US House Redistricting: North Carolina

[muon2]

Where did this 40% in an urbanized area county concept come from again, and how does one define "urbanized area?"

In the course of a couple of threads in July and August there was an emerging consensus that chopping a metro area should count as much as a chop of a county. There were a variety of Census Bureau definitions of metro areas and after looking at cases in a few states there was convergence on the concept of urban county clusters which are formed from metropolitan statistical ares. jimrtex has outlined the definition and I have now stickied the thread that he created showing all the qualifying UCCs in the US.

What I don't get specifically, is how you determine that an individual county is 40% or more "urbanized."  I don't think the census bureau chops counties that way, does it?

The Census Bureau calculates for each county the fraction of population that is in urbanized areas, urban clusters (ie small cities) and in rural areas. That data was used to separate the mostly commuting counties from the more significant contributors to the urban area. The file is at http://www2.census.gov/geo/ua/PctUrbanRural_County.xls. The data from that file is the basis of the maps jimrtex put together here.

[jimrtex]

Where did this 40% in an urbanized area county concept come from again, and how does one define "urbanized area?"

In the course of a couple of threads in July and August there was an emerging consensus that chopping a metro area should count as much as a chop of a county. There were a variety of Census Bureau definitions of metro areas and after looking at cases in a few states there was convergence on the concept of urban county clusters which are formed from metropolitan statistical ares. jimrtex has outlined the definition and I have now stickied the thread that he created showing all the qualifying UCCs in the US.

What I don't get specifically, is how you determine that an individual county is 40% or more "urbanized."  I don't think the census bureau chops counties that way, does it?

This can be loaded directly into a spreadsheet.

http://www2.census.gov/geo/ua/ua_county_rel_10.txt

http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/pdfs/rel/explanation_ua_county_rel_10.pdf

[jimrtex]

Where did this 40% in an urbanized area county concept come from again, and how does one define "urbanized area?"

In the course of a couple of threads in July and August there was an emerging consensus that chopping a metro area should count as much as a chop of a county. There were a variety of Census Bureau definitions of metro areas and after looking at cases in a few states there was convergence on the concept of urban county clusters which are formed from metropolitan statistical ares. jimrtex has outlined the definition and I have now stickied the thread that he created showing all the qualifying UCCs in the US.

What I don't get specifically, is how you determine that an individual county is 40% or more "urbanized."  I don't think the census bureau chops counties that way, does it?

The Census Bureau calculates for each county the fraction of population that is in urbanized areas, urban clusters (ie small cities) and in rural areas. That data was used to separate the mostly commuting counties from the more significant contributors to the urban area. The file is at http://www2.census.gov/geo/ua/PctUrbanRural_County.xls. The data from that file is the basis of the maps jimrtex put together here.

I used this file, which is the relationship file between urban areas and counties, so for each county has the individual urban areas (plus rural remnant) for each county.

http://www2.census.gov/geo/ua/ua_county_rel_10.txt

[muon2]

Where did this 40% in an urbanized area county concept come from again, and how does one define "urbanized area?"

In the course of a couple of threads in July and August there was an emerging consensus that chopping a metro area should count as much as a chop of a county. There were a variety of Census Bureau definitions of metro areas and after looking at cases in a few states there was convergence on the concept of urban county clusters which are formed from metropolitan statistical ares. jimrtex has outlined the definition and I have now stickied the thread that he created showing all the qualifying UCCs in the US.

What I don't get specifically, is how you determine that an individual county is 40% or more "urbanized."  I don't think the census bureau chops counties that way, does it?

The Census Bureau calculates for each county the fraction of population that is in urbanized areas, urban clusters (ie small cities) and in rural areas. That data was used to separate the mostly commuting counties from the more significant contributors to the urban area. The file is at http://www2.census.gov/geo/ua/PctUrbanRural_County.xls. The data from that file is the basis of the maps jimrtex put together here.

I used this file, which is the relationship file between urban areas and counties, so for each county has the individual urban areas (plus rural remnant) for each county.

http://www2.census.gov/geo/ua/ua_county_rel_10.txt

Are there any places where the files would produce different results?

[TTS1996]

Otherwise, sounds good, although I can't see your image.

s7 (dot) postimg (dot) org/gu59gzq3d/NC1 (dot) jpg

Hope this is visible.

Anyway, I think it better than the NC State Legislature's attempt.

Moderator's note: the image has a different url when I link. I've put that in the image, but I'll see if this lasts.

[TTS1996]

f) The VRA doesn’t exist, because it is a truth universally acknowledged that just because two people share the same colour skin doesn’t mean they have any community of interest at all.

The basic idea behind the VRA, particularly in NC and other Southern states is to assure that minorities aren't gerrymandered out of power. This is particularly important in the south because you often see racial block voting- whites voting overwhelmingly for Republicans (and vice-versa). In some parts of Mississippi, you can draw a 54% White, 45% black district that's pretty much safe R. Thus, blacks can be pretty easily disenfranchised.

Of course, in NC, it isn't that polarized, but there is definitely racial block voting.

Now, I do agree that a black majority district isn't necessary in NC. But NC-1 should probably be plurality black and whatever district is based in Charlotte should not have any racial group as a majority.

There may be bloc voting, but all the VRA seems to achieve - from a Western European perspective - is the ability of Republicans to gerrymander majority-minority districts that vote 70, 80, 90% Democrat, and almost take a gleeful pleasure in it, because the courts force them to do so.

On this side we don't have these issues. There are safe, 99% white, Conservative constituencies in Britain where the central party have arranged it for BME (minority) candidates to run for the candidacy, the candidate has been selected by the party members, the candidate has then been elected (see North West Cambridgeshire or Stratford-upon-Avon) and no-one blinks an eyelid, because the content of the candidate's character (or perhaps the colour of his rosette) was more important than the colour of his skin.

No, no - this whole apparatus should go. If there was an impartial redistricting commission, concerns that minorites would be gerrymandered out of power would be moot.

[jimrtex]

Where did this 40% in an urbanized area county concept come from again, and how does one define "urbanized area?"

In the course of a couple of threads in July and August there was an emerging consensus that chopping a metro area should count as much as a chop of a county. There were a variety of Census Bureau definitions of metro areas and after looking at cases in a few states there was convergence on the concept of urban county clusters which are formed from metropolitan statistical ares. jimrtex has outlined the definition and I have now stickied the thread that he created showing all the qualifying UCCs in the US.

What I don't get specifically, is how you determine that an individual county is 40% or more "urbanized."  I don't think the census bureau chops counties that way, does it?

The Census Bureau calculates for each county the fraction of population that is in urbanized areas, urban clusters (ie small cities) and in rural areas. That data was used to separate the mostly commuting counties from the more significant contributors to the urban area. The file is at http://www2.census.gov/geo/ua/PctUrbanRural_County.xls. The data from that file is the basis of the maps jimrtex put together here.

I used this file, which is the relationship file between urban areas and counties, so for each county has the individual urban areas (plus rural remnant) for each county.

http://www2.census.gov/geo/ua/ua_county_rel_10.txt

Are there any places where the files would produce different results?

Under the final definition - probably not.  But I wouldn't have been able to understand the information or develop the definition without the relationship file.

[Sol]

f) The VRA doesn’t exist, because it is a truth universally acknowledged that just because two people share the same colour skin doesn’t mean they have any community of interest at all.

The basic idea behind the VRA, particularly in NC and other Southern states is to assure that minorities aren't gerrymandered out of power. This is particularly important in the south because you often see racial block voting- whites voting overwhelmingly for Republicans (and vice-versa). In some parts of Mississippi, you can draw a 54% White, 45% black district that's pretty much safe R. Thus, blacks can be pretty easily disenfranchised.

Of course, in NC, it isn't that polarized, but there is definitely racial block voting.

Now, I do agree that a black majority district isn't necessary in NC. But NC-1 should probably be plurality black and whatever district is based in Charlotte should not have any racial group as a majority.

There may be bloc voting, but all the VRA seems to achieve - from a Western European perspective - is the ability of Republicans to gerrymander majority-minority districts that vote 70, 80, 90% Democrat, and almost take a gleeful pleasure in it, because the courts force them to do so.

On this side we don't have these issues. There are safe, 99% white, Conservative constituencies in Britain where the central party have arranged it for BME (minority) candidates to run for the candidacy, the candidate has been selected by the party members, the candidate has then been elected (see North West Cambridgeshire or Stratford-upon-Avon) and no-one blinks an eyelid, because the content of the candidate's character (or perhaps the colour of his rosette) was more important than the colour of his skin.

No, no - this whole apparatus should go. If there was an impartial redistricting commission, concerns that minorites would be gerrymandered out of power would be moot.

The VRA is absolutely necessary because it prevents splitting ethnic communities of interest. For instance, me and Miles's debate up-thread was all about the fact that splitting up Robeson,  Scotland, and Hoke counties from each other splits up the Lumbee tribe, one of the largest native groups (although it doesn't have federal recognition for some dumb reason). Similarly, it can be used to keep other COI's together- not putting Cubans in Miami in with Collier County, for example (this actually exists on the current map, of course).

It's necessary to have the VRA, even with independent commissions, because ethnic minorities can be diluted if you draw reasonable looking districts. You can do this in NC for example:



CD4, CD3, and CD2-none of them would probably elect the black candidate of choice (with a racialized Democratic primary in CD4, of course).

Now, of course, my defense of the VRA does not necessarily mean I think NC needs a black-majority district. But it definitely needs a black plurality district in NE NC.

[Sol]

Also, it appears that a plurality black VAP district has to go into Durham/Raleigh in some way.

With regards to your image, does this work for display? I can see it if I put the url in and go to the site.



I like your map. There are a few issues however, besides our VRA disagreement:
-I would avoid splitting Robeson County
-Similarly, I'd try to either split one of Johnston and Wayne.
-I would definitely avoid putting district 1 in Northern Wake. The two are quite different, even excluding the VRA stuff involved.
-You can have a whole county CD11 that isn't too different from what you have:

[muon2]

This attempt involves the urban county cluster model. Urban clusters are made from counties in an MSA that have over 40% population in an urbanized area (or have 25K urbanized population). Minority clusters are contiguous counties that are over 40% BVAP. The map shows the UCCs in pink and the MCCs in green. The number in the circle is the minimum number of CDs it takes to cover the UCC.



For this plan UCCs and MCCs are each covered with the fewest number of CDs. Only Mecklenburg and Wake are chopped, and 4 microchops are used to keep all CDs within 0.5% of the population quota. There is no forced linking of the urban minority populations in Raleigh or Durham with CD 1, so it is left with only 40.3% BVAP. However, CDs 1, 3, 4 and 13 could be rearranged to provide a 50% BVAP CD without changing the rest of the map.

If I force a VRA CD unto the plan above, I get the following plan. CD 1 is at 50.3% BVAP. The other eastern CDs are adjusted to keep chops and erosity down.

[Sol]

This attempt involves the urban county cluster model. Urban clusters are made from counties in an MSA that have over 40% population in an urbanized area (or have 25K urbanized population). Minority clusters are contiguous counties that are over 40% BVAP. The map shows the UCCs in pink and the MCCs in green. The number in the circle is the minimum number of CDs it takes to cover the UCC.



For this plan UCCs and MCCs are each covered with the fewest number of CDs. Only Mecklenburg and Wake are chopped, and 4 microchops are used to keep all CDs within 0.5% of the population quota. There is no forced linking of the urban minority populations in Raleigh or Durham with CD 1, so it is left with only 40.3% BVAP. However, CDs 1, 3, 4 and 13 could be rearranged to provide a 50% BVAP CD without changing the rest of the map.

If I force a VRA CD unto the plan above, I get the following plan. CD 1 is at 50.3% BVAP. The other eastern CDs are adjusted to keep chops and erosity down.

That VRA map is pretty much as good as it gets for a black-majority NC-01. Well done!

[jimrtex]

This attempt involves the urban county cluster model. Urban clusters are made from counties in an MSA that have over 40% population in an urbanized area (or have 25K urbanized population). Minority clusters are contiguous counties that are over 40% BVAP. The map shows the UCCs in pink and the MCCs in green. The number in the circle is the minimum number of CDs it takes to cover the UCC.



For this plan UCCs and MCCs are each covered with the fewest number of CDs. Only Mecklenburg and Wake are chopped, and 4 microchops are used to keep all CDs within 0.5% of the population quota. There is no forced linking of the urban minority populations in Raleigh or Durham with CD 1, so it is left with only 40.3% BVAP. However, CDs 1, 3, 4 and 13 could be rearranged to provide a 50% BVAP CD without changing the rest of the map.

If I force a VRA CD unto the plan above, I get the following plan. CD 1 is at 50.3% BVAP. The other eastern CDs are adjusted to keep chops and erosity down.

Whole county-districts are intrinsically compact.

There is explanation for the tentacles into Raleigh and Durham other than race.  The second plan violates Equal Protection.

[muon2]

I slightly modified my non-VRA plan to reduce erosity without increasing chops (with previous posts updated). It shifts Stanly to CD 8 and alters the splits in Charlotte to follow the official planning regions, only chopping the east region between CD 8 and 12. Politically (based on 2008) the map is 7R, 2e, 3d, 1D.

CD 1 D+2
CD 2 R+0
CD 3 R+8
CD 4 D+11
CD 5 R+10
CD 6 D+1
CD 7 R+8
CD 8 R+13
CD 9 D+2
CD 10 R+16
CD 11 R+8
CD 12 R+6
CD 13 D+3

[Sol]

BTW Muon, your map of Charlotte needs to be fixed asap. Gaston county should not go all the way into the city.

[jimrtex]

BTW Muon, your map of Charlotte needs to be fixed asap. Gaston county should not go all the way into the city.

The Gaston County line extends easterly from the South Carolina line for about 2 miles before turning to the north.  The area around the southeastern corner of Gaston County, on both sides of the county line is mostly outside the Charlotte and Gastonia urbanized areas.  The two urbanized areas abut further north.

[JacobNC]

The 1st district does not have to be drawn into Durham/Raleigh to be black plurality.  And it should not be.

[muon2]

The 1st district does not have to be drawn into Durham/Raleigh to be black plurality.  And it should not be.

That requires an extensive number of erose peninsulas into the center of every small city in eastern NC. Yuck.

[Torie]

The 1st district does not have to be drawn into Durham/Raleigh to be black plurality.  And it should not be.

That requires an extensive number of erose peninsulas into the center of every small city in eastern NC. Yuck.

Good to see that you are on erosity patrol these days, Mike.

[Miles]

I revised my fair map putting all of Robeson County in CD8 and making CD1 less erose:

[muon2]

The 1st district does not have to be drawn into Durham/Raleigh to be black plurality.  And it should not be.

That requires an extensive number of erose peninsulas into the center of every small city in eastern NC. Yuck.

Good to see that you are on erosity patrol these days, Mike.

And what are your thoughts on the VRA here? Is one mandated?

[jimrtex]

The 1st district does not have to be drawn into Durham/Raleigh to be black plurality.  And it should not be.

That requires an extensive number of erose peninsulas into the center of every small city in eastern NC. Yuck.

Good to see that you are on erosity patrol these days, Mike.

And what are your thoughts on the VRA here? Is one mandated?

It fails the Gingles test, which may not even be applicable.

[muon2]

I revised my fair map putting all of Robeson County in CD8 and making CD1 less erose:

What measure should we look at to determine its fairness?

[Miles]

I revised my fair map putting all of Robeson County in CD8 and making CD1 less erose:

What measure should we look at to determine its fairness?

I was just going by the map I put out a while ago. I tried to apply what you said about CD1 and Sol's input about CD8.

Do you not like it? It was just kinda a first draft.

[muon2]

I revised my fair map putting all of Robeson County in CD8 and making CD1 less erose:

What measure should we look at to determine its fairness?

I was just going by the map I put out a while ago. I tried to apply what you said about CD1 and Sol's input about CD8.

Do you not like it? It was just kinda a first draft.

My biggest objection is to your CD 9. A year ago we generally concluded that connecting two whole counties by means of a bridge through a third is an invitation to gerrymandering and should be avoided. Having a CD wholly in Mecklenburg isn't worth the erose shape of CD 9.

[Miles]

My biggest objection is to your CD 9. A year ago we generally concluded that connecting two whole counties by means of a bridge through a third is an invitation to gerrymandering and should be avoided. Having a CD wholly in Mecklenburg isn't worth the erose shape of CD 9.

Yes, the bridge is a bit awkward, but as someone who lives in CD9, I think putting Gaston and Union Counties together is a good CoI.