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

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

For purposes of this exercise just imagine the numbers of seats in every state legislature remains the same.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What's an NC cluster?

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.

[President 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.

[President 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.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Maine House is interesting. Many counties aren't very far from quota by themselves but have to be combined with others.

[President 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

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'm now willing to take requests.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'm now willing to take requests.

Minnesota?

Ok. Will be doing Minnesota soon. (Both with and without nesting)

[President 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.

[President 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.

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.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Update: I now have a complete House and Senate map. These lines are far from necessarily final. It can be seen through means of the DRA link I posted on the previous page in the quote chain with Jimrtex.
Average deviation is 2.64%. Overall deviation is 9.94%.
In the House, there are 60 seats that went for Trump in 2020, and 69 that went for him in 2016.
In the Senate, there are 32 seats that went for Trump in 2020, and 36 that went for him in 2016.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Update: I now have a complete House and Senate map. These lines are far from necessarily final. It can be seen through means of the DRA link I posted on the previous page in the quote chain with Jimrtex.
Average deviation is 2.64%. Overall deviation is 9.94%.
In the House, there are 60 seats that went for Trump in 2020, and 69 that went for him in 2016.
In the Senate, there are 32 seats that went for Trump in 2020, and 36 that went for him in 2016.

These are my cluster maps.





Under the Texas Constitution, districts should be multi-county single-member, or single-county, one or more members. There are also floterial districts which are apportioned a single representative for zero or more whole smaller counties and the surplus from one or more larger counties - where the surplus is the excess above the number of whole quotas.

Floterial districts are appropriate for apportionment purposes - they violate equal protection when used for electoral purposes, since the entire electorate of a larger county may vote for the representative, even though the county only contributed its surplus to the apportionment process.

The Texas Constitution is harmonized with equal protection by taking an area containing the surplus population and attaching it to other surplus areas or whole counties.

Smaller counties may never be split under the Texas Constitution, it may be necessary to do so in order to comply with equal protection. Such cuts should be kept to the minimum possible. "possible" and "necessary" are used in a mathematical sense. Any plan with fewer small county cuts defeats any plan with more small county cuts so long as the overall plan is within a 10% range.

Division of a surplus into two or more areas is treated the same as a small county cut. A county can only have one surplus, which is always less than a quota.

Larger counties should be divided into as many whole districts as possible. These are not counted as cuts since they respect the county boundaries.

Detaching an area equal to the surplus of a large county is relatively benign so long as it produces better overall equality. In general, the surplus of the combined area should be less than the surplus(es) of the contributing larger counties.

Scoring of my plan:

One or more whole counties, single district, no penalty: Polk (listed by largest county in district), Beltrami, Itasca, Crow Wing, Douglas, Isanti, Chisago, Renville, Nobles, Brown, Blue Earth, Mower, Winona, and Goodhue. (14 districts)

One whole county, multiple districts, no penalty: Hennepin (15), Dakota (5), and Olmsted (2).

Optimal large county splits:
Ramsey(6)-Anoka(4)-Washington(3), one shared. 3 large county splits.
Scott(1)-Carver(1), one shared. 2 large county splits.
Saint Louis(2)- one shared with Carlton, Lake, and Cook. 1 large county split. (this presumes that Carlton and Lake may be connected by a corridor between Duluth and the Iron Range.

Small county splits:
Clay one cut, likely in Otter Tail (small county cut)
Rice one cut in Rice.

Large county cut surpluses:

Wright. One district in Wright (1 large county split), split of Wright surplus, with one extending into McLeod+Sibley, the other into Meeker+Kandiyohi

Stearns. One district in Stearns (1 large county split), One district in Sherburne (1 large county split), and one additional split, likely of Sherburne.

Total: 4 small county splits. 9 large county splits. The large county splits are mostly disregarded.

42 districts entirely within a single county, 14 single-member multi-county districts.
11 districts containing parts of one or more counties.

Standard deviation assuming perfect splits within clusters: 2.05%

Note: My projection had Olmsted below 1.900 and therefore required augmentation. It happens that the the overall deviation range is 9.88% even with the two adjacent districts at +5.5% and +5.4%.

My projection had Stearns above 1.900 and therefore could have had two districts. I had to combine it with the district across the Mississippi River, and requires an additional small cut.

Your plan splits 6 small counties, and the surpluses of Stearns and Washington. It also splits the surplus in Saint Louis, but that may not be necessary. The standard deviation for your plan is 2.40%.

If ours were the competing plans, my plan would win based on fewer small county splits: (4) vs. (.

We could then turn the plan over to county districting commissions.

If you were drawing a House map using these same clusters, how would you go about it? I have the feeling the clusters I used are slightly House-optimized (designed to produce whole-county HDs in rural areas and less seats crossing county lines in more urban ones). SDs would be composed of pairings of whole-county HDs in greater Minnesota.

An example of this is the Pope+Stevens+Wilkin+Traverse+Big Stone+Lac qui Parle+Yellow Medicine+Lyon+Lincoln cluster, an unsuccessful example was the Pine+Kanabec+Aitkin+Mille Lacs cluster, which was supposed to neatly split into two whole-county HDs both taking two counties, but my brain screwed things up and I found myself having to work with a mistake. Of course, it wasn't a bad mistake, and whole-county pairings are not necessary easily to come by in the numbers.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This is Senate districts 4, 5, and 6, along with associated House districts. In particular I was demonstrating that two whole districts could be drawn in St. Louis, with the remnant attached to Carlton, Lake, and Cook counties.



It happens that Duluth is just the right size for a senate district. The house split is quite natural. Presumably the area to the southwest closer to harbor is more working class, and the area to the northwest out along the shoreline is leafier (though perhaps this is more coniferous).



The Carlton-St Louis-Lake-Cook senate district is a bit odd, but it should be remembered that the Lake-Cook population is concentrated on the Lake Superior shoreline. Rather than an odd bit of Saint Louis attached to the other counties, House 5B should be understood as Duluth suburbs extending out along the shoreline (similar to how the Florida Keys attach to southern Miami-Dade. Under 2/5 of the House district is in Lake and Cook.

House district 5A is based in Carlton. It extends northward into Saint Louis to include all of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Reservation. A small area in northern Saint Louis is included in HD-3A to place all of the Bois Forte reservation in that House district. This extension was not shown on the map of 3A.

SD-4 in northern Saint Louis is divided into HD-4A which is based in the densest populated area of the Mesabi Range (Hibbing to Virginia-Evelyth). It can not be extended further east due to population reasons. A more global division of Saint Louis into northern and southern parts would divide the Mesabi Range. HD-4B can be comprehended as "Saint Louis excluding Duluth and much of the Mesabi Range".

This is an arrangement I didn't realize could be done. Two whole SDs in Saint Louis is possible after all. (Though I'm not sure how compactness is to be considered in all of this)
Still, job well done.