Talk Elections

Coming soon

Year 2000
()

NDP doesnt win anything in 2000; probably not even DC. The PCs would probably only win Maine and New Hampshire.

2000...

()

1997...

()

1993...

()

1988...

(Green is NDP)

()

2011
()

Do you have any more guesses, Hatman?

1921
()

Are the Progressives/United Farmers in green?

2008 with the "Bloc South"

()

2006

()

2004
()

2000, better version:

()

1997

()

1993

()

1984

()

1980

()

1979
()

1974

()

Green is Social Credit

1972

()

Trudeaumania, 1968

()

West Virginia would have been an NDP, not Liberal stronghold.

Maybe, but look at Cape Breton, a similar area in Canada. It's very Liberal, even to this day.

Here's 1965

()

Cape Breton has Catholics, WV doesn't.

Ok, well howabout Saskatchewan to compare to? NDP hasn't won there since 1988, and WV is too economically left win to vote for the Tories.

Here's in 1963

()

1962

()

1958 with Dief the Chief cruising to a landslide

()

Where does this idea that there's only Cape Breton to compare to come from? Plenty of mining areas vote NDP. That's what a lot of the NDP tradition in Northern Ontario (for example) is based on. Though more questionable is DC as a longterm NDP stronghold, actually. I don't see that.

2000:
()

Blue is the Deseret Bloc.

DC voting NDP would probably need to mean that blacks vote solidly NDP, which I also don't really see. Blacks in Canada usually vote Liberal pretty solidly.

Demographic support is like this in my alternate reality:

Liberal base support:
-northeastern Boshwash whites (most bobo areas like the NDP though)
-minorities (although the NDP in 2011 performed very well among latinos)
-all "gentiles" in Mormonland

NDP base support:
-working class in the rust belt, all progressive-types in the midwest and plains, farmers in the midwest and plains still have a NDP tradition dating to the early 1900s.
-"bobos", although they are weak supporters
-latino emigrants are an emerging support group

Torie base support:
-southern whites (although appalachian whites are split between them and the grits)
-rural
-an emerging support group are exurban/outer-ring suburban whites in the northwest and west

DC would be a swing city. Blacks in Canada come in a number of categories. Caribbean Blacks vote Liberal big time, but there aren't that many in the US anyways. Cities like Windsor, ON have a large African American population, and they vote NDP. So, I'm thinking that American Blacks would be more likely to vote NDP. Especially since they're not immigrants. Let's look at US history... in the 1960s, the civil rights movement was facilitated through the Liberal side of the Democratic Party. If the NDP were a strong party, the civil rights movement would have been facilitated through them. Therefore, I think African Americans would support the NDP. Especially since the Liberals would have waffled through the civil rights era trying to keep on the side of southern whites.

By the way, 1957:

()

2011:
()

note: I'm not using the south as an analog to Quebec so Liberals (the party of the strange coalition of WASPs and ethnic whites) passed legislation on civil rights with the support of NDP (which was born out of the Populist/Grange movement and later found union support so it has little connection to the civil rights movement and was more neutral).

1993 :

()

Liberal : 41.2%
Reform : 18.7%
PC : 16%
Southern Block : 13.5%
NDP : 6.9%


2006 :

()

Conservative : 36.3%
Liberal : 30.2%
NDP : 17.5%
Southern Block : 10.5%


2011 :

()

Conservative : 39.6%
NDP : 30.6%
Liberal : 18.9%
Southern Block : 6%

I think it's best to do these things based on Canada outside Quebec. Quebec is so... unique it would hardly carry over to the US or most other places except like Spain or maybe Italy.

Also, the PCs in the 1990s would never carry UT, ID, OK, ID or IN.

1953

()

1949

()

1945

()

1940

()

1935

()

And 1854 of course (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elections_in_the_Province_of_Canada#1854)

()

1930

()

1926
()

()

1867, with anti-confed

2011 SE (Seat Equalized)

()


SE = Share of Electoral-Vote is designed to be as close to the share of Commons seats as possible. Note that I allow myself a 30EV variance in order to deal with the winner-take-all situation, and, I allow myself a variance of up to 100EV when it comes to "Quebec Unique Parties" like the Bloc. Also note that Green is NDP unless otherwise noted.

1962 :

()

PC : 37.2%
Liberal : 37.0%
NDP : 13.6%
SoCred : 11.6%


1968 :

()

Liberal : 45.4%
PC : 31.4%
NDP : 17.0%
Creditist Rally : 4.4%


1984 :

()

PC : 50%
Liberal : 28%
NDP : 18.8%

1984 would be a landslide- the Tories would win everything except DC. What was true in the US (save MN) was true in Canada, where Mulroney won every province and Terr.

Winning 10 provinces out of 10 is not the same as winning 50 States of 50. ;) I might have overestimated the NDP a bit, but I think it's fair to assume each party would have retained its main strongholds.

Here's 1993

()

1997

()

2008

()

I really think Vermont would be an NDP strong hold these days. It seems comfortable with having a Socialist US Senator, and remember the NDP would have to be even more moderate if we are using the same popular vote totals.

Yeah, maybe. Would have been a PC stronghold until 1993, for sure. The problem is that there aren't many Vermonts in Canada except maybe BC Southern Interior, where the NDP voting is much deeper than just "rural hippies" and is fairly class/ethnic based. BGOS/Dufferin-Caledon has some rural hippie areas like we pointed out in the Ontario 2011 thread, but they seem Green or Liberal.

That part of Ontario would never vote for Bernie Sanders though.

All right, let's start.

California

The inland far north would be pretty solidly Conservative, while the coast north of Sonoma County would be generally Liberal, although the NDP would have strength in places like Arcata and Mendocino. Further south, the Bay Area would lean NDP. Rich suburbs like in Marin and the South Bay would usually vote Liberal, but those would fall to the NDP in 2011. San Francisco would be safe NDP, falling only in 1993. Oakland would stay NDP even in that election. There might be areas that were once pockets of PC strength, but those would be gone after Diefenbaker. Santa Cruz would be NDP, while Monterey and Salinas would swing between the NDP and the Liberals. In the Central Valley, Sacramento, Stockton and Fresno would be Liberal, although the NDP would pose a major threat in 2011. With increasing suburbanization coupled with existing political trends, the Sierra foothills (El Dorado and Placer counties in particular) would have gone from solidly Liberal in 1993 to very safe Conservative in 2011.

In the southern San Joaquin Valley, Bakersfield and Kern County would be very Conservative; Reform would have won here handily. San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara would lean Liberal, but in 2011 the Grits would lose all but the major coastal cities of the area. The Southern California metropolitan area would be the Liberal heartland; aside from a few NDP areas in inner Los Angeles and scattered Tory strength in parts of Orange County and San Diego, it would be a sea of red. The real Liberal problem in 2011 would be the loss of this area; much like in Toronto, the Grits would be squeezed on two sides, with the NDP making huge gains in Los Angeles County and the Tories picking up seats in San Diego, Orange County, the Inland Empire (heretofore comfortably Liberal), and the San Gabriel foothills. To the east, Imperial County would be won by the Liberals every time.

Provincially, politics would be based on geography as much as ideology. There would be a prominent sectional divide in politics thanks to issues like water. In Northern California, the NDP would win almost everywhere, and the NDP leadership would be composed almost exclusively of northerners. The center-right Liberal party would be predominant in Southern California (although not to the extent that the NDP would hold sway in the north). A rump PC party would hold a handful of rural inland seats, but would be a non-factor most everywhere else.

So, California = BC?

I like how you've followed the Canadian provincial tradition of giving California's "provincial" parties different strengths. I wonder if any states will have parties like the Saskatchewan Party. Maybe in the south?

In a lot of ways, yeah. The biggest difference might be that California has two major metropolitan areas and British Columbia only has one. There's some Ontario involved, too; Los Angeles in particular I treated a lot like Toronto.


One of the most interesting things about Canada is that there's a multi-party system federally but almost every province has a two-party system. It's fun to try to translate that to a different context.

The Saskatchewan Party is basically Tories with a funny name; while it's conceivable that something like that could happen in the United States, I'm not sure it's feasible to prognosticate where it would occur. We'll see if it comes up.

Ahh, LA. One has to ask how Hispanics vote in Canada.  Can't say for sure, as there aren't very many of them. If they're immigrants from Latin countries, they might vote NDP or Cons like in the old country, but who knows how American Latinos would vote in Canada.

I can only think of 2 Hispanic MPs from the past. One was a Liberal (Pablo Rodriguez), one was an NDPer (John Rodriguez).

There was also a very right-wing Tory from Quebec back in the '80s; his name escapes me now.

EDIT: Ricardo Lopez

So will the South, with its insistence on states' rights, have a separatist party like Quebec, or more "the South wants in", like Reform out West?

In Toronto Latin Americans are traditionally the most NDP ethnic minority. In the 2001 census the two largest Latin American national groups in the country were Salvadorans, who mostly came in the 1980's fleeing D'Aubuisson, followed by Chileans, who mostly came in the 1970's fleeing Pinochet. They are not, to put it mildly, fans of Reagan.

In Montreal they were presumably Liberal pre-2011 just since that was the only game in town. But notice the bio of the new MP for Honoré Mercier (http://paulinaayala.ndp.ca/home).

Recently there has been a surge of Mexican immigration, so in the 2006 census Mexico had surpassed both to take top spot, with the largest group by far arriving 2001-2006. I would suspect they probably mostly aren't voting for anyone.

Oh, I knew there was an Hispanic MP in Quebec, but I forgot...

Also, the Portuguese are heavily NDP in Toronto now, I think.

The latter, I would say. There's no place in America as different as Quebec, and the South's grievances have a lot in common with Western Canada's, although the Western United States is that way as well. I think you would see Texas as the heart of the Reform Party base, being both Southern and Western. Dallas would be similar to Calgary in terms of importance to the conservative movement.

I can see Texas, with oil and cattle, as being similar to Alberta, although the Hispanic border area is probably unparalleled in Canadian politics?

Certainly it's not an exact comparison; Texas is bigger than Alberta, and it has things that Alberta doesn't (the sizable Hispanic population being most important). But that's what makes this exercise fun, doesn't it?

Massachusetts

The Boston metropolitan area would be a mix of Liberal and NDP enclaves. Downtown, the North End, Beacon Hill, Back Bay, and Allston-Brighton would lean NDP, the rest of the city of Boston would be strongly Liberal, and the inner ring of suburbs would be vaguely split with NDP areas of strength in the north and west and Liberal areas in the south and southeast (the split, if geographically distinguishable, would likely be between Newton/Wellesley and Needham). The Boston exurbs would be mostly Liberal with some Tory parts, primarily, I think, in Plymouth and Norfolk Counties; in 2011 large parts may have gone NDP but the Liberals would hold up better in Greater Boston than they did in Greater Toronto overall. The main Tory areas, if any, would be in Worcester County (outside the city of Worcester and its immediate surrounding area, which I think would be Liberal, with possible Tory encroachment over the past decade) and some of the suburbs of Springfield. Springfield itself would be solidly Liberal, as would Chicopee, Holyoke, and probably West Springfield. The rest of the Connecticut Valley would be ancestrally Liberal but NDP in 2011 and likely to stay with the Dippers in the future; the Berkshires would probably be the NDP base area in the state outside Boston. I'm not sure what Cape Cod would look like, probably mixed with the Lower Cape as generally speaking more Grit/Dipper and the Upper Cape more Tory. The Islands would be solidly Liberal, as would New Bedford and Fall River, until 2011 when I would think all of these areas would be ripe for NDP pickup. The Merrimack Valley and North Shore would be mostly Liberal with some Conservative areas until 2011, when the Tories would sweep the less-urban parts and the NDP the more-urban.

Provincially, I'd imagine a BC-esque setup with a center-right Liberal Party and staunchly leftist NDP, whose main bases would be in central Massachusetts into Norfolk and Plymouth and in western Massachusetts and Boston, respectively. There would probably also be a relatively strong provincial Green Party, especially in the west and in the Cape and Islands.

I apportioned seats the Canadian way, with each state getting no fewer members than Senators and no fewer members than it had in 1984. Would anyone be interested in drawing constituencies and looking at how they might vote?

()

I'll try to draw a few ASAP, if you want. ;)

That would be excellent. I started with Utah, the smallest state that I can say I'm familiar with:

()

The red riding, Salt Lake, is about ten percent larger than ideal, covering all of Salt Lake County. A large portion of Utah's non-Mormon population lives in this riding, which also contains the University of Utah, and so it would be able to elect a Liberal in a good year; it would have voted Liberal in 1993 and 1997 and perhaps 2000, but now it would be Conservative, although not by so large a margin as to deny the Liberals hope of retaking it. The green riding, Ogden—Logan, would be comfortably Conservative, and the blue riding, Provo—St. George, would be among the safest Conservative seats in the country.

Here's Wyoming. I suppose I should've done one like yours...

()

Vermont

()

BTW Xahar, which formula did you use to apportion seats ? Initially I thought you were just keeping the same numbers and adding seats based on the two "clauses", but then I noticed California and Florida have less seats than IRL...

We could use DRA for doing this, you know. I'd do a few if I hadn't gotten 600 things on my plate.

I divided each state's population by 435 to get an ideal constituency size, and then I divided each population by that ideal constituency size and rounded down to get the baseline number of seats. After that, I added seats based on the various clauses.


I did use DRA, actually, but I made a map myself once I realized that I was making seats out of whole counties.

Use DRA for cities. Canada has a high variance in riding size, 25%, AND allows for special exceptions in the case of anything really. I interpret that, applied to the US, as counties in rural areas, and DRA in urban areas.

Earl's two maps:

()()

North Dakota:

()

MA (Right-click/View image to embiggen)

()

Parenthetical parties are how I think the ridings would be 'traditionally' perceived as leaning. Italics are self-explanatory.

I think the Liberals would have won every riding except for Brookline--Newton--Cambridge--Somerville (or equivalent) in 1993 and the PCs would have won Framingham--Lexington--Acton, Worcester--Attleboro, Lowell--Merrimack--Newburyport, Cape--Islands--Plymouth, Revere--Salem--Gloucester, Needham--Quincy, and possibly Springfield--Uxbridge (or equivalents) in 1984.

Interesting. My uninformed perception of Massachusetts is that it would be more strongly Liberal, what with the association of Catholics with the Liberal Party. The Berkshires would be an especially interesting case; offhand I would expect them to be traditionally Liberal, but they might also be NDP.

In a 'normal' year the only Massachusetts ridings that I would expect the Tories to have a realistic chance of winning would be Framingham--Lexington--Acton and Cape--Islands--Plymouth. The ridings that I have as 'weak Grit' would probably more or less always go Liberal, just not by very spectacular margins (also keep in mind that Revere--Salem--Gloucester, Needham--Quincy, Bristol--Brockton, and the non-NDP parts of Boston and Berkshires--Riverlands--Twin Towns would, I think, traditionally be very Liberal, even more strongly than they are Democratic in real life). In a Liberal majority government they would probably win every riding except the NDP inner-suburbs one; in a Liberal minority government (think 2000/2003) the Tories would still probably only take Framingham--Lexington--Acton.

The Berkshires were represented in Congress for a long time by one of the last labor-friendly agrarian-center-left Republicans, Silvio Conte. I'm intimately familiar with the area and I think somebody like Tommy Douglas would have been very popular here (Hell, among people who know the name he's very popular now).

Very cool. I would probably name the Cape district just "Cape Cod", or if you insist, "Cape Cod-The Islands".

Also, I'm thinking that the Tories probably wouldn't have won anything, because A) the GOP doesnt have any districts there and B), if we extrapolate the 2011 Canadian results into the US, it means the Tories probably wouldn't have enough support to go to places like MA.

Alaska,

()

Keep in mind that the Framingham--Lexington--Acton riding turned out as essentially some of the most GOP parts of the state (along with a few Democratic suburbs that really aren't enough to countervail that) kind of smashed together, and that the districts as they currently exist do, at least somewhat, favor Democrats more than a 'fair' map necessarily would. Up until 2011 I indeed can't imagine the Tories winning outside Framingham--Lexington--Acton and possibly Cape--Islands--Plymouth (I can't think of many people in Plymouth County who would appreciate being in a riding just named 'Cape Cod' or 'Cape--Islands') except in years like 1984; but in 2011 remember that we're dealing with vote-splitting as a very real problem for the center-left and left in a lot of areas similar to exurban Boston.

The more I think about it the more I wonder if Revere--Salem--Gloucester and Needham--Quincy might actually go narrowly NDP.

It's also possible, depending on how we are doing some of this cultural and political transpositioning, that Massachusetts could be a little like Newfoundland and stay Liberal even after the collapse.

Howabout Plymouth-Cape Cod and the Islands?

I love this, we're each doing states like individual boundary commissions :)

Here is South Dakota by the way,

()

Worth pointing out that the Catholic = Liberal thing is nowhere near as absolute as it used to be.

And if you're talking about Nfld, remember there the Catholics traditionally vote Tory and Prods vote Liberal there. But, MA would be more like Nova Scotia, I think, as if we're treating Atlantic Canada = New England, then Boston = Halifax.

Plymouth--Cape Cod and the Islands works very well, thank you, actually. I like it.

Come to think of it, I think Lowell--Merrimack--Newburyport might be somewhat more Liberal-inclined, and Worcester--Attleboro somewhat less so, than I initially imagined. There are a lot of parts of the Merrimack Valley that go GOP but do so more because of perceived liberal/urban elitism (you know how it is...) on the part of the state/national party than because of inherent conservatism. There are a lot of old industrial towns in that area and it's pretty Catholic, and increasingly Hispanic from what I've heard.

Worcester County, on the other hand, is increasingly yuppie hell, except for the northwestern and west-central parts.

But it's still pretty important, and if we're looking at the pre-06 era, it's even more important.

What would be the EQ for New York state? And how many people live east of NYC? Could you fit a full district in there? If someone can work that out for me, I could begin on NYC myself.

Here's Delaware. Used DRA for it :)

()

Wilmington was 71% Obama.  Could go NDP or Liberal, but I don't know much about the area.

I can do places like NY or Texas

Here's Montana,

()

Here's Missouri :

()

I've tried to abide by Canada's rule : compact districts respecting county/city borders as much as possible. But the 25% requirement is insanely lax : I tried to make variation not exceed 10%.

Don't know how these districts would vote with Canadian parties, but here are the results for the 2008 election :
- District 1 : M 63.1 / O 35.5
- District 2 : M 61.3 / O 37.1
- District 3 : O 62.4 / M 36.5
- District 4 : M 62.1 / O 36.2
- District 5 : M 52.1 / O 46.4
- District 6 : O 80.3 / M 18.8
- Disctrict 7 : O 51.2 / M 47.9
- District 8 : M 56 / O 42.7
- District 9 : M 53.1 / O 45.2



So for example is the raw number was 52.9 you rounded down to 52 ? Is it how they do in Canada ?

Nassau County and Suffolk County together fill almost exactly five ridings.

Antonio, you're supposed to name the districts. That's part of the whole fun!

Probably a bastion for the Grits up until 2006, that riding has many very Catholic and upper-middle class suburbs. It would be similar to Toronto Centre in its voting patterns, except with less strength for the Greens and maybe a larger swing towards the Tories that makes it a three way race in 2011.

Kent-Sussex-Middletown is tough, it would probably be a perennial marginal riding for the Tories with a strong Grit presence.

Looks like I don't have this "Canadian" mindset. ;) The purple one would obviously be "Kansas city" and the teal one "St. Louis". The big ones can simply be "Northwest", "Northeast", "Centre-west", "Centre-east", "Southwest" and "Southeast". I know, I'm not very original. :P

Canadian names need to contain at least 70 names of random villages connected by emdashes (at least in Quebec).

Not so obvious, as I would call it Jackson (it's just the county, after all)

The other names are no good :p (save StL)

Rhode Island

()

()

New Hampshire.  I like these district names, I didn't use a single town or city for them :)

Just for fun, I did an Idaho map with 14 Canada-sized constituencies.

()

Coeur d'Alene (dark salmon): 62.5% McCain
Bonner—Shoshone (olive): 62.3% McCain
Lewiston—Moscow (cornflower blue): 59.2% McCain
Caldwell (chartreuse): 68.9% McCain
Nampa (deep pink): 68.5% McCain
Boise West (cyan): 66.0% McCain
Boise—Cloverdale (slate blue): 58.3% McCain
Boise Center (dark gray): 62.3% Obama
Sawtooth—Salmon River (teal): 52.8% McCain
Owyhee—Twin Falls (gold): 69.5% McCain
Snake Valley (red): 77.8% McCain
Pocatello (dark magenta): 60.8% McCain
Blackfoot—Rexburg (red): 80.6% McCain
Idaho Falls (blue): 69.7% McCain

Maine: ()

Hawaii

()

ETA: *checks actual CD map*

Wow, I think I've somehow managed the exact same borders as the current congressional districts.

Put together the ones people have already completed, onto a single map. I'm not entirely satisfied with my efforts in Massachusetts, but thought I'd upload now anyway, since the thread seems to have slowed down a little and perhaps this will prompt a few more states. I've started on a bit of a Boston inset but not rushing it, and it will mainly just show the dark blue riding (in the original uploaded map) with a small amount of area surrounding. Bigger version in the gallery, and I intend on adding states as you guys complete them (assuming there are no objections, either to me doing this, nor to any state that gets completed by different posters... we should probably have something resembling consensus on riding boundaries before I go editing the map).

Ridings of the US Parliament

()


Edit to add in DC, since it receives just a single riding within its established boundaries.

Here's Idaho: ()

If it were at all possible, I wouldn't split Pocatello and Idaho Falls; an east-west split would make most sense, given religious demographics.

I know nothing about intra-state demographics of, well, pretty much any part of the US, so I'm not trying to sound obnoxious here (and also a reason why I'm not drawing any boundaries myself). I think Idaho currently has two Congressional Districts arranged east-west, though, doesn't it? Is this the reason?

Incidentally, Earl, I like your style of uploading the maps, with the clear markings of the counties, it makes it far easier when I'm trying to mark them on the map I've been using.

I didn't want a really long riding though. Feel free to make your own map.

Here is Nebraska

()

I just realized some of the population figures Ive been using on some maps may not be the 2010 census. Oh well.

This map demonstrates pretty well the cultural split in Idaho:

()

In the case of your Idaho districts Hatman, I would move Ada, Gem, Boise, Payette, and Canyon counties into Panhandle-Idaho Falls and rename it Boise-Panhandle. I would then remove all the counties east of Valley and Idaho counties and move them into the other riding which I would rename Snake Valley.

NY coming up. 34 seats! whoo! DRA will be used.

I've spent the last hour just trying to get the new york map to open. I can not. I can't even get Texas to open. I'll have to do a smaller state.

K. Forget about DRA. I cant open NY, Texas, Illi, Mich, NJ... I was able to open Iowa, just barely.

I'll be doing NY on a county level. I'll have to figure out NYC later.

K so, it turns out this is the best I can do... uugh. I'm out for all the other states.

()

Names?

Teddy, wouldn't it be possible to respect county lines a bit more ? I think that's what Canadian apportioners would focus on, isn't it ?

Our ridings are smaller, so we don't follow county lines that much (and many provinces dont have counties or county equivalents [SK, MB, NL]) , but we do follow municipal lines as much as possible.

I can't speak for Teddy, but might I suggest, if he doesn't have better names, Waterbury--Litchfield Hills, Stamford--Bridgeport West, New Haven--Bridgeport East, Woodstock--Storrs--Norwich--New London, Windsor Locks--Hartford North, and Middletown--Hartford South?

I can do New York later this afternoon if anybody wants.

Here's a re-do of Idaho that keeps the Mormon area together (since the boundary commission did not like my first map),

()

West Virginia. Grandfathered into an extra seat,

()

Updated to include Earl's map of Nebraska.

I'll wait a few hours longer, to allow for comment on Earl's second Idaho, West Virginia, and Teddy's Connecticut. Assuming no further discussion on those states, I'll update the map later today to incorporate those boundaries. As I said yesterday, I don't know much about intra-state demographics in the US, but I think that map of WV looks really good.

Ridings of the US Parliament

()


States completed (ridings): 18 (59)

Alaska (2)
Connecticut (6)
Delaware (2)
DC (1)
Hawaii (2)
Maine (2)
Massachusetts (11)
Missouri (9)
Montana (2)
Nebraska (3)
New Hampshire (2)
North Dakota (2)
Rhode Island (2)
South Dakota (2)
Utah (3)
Vermont (2)
West Virginia (4)
Wyoming (2)


Pending (ridings): 5 (47)
Idaho (2)
New Mexico (3)
Nevada (3)
Kansas (5)
New York (34)


Remaining States (ridings): 28 (371)
Arkansas (4)
Mississippi (5)
Oregon (5)
Iowa (6)
Oklahoma (6)
South Carolina (6)
Alabama (7)
Colorado (7)
Kentucky (7)
Louisiana (8)
Maryland (8)
Minnesota (8)
Arizona (9)
Tennessee (9)
Washington (9)
Wisconsin (9)
Indiana (10)
Virginia (11)
Georgia (13)
North Carolina (13)
New Jersey (14)
Michigan (18)
Ohio (21)
Illinois (22)
Pennsylvania (23)
Florida (26)
Texas (35)
California (52)

I'm working on New York now. 24 out of 34 ridings completed.

Ideally, the entire Boise metropolitan area would be in one district. That should be possible. I would make my own map, but I'm occupied at the moment.

You mean put the panhandle in with the Mormon areas? That wouldn't be very compact looking.

New Mexico

()

Las Cruces-Roswell would vote Tory, the other two could be won by any of the three parties.

New York

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

Names for New York/Westchester/Nassau ridings:

Long Island West-Central (Purple)
Great Neck--Port Washington--Hempstead--Freeport (Red)
Long Beach--Lynbrook--Elmont (Yellow)
Far Rockaway--Jamaica Bay--Rochdale (Teal)
Flushing Meadows--Queens East (Silver)
Queens Center (Lavender)
Queen North-West (Cyan)
Canarsie--Prospect Park (Pink)
Flatbush--Midwood--Sheepshead Bay (Chartreuse)
Sunset Park--Borough Park--Bensonhurst (Cornflower)
Staten Island--Coney Island (Olive)
Brooklyn North-Center--Crown Heights (Buff)
Manhattan South (Orange)
Manhattan Center (Lime Green)
Manhattan North (Indigo)
Bronx South (Gold)
Bronx West-Center (Tan)
Bronx North-East--New Rochelle--Yonkers (Light pink)
White Plains--Mount Kisco--Bedford (Dark brown)
Newburgh--Ramapo (Medium brown)

For cities, it would be "Center" instead of "Central", I would think.


Would that be necessary? The Boise metro area is less than 40% of the state's population.

Very cool. I think some of the names could be improved to sound more Canadian. Also, I wonder if Staten Island could be its own district? Maybe an undersized district; just because I don't like just giving it a bit of the mainland. Oh well.

I was working on Nevada,

()


Don't you mean Centre? ;)


I think so. Idaho has 3 population centres. One will have to be divided.

Here's Kansas

()

Staten Island certainly ought to be its own district; its population is 80% of ideal, but logical boundaries are more important than exact equality.

Center ought to be used for riding names, because this is America.

The Nevada map looks good, but I would change the names. The city of Las Vegas's boundaries don't really correspond to anything (the Strip, for instance, isn't in Las Vegas proper), so I would call those two ridings Las Vegas North and Las Vegas South. The other district's name is rather long; if we take the example of Churchill in Manitoba and name it after the largest river in the riding, we get the name Humboldt. I like that.

I'm all ears.


We could definitely put it like that. I don't like that either. The district would be about a hundred thousand undersized, about twice the recommended deviation, and I thought for quite a while about which was preferable. Now that I think of it yet again, I think I agree with you; just give that olive bit of Brooklyn to Flatbush--Midwood--Sheepshead Bay and/or Sunset Park--Borough Park--Bensonhurst (and slap '--Coney Island' on the relevant name or names).

The Bronx, though, kind of has to have part of it kicked in with Yonkers and New Rochelle.

I could start work on New Jersey, Alabama, Colorado, or Arizona, whichever we'd prefer.

Very well then.  Las Vegas North / Las Vegas South are good. But, I don't like Humboldt for the other riding name.  Howabout "Deseret"?

Other options,

Great Basin-Mojave or Great Basin-Colorado.

The name Deseret is always associated with Mormonism. That wouldn't work. Would Great Basin be too vague?

Actually your original names for Las Vegas are more appropriate as is.  Your northern riding appears to encompass the actual city boundaries of LV proper and North Las Vegas, more or less.  While the southern riding appears to contain only the unincorporated named towns and Henderson, so that works too.

As for the rest of the state, I'd propose 'Reno-Elko-Boulder City'.

what makes Washington so special? :D

(we actually did have a Washington Commonwealth Federation during that era, interestingly enough)

If there were one state that might vote for a socialist party at that time, I would think that it would be Wisconsin. Perhaps the CCF would also do well in Montana and Nevada, although that would likely have peaked earlier than 1940. The old copper towns of Butte and Anaconda would have been socialist strongholds for the last century, I would imagine.

Arkansas. I didn't have to resort to long names here :) [except for the Little Rock riding]

()

I'll be doing Alabama and Mississippi tonight.

I'll update the map after the weekend, keep 'em coming!

ALABAMA

()

All ridings are hardcore Tory except for Montgomery--Tombigbee--Tuscaloosa, which would lean whatever the default 'minority' party would be, and Birmingham, which is marginal between that party and the Tories. Huntsville--Tennessee Valley and The Shoals would have once been Liberal, but no longer.

If the South is our Quebec-analogue, though, all ridings would be Bloc Sud until 2011, when they would all flip Tory.

I know you're doing Mississippi, but it was next on my list too:

()

I don't think your Alabama districts are compact enough. I would rename Birmingham to "Jefferson", since it's just the county.

:)

MISSISSIPPI

()

Delta--Natchez is majority black. Jackson--Pearl--Ridgeland--Kosciusko might be black enough to be vaguely swingy and will probably be majority or at least plurality black in a decade or two. The other three ridings are colossally Tory. Starkville--Meridian--Brookhaven isn't elegant, but it's no worse than what's there now, and unlike Edmonton--Sherwood Park in the actual Canada it doesn't look uncomfortably like a Roman salute. The split of De Soto is supposed to go along Interstate 55.

It would be fun if the American Parliament used the Australian naming system, because the arguments between District of Faulkner and District of Presley for the north-east riding, and which bluesman to use for the riverine riding, would be amazing.

Vicksburg should be in the Delta riding, and too much of the Memphis suburbs shouldn't. If we can figure out some way to have my Delta--Natchez but avoid my...unfortunate Starkville--Meridian--Brookhaven, I think that that would be nice.

In Alabama I was going for CoI, not compactness, but if you can think of a way to avoid splitting the Tennessee Valley or the Black Belt, by all means go ahead. I have some familiarity with Alabama, and I honestly don't think that anything that would look more compact would feel more compact from the perspective of somebody living and voting in one of these ridings.

Jefferson is a better name, you're right.

ETA: Made a more compact Mississippi, am putting map together as we speak.

Better MISSISSIPPI

()

Commentary about the partisan/racial makeup still holds true.

ick! you split a county! Ah well, naturally I like my map better, but let's see what others think. (Also, Delta-Natchez is too long) It should be noted that when making these maps, communities of interest are important to be kept together. Not crazy gerrymanders like in the US, but it would probably be one of the the things looked at would be to keep the Black areas together. I admit to making the maps without looking at the demographic maps.

Anyways, here is Iowa:

()

It is rather long but it's another CoI question. The counties along the Mississippi River are all very poor, relatively rural, and full of blacks except for De Soto itself, which I split for population reasons (it has those of the Memphis suburbs which are in Mississippi and as such is more populous than the rest of the river counties). Your Mississippi Delta district has several white areas in the east and north-east that have been in the Tupelo district in real life since forever.

The best way to keep the riverine CoI whole without splitting De Soto would be to put the rest of De Soto in the Tupelo riding, then put Franklin and Amite in Delta--Natchez, which ends up underpopulated but not too badly (putting Pike and Walthall in too fixes this but does genuinely make it lumpy-looking and non-compact), and also a little more nicely shaped. Shall we try that?

I noticed your Gulf Coast riding is bigger than mine, any reason for that? My district has 599,000 when the quotient is even less than that, at 593,000.

Mine's about 9% over the quotient. There isn't any specific reason for it and in fact the eastern riding would also be closer to the quotient if I switched Marion, Perry, and Greene, so let's do that.

Your map splits the Jackson area, incidentally. Small parts of the city proper are actually in Madison and Rankin.

Oklahoma...

()

"Panhandle" seems to be a re-occurring name in riding names :P ...

MISSISSIPPI FINAL

()

I'm convinced that this is best from a CoI standpoint, at least with regards to the river and the Gulf Coast/Hattiesburg. The Jackson MSA is also kept together.

Oregon

()

Have we more or less accepted my Alabama map? If so, I'd like to get a few other people's input on our different Mississippi maps before we decide which one to use. Some point soon I can do Colorado and Arizona.

I think both your Alabama and Mississippi maps are acceptable from a communities of interest perspective.

I'd like to  hear what Xahar thinks, but I dont mind going with your map.

Okay, let's wait on Xahar for a while and if we don't hear from him by tomorrow what do you say we just go from there?

Alabama looks fine, and Nathan's Mississippi map looks good; that the Delta is kept together is important, I think.

I must say, there are a lot of em dashes in all these names. It's like these are all Quebec ridings.

No offence, but this sticking to county lines as though they were religions, makes me wonder if you guys understand the Canadian redistricting process.

To be honest, I still prefer my second map, the one that fixed the horror that was the Starkville-to-Brookhaven riding but kept De Soto split along I55.

Good point, but I think I'm treating US counties like Canadian municipalities. Municipalities are rarely divided up unless they have to. I'm doing this because of the size of the of the ridings are bigger. 

Aye, Municipalities are stuck too.

Ridings of the US Parliament

()


States completed (ridings): 25 (88)

Alaska (2)
Arkansas (4)
Connecticut (6)
Delaware (2)
DC (1)
Hawaii (2)
Idaho (2)
Iowa (6)
Kansas (5)
Maine (2)
Massachusetts (11)
Missouri (9)
Montana (2)
Nebraska (3)
Nevada (3)
New Hampshire (2)
New Mexico (3)
North Dakota (2)
Oklahoma (6)
Rhode Island (2)
South Dakota (2)
Utah (3)
Vermont (2)
West Virginia (4)
Wyoming (2)


Work in Progress (ridings): 1 (34)
New York (34)


Pending (ridings): 3 (17)
Mississippi (5)
Oregon (5)
Alabama (7)


Remaining States (ridings): 22 (338)
South Carolina (6)
Alabama (7)
Colorado (7)
Kentucky (7)
Louisiana (8)
Maryland (8)
Minnesota (8)
Arizona (9)
Tennessee (9)
Washington (9)
Wisconsin (9)
Indiana (10)
Virginia (11)
Georgia (13)
North Carolina (13)
New Jersey (14)
Michigan (18)
Ohio (21)
Illinois (22)
Pennsylvania (23)
Florida (26)
Texas (35)
California (52)

ARIZONA MAP ONE, REJECTED BY BOUNDARY COMMISSION

State

()

Maricopa/Pinal/Pima

()

I wasn't terribly concerned with county lines because Arizona has two counties that are larger than a riding anyway. Still, other than the three big central counties, the only split is Mohave, which is split along the Colorado River.

Riding names and descriptions:

The blue riding, Eastern Mountains--Canyonlands, is traditionally semisolidly Tory but in the recent past has become marginal, perhaps (but maybe not) going NDP in 2011.
The green riding, Western Desert, is hardcore Tory and would have previously been hardcore Reform and hardcore American Alliance.
The purple riding, Phoenix North, is solidly Tory at present.
The red riding, Mesa--Scottsdale, is hardcore Tory and would have previously been hardcore Reform and hardcore American Alliance.
The yellow riding, Glendale--Phoenix West, is solidly NDP at present, once solidly Liberal.
The teal riding, Tempe--Phoenix East, is solidly NDP at present, once solidly liberal.
The black riding, Chandler--Gilbert--East Pinal, is solidly Tory at present.
The red-orange riding, Southern Desert, traditionally leans Liberal but in the recent past has become Grit-Tory marginal, with NDP-supporting minorities tactically voting Liberal (though this may flip in the near future).  I tend to think it would go very narrowly Grit in 2011, the only riding in Arizona to remain so.
The spring green riding, Tucson, is traditionally Liberal but flipped NDP in either 2008 or 2011.

The split between Western Desert and Southern Desert in Maricopa is supposed to follow Interstate 8 but I couldn't show that on DRA. The split of Pinal goes through the San Tan Valley and then south across the desert. The split of Pima hugs the outskirts of the built-up area and includes the areas north and east of Tucson in the urban riding.

I have some pretty serious misgivings about several of those ridings, especially the Phoenix area- ridings, one of which appears to cross a mountain range.

ARIZONA MAP REJECTED BY BOUNDARY COMMISSION

I wasn't even thinking of mountain ranges outside the northern and eastern parts of the state, sorry! Can't believe I missed that.

If you have any ideas, let me know. The only one I'm really attached to is Tucson, which is the area of Arizona that I'm actually somewhat familiar with.

I might do the same for the UK :D

http://rr-bce-static.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/A0-North-East-Region-Initial-Proposals.pdf?9d7bd4 et al

I don't see anything in the UK that would be rejected in Canada.

ARIZONA, SECOND ATTEMPT

With this one I started in Maricopa and Pima and worked my way out, because the other way around obviously failed.

State view:

()

Maricopa/Pinal/Pima view:

()

This time there are five heavily Tory ridings.

Phoenix North
Glendale
Tempe South--Chandler
Tempe North--Mesa--Scottsdale
Western Desert

Two marginal.

Eastern Mountains
Southern Desert

Two Grit/Dipper.

Phoenix South
Tucson

Colorado (whose physical geography I'm more comfortable with) coming if we have no more or only minor problems with this, but first I need to rest, because I've been up all night with unrelated issues.

In all honesty, the old map wasn't necessarily that bad, it was just that the Glendale-West Phoenix was comprised of two separate regions that did not form a community of interest
(They still do that in the new map btw.)

If I may, could I humbly suggest this as an alternative?

()

Judging from a glance at the demographics of the districts in question, the partisan breakdown would be as follows-

Mogollon(light green) Tory (would probably swing to the NDP given a few more years )

Tuscon(cyan) Currently NDP, would have been Liberal prior to either 2011 or 2008

Sonora(dark red) Marginal Tory(Would ordinarily be a Tory-Grit swing district)

Colorado River(light blue) Tory

Phoenix-Glendale(green) Marginal Tory(Would ordinarily be solid Grit)

Phoenix-Lake Pleasant(purple) Tory

Phoenix-Tempe(blue) NDP (would ordinarily be Grit vs. NDP)

Mesa-Scottsdale(yellow) Tory

Chandler-Gilbert(red) Tory


Essentially not much of a major change, but it fixes the problem in the Phoenix metro.

That's good. It keeps most of what I was trying to do with the outer ridings, which are areas I'm much more familiar with than Maricopa, and it seems like a more logical division of Maricopa than what I ended up doing.

One thing, though: The main centers of the Mogollon culture were slightly to the south-east of most of your riding named after it, and the Mogollon Mountains are in New Mexico. Might I suggest Anasazi?

Colorado coming up tonight after I watch primary stuff.

COLORADO

()

The two things that I am concerned people might find as bases for criticism here are the undersized Arapahoe and the fact that I put Colorado Springs in Eastern Plains and Pueblo in Pueblo--West of the Rockies. I did the former because of Arapahoe County's growth rate; in ten years it seems likely to be a more normal-sized riding. The latter is because I truly felt that the ski areas should be put in a riding with Boulder and Fort Collins and this in turn meant that the Grand Junction district had to include at least one populous county on the High Plains rather than in the mountains. I chose Pueblo because it is demographically somewhat similar to western Colorado, particularly south-western Colorado. It has a lot of Hispanics, very nearly if not outright a plurality by now. Colorado Springs does not and is demographically and politically much more 'of the plains' than Pueblo is. If I had not done this I would have had to put almost the entirety of Colorado outside the Rocky Mountain Front in one district, since Colorado's High Plains outside El Paso and Pueblo Counties only have about a hundred thousand people. I found this unacceptable so I made what I thought was the most reasonable split of the southern end of the urbanized area possible.

Denver and Boulder--Fort Collins--Aspen would now be solidly NDP, probably Grit prior to 2008 or 2011. Arapahoe and North Front were once relatively safe Tory excepting years like 1993 but are currently Tory-NDP marginal because demographics. Jefferson--Douglas is still Tory but getting closer and closer in recent elections and could definitely go NDP given a few years. Pueblo--West of the Rockies, pending whatever demographic changes a few more years of the Hispanicizing of the rural American West might bring, is almost entirely safe Tory except in extremely bad years, and Eastern Plains is safe Tory even then. Pueblo--West of the Rockies I can imagine being fairly Grit in the past; Eastern Plains strikes me as the sort of riding that would be either one of the few loyal PC seats in the nineties or one of the strongest Reform/American Alliance seats in the country.

2-2-3 between the left and the right, basically, similar to the actual Colorado but perhaps a bit more competitive in general.

Possibly, however that might cause exacerbate significant tensions between several of the native peoples in the riding, especially the Hopi and the Navajo.

 I actually didn't name the riding after the Mogollon culture, but rather after this geographic feature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogollon_Rim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogollon_Rim) which occupies much of the central part of the riding.

Also, I like your Colorado districts, but I would want to see if Xahar/Hatman have any objections to them before finalizing them.

Ooooh, right, I forgot about the negative implications of the word 'Anasazi' to some native peoples. Mogollon is probably best, then, you're right. I was aware of the Mogollon Mountain Range but not the Mogollon Rim.


Agreed.

One thing Canada would never do is separate the Hopi and Navajo.

Ridings of the US Parliament

()


States completed (ridings): 28 (107)

Alabama (7)
Alaska (2)
Arkansas (4)
Connecticut (6)
Delaware (2)
DC (1)
Hawaii (2)
Idaho (2)
Iowa (6)
Kansas (5)
Maine (2)
Massachusetts (11)
Missouri (9)
Mississippi (5)
Montana (2)
Nebraska (3)
Nevada (3)
New Hampshire (2)
New Mexico (3)
North Dakota (2)
Oklahoma (6)
Oregon (5)
Rhode Island (2)
South Dakota (2)
Utah (3)
Vermont (2)
West Virginia (4)
Wyoming (2)


Work in Progress (ridings): 1 (34)
New York (34)


Pending (ridings): 3 (29)
Colorado (7)
Arizona (9)
Georgia (13)

Remaining States (ridings): 19 (308)
South Carolina (6)
Kentucky (7)
Louisiana (8)
Maryland (8)
Minnesota (8)
Arizona (9)
Tennessee (9)
Washington (9)
Wisconsin (9)
Indiana (10)
Virginia (11)
North Carolina (13)
New Jersey (14)
Michigan (18)
Ohio (21)
Illinois (22)
Pennsylvania (23)
Florida (26)
Texas (35)
California (52)

I've been watching this joyfully, and I must congratulate all of you for the work you've put into this. I don't have much to say other than how awesome this is and that I wish I could contribute, but have no time...

Anyways I was wondering if Puerto Rico and other territories would receive seats since the North does in Canada?

it should, but it'd also not be counted as normal seats. IE it'd be additional.

We should do state legislatures too, when we're done.

How do you guys calculate the seats? If you all could explain it for me on here or by PM,  I would like to do north Carolina for you all if it's okay.

We're using an identical formula to Canada's, with N/435 instead of N/279. One of the Canadians here can probably explain how the formula actually works better than I can.

N/279 was created at a time when we had 282 seats.

279 for the provinces, and 3, 1 each, for the territories.

So PR would be "above and beyond" the 435.

The "problem" is that even when we've had Territories that "earn" more than 1 seat, we don't give it to them, legally. The numbers have been assigned in the past.

I will do some research and get back to you.

According to my research, PR should be given a number of members equal to what it would "deserve" as that's what we did with the NWT in 1904

Georgia:

()

Consider this a first draft that someone else can build off- I might improve it later if I have free time. I'll also name the districts if I improve it.

The only county split was Fulton which is essential for population reasons; the two halves have almost nothing in common anyways. The split is the boundary between Sandy Springs and Atlanta.

Here is Kentucky,

()

The entire central part of the state is simply an abomination.

I'll be working on Minnesota, New Jersey, and possibly Pennsylvania through the night.

MINNESOTA

()

Using "Outer" is very British, and not used in Canada at all.  You can easily use county names instead

Yellow becomes "Anoka-Hennepin"
Purple becomes "Ramsey-Washington" and
Green becomes "Dakota-Carver-Scott"

I'm not fond of Ramsey--Washington, only because the Minneapolis riding is called, well, Minneapolis and I feel that the name of St Paul should be in that of its riding. The alternative would be to rename the Minneapolis riding Hennepin East and have the Anoka riding as Anoka--Hennepin West or something along those lines.

A quick question... the bit of the Staten Island riding not on Staten Island, and determined to be excised from the riding... which riding is it joining instead?

The Elections Act allows for a 25% variance and encourages it at times like this.

Yes, take Labrador for example. I thought the decision had been resolved that Staten Island would be its own riding that would exist solely of the island itself, and I have no qualms with that. I'm just asking where the surplus is going for the purposes of the NYC inset.

Ridings of the US Parliament

()


States completed (ridings): 31 (142)

Alabama (7)
Alaska (2)
Arizona (9)
Arkansas (4)
Colorado (7)
Connecticut (6)
Delaware (2)
DC (1)
Georgia (13)
Hawaii (2)
Idaho (2)
Iowa (6)
Kansas (5)
Maine (2)
Massachusetts (11)
Minnesota (8)
Missouri (9)
Mississippi (5)
Montana (2)
Nebraska (3)
Nevada (3)
New Hampshire (2)
New Mexico (3)
North Dakota (2)
Oklahoma (6)
Oregon (5)
Rhode Island (2)
South Dakota (2)
Utah (3)
Vermont (2)
West Virginia (4)
Wyoming (2)


Work in Progress (ridings): 1 (34)
New York (34)


Pending (ridings): 1 (7)
Kentucky (7)


Remaining States (ridings): 18 (294)
South Carolina (6)
Louisiana (8)
Maryland (8)
Arizona (9)
Tennessee (9)
Washington (9)
Wisconsin (9)
Indiana (10)
Virginia (11)
North Carolina (13)
New Jersey (14)
Michigan (18)
Ohio (21)
Illinois (22)
Pennsylvania (23)
Florida (26)
Texas (35)
California (52)

The western Brooklyn riding.

Cheers!

I've been building the NYC inset from this map (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/152_13_10_07_2_07_28.gif) in the gallery, as discussed in this thread (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=105155.0).

Here's what I've got so far... still quite a way's to go. I'll resize it before adding to the full US map (hence the varying colours in the ridings completed thus far... after shrinking, the colours will make it clearer where the riding boundaries are, so I can re-add the borders). It may not be entirely perfect, but I think it's reasonable and, well, given the whole exercise is really for fun's sake, precision is probably not as important as in some of the other maps we've done of actual ridings that actually exist.

()

I like it!

Speaking of the New York inset,

NEW JERSEY

()

Closeup of Passaic and Bergen splits

()

Blue: Camden
Green: Pine Barrens--Cape May
Purple: Pine Barrens--Atlantic City
Red: Blue Ocean
Gold: Monmouth
Teal: Central Jersey
Silver: Raritan
Lavender: Morris
Sky blue: Skylands--Watergap
Pink: Paterson--Bergen West
Chartreuse: Bergen East
Cornflower: Hudson
Buff: Newark
Olive: Elizabeth

(Since most of these are just counties, I thought using too many county names would get boring, so I went for kind of quixotic naming. A lot of New Jersey counties have common or sound-like-they-would-be-common (for counties) names anyway, such as Essex or Middlesex or Union.)

I would counter with this proposal:

()

()

()

I wouldn't hold counties sacred in New Jersey. With 21 counties and 14 districts, there are going to be splits, even with the obscenely generous 25% allowance in population variance.

Blue (Camden): Camden County by itself is short of the ideal population, so a riding based there has room to grow. I chose to pick up some of Gloucester County (the areas most in Camden's sphere of influence) to allow the Green riding to pick up Atlantic County. Population: 643,382 (2.4% overpopulated)

Green (Atlantic City-Vineland): My biggest problem with Nathan's map is that it pairs Burlington and Atlantic Counties. All of the development in Burlington is the northern part of the county, and the development in Atlantic is mostly along the coast. Take a ride along US 206- there's practically nothing between Southampton and downtown Hammonton. These two counties do not belong in the same riding. To rectify this problem, I put Atlantic County in the southern riding. Population: 753,358 (20.0% overpopulated)

Purple (Ocean): This riding comprises all of Ocean County, and is unchanged from Nathan's map. Population: 576,567 (8.2% underpopulated)

Red (Monmouth): This riding comprises all of Monmouth County, and is unchanged from Nathan's map. Population: 630,380 (0.4% overpopulated)

Gold (Burlington-Hamilton): The loss of Atlantic County means that the Burlington riding has to go into Mercer, forcing an awkward split. Hamilton fits better with the Burlington district than Atlantic County does, though. Population: 550,840 (12.3% underpopulated)

Teal (Woodbridge-Edison-Piscataway): Even with the generous allowance in population deviation, Middlesex County is a bit too much for one riding (29.0% overpopulated). This, unfortunately, means the County must be split. The parts of Somerset County I included in this riding share more in common politically and demographically with northern Middlesex County than with the rest of Somerset County. Population: 478,322 (23.8% underpopulated)

Dim Gray (Trenton-New Brunswick): The remainder of Mercer County gets paired with the parts of Middlesex County south of the Raritan River. Population: 673,208 (7.2% overpopulated)

Slate Blue (Elizabeth-Plainfield): This riding is comprised of all of Union County and is unchanged from Nathan's map. Population: 536,499 (14.6% underpopulated)

Cyan (Morris): By itself, Morris County is near the bare minimum to have a riding by itself (21.6% underpopulated), so a riding based there has room to grow. I chose to give it some of the West Essex suburbs, which have more in common with Morris County than with Newark. Population: 581,953 (7.3% underpopulated)

Deep Pink (Somerville-Phillipsburg-Sussex): I started with Nathan's riding, but swapped out the Passaic County portion to allow for a better split in Bergen County. I think Nathan's riding was a bit short on population, as well, which is how it can pick up the majority of Somerset County and remain close to the ideal. Population: 632,485 (0.7% overpopulated)

Chartreuse (Newark): Essex County is near the maximum allowed population for a riding (24.8% overpopulated). The western suburbs have more in common with Morris County than with Newark, so they were a natural choice to swap out. Population: 694,292 (10.6% overpopulated).

Cornflower Blue (Jersey City): This riding is comprised of all of Hudson County, and is unchanged from Nathan's map. Population: 634,266 (1.0% overpopulated)

Dark Salmon (Paterson-Hackensack): My other biggest problem with Nathan's map is that Paterson was paired with northwestern Bergen County. I think communities of interest would be better served by pairing Paterson with other ethnically diverse communities in Bergen County instead. Population: 759,493 (20.9% overpopulated)

Olive (Wayne-Paramus-Mahwah): This riding consists mostly of whiter, more conservative suburbs of Paterson and Hackensack. Population: 646,849 (3.0% overpopulated)

I'm working on a Wisconsin map. Will be ready for tomorrow.

My only concern with Vazdul's map is Somerset going in with the Skylands, though it's still much better than what is actually done in that area in real life. My mother lives in the northern populated part of Burlington County, actually, so I know how the population dynamics there are, and the Burlington/Atlantic riding was my biggest problem with my own map too. Paterson--Hackensack is a little oddly-shaped at first glance but from a CoI standpoint it does probably make more sense. Well-done.

I'm considering doing Pennsylvania later, either tonight or tomorrow.

I'm not too happy about this myself. Ideally, that area would go with Morris County, but that leaves the Skylands riding underpopulated unless it goes into Wayne, and the Bergen County split would suffer as well.

Alternatively, we could split off some of the more westerly parts of Morris County and append them to the Skylands district, like so:

()

I'm not really sure that that's more desirable, though...

Some of my family's in Morristown. From my experience of the area that actually does work better. The area around Lake Hopatcong is definitely Skylands.

Some of those variations are, while legal, unnecessarily huge.

While they weren't big enough for their own districts, I did have to split Orleans Parish and Jefferson Parish due to the high population in the area.

()

We now have ridings called Delta, Delta--Natchez, and Mississippi Delta. Would it be possible to rename one or more, like to Mouths of the Mississippi perhaps?

Here's Wisconsin !

() (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=6028)

Let's see if I can find the correct names for each district. ;)

Waukesha-West Allis-Franklin
Kenosha-Racine-Jamesville
Milwaukee
Madison-Fort Atkinson-Portage
La Crosse-River Falls-Reedsburg
Sheboyban-Fond Du Lac-Manitowoc-West Bend
Green Bay-Wausau-Marinette
Appleton-Oshkosh-Stevens Point
Eau Claire-Superior-Hudson-Merrill

Actually it isn't; it's not a description that ever appeared until the last boundary review.

Nothing against your map, but just to give people the choice, I did another Louisiana 8-district map for Hashemite's thread a couple weeks ago.

()

Your 3rd district is the exact same as my 5th, interestingly. And our 1st one is pretty similar too.

I don't claim to be an expert on Louisiana, but I prefer Antonio's map, with a few modifications:

1. Swap St. Landry and Ascension Parishes. Gonzales is arguably a suburb of Baton Rouge and is directly connected by an Interstate highway. Opelousas is arguably a suburb of Lafayette and is directly connected by an Interstate highway. Opelousas and Baton Rouge are roughly 50 miles apart and are only connected by Interstate highways via Lafayette.

2. Put St. James Parish in the Houma-Thibodaux riding. There is no road connection between St. James and Assumption Parishes. With Ascension Parish in the Baton Rouge riding, St. James Parish would be cut off from the rest of the Lafayette riding. St. James Parish is small, and should fit easily.

3. Underpopulate the Lake Charles riding a bit, to get it as far out of Central Louisiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Louisiana_regions_map.svg) as possible. No matter how you slice it, Central Louisiana gets screwed, so let's try to keep most of it intact. I'd put Natchitoches and Sabine parishes in the Monroe riding. This keeps most of Central Louisiana in the Monroe riding, while at the same time keeping the Lake Charles riding more of a "Western Acadiana" riding.

Other notes: Alexandria has to be paired with either Monroe or Lake Charles. The  Alexandria metropolitan area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana_metropolitan_area) consists of Rapides and Grant parishes. Since Grant Parish is between Alexandria and Monroe along US 165, Monroe is the better fit. Also, I see no reason to split Orleans Parish, or to put St. Bernard Parish in the New Orleans riding. I think Antonio's version of the New Orleans riding (i.e. Orleans Parish plus the part of Jefferson Parish north of the river) is what a boundary commission would do.

I'm going to be making a municipalities map of Vazdul's second New Jersey, the one with the (I think) more coherent Skylands riding, and then I'll get around to Pennsylvania.

()

I'm not prepared to call this anything more than a draft, but I've done Michigan.

()

()

Wayne County: Three ridings can fit into Wayne County nicely within the population restraints, so I decided to do just that.

Blue (Detroit East): The city of Detroit is too big for one riding, so it gets split. I couldn't find useful ward maps for Detroit, so the split is based mostly on what looks good. Population: 603,451 (9.90% overpopulated).

Green (Detroit West-Dearborn): The western part of Detroit gets paired with some of its immediate suburbs. Population: 615,542 (12.10% overpopulated).

Purple (Livonia-Westland-Southgate): This is the suburban Wayne County riding. Population: 601,591 (9.56% overpopulated).

Oakland and Macomb Counties: Two ridings can fit into Oakland County within the population restraints, but then Wayne and Oakland together would be underrepresented by about half of a riding. As it happens, Macomb is entitled to about a riding and a half, so I decided to put two ridings entirely in Oakland, one entirely in Macomb, and one crossing the Oakland-Macomb County line.

Red (Waterford-West Bloomfield): This riding contains the most exurban and rural parts of Oakland County. Population: 461,867 (15.89% underpopulated).

Gold (Pontiac-Southfield): I'm convinced that Pontiac and Southfield belong in the same riding. I'm not crazy about the shape, but its the only way the population works out without splitting municipalities. Population: 463,650 (15.56% underpopulated).

Teal (Warren-Sterling Heights): This is a nice, compact riding consisting of southern Macomb County. Population: 563,724 (2.66% overpopulated).

Dim Gray (Troy-Macomb North): This riding consists of the leftovers from Oakland and Macomb Counties. Population: 554,099 (0.91% overpopulated).

The Rest of the State: From this point on, there are no county splits.

Slate Blue (Ann Arbor-Monroe-Adrian): Population: 596,704 (8.67% overpopulated).

Cyan (Lansing-Howell): Livingston County is awkward- it doesn't really belong with anything yet it must go somewhere. Ann Arbor and Flint are poor choices, and going east will screw up the Detroit area. So it goes with Lansing. Population: 645,003 (17.47% overpopulated).

Deep Pink (Flint-Owosso): Since Genesee County doesn't have enough population for a riding of its own, it gets paired with Shiawassee. Population: 496,438 (9.59% underpopulated).

Chartreuse (Bay City-The Thumb): I'm not happy about pairing the Thumb with Bay City, but the alternatives are Saginaw, Flint, and northern Macomb County. I don't see how Saginaw is a better option than Bay City. Flint is too populous and would need to either be split or split the Thumb. Northern Macomb would screw up the balance in that area. Population: 491,091 (10.56% underpopulated).

Before anyone mentions it, using Livingston County instead of northern Macomb to pair with Oakland's "half riding" would, at best, really push the limits of minimum population, and that's assuming I can find a combination of municipalities to make it work. I could throw in Shiawassee to bump the population up, but I can't justify that from a community of interest standpoint, and there are only minor roads connecting Shiawassee to Livingston.

Cornflower Blue (St. Joseph-Three Rivers-Hastings): This shape doesn't thrill me either, but Kalamazoo is in a rather inconvenient place. Population: 517,240 (5.80% underpopulated).

Dark Salmon (Kalamazoo-Battle Creek-Jackson): Population: 638,661 (16.31% overpopulated).

Olive (Grand Rapids): Population: 602,622 (9.75% overpopulated).

Yellow (Muskegon-Holland): Population: 511,019 (6.93% underpopulated).

Dark Slate Blue (Saginaw-Midland-Mount Pleasant): Population: 523,832 (4.60% underpopulated).

Dark Orange (Central Michigan): Got a better name for the mostly rural riding? Let me know. Population: 500,467 (8.86% underpopulated).

Lime (Alpena-Upper Peninsula): Population: 496,639 (9.55% underpopulated).

I would suggest Leelanau--Traverse City--Huron for your Central Michigan. Especially since people would probably actually consider that area Northern Michigan for the most part.

I'm giving up on Pennsylvania for the moment; I'm simply not familiar enough with the state outside the south-central area. Instead, I can offer my services to come up with names for the ridings in those states (Missouri, Georgia, and Louisiana, I think) whose ridings don't have names yet, unless somebody else wants to.

I think the Upper Peninsula should be its own riding. I think the boundary commission would waive the 25% rule in its case.

()

I don't like the Myrtle Beach riding, but the best I could do without county splits.

I crave your indulgence(s):

()

()

()

?

Comments on my Wisconsin map ?

I for one like your Wisconsin map. It works pretty well from a CoI standpoint.

I also want to do provincial assemblies. I would combine state houses+senate into one assembly and divide the state up into as many districts. For example, Wyoming (60 House+30 Senate=90 MLAs)

()

Riding names:

1 - Crook
2 - Weston
3 - Niobrara-Glendo
4 - Douglas
5 - Converse West
6 - Torrington
7 - Goshen
8 - Platte South
9 - Cheyenne Northwest
10 - Ranchettes
11 - Cheyenne West
12 - Laramie West
13 - Cheyenne South
14 - Orchard Valley
15 - Cheyenne Center
16 - Cheyenne-Minnehaha
17 - Cheyenne North
18 - Cheyenne-Cahill
19 - Cheyenne Hills
20 - Cheyenne Southeast
21 - College
22 - Laramie Southwest
23 - Burns-Pine Bluff
24 - Cheyenne-Albin
25 - Medicine Bow Country
26 - Laramie Center
27 - Laramie North
28 - Laramie Mountains
29 - Laramie East
30 - Baggs-Saratoga-Rawlins
31 - Rawlins West
32 - Soda Lake-Vista West-The Hills
33 - Mills-Mountain View-Paradise Valley
34 - Red Butte
35 - Casper West
36 - Casper Center
37 - Casper Southwest
38 - Casper-Allendale
39 - Casper Mountain
40 - Casper-Highland
41 - Casper-Huber
42 - Casper Southeast
43 - Casper Northeast
44 - Shoshoni-Jeffrey City-Natrona-Shirley
45 - Lincoln South
46 - Evanston East
47 - Uinta West-Evanston
48 - Uinta East
49 - Lincoln North
50 - Salt River
51 - Flaming Gorge-Great Divide
52 - Green River South
53 - Granger-Jamestown-Green River
54 - Rock Springs East
55 - Rock Springs North
56 - Rock Springs Center
57 - Rock Springs-Clearview Acres-Purple Sage
58 - Wind River South
59 - Wind River North
60 - Morton-Fort Washakie-Milford
61 - Ladner
62 - Ethete-Arapahoe-Hudson-Luthuy
63 - Riverton
64 - Riverton-Ocean Lake-Pavillion
65 - Jackson
66 - Gros Ventre
67 - Wilson-Teton Pines-Skyline-Cottonwood Park
68 - Yellowstone-Grand Teton
69 - Cody West
70 - Cody East
71 - Frannie Canal
72 - Meeteetse-Hot Springs-Boysen
73 - Worland
74 - Basin-Washakie-Ten Sleep-Johnson
75 - Buffalo-Hyattville-Manderson
76 - Yellowtail-Burlington
77 - Bighorn-Greybull
78 - Sheridan-Ranchester
79 - Sherdian West
80 - Sheridan East
81 - Sheridan South
82 - Sheridan-Campbell-Johnson-New Haven
83 - Gillette West
84 - Gillette North
85 - Gillette Center
86 - Gillette-Rozet
87 - Gillette-Sleepy Hollow
88 - Gillette Southwest
89 - Gillette-Wright
90 - Powell

I think it's good. I was a bit iffy about pairing Dane County with Jefferson County, but having looked at the numbers, I don't see an alternative.


Missouri looks good.

In Georgia, would it be possible to rotate Rome-Dalton, Macon-Columbus, Augusta-Milledgeville, and Athens-North Georgia Mountains a bit counterclockwise? I'm of the opinion that Columbus belongs with Albany, Athens belongs with Augusta, and Macon should be the focal point of a central Georgia riding (definitely including Houston County). My concern is that such a rotation would ruin the Rome-Dalton riding. I may work on a counter-proposal later.

I already gave my comments on Louisiana.

Thank you for your corrections, Vazdul. I'll try to come with a revised map as soon as I can.

Georgia, I should point out, is Bacon King's map, not mine; I just named the ridings.

Also, I lied, here's Pennsylvania.

()

()

()

Riding names (DRA color order)

Philadelphia North-East
Philadelphia South-East
Philadelphia West
Bucks
Delaware--Media (to distinguish it from the Province of Delaware)
Norristown
Reading--Pottstown
Chester
Lancaster
Dauphin--Lebanon--Schuykill
Lehigh Valley
Scranton--Poconos
Wyoming Valley
York--Gettysburg
Mechanicsburg--Chambersburg
Allegheny Front (could also be called Altoona--State College--Williamsport)
Allegheny Plateau (could also be called Allegheny)
Monongahela
Johnstown--Greensburg
Pittsburgh
Three Rivers
Erie--Crawford--Mercer
Beaver--Oil City

In that case, I'll defer to his judgment, since he's actually, you know, from Georgia. But I still think Houston County belongs with Macon.

As for Pennsylvania, I have a couple of issues.

1. Put Scranton and Wilkes-Barre in the same riding if possible. Scranton and Wilkes-Barre are like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern- you can't have one without the other.

2. I really don't think Altoona and Williamsport belong in the same riding.

Since I haven't played around with the map yet, I can't say how it'll work. I might try later since I don't have to do Georgia now.

I have a counter-proposal:

()

Blue (Charleston): I'll admit that South Carolina can be tricky to draw. One of the reasons for this is that once you include Charleston and it's immediate suburbs in a riding, you still need to pick up some population. But Myrtle Beach or Hilton Head is too much for the Charleston riding, but not enough to really anchor a riding on their own. So if you're to have a coherent Charleston riding, you're forced to have three ridngs that border the coast, where intuitively there should only be two. Population: 759,188 (1.52% underpopulated).

Green (Myrtle Beach-Florence-Sumter): This riding encompasses the Pee Dee Region. Population: 777,295 (0.83% overpopulated).

Purple (Greenville-Anderson-Easley): Another thing that makes South Carolina tricky to draw is that the obvious pairing of Greenville and Spartanburg can easily cause you to paint yourself into a corner. If I had gone with a Greenville-Spartanburg riding with the way I drew Charleston, I would have been forced into an awkward northwestern riding surrounding Greenville-Spartanburg (and likely a split of York County). However, separating Greenville from Spartanburg can be justified- they are in separate Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Greenville's MSA includes Pickens County, whereas Spartanburg County is an MSA by itself. Population: 831,848 (7.91% overpopulated).

Red (Hilton Head-Aiken-Greenwood): With the population centers where they are, you're pretty much forced to have a long riding going most of the length of the Savannah River if you want to avoid awkwardness elsewhere. Population: 804,835 (4.40% overpopulated).

Yellow (Columbia): All of the counties in this riding are in Columbia's MSA, even rural Fairfield, Kershaw, and Calhoun. Population: 747,723 (3.01% underpopulated).

Teal (Spartanburg-Rock Hill): Population: 704,475 (8.62% underpopulated).

New riding names in the changed area: Poconos--Sayre and The Valley, Wyoming Valley, Harrisburg--Mid-Susquehanna, Altoona--State College, Allegheny. It should be obvious which is which. One can even out the populations a little more by putting Schuykill in Poconos--Sayre and The Valley, but that looks atrocious and makes no sense. The hemicycle of mountainous counties north and east of the Wyoming Valley is a community of interest. Schuykill County is not part of that community of interest. Bradford County barely is (the community of interest of which it is really part crosses state lines up towards Elmira), but it has to be in it for the populations to work at all without splitting anything.

()

I'd say that's an improvement, but I'm still not completely sold (yet). I'm working on something right now, but I'm not sure if it'll work.

Please keep my ridings in the west and south-east intact. I'm quite proud of those setups. Other than that I'm more than willing to see what you come up with.

Nothing will be changed in the southeast (York- Gettysburg, Lancaster, Berks, Lehigh Valley are considered the borders of the southeast for this purpose) or in Allegheny County, but I may have to shift a couple of things in the west. The central part of the state is what will likely be changed most, however. Unfortunately, my browser just crashed, which means I have to start over. I'll try again after dinner.

I did mention earlier that my Georgia map should just be considered a first draft :P

The question of what to do with Houston County was one of the big questions I had. It's a suburb of Macon, so it definitely has major economic connections with the city, but demographically and politically Houston and Bibb Counties are polar opposites that otherwise have more in common with other areas around them.

Thanks! York--Gettysburg and Lancaster are the parts of the state I'm most familiar with in any case. I look forward to seeing what you come up with for the central part!

Here's a noticeably improved Georgia map.

()

Douglas County goes much better with Atlanta than with Cobb, for starters. I'm still not very happy with the five Southern districts, but they're better than they were. The Macon district and the Athens-Augusta district are both around 15% underpopulated; I don't know if that's significant enough to be an issue. I like the boundary between the (DRA colors) 1st and 8th districts; the Okefenokee forms a natural barrier there in the south.

()

Blue: The blue represents areas that I have completely forbidden myself from changing from Nathan's map. I consider those thirteen ridings done perfectly, so I made them non-negotiable.

Green (Harrisburg-Carlisle): My plan reunites Harrisburg with its suburbs in Cumberland County. Population: 503,506 (8.83% underpopulated).

Purple (Lebanon-Pottsville-Sunbury): I'm not too happy about having to put Lebanon in this riding, but it is connected to Schuylkill County by Interstate. Population: 461,947 (16.36% underpopulated).

Red (Wyoming Valley): I cut Columbia County from Nathan's version of this riding. Columbia County is not in the Scranton-Wilkes Barre MSA, and it's presence only adds to that riding's deviation from the ideal. Not to mention that Columbia County was needed for the purple riding. Population: 563,631 (2.06% overpopulated).

Gold (Poconos-Sayre and the Valley): I added tiny Sullivan County to Nathan's version of this riding. Population: 457,688 (17.13% underpopulated).

Teal (Chambersburg-Altoona-Lewistown): I wanted to get State College into a north-central Pennsylvania riding rather than a south-central one. It just looks better to me that way. Population: 544,216 (1.46% underpopulated).

Dim Gray (Monongahela): I kept this riding from Nathan's map intact. Population: 460,854 (16.55% underpopulated).

Slate Blue (Johnstown-Greensburg): I kept this riding from Nathan's map intact. Population: 597,728 (8.23% overpopulated).

Cyan (Beaver-Butler-Oil City): I had to add to this riding and the Erie riding to get the State College riding down to an acceptable population. Note: After taking this screenshot, I put Venango County into the Erie riding. Population: 554,438 (0.39% overpopulated).

Deep Pink (Erie-Sharon): Population: 590,484 (6.92% overpopulated).

Lime (State College-Williamsport-Allegheny Plateau): I think this is more aesthetically pleasing. I-80 serves all of the major population centers. Population: 621,047 (12.45% overpopulated).

And here we are!

()

Here's my effort at a Louisiana map:

()

Blue: New Orleans - West Bank. Plaquemines doesn't really go with New Orleans, but St. Bernard and west Jefferson definitely do. West Jefferson goes better with New Orleans than east Jefferson.

Yellow: Metarie - Gonzalez. There's no way at all that east Jefferson belongs in the same district as Cajun country. I think this I-10 district from Gonzalez to Metarie does a decent job of maintaining a community of interest without being too odd or messing up the rest of the map.

Green: Baton Rouge. Self explanatory; Baton Rouge district.

Red: North Shore. Pointe Coupee and West Feliciana (the two parishes in the far west of the district) should probably be in another district, but that would make the map look way too odd and I guess they fit well enough.

Purple: Gulf Coast (?). Cajun district!

Teal: Lake Charles - Opelousas - Lafayette. I think that name might be too big, but I like how the district manages to be so rectangular.

Gray: Alexandria - Monroe. I'm worried this district is a bit too big physically, but I guess it's not that bad

Grayish-blue: Shreveport. This could be expanded southward but I like the idea of a district that stays within the Shreveport area.

Could we have a closeup of the split in Jefferson Parish? I'm not really sure what you mean by East Jefferson and West Jefferson- the split looks more north-south to me.

The split is the Mississippi River. West Jefferson is the west bank of the Mississippi (i.e., the southern half of the parish), while east Jefferson is northern half. I know it doesn't make too much sense, but that's what the locals call it. :)

Why not call the purple district Acadiana and the red district Florida Parishes?

Okay, I took a stab at Maryland.

()

()

()

Blue (Harford-Eastern Shore): Population: 694,052 (3.83% underpopulated).

Green (Baltimore): Baltimore County has to be split. Since Baltimore City is underpopulated, it makes sense for one riding to be within the county, and one riding to pick up the remainder of the county and all of the city. Population: 699,199 (3.12% underpopulated).

Purple (Towson-Randallstown-Perry Hall):  Population: 726,791 (0.71% overpopulated).

Red (Frederick-Hagerstown-Cumberland): Population: 653,133 (9.50% underpopulated).

Yellow (Bowie-St. Charles): This riding pairs southern Maryland with "outer" Prince George's County. Population 712,759 (1.24% underpopulated).

Teal (Annapolis-Ellicott City): This riding pairs Howard County with the more developed part of Anne Arundel County. Population: 745,430 (3.29% overpopulated).

Dim Gray (Fort Washington-Bethesda): This riding takes in all of Washington's immediate suburbs. Population: 769,718 (6.65% overpopulated).

Slate Blue (Rockville-Germantown): This riding is contained entirely within Montgomery County. Population: 772,470 (7.04% overpopulated).

I'm currently spending some time working on Texas. I'll want feedback on several of the rural ridings.

TEXAS

()

()

()

()

Ridings, DRA color order:

Beaumont--Port Arthur--Livingston. Normally Tory, might be amenable to a Grit very occasionally. Formerly Grit.
Nacogdoches--Tyler--Marshall. Tory.
Texarkana--Denison. Tory.
Collin. Tory.
Denton. Tory.
Trinity River. Tory.
Dallas South--Grand Prairie. Formerly Grit, now Dipper.
Dallas Center. Formerly Grit, now Dipper, but might fall Tory in waves.
Dallas North--Mesquite--Garland. Tory.
Arlington. Tory.
Irving--Benbrook. Tory.
Fort Worth. Swingy, would more likely than not go Tory in 2011 but might more normally lean Grit. Would probably not go Dipper except with a very good, preferably Hispanic candidate.
Wichita Falls--Cleburne. One of the most hardcore Tory ridings in the entire country.
Waco. Usually Tory, would be open to the right Grit.
San Angelo--Hill Country--San Marcos. Tory, Tory, Tory.
Abilene--Amarillo. Tory as the day God made it.
Llano Estacado. Do I really even need to say it?
El Paso. Grit/Dipper?! Good heavens, really?!
Rio Grande. Whichever party the Hispanics in the area vote for, probably Dipper at this point, I would think.
Hidalgo. Almost as Grit/Dipper as Wichita Falls--Cleburne is Tory.
Brownsville--Corpus Christi. Somewhat marginal Grit, could go either Tory or Dipper in 2011.
Austin. Dipper to the core.
Round Rock--Pflugerville. Somewhat more marginal Tory than most non-urban, non-Hispanic Texas ridings, but still relatively safe.
San Antonio Center. Hardcore Dipper.
San Antonio North--Cross Mountain. Tory.
San Antonio South--Victoria. Tory.
Galveston--Matagorda. Tory.
Sugar Land--Rosenberg--Hempstead. Usually Tory.
College Station--The Woodlands. If possible, might actually be harder-line Tory than Wichita Falls--Cleburne.
Houston East. Tory.
Houston South East. Grit/Dipper.
Houston West. Tory.
Houston South West. Grit/Dipper.
Houston North Central. Grit/Dipper.
Houston North. Tory.

The Houston ridings could have 'Harris' substituted in their names. I'm really unsure about San Antonio South--Victoria but I don't know what else to do in that area.

Houston should have a central riding, no?

If you look at a demographic map of Houston the ethnic communities of interest kind of radiate outward in sectors. I'll do another Harris map with a central riding, though, and we can decide which we like better.

ETA:

()

Houston Center, Houston East, Houston West, Harris East, Harris North, Harris West (or Houston East-Central, Houston West-Central, Houston East, Houston North, Houston West).

I really like the first way better. Houston just divides much more naturally into segments than it does into rings.

Maybe. But usually the central parts of cities tend to be politically different then the rest of the city.  I must admit though, I don't know Houston that well.

I began doing this with Georgia, but was quickly overwhelmed at the prospect of drawing 236 district with a ~40k population each :P manageable, certainly, but tough. Now, New Hampshire I'm sure will be essentially impossible.

Not really, in the case of Houston. Or rather, the left-leaning central part of Houston is large enough for several ridings, which are most naturally divided in sectors. Here's a demographic map of Harris County, for what it's worth:

()

Yeah, I gave up when I tried to do Vermont. Some of the precincts were larger than districts.

Indiana:

()

()

Blue (Gary-Crown Point-Valparaiso): This riding consists of Lake and Porter Counties. Population: 660,348 (1.85% overpopulated).

Green (South Bend-Elkhart-La Porte): Population: 646,371 (0.31% underpopulated).

Purple (Fort Wayne-Warsaw): Wells and Adams Counties are only included because Wells County is in the Fort Wayne Metropolitan Area, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Wayne_metropolitan_area) and the riding to the south would look stupid if it still had Adams County. Population: 689,074 (6.28% overpopulated).

Red (Lafayette-Kokomo): Population: 626,446 (3.39% underpopulated).

Yellow (Muncie-Anderson): Population: 569,034 (12.24% underpopulated).

Teal (Indianapolis): Marion County is too populous for a riding, so it must be split. I think this map conforms mostly to township boundaries, but there are a couple of exclaves within the city proper. The northern part of the county is a better match to the city proper than the southern part, both politically and demographically. Population: 715,515 (10.35% overpopulated).

Dim Gray (Carmel-Plainfield-Greenwood): This may be a bit controversial, but it looks like the exurbs of Indianapolis are only in the parts of the outer counties nearest to the city. The outer parts of those counties appear rural. I feel that the exurbs would be better served if they are concentrated in a single riding rather than split between rural ridings. Population: 681,324 (5.08% overpopulated).

Slate Blue (Bloomington-Terre Haute): Population: 602,339 (7.11% underpopulated).

Cyan (Columbus-Seymour): Population: 616,533 (4.92% underpopulated).

Deep Pink (Evansville-Clarksville): Population: 676,818 (4.39% overpopulated).

And my offering for Ohio:

()

()

()

()

Blue (Lakewood-Parma-Solon): This is a suburban Cleveland riding contained entirely in Cuyahoga County. Brook Park is not split- that’s part of a Cleveland precinct. Population: 635,233 (15.63% overpopulated).

Green (Cleveland): The city of Cleveland gets paired with some of its eastern suburbs. Population: 644,889 (17.39% overpopulated).

Purple (Mentor-Kent): Lake, Geauga, and Portage Counties. Population: 484,849 (11.74% underpopulated).

Red (Akron): This riding contains all of Summit County. Population: 541,781 (1.38% underpopulated).

Gold (Youngstown-Warren-Ashtabula): Population: 550,632 (0.23% overpopulated).

Teal (Lorain-Medina): Population: 473,688 (13.78% underpopulated).

Dim Gray (Canton-Columbiana): Carroll County is (inexplicably) in the Canton MSA, so the riding went east instead of west. Population: 581,972 (5.94% overpopulated)

Slate Blue (Toledo-Bowling Green): Population: 567,303 (3.27% overpopulated)

Cyan (Dayton): Population: 535,153 (2.59% underpopulated).

Deep Pink (New Philadelphia-Zanesville-Athens): Population: 548,842 (0.09% underpopulated).

Chartreuse (Mansfield-Wooster): Population: 540,533 (1.61% underpopulated).

Cornflower Blue (Outer Columbus): Anyone who has worked with DRA knows that precincts in Columbus are a nightmare to deal with. Yes, this isn’t technically contiguous, but it’s the best I’m willing to go for. Frankly, I’m surprised I was able to get it looking as good as it does. Population: 580,663 (5.70% overpopulated).

Dark Salmon (Columbus Centre): Population: 582,751 (6.08% overpopulated).

Olive (Delaware-Newark-Lancaster): Exurban Columbus riding. Population: 486,862 (11.38% underpopulated).

Dark Orange (Chillicothe-Portsmouth): Population: 552,149 (0.51% overpopulated).

Lime (Cincinnati): The northern suburbs, in my view, best match the demographics and politics of the city proper. After that, I took the eastern suburbs to bring it up to population. Population: 596,131 (8.51% overpopulated).

Dark Slate Blue (Hamilton-Middletown): The leftovers from Hamilton County get paired with Butler County. Population: 574,373 (4.55% overpopulated).

Yellow (Mason-Loveland-Wilmington): I’m not thrilled with this riding, but I don’t know how to improve it. Suggestions are welcome. Population: 481,126 (12.43% underpopulated).

Yellow-Green (Springfield-Xenia-Troy): Preble, Miami, and Greene Counties are in the Dayton MSA, so I felt that they belong in the same riding. Population 497,641 (9.41% underpopulated).

Pink (Sandusky-Findlay): Being not so familiar with rural Ohio, it may be desirable to shift some territory between this riding, the Mansfield riding, and the Lima riding. Again, I’m open to suggestions. Population: 575,310 (4.72% overpopulated).

Maroon (Lima-Urbana): Population: 504,623 (8.14% underpopulated).

Outer Columbus looks contiguous to me. I wouldn't call it outer Columbus though, perhaps I'd name the riding after the county.

There are some exclaves. The city has a ton of them. It's really unavoidable.


Franklin? I guess that could work.

Just so you know, I'm working on California now.

Any other comments on Maryland, Indiana, or Ohio?

They're pretty good. With Maryland, I think it'd be better if you had one district that was just Baltimore City and one that was just Baltimore County (I tried MD a while ago, and I don't remember it being too overpopulated- what threshold are you using?). I also think it'd be a bit better if you put the northern part of the yellow district near Annapolis into the teal district. But honestly, good work with MD, when I tried I was pretty perplexed when figuring out how to do all the necessary county splits.

I was using the 25% threshold, but trying to keep the deviations much lower when possible. These changes would work within the 25% threshold. Baltimore County is about 11% overpopulated and Baltimore City is about 14% underpopulated. My concern is that the underpopulation in the city may be too much when you consider that the city's population is also declining. There's also the fact that I kept the deviation under 10% elsewhere.


You mean the whole rest of Anne Arundel County, or just the extreme northern part closest to Annapolis? Shifting the entire rest of Anne Arundel County to the teal riding would work, but I'm not entirely sure it would better serve communities of interest. Southern Anne Arundel County looks more rural, similar to Calvert and St. Mary's Counties, as opposed to the more suburban northern part of the county. With the yellow riding forced into suburban Prince George's anyway, I didn't want to completely screw rural interests in the southern part of the state. But it does look as if there are a few more suburban precincts near Annapolis that probably should be shifted into the teal riding.

Washington:

()

Riding names

1-Seattle

2-Lake Washington

3-Tacoma

4-Kitsap Peninsula-Olympia

5-Skykomish-White River

6-North Puget Sound-Olympic Mountains

7-Grays Harbor-Vancouver

8-Tri Cities-Yakima

9-Spokane-Okanagan

1. With such a large deviation threshold, surely you can get rid of some of those egregious county splits. I'm playing around with this right now, and I don't see why King County needs to be split between more than three ridings, why Snohomish County needs to be split between more than two, and why Pierce County needs to be split at all.

2. I've seen people on this forum propose districts that cross the Puget Sound before, and I've always been mystified by it. Does Port Townsend really belong with Bellingham? Wouldn't it make more sense to pair Bellingham with Everett and keep the Olympic Peninsula whole?

3. Surely Klickitat County belongs in an Eastern Washington riding.

I see no particular reason to respect county lines in the case of a densely populated metropolitan region, particularly one in which many cities cross said county lines. In any case, while it is true that you could split fewer county lines, such a map would wholly ignore the actual communities of interest that this map represents.

The reason for the cross sound district is largely because Clallam and Jefferson, much like San Juan, Island, and Whatcom counties, are chock full of rural hippies and organic farmers, among others, thus making those counties much unlike Grays Harbor, filled with decaying mill towns and working-class social conservatives, or Mason, which is Seattle exurbia.

Klickitat also has similar demographics to Grays Harbor, making it a better fit for the southwestern district.

Works for me, then. After all, you're the one who's from the state in question.

California should be up once I actually find time to sit down and screencap it all.

Awesome! Obviously I need to redo Georgia, but what other states (or are we using the more Canadian "provinces"?) are good to go?

I think that the states that have been finished are:

South Carolina
Louisiana
Maryland
Washington
Indiana
New Jersey
Michigan
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas

Also, hold off on drawing Kentucky. I'm going to draw a counter-proposal to Hatman's plan

South Carolina: Has two competing proposals that haven't been debated.
Louisiana: Has at least three competing proposals that haven't been seriously debated.
Maryland: I'm still looking for input, and some changes will be made as per Bacon King's suggestions.
Washington: I'd wait a little while for more input, but it'll probably end up looking similar to Jackson's plan.
Indiana: I'd like some input on this before it is finalized. I'm not sure if the lack of comment means I did a good job or if people don't feel qualified enough to say.
New Jersey: This one's done.
Michigan: I'd like a little more input on this one as well.
Ohio: I'd like a little more input. I'm really not sure about some of the rural ridings.
Pennsylvania: This one's done.
Texas: I think it's safe to assume this one's done.

And I've recently finished Virginia and will have a proposal up shortly.

Virginia:

()

()

()

Blue (Arlington-Alexandria-Fairfax East): Arlington and Alexandria get paired with the eastern part of Fairfax County. I tried not to split municipalities, but it seems that precincts don't entirely conform to municipal boundaries. Population: 744,533 (2.36% overpopulated).

Green (Fairfax West): The remainder of Fairfax County. Population: 719,683 (1.06% underpopulated).

Purple (Manassas-Leesburg): Outer suburban DC. Population: 766,407 (5.37% overpopulated).

Red (Virginia Beach-Chesapeake-Delmarva): The Delmarva Peninsula is only connected by road to Virginia Beach, so the two must be paired. Population: 705,756 (2.97% underpopulated).

Gold (Hampton Roads): Norfolk, Portsmouth, Hampton, Newport News, Poquoson, York County, and Williamsburg. Population: 748,175 (2.86% overpopulated).

Teal (Blacksburg-Bristol-Martinsville): Population: 722,603 (0.65% underpopulated).

Gray (Richmond): I feel that the split of Chesterfield County is justified to keep Richmond and its immediate suburbs in the same riding. Population: 738,287 (1.50% overpopulated).

Slate Blue (Roanoke-Shenandoah Valley): I think Roanoke fits best in this riding, but I'm not sure. It may be more desirable to swap it out for the northern portion of the Charlottesville riding, creating a Central Virginia riding that doesn't go all the way up to DC exurbia. Input would be appreciated. Population: 722,075 (0.73% underpopulated).

Cyan (Fredericksburg-Tidewater): Population: 694,738 (4.49% underpopulated).

Deep Pink (Lynchburg-Charlottesville-Warrenton): Again, I'm not too happy about Fauquier County's presence in this riding. Should it go in with the Shenandoah Valley instead? Population: 699,010 (3.90% underpopulated).

Chartreuse (Petersburg-Suffolk-Danville): Population: 739,757 (1.70% overpopulated).

CALIFORNIA

()

()

()

()

()

()

()


Ridings (DRA order)

North Coast--Klamath (probably NDP)
Marin--Sonoma (definitely NDP)
Davis--Chico--Red Bluff (Tory)
Sacramento (NDP or Grit)
Citrus Heights--Elk Grove (Tory?)
North Sierra (probably Tory)
Concord--Brentwood (Grit?)
Fairfield--Vallejo--Richmond (Grit?)
San Francisco (NDP)
Oakland (NDP)
Hayward--Fremont (Grit or NDP)
South Sierra (Tory)
Wasco--Visalia--Tulare (Grit, possible NDP after 2011)
Bakersfield--Tehachapi (swing, probably Tory in 2011)
Fresno (Grit)
Modesto--Merced (Grit)
Stockton (Grit/Tory swing, probably Tory in 2011)
San Mateo (NDP)
Monterey Bay (NDP)
Santa Clara (Grit, possible NDP after 2011)
San Jose (NDP)
Santa Barbara--San Luis Obispo (Grit/NDP)
Ventura (swing)
Mojave (Tory)
San Bernardino (Grit/NDP)
Rancho Cucamonga (Grit/NDP)
Palmdale--Santa Clarita (Tory)
Pomona--San Dimas--Covina--Baldwin Park (Grit)
San Gabriel--Temple City--El Monte--Rowland Heights (NDP)
Pasadena--Glendale--Burbank (swing? I really don't know)
San Fernando North (Grit/NDP)
San Fernando South (Tory?)
Inglewood--Manhattan Beach--Marina Del Rey (NDP)
Hollywood--Santa Monica (NDP)
Port of Los Angeles--Torrance--Compton (Grit/NDP)
Los Angeles South Center (NDP)
Los Angeles East Center (NDP)
Long Beach (Grit?)
East Los Angeles--Downey (NDP)
Norwalk--Whittier--Montebello (NDP)
Huntington Beach--Garden Grove (Tory)
Anaheim--Fullerton--Yorba Linda (Tory/Grit swing, probably Tory in 2011)
Newport Beach--Santa Ana (swing)
Irvine--Laguna--San Juan Capistrano (Tory)
Corona--Lake Elsinore (Tory?)
Riverside--Moreno Valley (Grit?)
San Jacinto--Joshua Tree (Tory)
Palomar--Capitan Grande--El Cajon (Tory; this is also probably Torie's riding unless I'm mistaken as to where exactly he lives)
Oceanside--Escondido (Tory)
San Diego North (Grit/NDP?)
San Diego South (Grit/NDP?)
Imperial--California Border (NDP)

There's no need to have a constituency encompassing the San Jose city limits; they're utterly meaningless, as you can see by the shape of the municipality.

All right, let's just say that the northern appendage of San Jose goes into Santa Clara. That makes it look better and helps even out the population anyway (a riding that's just San Jose has rather a lot of people in it).

I feel like more can be done in Santa Clara County; I live there, so I'll take a look sometime and see what I can do.

All right, thank you. I was wondering that a little myself given how oddly San Jose is shaped.

Until Norm Mineta was elected Mayor, the objective of the government of San Jose was to annex as much land as possible. Other jurisdictions were forced to incorporate to avoid annexation, while San Jose gobbled up everything that it could, thus yielding the strange shapes.

I quite like this discussion.  But here are some comments/questions:

1.  I think there's a problematic tendency here to conflate "liberal Democrats" with the NDP constituency.   Yet the NDP has not been particularly successful with wealthy socially liberal professionals.  The NDP does do well in bohemian neighborhoods and among academic/university communities, but not among more traditional professionals like lawyers and doctors and the "bobos" that David Brooks writes about.  In fact with the collapse of the Liberal Party the constituency that they can count on most are professionals and people with post-graduate degrees.  So places like Aspen, Marin County, Beverly Hills, Lexington Mass., etc. would have stayed Liberal and not have gone NDP.  At most, strong NDP showings in these places would have allowed the Tories to come up the middle and win

2.  Not sure how to put the collapse of the New Deal coalition in the 1960s and 1970s.  In US, "white ethnics" became a swing vote or even Republican, but in Canada this is historically a "bedrock Liberal constituency (though in the 2011 election the less affluent white ethnics swung NDP and more affluent Tory).   What would the scenario have been with "Canadian" style parties?  Would the NDP have become the "civil rights party" and the Libs kept the "white ethnic" vote?  Or would the Liberals have successfully been able to straddle a middle ground and hold both these constituencies?

3.  I'm assuming African Americans and Latinos (with the exception of Tory-leaning Cubans) both would have been Liberal constituencies with a strong NDP minority, but both would have dropped the Liberals like a hot potato in 2011 and gone NDP.   

Excellent and thoughtful analysis and welcome to the Forum, King of Kensington! I hope you wander a few boards lower to the International Elections board and further down to the International General Discussion board, too.

The Hispanic community can be somewhat socially conservative. Do you think there is the possibility of them switching from Liberal to Conservative in 2011, like the Jewish community? Of course, that probably had more to do with foreign policy than social policy, but I'm sure you understand my query.

EDIT: I see you've already been around a while and particularly in the International Elections board. I hope you become more active because you seem to be quite insightful.

Yes, it's quite plausible that a sizable minority of the Hispanic community would have swung Conservative in a Harper/Ignatieff/Layton matchup in US terms.  Not as much as the NDP though.  Class status and generational status (multi-generation US-born more Conservative?) would have played a role I think.

Harper would have appealed to US Jews in this scenario to the same degree of Reagan '80 (plus accounting for the growth of the Orthodox and Russian and Israeli immigrant communities since then).  Of course this raises the question of the "religious right" factor, which is the biggest turnoff to Jews. 

That makes sense - that it may depend on the class structure within the Hispanic community, I guess the difference between Republican and Conservative immigration policy (and it would be difficult to tell how that might shape up with the Mexican border, rather than the US border, to the south).

You're right, of course, about the substantial difference between the Bible belt and the Torah belt and the way the two different communities respond to the same issues.

The dippers would cease to exist as a party after a couple elections, they would struggle to break 10%, and since funding is allocated by votes in Canada... Yeah. I think something like Wildrose would be created for the tea partier, and it might split the PC vote for the first Liberal government since LBJ/FDR. Am I off-base here, or did I describe Canada to US parties pretty accurately?

Yeah, they'd need a Wildrose party.  The NDP wouldn't exist easily in such an anti-socialist society, though the Occupy movement might give it steam.  I doubt they'd do well anywhere besides New England, California, and New York City. 

bump