 Senate, 2 House
Koochiching+Lake of the Woods+Hubbard+Beltrami: 1 Senate, 2 House
Roseau+Kittson+Marshal+Pennington+Red Lake+Polk+Norman: 1 Senate, 2 House
Clearwater+Mahnomen+Becker+Clay+Otter Tail: 2 Senate, 4 House
Crow Wing+Morrison+Todd+Douglas+Grant: 2 Senate, 4 House
Pope+Stevens+Wilkin+Traverse+Big Stone+Lac qui Parle+Yellow Medicine+Lyon+Lincoln: 1 Senate, 2 House
Benton+Stearns+Wright: 4 Senate, 8 House
Isanti+Sherburne+Anoke: 6 Senate, 12 House
Chisago+Washington+Ramsey: 10 Senate, 20 House
Kandiyohi+Swift+Chippewa+Renville: 1 Senate, 2 House
Carver+McLeod+Meeker: 2 Senate, 4 House
Hennipen: 15 Senate, 30 House
Dakota: 5 Senate, 10 House
Scott+Sibley: 2 Senate, 4 House
Redwood+Brown+Watonwan+Cottonwood+Murray+Pipestone: 1 Senate, 2 House
Rock+Nobles+Jackson+Martin+Faribault+Freeborn+Steele+Waseca: 2 Senate, 4 House
Blue Earth+Nicollet+Le Sueur+Rice+Goodhue: 3 Senate, 6 House
Olmsted: 2 Senate, 4 House
Wabasha+Winona+Houston+Fillmore+Dodge+Mower: 2 Senate, 4 House
https://davesredistricting.org/join/b44a3f90-5be7-4db6-800e-6918a01d3a9f
35 SDs and 70 HDs in Biden-voting clusters, out of 67/134 respectively.
I would score the Senate plan on (1) number of small county cuts; (2) modest large county cuts; and (3) population equality. There could conceivably be a bonus if a house district can be divided at a county line (e.g. a 2 district senate cluster of smaller counties would require a county split for two house districts, but one or both of the other two districts might be made of whole counties.

Cook+Lake+Carlton+St. Louis, might be scored as one type (2) cut IF you could plausibly locate two whole districts in Saint Louis. I don't know whether you can connect the other three counties by a corridor looping around the Iron Range, or squeezing between the Iron Range and Duluth. It might be preferable to only have one whole district in Saint Louis and one district that is partially in the county along with Carlton, and the other in the county plus the Arrowhead. In that case, it might be OK to accept a larger penalty that other plans can not defeat.

I would count the failure to have two whole districts in Saint Louis as one type (1) cut and two type (2) cuts.

Clearwater+Mahnomen+Becker+Clay+Otter Tail: This is one type (1) cut. I would want a demonstration that the cut (presumably Becker) is plausible in not requiring a township split. You might be able to move the cut to Clay or Otter Tail. It would then come down to communities of interest - but would not score differently so long as only one county was cut.

Crow Wing+Morrison+Todd+Douglas+Grant: One type (1) cut. Demonstrate cut of Morrison is plausible.

Pope+Stevens+Wilkin+Traverse+Big Stone+Lac qui Parle+Yellow Medicine+Lyon+Lincoln. Possible bonus if House districts don't require county cut (e.g. Lyon-Lincoln-Yellow Medicine, other six in the other so long as it is within 5%.

Benton+Stearns+Wright: Two type (2) cuts for Stearns and Wright. I would also require a plausible demonstration of the leftovers district. You might end up with a type (1) cut in Stearns.

Isanti+Sherburne+Anoke: Two type (2) cuts.

Chisago+Washington+Ramsey: The creation of 6 districts in Ramsey and 3 in Washington is fine. Demonstrate the Ramsey-Washington-Chisago district. In addition, it might not be acceptable to treat Washington as having a surplus, since the total surplus for the area is greater than the surplus is greater than for Washington alone.

What happens with Washington and Chisago-Pine? Or perhaps Ramsey-Anoka-Washington with one district at the junction of the three counties.

Kandiyohi+Swift+Chippewa+Renville: This has a -5.03% deviation. I am fine with this so long as overall deviation is OK.

Carver+McLeod+Meeker: One type (2) split.

Dakota - a court would reasonably ask why Washington had a surplus but Dakota did not.

Scott+Sibley - one type (2) split.

Rock+Nobles+Jackson+Martin+Faribault+Freeborn+Steele+Waseca: A type (1) split. Waseca-Steele-Freeborn is a possible senate district. If you drew the map from north to south, you may have trapped yourself in having to get districts in the south barely in range.

Blue Earth+Nicollet+Le Sueur+Rice+Goodhue Two type (1) splits assuming the cuts are in Nicollet/Blue Earth and Rice.

Wabasha+Winona+Houston+Fillmore+Dodge+Mower: One type (1) split.

Wabasha+Winona+Houston+Fillmore+Dodge+Mower: One type (1) split. I might go with Wabasha+Winona+Houston and Fillmore+Dodge+Mower and go with an exceptional deviation. Alternatively place the three river counties with Olmsted, which reduces the deviation, while adding a type (2) split.

Standard deviation is 2.40 which would be high by Texas standards, but perhaps not in Minnesota due to the relative high number of districts relative to number of counties.

The Minnesota Constitution does specify the number of Senate districts, though it does require nesting, though not necessarily 2:1. In the early history the nesting ratio might vary throughout the state, but that would not comply with modern standards of equal population. A similar constitution in Washington, Arizona, and North Dakota has been interpreted as permitting multi-member House districts, either elected by position as in Washington, or as two-member districts like in Arizona and North Dakota.

Senate districts are explicitly single-member. Since there is not the same requirement for House districts it is implicit that the framers wanted to make that optional (rather than be carelessly inconsistent in their language).

It would be interesting to see if a better Minnesota map could be drawn by a slight variation in the Senate size say in the range of 64 to 70.

More radically might be 1:5 ratio with 33 or 34 senators and 165 or 170 representatives to maintain the overall size of the legislature, and to elect the representatives by STV. Senators could be elected by AV.
Your instincts are sharp. I found only one way you could avoid a township split in that cluster: have Detroit Lakes be in the same House District as Clearwater and Mahnomen counties.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/2827c85b-a434-472f-bf23-64ab3c01821e
Here's a DRA link for you to track my progress in mapping out how this would translate into an actual House map.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2021, 07:29:29 PM »

MN, with nestings
quota for Senate is 85,172; for House, 42,586.

Clearwater+Mahnomen+Becker+Clay+Otter Tail: 2 Senate, 4 House
I would score the Senate plan on (1) number of small county cuts; (2) modest large county cuts; and (3) population equality. There could conceivably be a bonus if a house district can be divided at a county line (e.g. a 2 district senate cluster of smaller counties would require a county split for two house districts, but one or both of the other two districts might be made of whole counties.


Clearwater+Mahnomen+Becker+Clay+Otter Tail: This is one type (1) cut. I would want a demonstration that the cut (presumably Becker) is plausible in not requiring a township split. You might be able to move the cut to Clay or Otter Tail. It would then come down to communities of interest - but would not score differently so long as only one county was cut.

Your instincts are sharp. I found only one way you could avoid a township split in that cluster: have Detroit Lakes be in the same House District as Clearwater and Mahnomen counties.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/2827c85b-a434-472f-bf23-64ab3c01821e
Here's a DRA link for you to track my progress in mapping out how this would translate into an actual House map.

I cheated.

You might recall a lawsuit was filed (seemingly prematurely) in Minnesota last February alleging that the state was malapportioned, and that the legislature was unlikely to act.

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=374399.msg7967230#msg7967230

Minnesota has a long history of failing to reapportion. The legislature has not adopted an apportionment plan for the legislature in its first session after the census since 1881 (sic). With split control it is reasonable that they will fail again this year, or even if they pass a map, the governor might veto it.

The purpose of the lawsuit was actually to establish jurisdiction with the Minnesota Supreme Court (after filing in a district court, they appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that there could be numerous lawsuits in different district courts, and that therefore the Supreme Court should take over. Which they did - but saying we won't actually do something (unless/until) the legislature fails.

A special panel has been appointed:

Minnesota Judicial Branch Special Redistricting Panel 2021

There is a Minnesota statute that requires redistricting to be completed 25 weeks before the primary (mid-February), so the judicial panel has said they won't act until then. Meanwhile, they have to prepare for action. This gives an incentive for legislative parties to not compromise.

The initial complaint gave information about the plaintiffs (to establish their standing and interest). One had been involved in NCSL, and I was sure that he must know Muon, so I looked further at his submission. It had included some example plans based on population estimates, and also suggested standards that a panel should use. Among these was that the panel should use a +/- 2% limit (which the panel has now adopted).

I was going to produce a counter-example which showed that +/-5% could produce plans that respected county boundaries (and townships) and that there were objective standards for judging overall equality. I posted it beginning here:

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=374399.msg7972615#msg7972615

I got side-tracked looking for precinct data, and other things, and never completed my effort. My map was based on my projections of Census estimates to 2020.

Anyhow, your map prompted me to revisit my map with the 2020 populations.



It appears that based on my projections I was able to put two whole districts in Saint Louis. Duluth was one senate district. The other was the Iron Range and northern portion of the county.

The partial district snaked through between the two connecting Carlton to Lake (and Cook). The population in Lake and Cook is extremely concentrated along the Lake Superior shoreline, so it sort of like a Miami-Dade district extending in a long skinny line along the Florida Keys.

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=374399.msg8001756#msg8001756

I had also remembered trying to get the district east of Fargo (or Moorhead) right. If you tried to place Fergus Falls or Detroit Lakes together with Moorhead, it would be overpopulated, even if you played around with Wilkin.

This shows my split which produces a sort of stubby peninsula between Fergus Falls and Detroit Lakes, that is entirely in Otter Trail.

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=374399.msg8001425#msg8001425

My map appears to be proto-clusters. So that while Clay-Wilkin is underpopulated and Otter Tail-Becker is overpopulated, the two complement each other.

Based on my projections, Stearns would be just above 1.900 and Olmsted would be just below 1.900, and the reverse is true, so I will also have to make an adjustment there.

Also the brown Brown district in the southwest is about 10% over. I intended to pair it with the far southwestern green district.

So I will update to form more conforming clusters.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.087 seconds with 12 queries.