In fair redistricting, is it better...

[Sol]

This is a classic redistricting tradeoff--is it better to draw one incoherent district and have all the other districts make sense, or have all districts only be somewhat coherent?

[Torie]

The devil is in the precise details, but I get where you are going with this actually. And I do expect an explanation to be published today about the matter.

Anyway, I am not getting near your poll. Even the definition of what is "coherent" is all over the map, as the political pressure groups, or pseudo groups that are fronts for certain politicians, twist that definition into a pretzel, as well as what the law requires.

Interesting question though.

[lfromnj]

Definetely interesting, Eastern NC is always a good example of this.
https://twitter.com/decunningham2/status/1446124705325273096

Here's actually an interesting fair map with the non contiguous  coastal district.I saw which decides to take the first approach unlike many of us who take the 2nd approach. Headline numbers are wrong (8-6 in 2020 prez/senate)

Another interesting example I have is SC as well.  The Coastal portion of the state is exactly 2 districts and is blocked inland by the black belt. So the choice is either to have 1 district centered in the Charleston metro which almost exactly 1 district but half a district from Beaufort to Horry or split the Charleston metro in half which does actually work out fairly cleanly. FYI there's literally no partisan difference between the 2, either one gets you a Biden +3ish seat.

[Tintrlvr]

Generally speaking, I would sacrifice one incoherent district for multiple logical districts (start with the obvious building blocks for logical districts and if there are some leftovers at the end, so be it), but it's very contextual.

[Sol]

Here's actually an interesting fair map with the non contiguous  coastal district.I saw which decides to take the first approach unlike many of us who take the 2nd approach. Headline numbers are wrong (8-6 in 2020 prez/senate)

Another enticing version in NC is "sacrificing" Durham to NC-01-- (link) it's bad CoI etc. but everything outside of that part of the Triangle works almost perfectly.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Definetely interesting, Eastern NC is always a good example of this.
https://twitter.com/decunningham2/status/1446124705325273096

Here's actually an interesting fair map with the non contiguous  coastal district.I saw which decides to take the first approach unlike many of us who take the 2nd approach. Headline numbers are wrong (8-6 in 2020 prez/senate)

Another interesting example I have is SC as well.  The Coastal portion of the state is exactly 2 districts and is blocked inland by the black belt. So the choice is either to have 1 district centered in the Charleston metro which almost exactly 1 district but half a district from Beaufort to Horry or split the Charleston metro in half which does actually work out fairly cleanly. FYI there's literally no partisan difference between the 2, either one gets you a Biden +3ish seat.

Also in rural SC the PeeDee region is a classic example of this. Going back 50 years the area was populated enough for one district, in fact for most of South Carolina history it was going back to the 1700s, but with gerrymandering and population growth of Horry and York counties since the 90s we’ve found ourselves variably cut between the two, and neither are that great of options. You can still draw a PeeDee district, but the dominoes that it creates in Charleston and Aiken are not ideal

[Schiff for Senate]

Generally speaking, I would sacrifice one incoherent district for multiple logical districts (start with the obvious building blocks for logical districts and if there are some leftovers at the end, so be it), but it's very contextual.

This. Didn't vote because as the post says, it depends entirely on context and specifically which maps you're discussing. I'd weigh it case by case, but very generally and broadly speaking, I'd tilt towards one bad district and the rest good versus all the districts being a little weird.

[Schiff for Senate]

Map I just drew for MO exemplifying the one bad district thing: https://districtr.org/plan/130119. Districts 1-6 and 8 are all fairly coherant but district 7 is just terrible.

[Sol]

Map I just drew for MO exemplifying the one bad district thing: https://districtr.org/plan/130119. Districts 1-6 and 8 are all fairly coherant but district 7 is just terrible.

I mean, Missouri is actually a state where you can draw 8 good districts.

Tbh quite a few of those seats are p rough--St. Joseph to KCK, the weird looping thing MO-02 does, etc. Doesn't seem to follow municipal boundaries either; you might to want to use DRA as it's much easier to use, has that information, etc.

[Schiff for Senate]

Map I just drew for MO exemplifying the one bad district thing: https://districtr.org/plan/130119. Districts 1-6 and 8 are all fairly coherant but district 7 is just terrible.

I mean, Missouri is actually a state where you can draw 8 good districts.

Tbh quite a few of those seats are p rough--St. Joseph to KCK, the weird looping thing MO-02 does, etc. Doesn't seem to follow municipal boundaries either; you might to want to use DRA as it's much easier to use, has that information, etc.

Well, yeah, I know that it's possible to draw 8 clean districts. And you're probably right, a bunch of my districts are kind of incoherant. I do use DRA sometimes, but that's usually for states where Districtr doesn't have partisan data. It does for MO, so I generally use Districtr for that. But yes, you make good points.