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

[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.

[jimrtex]

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. (8).

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

[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.

[jimrtex]

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.

I'm not a fan of legislative nesting. If you require a high level of population equality, some districts are going to be pretty good, and others quite ugly. Communities of interest do not come in quantum sizes. You are not necessarily going to end up with something better by splitting a district in half or joining two together.

In a state like Minnesota with a large senate, there is less differentiation between the two bodies. What is the point of having two duplicate bodies, where the A and B representatives are quite likely to be the same party as the that of the senator.

So first what I would do is draw the senate districts in the larger magnitude clusters taking care to maximize the number of senate districts wholly in Saint Louis, Ramsey, Anoka, Washington, Scott, Carver, Wright, Sherburne, and Stearns. I will pay attention to township/city boundaries, and to an extent to population equalization.

The drawing of house districts would be treated as 67 separate activities. I might back out some senate districts in larger counties if I can see a way to make better house districts with an adjusted senate configuration.

I should be able to draw a house district wholly in Blue Earth, Winona, Rice, Isanti, Clay, Otter Tail, Crow Wing, Chisago, and Kandiyohi. I might be able to do so in Itasca, Beltrami, and Goodhue.

Kandiyohi and Isanti should be whole county districts. While Becker has the correct population it won't be. If any multi-county house districts fall out, I'll accept them. I think it will be around 100 house districts that do no split a county, which is about 3/4 of the total.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

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.

Not updated for the more recent clusters, but here's my (moderate) R State Senate gerrymander under these clusters:

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::ba5050e2-78e1-4a4c-874e-649be47e0045

38 Trump seats, 29 Biden. Median seat is Trump +3.1.

[jimrtex]

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.

This might be an example.



In my previous effort I had split the four county area around Moorhead, as Clay+Wilkin and a peninsula running north of Fergus Falls in Otter Tail. I couldn't get to Detroit Lakes or Fergus Falls particularly if trying to balance the population. So instead I tried to avoid Detroit Lakes and Fergus Falls.

In a rural area like this I would ordinarily seek perfect balance without splitting townships.

But I noticed that Moorhead could form a largish House district. This meant that I had to make the Moorhead senate district a bit larger so that the second House district would still be above the lower threshold. At the same time, I had to make sure the Otter Tail senate district was not too small.

Moorhead senate seat: -0.2%
Moorhead house seat: +4.6%
Other House seat: -5.0%

Other senate seat: -3.6%
This will in turn force the two House seats to be pretty equal so as to make sure both are in bounds.

If I try to keep one House district entirely in Otter Tail, which I will, the other district will have to form a sort of question mark shape from Becker, through northern Otter Tail and down to Wilkin.

[jimrtex]

I completed the senate map except where I was going to have to split cities or townships. After I downloaded VTD's I decided to start splitting into House districts.





SD-1 was easy since the split can be done on county boundaries and HD-1A is within 16 persons of the ideal population (the A house district is the more saturated color).

I was going to try to create 2A and 3A in Beltrami and Itasca counties since they constitute a majority of the population in the putative senate districts. But since they were in the middle of the senate districts there was going to be a corridor connecting the northern and southern portions of the house districts. These corridors would cut through Indian Reservations.

If I were starting over, I would treat the reservations as county equivalents in defining clusters. But I didn't start over. I added the portions of White Earth in Becker County to my SD-2 cluster, but then decided to try to create a house district including White Earth, Red Lake, and Leech Lake. Which I have done.

I then drew HD-2B to include the Bemidji area, mostly in Beltrami, but extending into Hubbard and Clearwater. This fits pretty well with HD-2A to form SD-2.

This then required HD-3B to be drawn across the southern parts of Hubbard, Cass, and Itasca. HD-3A includes Grand Rapids and the western portion of the Iron Range.

Overall, these four districts are on the high end of population: HD-2A 1.043, HD-2B 1.034, HD-3A 1.031, and HD-3B 1.026.

[jimrtex]

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".

[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.

[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; +∞%)

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.

My apologies for the very late reply.  I had had the need to reply in the back of my mind, but whenever I tried to come up with a scheme of clusters that would be more compliant with the Texas rules than either of my two above, I would fail and then move on to other things.  Now I've decided to work with what I already had.

While in the "scoring" of your plan for Minnesota in the second post on this page (reply #26), you treat the splits of remainders the same as splits of a small county, I am going to place an emphasis on the part of what you wrote that I put in boldface.  Since the second of my NC-style clusters above would force a split of a small county (Washington) I'll use the first cluster (the one that I haven't struck out in my above quote of that post).  It's kind of fortunate that Penobscot has just under 4 quotas rather than just over, as my plan has only two districts entirely in Penobscot County, and I'm glad I'm not giving Penobscot County two fewer whole districts than it is entitled to.  I'll follow your convention of naming clusters after the most populous county in them, but I'll also list the counties in the cluster, the population of the cluster, and the population of the districts in the cluster assuming the closest mathematically possible equality without dividing people.

First, I'll list the counties, 2020 census population and "quota" (# of 1/35ths of Maine's 2020 census population), plus how many approximate total "fractional" districts the county would have under my plan (with the district being as much of a district as the portion of its population within the county), with the number shown being the decimal fraction if all districts within the cluster had exactly the same population:

Androscoggin, pop. 111,139 (2.855 quotas; 3 districts)
Aroostook, pop. 67,105 (1.724 quotas; ≈ 1.664 districts)
Cumberland, pop. 303,069 (7.786 quotas; 8 districts)
Franklin, pop. 29,456 (0.757 quotas; ≈ 0.737 districts)
Hancock, pop. 55,478 (1.425 quotas; ≈ 1.375 districts)
Kennebec, pop. 123,642 (3.176 quotas; ≈ 3.161 districts)
Knox, pop. 40,607 (1.043 quotas; 1 district)
Lincoln, pop. 35,237 (0.905 quotas; ≈ 0.901 districts)
Oxford, pop. 57,777 (1.484 quotas; ≈ 1.499 districts)
Penobscot, pop. 152,199 (3.910 quotas; ≈ 3.773 districts)
Piscataquis, pop. 16,800 (0.432 quotas; ≈ 0.417 districts)
Sagadahoc, pop. 36,699 (0.943 quotas; ≈ 0.938 districts)
Somerset, pop. 50,477 (1.297 quotas; ≈ 1.263 districts)
Waldo, pop. 39,607 (1.018 quotas; 1 district)
Washington, pop. 31,095 (0.799 quotas; ≈ 0.771 districts)
York, pop. 211,972 (5.446 quotas; ≈ 5.501 districts)

Okay.  Let's start from the north, getting the worst out of the way first.

Penobscot cluster (Aroostook, Hancock, Penobscot, Piscataquis & Washington), pop. 322,677 (8.290 quotas); 8 districts with avg. pop. 40,334.625 (+3.62%):
1 district: ≈ 60.1% of Aroostook
1 district: ≈ 30.9% of Aroostook (≈ 26,770.375 people; ≈ 66.4% of the district) (1 large county split) & 8.9% of Penobscot (≈ 13,564.25 people; ≈ 33.6% of the district) (1 large county split)
1 district: ≈ 15.5% of Penobscot (≈ 23,534.625 people; ≈ 58.3% of the district) (1 small county split, since that's a split of the Penobscot surplus) & Piscataquis (16,800 people; ≈ 41.7% of the district)
2 districts: each ≈ 26.5% of Penobscot
1 district: ≈ 10.6% of Hancock (≈ 5,903.75 people; ≈ 14.6% of the district) (1 large county split) & ≈ 22.6% of Penobscot (≈ 34,430.875 people; ≈ 85.4% of the district) (1 small county split, since that's another split of the Penobscot surplus)
1 district: ≈ 72.7% of Hancock
1 district: ≈ 16.7% of Hancock (≈ 9,239.625 people; ≈ 22.9% of the district) (1 small county split, since that's a split of the Hancock surplus) & Washington (31,095 people; ≈ 77.1% of the district)

Somerset cluster (Franklin & Somerset), pop. 79,933 (2.054 quotas); 2 districts with avg. pop. 39,966.5 (+2.68%):
1 district: ≈ 79.2% of Somerset
1 district: Franklin (29,456 people; ≈ 73.7% of the district) and ≈ 20.8% of Somerset (≈ 10,510.5 people; ≈ 26.3% of the district) (1 large county split)

Waldo cluster (Waldo), pop. 39,607 (1.018 quotas); 1 district with pop. 39,607 (+1.75%):
1 district: Waldo

Knox cluster (Knox), pop. 40,607 (1.043 quotas); 1 district with pop. 40,607 (+4.32%):
1 district: Knox

Kennebec cluster (Kennebec, Lincoln & Sagadahoc), pop. 195,578 (5.025 quotas); 5 districts with avg. pop. 39,115.6 (+0.49%):
1 district: ≈ 3.1% of Kennebec (≈ 3,878.6 people; ≈ 9.9% of the district) (1 large county split) & Lincoln (35,237 people; ≈ 90.1% of the district)
1 district: ≈ 1.9% of Kennebec (≈ 2,416.6 people; ≈ 6.2% of the district) (1 small county split, since that's a split of the Kennebec surplus) & Sagadahoc (36,699 people; ≈ 93.8% of the district)
3 districts: each ≈ 31.6% of Kennebec

Androscoggin cluster (Androscoggin), pop. 111,139 (2.855 quotas); 3 districts with avg pop. 37,046.33 (−4.83%):
3 districts: each ≈ 33.3% of Androscoggin

Cumberland cluster (Cumberland), pop. 303,069 (7.786); 8 districts with avg. pop. 37,883.625 (−2.68%):
8 districts: each ≈ 12.5% of Cumberland

York cluster (Oxford & York), pop. 269,749 (6.930); 7 districts with avg. pop. 38,535.57 (−1.00%):
1 district: ≈ 66.7% of Oxford
1 district: ≈ 33.3% of Oxford (≈ 19,241.43 people; ≈ 49.9% of the district) (1 large county split) and ≈ 9.1% of York (≈ 19,294.14 people; ≈ 50.1% of the district) (1 large county split)
5 districts: each ≈ 18.2% of York

Overall:
4 small county splits (all splits of remainders; no actually "small county" (one with less than 1/35th of Maine's population) is split)
7 large county splits (if I've calculated those correctly)

[Edited several times in the afternoon and evening of the day I posted this, at first as I posted it before I was done to a avoid the risk of losing all my work, and then because I saw an error or something I saw fit to add.]