Talk Elections

General Politics => Political Geography & Demographics => Topic started by: Torie on April 22, 2012, 11:09:41 AM



Title: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 22, 2012, 11:09:41 AM
Rome has seven hills, and I have seven maps. Each has its merits and demerits. Which map best balances the competing considerations, from a non partisan good government standpoint? I will add some commentary shortly so don't vote until I have added it, unless your think such commentary would just be annoying gratuitous chatter. [now added :)]

Map 1. Map 1 is close to the Commission map with respect to the configuration of CA-05.  It puts the city of Santa Rosa (170,000 people which presents a continual problem with Santa Rosa county chops), plus Napa plus a snake in Contra Costa via a chop of Vallejo in Solano county. It makes CA-01 nice and square, gives CA-03 a nice look, with no offensive chops other than Vallejo, and gives the coast to CA-02 and no more, but the attachment of Marin to the north coast CD, with the Santa Rosa county slide by, offends some.

Map 2. Map 2 was my initial effort. It limits CA-05 to Marin and the most of Santa Rosa with nothing more, which is the most logical for CA-05, but CA-02 takes Shasta county, which is a negative, making CA-02 something other than compact. CA-03 still looks nice (with no chop of Vallejo or Solano County), but CA-01 needs to chop into Yolo County to take Woodlands (which is does barely without a chop of the town).

Map 3. This map modifies Map 2 to eliminate appending Marin to the north coast via the Santa Rosa County slide by. It achieves this by moving the city of Santa Rosa into CA-02.  The city of Santa Rosa almost equals Marin. CA-01 takes Del Norte county, which might offend some, but that county really is disparate socially, politically and every other way, from the balance of the coast. It is a bit of chore road wise for CA-01 to get there however.

Map 4. This map incorporates the Muon2 chop into SF from the north. That is not a popular choice, and now CA-02 marches all the way to the NE corner of the state, but it has advantages from a county chop-less standpoint. San Mateo is basically united, and although the chops into Alameda and Contra Costa from the south are deeper, CA-03 needs to take but Martinez from Contra Costa over its own nice little bridge crossing the Sacramento River into Martinez from Solano county. CA-11 takes everything on SF bay in Contra Costa. CA-03 is more compact to boot since Solano is not chopped, and CA-03 takes all of Vallejo.

Map 5.  This map is similar to Map 4, but it cuts way back on the breadth of CA-02 (except sadly it still needs to take Shasta County) through the simple expedient of CA-05 taking the city of Richmond across yet a third bridge (which I did not know was there before yesterday), and notice that it takes the whole city, and nothing more - nice. CA-03 becomes almost a chop-less uber-compact paradise, taking but one precinct in Lake County. If it took one precinct in West Sacramento city, even that chop could be eliminated.

Map 6. This map is similar to Map 3 (no more maps with SF being chopped from the north), except that CA-05 loses Vallejo, and does not chop into Solano county, using that third bridge I discovered to get over to Contra Costa on the bay. The quid pro quo is that Yuba City and its burbs are squeezed really tight by CA-01, but that metro area is not chopped, and it does leave CA-03 more compact, as CA-01 takes more lightly populated counties and precincts in the north Central Valley.

Map 7. This map is the same as Map 6, except that Santa Rosa city is put in CA-05, so that CA-05 has a rather ugly elongated spike up into Santa Rosa County, losing everything in the county but Santa Rosa city and Rohnert Park immediately to the south (including losing most of Petaluma on the east side of US 101).  It basically turns CA-05 into a purely urban CD.

()

()


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: minionofmidas on April 22, 2012, 11:21:33 AM
Map four wins on aesthetic/compactness grounds without including any obvious unfairnesses, but of course that's not the same thing as your question, which I cannot answer.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 22, 2012, 11:55:03 AM
Map four wins on aesthetic/compactness grounds without including any obvious unfairnesses, but of course that's not the same thing as your question, which I cannot answer.

CA-02 is hardly "compact" is it?  Anyway, my scintillating commentary is now up for your reading "pleasure" Lewis. :P


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: minionofmidas on April 22, 2012, 12:08:35 PM
I overlooked something when I wrote that anyways. :( (And I don't mean the thread of gratuituous chatter, even though I overlooked that too. :( ) So I guess 2 or 3. Or maybe 6. Or maybe 7.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 22, 2012, 12:13:44 PM
I overlooked something when I wrote that anyways. :( (And I don't mean the thread of gratuituous chatter, even though I overlooked that too. :( ) So I guess 2 or 3. Or maybe 6. Or maybe 7.

What did you "overlook" about map 4?


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: minionofmidas on April 22, 2012, 12:18:54 PM
Why, the obvious biggie ie divorce of Lake and Napa. Suffice to say it was a very casual glance.

Good thing I haven't voted in the poll yet.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 22, 2012, 12:39:02 PM
Why, the obvious biggie ie divorce of Lake and Napa. Suffice to say it was a very casual glance.

Good thing I haven't voted in the poll yet.

I picked the poll option that "allows" folks to change their vote. I always do.  :)

Why is uniting Lake and Napa such a high priority for you?  Lake is the "resort" county mostly - kind of sui generis. I remember my Dad signing us up to stay for a week at a resort up there in "Hobergs" or something like that - maybe this one (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/30420805). It turned out to be for lower middle class and working class folks, where their teenagers could get laid without much effort, with lots of softball and sports and the like. My Dad checked us out the next day.  If I had been a bit older, I would have refused to leave actually.  Getting laid trumps class solidarity any day of the week. :P


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 22, 2012, 12:44:05 PM
I've started looking at the whole county analysis I did for the Iowa-style states and apply it to my regional approach to CA. One interesting region I found is Colusa, Contra Costa, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, San Francisco, Solano, Sonoma, and Yolo comprise the population of 5 CDs with only 625 extra people. Within that region the core wine counties of Mendocino, Napa, and Sonoma are only 5298 over pop for a district and Colusa, Lake, Solano, and Yolo are only 2628 under population for a district. I'll try to post a wine county region map based later today.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: dpmapper on April 22, 2012, 01:04:05 PM
I voted for 3.  However, is there a way to give Napa to CA-3 in exchange for putting Del Norte + more of Sonoma County (all except maybe Petaluma and Sonoma city) into CA-2, and letting CA-5 take all of Vallejo and maybe Benicia for a complete surround of the north bay? 


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 22, 2012, 01:09:57 PM
I voted for 3.  However, is there a way to give Napa to CA-3 in exchange for putting Del Norte + more of Sonoma County (all except maybe Petaluma and Sonoma city) into CA-2, and letting CA-5 take all of Vallejo and maybe Benicia for a complete surround of the north bay? 

Look at map 4.  CA-03 with this map design can't go farther north, without chopping Woodlands, which has 35,000 people or something.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: dpmapper on April 22, 2012, 01:47:14 PM
I voted for 3.  However, is there a way to give Napa to CA-3 in exchange for putting Del Norte + more of Sonoma County (all except maybe Petaluma and Sonoma city) into CA-2, and letting CA-5 take all of Vallejo and maybe Benicia for a complete surround of the north bay? 

Look at map 4.  CA-03 with this map design can't go farther north, without chopping Woodlands, which has 35,000 people or something.

It wouldn't need to go north if it's taking Napa County.  It would actually come south, since Del Norte slides from CD-1 to CD-2, so CD-1 takes some of CD-3's northern reaches.  CD-3 gains Napa, loses a bit in the north + the remainder of Vallejo. 


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 22, 2012, 03:33:12 PM
I've started looking at the whole county analysis I did for the Iowa-style states and apply it to my regional approach to CA. One interesting region I found is Colusa, Contra Costa, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, San Francisco, Solano, Sonoma, and Yolo comprise the population of 5 CDs with only 625 extra people. Within that region the core wine counties of Mendocino, Napa, and Sonoma are only 5298 over pop for a district and Colusa, Lake, Solano, and Yolo are only 2628 under population for a district. I'll try to post a wine county region map based later today.


Here is your algorithm map Mike. You commit the "sin" of chopping W. Sacto from Sacto, but get away with it because it gets rid of most of the CA-04 chop into Sacto in return. Its other sin is tri-chopping San Joaquin county, and chopping Tracy a bit to boot, while excising Stockton from most of the county that it hosts. But it does have a lot of merit, except of course for McNerney in CA-09, who would put you on his enemies list. It must be nice to do good and do well at the same time.  :P

Anyway, I have labeled my DRA drf data file for this map 8 the Muon2 algorithm map in your honor. :)

After I figure out what dpmapper wants, I will need to redo the poll, and perhaps you can move all of these scintillating posts to that thread.

()

()


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Sbane on April 22, 2012, 03:55:43 PM
A Marin and Petaluma based district taking in the Richmond area is a complete no-no. Go ahead and cross the Golden Gate but do NOT cross that bridge Torie just discovered. The differential in median income across that bridge is probably higher than the median income of America. Those two areas just don't belong. Muon's ideas wouldn't work either, judging from the map Torie made in the last post.

So the 1st, 2nd and the 4th maps would be acceptable with the others being unacceptable. The 2nd is the best of those options and what I voted for. Map 4 is actually very good except for the SF chop, but like I said is still preferable to crossing the Richmond-San Rafael bridge. I think the 1st is still more preferable to the 4th due to it not crossing over and taking in Redding and Modoc County. But they are close by and the 2nd is clearly better in my opinion.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 22, 2012, 05:38:50 PM
A Marin and Petaluma based district taking in the Richmond area is a complete no-no. Go ahead and cross the Golden Gate but do NOT cross that bridge Torie just discovered. The differential in median income across that bridge is probably higher than the median income of America. Those two areas just don't belong. Muon's ideas wouldn't work either, judging from the map Torie made in the last post.

So the 1st, 2nd and the 4th maps would be acceptable with the others being unacceptable. The 2nd is the best of those options and what I voted for. Map 4 is actually very good except for the SF chop, but like I said is still preferable to crossing the Richmond-San Rafael bridge. I think the 1st is still more preferable to the 4th due to it not crossing over and taking in Redding and Modoc County. But they are close by and the 2nd is clearly better in my opinion.

Well the Commission took CA-05 into Richmond, so why can't Muon2?  The class warfare thing was really only applied to get rid of the beach cities CD in LA county, so that a second quasi black CD could be created, and they used class warfare as an excuse. They ignored the class warfare theme in the Silicon Valley, as well as in San Diego county, really.  I mean if they had class on their craniums for reasons other than as window dressing, Cupertino would not have been appended to the no-they-haven't-quite-made-it-yet-and-thus-are-constrained-to-live-cheek-to-jowel-with-the-Hispanics  "Asian" CD, and the Bilbray CD would not have eschewed wealthy Villa Park on steroids Rancho Santa Fe in favor of frumpy Poway (oh dear!), now would it? And that unfortunate Antelope Valley CD on its county chopping way to that charmless middle class haven where the overpaid LA cops and firemen live otherwise known as Simi Valley, would not have swallowed en route the chic family values lawyer and MD oriented node of Porter Ranch in Chatsworth either, turning the creature into the most ugly of ducklings, correct?

That really is the main goal here. What rules need to be set up, which make sense for CA, so we don't get another cf map next time?  I mean they are not needed really for a Commission made up of the Sbane, Lewis, Muon2, dpmapper, and Johnny's of this world, since we know all the rules, and will make each other's lives a living hell if we play games, since we know all the games too, but well we aren't on the Commission, and our types never well be. They will put folks on who can be gamed to death, and then some.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Sbane on April 22, 2012, 07:10:13 PM
Ca-5 does not take in Richmond or Marin County nor Petaluma. Santa Rosa isn't really that wealthy (nor is it working class of course). That being said I don't like that much. I prefer the 2nd map with Richmond and the rest of working class COCO county with Vallejo and Fairfield. Also Marin County gets put with Santa Rosa which works fine. Redding with the coast doesn't work as well, admittedly, but that county isn't actually that attached to the valley. If you go up there, you will see that most of the county, including Redding and a few areas to the south are not that agricultural. I don't really have a huge problem with putting it in the wilderness district, though it's not ideal. Better than putting Marin County with Richmond. Just because Tupac was from Marin county doesn't give it street cred! :P



Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 22, 2012, 07:34:13 PM
Ca-5 does not take in Richmond or Marin County nor Petaluma. Santa Rosa isn't really that wealthy (nor is it working class of course). That being said I don't like that much. I prefer the 2nd map with Richmond and the rest of working class COCO county with Vallejo and Fairfield. Also Marin County gets put with Santa Rosa which works fine. Redding with the coast doesn't work as well, admittedly, but that county isn't actually that attached to the valley. If you go up there, you will see that most of the county, including Redding and a few areas to the south are not that agricultural. I don't really have a huge problem with putting it in the wilderness district, though it's not ideal. Better than putting Marin County with Richmond. Just because Tupac was from Marin county doesn't give it street cred! :P



OK so you put a high premium on the class warfare theme. That is a factor to me, but not as a dispositive one as for you, I guess. Pity that the Commission applied the theme inconsistently, just like most of the other themes. The Commission's map come to think of it had so many mix and match themes that it ended it kind of cacophonous - sort of like a 12 tone symphony. Now granted, some folks like 12 tone music, but it is an acquired taste. One does not fall in love with it the first time one hears it.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Sbane on April 22, 2012, 07:41:50 PM
Yeah, the commission map is all over the place. Still, I don't know if they did anything as bad as putting Richmond with Marin County. I mean, Marin County has a median income approaching 100k and Richmond is right around 50k. And it's not as if Marin county is only 20 or 30,000 people or something, and the same with Richmond and surroundings.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 22, 2012, 08:29:54 PM
Yeah, the commission map is all over the place. Still, I don't know if they did anything as bad as putting Richmond with Marin County. I mean, Marin County has a median income approaching 100k and Richmond is right around 50k. And it's not as if Marin county is only 20 or 30,000 people or something, and the same with Richmond and surroundings.

Yes, yes, but it mitigates the CA-03 chop in CCC. It is all a balancing test, which is why I wanted input. Once I get the dpmapper map done, the new poll will have nine maps in it. :P


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 22, 2012, 10:54:19 PM

That really is the main goal here. What rules need to be set up, which make sense for CA, so we don't get another cf map next time?  I mean they are not needed really for a Commission made up of the Sbane, Lewis, Muon2, dpmapper, and Johnny's of this world, since we know all the rules, and will make each other's lives a living hell if we play games, since we know all the games too, but well we aren't on the Commission, and our types never well be. They will put folks on who can be gamed to death, and then some.

This is the question for me. Some states do fine even without a commission, and in part that seems to be a set of criteria with enough definition to constrain the worst of games. Even in CA, counties get some cred as units to be preserved. From commission testimony, they have at least the weight of municipalities, if not more. As Torie has often noted the problem lies in shifting definitions for socioeconomic groupings.

With that in mind, I push for minimal county fragments (BTW I don't need a 3-chop in San Joaquin), and if there are chops the preference is to avoid municipal chops and create minimal population incursions into a county when needed. Other C of I factors can then guide mapping beyond the predefined C of I represented by counties and municipalities.

As I mentioned, I have looked again at multi-district regions as if they were large single districts. I can apply the formula from the Iowa type districts to estimate the following ranges of deviation between the smallest and largest deviation for CA with 58 counties:

2 regions, range 45
3 regions, range 229
4 regions, range 723
5 regions, range 1767
6 regions, range 3665

I can draw 5 regions with a range of 1033, but it has one region that is not very compact. There is a 4-region plan based on the suggestion I had above with a range of 896. It's consistent with the estimates, and is the basis for a fresh look at the plan.

Region A: 4 CDs, deviation -188, Butte, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, and Yuba.

Region B: 5 CDs, deviation +625, Colusa, Contra Costa, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, San Francisco, Solano, Sonoma, and Yolo.

Region C: 14 CDs, deviation -271, Alameda, Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Fresno, Inyo, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Mono, Monterey, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne.

Region D: 30 CDs, deviation -166, Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare, and Ventura.

Though this might not always group counties the way one likes, it imposes a rational constraint to keep counties whole and reduce the exposure to arbitrary influence.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Sbane on April 22, 2012, 11:11:45 PM
Yeah, the commission map is all over the place. Still, I don't know if they did anything as bad as putting Richmond with Marin County. I mean, Marin County has a median income approaching 100k and Richmond is right around 50k. And it's not as if Marin county is only 20 or 30,000 people or something, and the same with Richmond and surroundings.

Yes, yes, but it mitigates the CA-03 chop in CCC. It is all a balancing test, which is why I wanted input. Once I get the dpmapper map done, the new poll will have nine maps in it. :P

Right, but what I'm saying is that CA-3 chopping into CCC makes infinitely more sense than a district from Marin County chopping into CCC. It is a balancing test, and the 2nd map is the right mix. It's not perfect obviously, no map is going to be, but it's the best of the lot. Maybe I'm missing it, but does crossing the Richmond-San Rafael bridge lead to one less chop than CA-3 chopping CCC?


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 23, 2012, 12:36:49 AM
I voted for 3.  However, is there a way to give Napa to CA-3 in exchange for putting Del Norte + more of Sonoma County (all except maybe Petaluma and Sonoma city) into CA-2, and letting CA-5 take all of Vallejo and maybe Benicia for a complete surround of the north bay? 

Look at map 4.  CA-03 with this map design can't go farther north, without chopping Woodlands, which has 35,000 people or something.

It wouldn't need to go north if it's taking Napa County.  It would actually come south, since Del Norte slides from CD-1 to CD-2, so CD-1 takes some of CD-3's northern reaches.  CD-3 gains Napa, loses a bit in the north + the remainder of Vallejo. 


Here you go. CA-05 gets uncomfortably close to Fairfield, but not there, so not bad - at all. The alternative which would push CA-05 away from Fairfield would be for CA-02 to take Siskiyou County, and the cost of CA-02 crossing I-5 causes that pawn move to be too expensive. '

()


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 23, 2012, 04:02:02 AM
Yeah, the commission map is all over the place. Still, I don't know if they did anything as bad as putting Richmond with Marin County. I mean, Marin County has a median income approaching 100k and Richmond is right around 50k. And it's not as if Marin county is only 20 or 30,000 people or something, and the same with Richmond and surroundings.

Yes, yes, but it mitigates the CA-03 chop in CCC. It is all a balancing test, which is why I wanted input. Once I get the dpmapper map done, the new poll will have nine maps in it. :P

Right, but what I'm saying is that CA-3 chopping into CCC makes infinitely more sense than a district from Marin County chopping into CCC. It is a balancing test, and the 2nd map is the right mix. It's not perfect obviously, no map is going to be, but it's the best of the lot. Maybe I'm missing it, but does crossing the Richmond-San Rafael bridge lead to one less chop than CA-3 chopping CCC?

If one assumes that as in IA (or AR in 2000) de minimus population deviations are permitted to maintain county integrity, then my plan makes for fewer county chops. Even with an exact population requirement, the needed chops would be preferable since the counties would remain largely whole.



Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: dpmapper on April 23, 2012, 08:31:42 AM

Here you go. CA-05 gets uncomfortably close to Fairfield, but not there, so not bad - at all. The alternative which would push CA-05 away from Fairfield would be for CA-02 to take Siskiyou County, and the cost of CA-02 crossing I-5 causes that pawn move to be too expensive. '

()


Looks good.  I like keeping CA-03 farther away from SF and the CA-05 wraparound of the north bay is a nice way to do it.  I understand sbane's concern about Richmond but it at least gets paired with Vallejo here.  Yes, other than being on the same body of water, it's an odd fit with Marin but these things inevitably happen; nobody complains about Daly City and East Palo Alto being matched with Atherton and Menlo Park. 


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 23, 2012, 10:09:46 AM
Here's my offering for wine country showing how it fits into the northern half of the state. All CDs are within 100 of the ideal population. All counties with enough population have a district entirely within, and Sacto and Alameda have two CDs entirely within. No county has part of more than two CDs not counting those entirely within. County splits are organized to split off only a small part where possible leaving most of the county intact. For example these are the populations of the fragments split:

Butte: 7.8K
Colusa: 0.6K
Napa: 3.3K
Placer: 0.5K
Sonoma: 2.0K

()


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 23, 2012, 11:46:21 AM
Here's my offering for wine country showing how it fits into the northern half of the state. All CDs are within 100 of the ideal population. All counties with enough population have a district entirely within, and Sacto and Alameda have two CDs entirely within. No county has part of more than two CDs not counting those entirely within. County splits are organized to split off only a small part where possible leaving most of the county intact. For example these are the populations of the fragments split:

Butte: 7.8K
Colusa: 0.6K
Napa: 3.3K
Placer: 0.5K
Sonoma: 2.0K

()

Ah, well I already knew that you were smarter than me, Mike. :)  Given the walls (see below), I thought it was impossible, but then I thought it was a crime to chop Section 5 protected Merced (which to do your twist, you chopped). I guess it is OK to remove white people from it, is that were its at? And didn't you while losing a San Joaquin chop, pick up two others (Madera and Merced)? Did you avoid a chop somewhere else?  I assume your map is based on the Ridgecrest based chop. And didn't you reduce the Hispanic percentage in the Monterey based CD (not that that is dispositive of anything of course)?

Oh, I think you did that extra chop for VRA reasons, even though the Commission didn't care much about the Hispanic percentage in CA-16.  So you took CA-08 farther north?  You didn't do the Ridgecrest chop, but chopped Placer County instead. Taking empty Alpine is OK I guess, but not San Andreas. And that picked up about half of the population that you needed, and you got the other half from the extra CA-16 area county chop, excusing it with the VRA?  I am just wondering where you picked up the population is all.

The Placer affair of course illustrates the conundrum here. The issue with your algorithm, is when to allow it to be violated.  Sometimes the geographic barriers or communities of interest, or issues of compactness, or protecting cross county metro areas from being chopped (e.g. West Sacramento from Sacramento, although the Sacto area needed to be chopped anyway), are just too compelling. Or you need an extra county chop to avoid an ugly chop of some town with some population. For example, I don't think it acceptable to chop Woodlands in half, and considered that a constraint. So how do we allow for human judgement while still being sufficiently leashed to avoid going where this Commission went?

()


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Sbane on April 23, 2012, 12:53:15 PM

Here you go. CA-05 gets uncomfortably close to Fairfield, but not there, so not bad - at all. The alternative which would push CA-05 away from Fairfield would be for CA-02 to take Siskiyou County, and the cost of CA-02 crossing I-5 causes that pawn move to be too expensive. '

()


Looks good.  I like keeping CA-03 farther away from SF and the CA-05 wraparound of the north bay is a nice way to do it.  I understand sbane's concern about Richmond but it at least gets paired with Vallejo here.  Yes, other than being on the same body of water, it's an odd fit with Marin but these things inevitably happen; nobody complains about Daly City and East Palo Alto being matched with Atherton and Menlo Park. 

Well, I think the difference here is that you are crossing a bridge to pick up Richmond. Though keeping it with Vallejo makes it slightly better I suppose. East Palo Alto is only 10-20k people and Daly City and EPA are right adjacent to the areas its put with. It's unwise to cross bridges from the peninsula or Marin County to the East Bay. That geographical barrier creates a different community of interest on the two sides of the bay. And this is not something obscure but would be something that would be acknowledged by the majority of Bay Area residents.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 23, 2012, 01:06:05 PM

Ah, well I already knew that you were smarter than me, Mike. :)  Given the walls (see below), I thought it was impossible, but then I thought it was a crime to chop Section 5 protected Merced (which to do your twist, you chopped). I guess it is OK to remove white people from it, is that were its at? And didn't you while losing a San Joaquin chop, pick up two others (Madera and Merced)? Did you avoid a chop somewhere else?  I assume your map is based on the Ridgecrest based chop. And didn't you reduce the Hispanic percentage in the Monterey based CD (not that that is dispositive of anything of course)?

Oh, I think you did that extra chop for VRA reasons, even though the Commission didn't care much about the Hispanic percentage in CA-16.  So you took CA-08 farther north?  You didn't do the Ridgecrest chop, but chopped Placer County instead. Taking empty Alpine is OK I guess, but not San Andreas. And that picked up about half of the population that you needed, and you got the other half from the extra CA-16 area county chop, excusing it with the VRA?  I am just wondering where you picked up the population is all.

The Placer affair of course illustrates the conundrum here. The issue with your algorithm, is when to allow it to be violated.  Sometimes the geographic barriers or communities of interest, or issues of compactness, or protecting cross county metro areas from being chopped (e.g. West Sacramento from Sacramento, although the Sacto area needed to be chopped anyway), are just too compelling. Or you need an extra county chop to avoid an ugly chop of some town with some population. For example, I don't think it acceptable to chop Woodlands in half, and considered that a constraint. So how do we allow for human judgement while still being sufficiently leashed to avoid going where this Commission went?


The Placer problem was actually quite easy. My 2 northern CDs plus Sacto (region A) has a pop deficit of 188 but it becomes a surplus of 437 when I give it 625 from Colusa to balance the north bay region. There's a little precinct in Placer on the shore of Lake Tahoe that has the right pop and keeps the Tahoma community together. The split actually reduces town splitting so that's a plus. That split actually goes with the South Lake Tahoe pop (about 39K) to join the Owens Valley in the Victorville CD. I haven't finished the south yet, but you can sense my walls from the regions I posted.

I also haven't gotten to a VRA analysis yet, but I wanted to start with the algorithm and it said that San Mateo+Santa Cruz+Monterey = 2 CDs less 10K pop which I picked up from San Benito. So my wall is where the commission put it between Monterey and SLO. If I can't pass Section 5 with Monterey I can violate my subregion and draw much the same CD the commission did with a few small shifts in SJ. The VRA would be one of the times to violate the algorithm. The VRA is what prevents me from putting a district entirely within Fresno, for example.

So I have two areas of human judgement in map making so far. Making necessary county splits in ways that minimize community splits, and accommodating the VRA.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 23, 2012, 01:57:13 PM
There doesn't appear to be a road between Alpine and Placer.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 23, 2012, 02:20:31 PM
There doesn't appear to be a road between Alpine and Placer.

There is through South Lake Tahoe. My Stockton CD would have 39K too many people including all of the usual Sierra Nevada counties (40K with Alpine). Something needed to go with the Owens Valley so I chopped off South Lake Tahoe from El Dorado for that population. It then provides the link to my one Placer precinct along the lake.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Sbane on April 23, 2012, 03:32:09 PM
Here's my offering for wine country showing how it fits into the northern half of the state. All CDs are within 100 of the ideal population. All counties with enough population have a district entirely within, and Sacto and Alameda have two CDs entirely within. No county has part of more than two CDs not counting those entirely within. County splits are organized to split off only a small part where possible leaving most of the county intact. For example these are the populations of the fragments split:

Butte: 7.8K
Colusa: 0.6K
Napa: 3.3K
Placer: 0.5K
Sonoma: 2.0K

()

I followed the basic format as you and tried to see if you could avoid crossing over into CCC from Marin. I kept the chop in Colusa and SF as you have. Then the SF-Marin district takes in as much of Sonoma County as needed. Only the cities of Sonoma, Windsor and the northern rural areas are excluded. Those areas get put in a district that takes in Mendocino, Lake, Napa, Colusa, Yolo and about 50,000 from Solano. I just avoided splitting Vacaville and basically Vacaville, Fairfield, Benicia and Vallejo get put in a district that goes down to Richmond and takes in some areas in inland CCC like Martinez and Pleasant Hill. I could have extended it towards Pittsburg but that's just nitpicking. What is important is that there is no need to draw a district from Marin into these working class areas. Too bad I didn't save it before it crashed. :(


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 23, 2012, 06:45:40 PM
There doesn't appear to be a road between Alpine and Placer.

There is through South Lake Tahoe. My Stockton CD would have 39K too many people including all of the usual Sierra Nevada counties (40K with Alpine). Something needed to go with the Owens Valley so I chopped off South Lake Tahoe from El Dorado for that population. It then provides the link to my one Placer precinct along the lake.

I will look for the road again. That Monterey, SLO wall makes a cf of Ventura County. That is the problem with a strict algorithm.  You get a nasty mess in a county, or you do something that will never sell, like appending Placer to a Victorville CD.  But we have been over this before. I wonder if there is any way to get some discipline, but allow exceptions.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 23, 2012, 07:18:29 PM
There doesn't appear to be a road between Alpine and Placer.

There is through South Lake Tahoe. My Stockton CD would have 39K too many people including all of the usual Sierra Nevada counties (40K with Alpine). Something needed to go with the Owens Valley so I chopped off South Lake Tahoe from El Dorado for that population. It then provides the link to my one Placer precinct along the lake.

I will look for the road again. That Monterey, SLO wall makes a cf of Ventura County. That is the problem with a strict algorithm.  You get a nasty mess in a county, or you do something that will never sell, like appending Placer to a Victorville CD.  But we have been over this before. I wonder if there is any way to get some discipline, but allow exceptions.

Other than some minor pop balancing what I did is place Lake Tahoe with the east side district that includes Owens Valley. If you come up US 395 from OV into Alpine and go north on CA-89 it connects the miniscule piece of Placer that I use on Lake Tahoe. It's exactly where I was vacationing last summer so I had a good chance to see the area. It was easier to go from Alpine to either Mono or Lake Tahoe than over the passes to the west. Often it seemed like West Nevada, minus the casinos.  From my visit, it is hard to convince me that Tahoe can't be appended equally well to OV and the deserts south as it is to suburban Sacto.

I think the exceptions too often come from preconceived notions. An outsider assessing the situation neutrally, might not have those same notions. That's part of the beauty of the Iowa system. The politicians and public aren't always happy, but there's a recognition that game-playing is

I'll get back to you on the Ventura problem. Given the crazy current CD 24 there, and the issues noted it's clear that both commission and political gerrymanders don't satisfy.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on April 23, 2012, 10:38:27 PM
I have little to add, but I'll mention that I agree with sbane about class being important. Richmond being appended to Marin County is as clear a no-no as can be; I can't imagine any other two places that vote the same way being more different.

Of course, I would have placed Cupertino with Saratoga and Los Altos and Palo Alto and then perhaps up to Menlo Park and thereabouts, so my opinion is to be taken with a grain of salt.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 23, 2012, 10:57:40 PM
My initial thoughts on Ventura starts with SLO+SB which is 9K short of a district and can be completed like the commission did. In Ventura there is a ridge the separates Santa Paula from the south, and south of that ridge extended across Ventura to the ocean is a population equal to a district. Next Ventura+Kern+Tulare is only 4K short of 3 CDs. A VRA district can be constructed from Tulare going into Bakersfield. That leaves the rest of Kern linking to Santa Paula. There is almost the right amount of population west of I-5 in LAC to make a link that doesn't rely only on the windy road in north Ventura.

()

The districts are accurate to within 100 persons and the I've added some color to show the inclusion of Hungry Valley SVRA split from its block group.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 23, 2012, 11:37:38 PM
I have little to add, but I'll mention that I agree with sbane about class being important. Richmond being appended to Marin County is as clear a no-no as can be; I can't imagine any other two places that vote the same way being more different.

Of course, I would have placed Cupertino with Saratoga and Los Altos and Palo Alto and then perhaps up to Menlo Park and thereabouts, so my opinion is to be taken with a grain of salt.

This where I have my greatest disagreement with some of the commission results. Drawing districts to group by class is as bad as drawing districts to group by political party.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: dpmapper on April 23, 2012, 11:47:34 PM

Here you go. CA-05 gets uncomfortably close to Fairfield, but not there, so not bad - at all. The alternative which would push CA-05 away from Fairfield would be for CA-02 to take Siskiyou County, and the cost of CA-02 crossing I-5 causes that pawn move to be too expensive. '

()


Looks good.  I like keeping CA-03 farther away from SF and the CA-05 wraparound of the north bay is a nice way to do it.  I understand sbane's concern about Richmond but it at least gets paired with Vallejo here.  Yes, other than being on the same body of water, it's an odd fit with Marin but these things inevitably happen; nobody complains about Daly City and East Palo Alto being matched with Atherton and Menlo Park. 

Well, I think the difference here is that you are crossing a bridge to pick up Richmond. Though keeping it with Vallejo makes it slightly better I suppose. East Palo Alto is only 10-20k people and Daly City and EPA are right adjacent to the areas its put with. It's unwise to cross bridges from the peninsula or Marin County to the East Bay. That geographical barrier creates a different community of interest on the two sides of the bay. And this is not something obscure but would be something that would be acknowledged by the majority of Bay Area residents.

In this map there's no need to rely on the bridge.  That's partly why I suggested it (that, and adding Vallejo to Richmond).  Yes, the east and west halves of the district are very distinct parts of the Bay Area.  But that fact by itself shouldn't entitle the Bay Area to another district just so that they can be split up.  Better they get kept together rather than drawing places like Yolo County in with Richmond, for instance. 


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Napoleon on April 24, 2012, 08:56:39 AM
I have little to add, but I'll mention that I agree with sbane about class being important. Richmond being appended to Marin County is as clear a no-no as can be; I can't imagine any other two places that vote the same way being more different.

Of course, I would have placed Cupertino with Saratoga and Los Altos and Palo Alto and then perhaps up to Menlo Park and thereabouts, so my opinion is to be taken with a grain of salt.

This where I have my greatest disagreement with some of the commission results. Drawing districts to group by class is as bad as drawing districts to group by political party.

I agree with you on this point.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 24, 2012, 09:15:15 AM
My initial thoughts on Ventura starts with SLO+SB which is 9K short of a district and can be completed like the commission did. In Ventura there is a ridge the separates Santa Paula from the south, and south of that ridge extended across Ventura to the ocean is a population equal to a district. Next Ventura+Kern+Tulare is only 4K short of 3 CDs. A VRA district can be constructed from Tulare going into Bakersfield. That leaves the rest of Kern linking to Santa Paula. There is almost the right amount of population west of I-5 in LAC to make a link that doesn't rely only on the windy road in north Ventura.

()

The districts are accurate to within 100 persons and the I've added some color to show the inclusion of Hungry Valley SVRA split from its block group.


Well we do have a fundamental disagreement here. I don't think it acceptable to append Victorville (oh it is  Bakersfield, which is even worse) to Santa Paula and bits of Ventura city and Ojai - unless demanded by the VRA (which of course it isn't). If you are going to go this route, you need to append to Ventura County the suburbs west of Woodland Hills in LA City. You have CA-25 in three counties to boot, so it chops twice, just so you have your little road connection.

I want some workable balancing test between respecting obvious communities of interest,  jurisdictional boundaries, metro areas, and compactness and geographical barriers. For example, I would rather chop a county, than chop a sizable town in half - unless there is a compelling reason like the Vallejo thing (one reason the dpmapper map has some attraction is that it avoids chopping Vallejo, which is less acceptable really than chopping Solano). And I might chop another county chop going my version of your route, to unite Tracy. Nabbing Tracy to me is a lot more attractive than Victorville nabbing South Lake Tahoe, which has no ties to the rest of the district (yes, I found the road that I did not know exists over the Sierras via "Luther Pass"  (which I did not know existed either:)). Sure it is easier to have to hew to just one loadstar, but among other things, I don't think the public will accept it if presented to them, and they thought about it. The trick is to find a methodology that will effectively leash abuse and partisan/incumbent/aspiring incumbent games.

I might add that in general, counties have less psychological importance in CA than most places - perhaps in part due to geography and ethnic diversity, and perhaps  in part due anomie and rootlessness, which characterizes CA in a way not as present elsewhere perhaps. But counties are useful, because of course they have some importance, and it is a good leashing mechanism. Splitting cities is less acceptable.

And isn't class a communities of interest factor? Sure it should not trump more important considerations, but at the margins, it is certainly an appropriate metric no? I guess where I am going is some kind of hierarchy of "needs" as it were. In the Silicon Valley, after respecting town boundaries, either going Asian, or going by class seems OK with me. I see no reason why one should trump the other.

And for you uber class warriors, you know the "slums" need to go somewhere. Since Oakland has its own CD, Richmond needs to be appended to middle class areas, or tied to more rural Solano. The SF metro area is rather light on slums - it is just too expensive.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 24, 2012, 11:05:44 AM
My initial thoughts on Ventura starts with SLO+SB which is 9K short of a district and can be completed like the commission did. In Ventura there is a ridge the separates Santa Paula from the south, and south of that ridge extended across Ventura to the ocean is a population equal to a district. Next Ventura+Kern+Tulare is only 4K short of 3 CDs. A VRA district can be constructed from Tulare going into Bakersfield. That leaves the rest of Kern linking to Santa Paula. There is almost the right amount of population west of I-5 in LAC to make a link that doesn't rely only on the windy road in north Ventura.

()

The districts are accurate to within 100 persons and the I've added some color to show the inclusion of Hungry Valley SVRA split from its block group.


Well we do have a fundamental disagreement here. I don't think it acceptable to append Victorville (oh it is  Bakersfield, which is even worse) to Santa Paula and bits of Ventura city and Ojai - unless demanded by the VRA (which of course it isn't). If you are going to go this route, you need to append to Ventura County the suburbs west of Woodland Hills in LA City. You have CA-25 in three counties to boot, so it chops twice, just so you have your little road connection.

I want some workable balancing test between respecting obvious communities of interest,  jurisdictional boundaries, metro areas, and compactness and geographical barriers. For example, I would rather chop a county, than chop a sizable town in half - unless there is a compelling reason like the Vallejo thing (one reason the dpmapper map has some attraction is that it avoids chopping Vallejo, which is less acceptable really than chopping Solano). And I might chop another county chop going my version of your route, to unite Tracy. Nabbing Tracy to me is a lot more attractive than Victorville nabbing South Lake Tahoe, which has no ties to the rest of the district (yes, I found the road that I did not know exists over the Sierras via "Luther Pass"  (which I did not know existed either:)). Sure it is easier to have to hew to just one loadstar, but among other things, I don't think the public will accept it if presented to them, and they thought about it. The trick is to find a methodology that will effectively leash abuse and partisan/incumbent/aspiring incumbent games.

I might add that in general, counties have less psychological importance in CA than most places - perhaps in part due to geography and ethnic diversity, and perhaps  in part due anomie and rootlessness, which characterizes CA in a way not as present elsewhere perhaps. But counties are useful, because of course they have some importance, and it is a good leashing mechanism. Splitting cities is less acceptable.

And isn't class a communities of interest factor? Sure it should not trump more important considerations, but at the margins, it is certainly an appropriate metric no? I guess where I am going is some kind of hierarchy of "needs" as it were. In the Silicon Valley, after respecting town boundaries, either going Asian, or going by class seems OK with me. I see no reason why one should trump the other.

And for you uber class warriors, you know the "slums" need to go somewhere. Since Oakland has its own CD, Richmond needs to be appended to middle class areas, or tied to more rural Solano. The SF metro area is rather light on slums - it is just too expensive.


In most plans there will be at least two districts in LAC that are not wholly contained in the county. By placing my cut where I did I can keep the SLO-SB district as two whole counties, so it does reduce chops compared to other plans. Counties may be less relevant than in some other states, but the commission's narrative does give weight to them, often providing justification for a split.

Identifying geographical barriers is important in any set of constraints, and it's hard not to slip into an arbitrary definition. For constructing regions and subregions I have preferred to require that all counties in the grouping are connected such that one can go from one county seat to another on designated US or state highways without leaving the group. My subregion of Tulare, Kern, Ventura, SLO, and SB meets that test. Making districts within the subregion only requires a regular road to provide connection since at that point county fragments come into play, though highways are preferred.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: jimrtex on April 24, 2012, 01:49:05 PM
I might add that in general, counties have less psychological importance in CA than most places - perhaps in part due to geography and ethnic diversity, and perhaps  in part due anomie and rootlessness, which characterizes CA in a way not as present elsewhere perhaps. But counties are useful, because of course they have some importance, and it is a good leashing mechanism. Splitting cities is less acceptable.

And isn't class a communities of interest factor? Sure it should not trump more important considerations, but at the margins, it is certainly an appropriate metric no? I guess where I am going is some kind of hierarchy of "needs" as it were. In the Silicon Valley, after respecting town boundaries, either going Asian, or going by class seems OK with me. I see no reason why one should trump the other.

And for you uber class warriors, you know the "slums" need to go somewhere. Since Oakland has its own CD, Richmond needs to be appended to middle class areas, or tied to more rural Solano. The SF metro area is rather light on slums - it is just too expensive.
I don't think the constitution sets a hierarchy among counties, cities, and "communities of interest".

The opponent to the initiative said that "communities of interest" was a code word for "Jim Crow", but he was making some pretty outlandish claims.   I think it is hard to make the case that if voters didn't like the districts the legislators had created for themselves you could vote them out of office.

For example, he noted that the last time "appointed" persons had redistricted they had made wholesale cuts of cities.   The last time appointed persons had redistricted was following an legislative impasse, and the appointees were the special masters appointed by the Supreme Court, who were retired appellate judges, who had quickly put together a map using census tracts.  In older cities, census tracts do conform to city boundaries, because their purpose was to provide census data for smaller areas within cities that was equivalent to that available for townships and towns throughout rural America.  In later developing areas, the census tracts were defined first, and then new road networks and cities were added without regard to the census tracts.

He also suggested that an appointed commission might create SBOE districts with 10% deviation, which is close to 1 million persons (there are 4 districts).   These would be "rotten boroughs".

He also claimed that his alternative would preserve the right of referendum "even for congressional districts".   The initial initiative, which set up the redistricting commission for legislative and SBOE boundaries, includes a referendum procedure (and there will be a referendum on the senate boundaries in June), but left congressional districting in the hands of the legislature.  The last time there had been a referendum on district boundaries, Chief Justice Liberal Rose Bird had written an opinion that ordered the use of the districts drawn by the legislature (ordinarily a law passed by the legislature is suspended, but the plan drawn by the legislature was the only one available with equal population districts).  The voters vetoed the districts, but the legislators elected based on the overturned districts, then simply re-passed them with an urgency clause (2/3 vote) that made them referendum-proof and governor Jerry Brown, the Younger signed it.   The counter-proposal was to make it so redistricting laws could not have an urgency clause.   In the 1980s, the voters could have vetoed the plan a second time, and then have it passed again.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Sbane on April 24, 2012, 02:42:20 PM

Here you go. CA-05 gets uncomfortably close to Fairfield, but not there, so not bad - at all. The alternative which would push CA-05 away from Fairfield would be for CA-02 to take Siskiyou County, and the cost of CA-02 crossing I-5 causes that pawn move to be too expensive. '

()


Looks good.  I like keeping CA-03 farther away from SF and the CA-05 wraparound of the north bay is a nice way to do it.  I understand sbane's concern about Richmond but it at least gets paired with Vallejo here.  Yes, other than being on the same body of water, it's an odd fit with Marin but these things inevitably happen; nobody complains about Daly City and East Palo Alto being matched with Atherton and Menlo Park. 

Well, I think the difference here is that you are crossing a bridge to pick up Richmond. Though keeping it with Vallejo makes it slightly better I suppose. East Palo Alto is only 10-20k people and Daly City and EPA are right adjacent to the areas its put with. It's unwise to cross bridges from the peninsula or Marin County to the East Bay. That geographical barrier creates a different community of interest on the two sides of the bay. And this is not something obscure but would be something that would be acknowledged by the majority of Bay Area residents.

In this map there's no need to rely on the bridge.  That's partly why I suggested it (that, and adding Vallejo to Richmond).  Yes, the east and west halves of the district are very distinct parts of the Bay Area.  But that fact by itself shouldn't entitle the Bay Area to another district just so that they can be split up.  Better they get kept together rather than drawing places like Yolo County in with Richmond, for instance. 

But here you have Santa Rosa, Fairfield and Vacaville being put in non-Bay Area districts. Napa arguably is a part of the Bay Area as well. And it's not as if Yolo fits in well with any other part of the state. West Sacramento should be in a Sacramento district, Davis has no obvious place to go and Woodland should go with the central valley. In the map I like, only the rural areas in Yolo, containing maybe 30k people get put in a Bay Area district, as well as Davis which is fine since it has nowhere better to go.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Sbane on April 24, 2012, 03:02:34 PM

And for you uber class warriors, you know the "slums" need to go somewhere. Since Oakland has its own CD, Richmond needs to be appended to middle class areas, or tied to more rural Solano. The SF metro area is rather light on slums - it is just too expensive.

Oh, sure. We can't really put Richmond with another 500-600k who are of the same class background if we take Oakland out of the equation. Putting it with Vallejo, and the more middle class (but certainly not upper class like Marin) in between those two cities is a no-brainer. Then you need to figure out where to get the 300k odd extra people. If the choice is between Marin, and Fairfield/Vacaville, that is again a no-brainer. The commission went with a third option, Napa and Santa Rosa. That isn't idea but it's not Marin County. Santa Rosa only has a median income of 50k. I was actually surprised it was that low. And as for Fairfield and Vacaville, Fairfield is at 60k and Vacaville is maybe 70-80k. Middle class surely, but certainly no Marin County.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 24, 2012, 05:44:17 PM
Well here are maps 10 and 11. Muon2's map with its Bakersfield to Ojai plus a bit of the City of Ventura via a micro-chop of LA County west of I-5 so he has his little connecting highway to heaven, and Victorville to South Lake Tahoe map over Luther Pass, will complete the dirty dozen when he gets finished), and we will get a chance to rank them all.  


I lost the Tracy cut, and replaced it will a good old partial Vallejo cut. CA-03 to make up for the lost population picks up picks up Colusa and either  all of Sutter and Yuba City is cut off with its Marysville suburb in Yuba County (confusing that Yuba City is not in Yuba County), but loses West Sacto pus two Davis precincts in Map 10, or in Map 11, all of Sutter except for Yuba City where it nips 3 precincts.  I was unable to avoid the 2 precinct nip of Davis in Map 10, and the 3 precinct nip of Yuba City in Map 11.  I tend to prefer Map 10 because it seems more important to me to keep West Sacto with the Sacto Metro area, then Marysville with Yuba City, perhaps because that metro area is less important. What do you think?

It seems clear to me now that CA-09 should move into Sacto County to gets its additional population and nowhere else. Sacto County needs to be tri-chopped in all events. In this one the third chop is from the south rather than the north.  Going anywhere else is just silly really.
 
()


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Sbane on April 24, 2012, 05:58:45 PM
That map's not bad if you just follow my fix to put CCC in the 3rd and most of the rest of Central Valley in the 3rd with the 5th picking up as much of Sonoma County as needed to get up to full population. That also basically resolves the issue dpmapper has of areas around the Bay Area being diluted by Bay Area votes.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 24, 2012, 06:15:24 PM
If I stick to my Ventura subregion, here's the chance for human intervention. This is the other rotation that keeps splits of Ventura to one but splits SLO instead. Like the other plan this needs 13 K from LAC for pop balance.

()


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 24, 2012, 09:30:16 PM
If I stick to my Ventura subregion, here's the chance for human intervention. This is the other rotation that keeps splits of Ventura to one but splits SLO instead. Like the other plan this needs 13 K from LAC for pop balance.

()


That won't sell/work either Mike. Sorry. But by all means finish your algorithm map. I have decided to get more rigorous about this myself, and I will try to delete Chino Hills from the LA County Asian CD, unless the VRA precludes it, because it dilutes too much the Hispanic CD in SB County. SD County should have put one chop out of it, by the way.  Extra county chops beyond the VRA require another very good reason, like keeping a metro area together, or due to compelling geographic barriers, like between Kern and SLO or Ventura County for example. :)


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 24, 2012, 10:06:11 PM
That map's not bad if you just follow my fix to put CCC in the 3rd and most of the rest of Central Valley in the 3rd with the 5th picking up as much of Sonoma County as needed to get up to full population. That also basically resolves the issue dpmapper has of areas around the Bay Area being diluted by Bay Area votes.

That was my original map more or less, sbane. It causes CA-02 to suck up Shasta County. CA-02 crossing I-5 is a negative, and it gives CA-02 a non compact and wandering look to boot.  I-5 is a good connector highway to join together a lightly populated CD zone. So that is the cost for giving the class warfare theme a high priority. Is it worth it to you?  

By the way, not all of what CA-05 takes in CCC is that down market. It takes in a lot more than just Richmond, and I think Pinole is quite middle class. Perhaps only about half of the population in CA-05 in CCC is really sub-middle class. That is because it takes in more of CCC than my original map, because I kicked out CA-09 from CCC. Do you agree? I ask because that area is in your former neck of the woods.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Sbane on April 24, 2012, 10:26:11 PM
That map's not bad if you just follow my fix to put CCC in the 3rd and most of the rest of Central Valley in the 3rd with the 5th picking up as much of Sonoma County as needed to get up to full population. That also basically resolves the issue dpmapper has of areas around the Bay Area being diluted by Bay Area votes.

That was my original map more or less, sbane. It causes CA-02 to suck up Shasta County. CA-02 crossing I-5 is a negative, and it gives CA-02 a non compact and wandering look to boot.  I-5 is a good connector highway to join together a lightly populated CD zone. So that is the cost for giving the class warfare theme a high priority. Is it worth it to you? 

By the way, not all of what CA-05 takes in CCC is that down market. It takes in a lot more than just Richmond, and I think Pinole is quite middle class. Perhaps only about half of the population in CA-05 in CCC is really sub-middle class. That is because it takes in more of CCC than my original map, because I kicked out CA-09 from CCC. Do you agree? I ask because that area is in your former neck of the woods.
Yeah, not all of that area is working class of course. But it doesn't really have any place with a median income above 80k, which is just above the median income of the Bay Area. And it really goes well with Fairfield and Vacaville in any case (or Concord, Pleasant Hill and Martinez within CCC). It just makes so much more sense than jumping the bay and putting it with upper class Marin which might care more about trees, global warming and buying fair trade whole foods for their vegan diet than "kitchen table" issues.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 24, 2012, 10:46:24 PM
That map's not bad if you just follow my fix to put CCC in the 3rd and most of the rest of Central Valley in the 3rd with the 5th picking up as much of Sonoma County as needed to get up to full population. That also basically resolves the issue dpmapper has of areas around the Bay Area being diluted by Bay Area votes.

That was my original map more or less, sbane. It causes CA-02 to suck up Shasta County. CA-02 crossing I-5 is a negative, and it gives CA-02 a non compact and wandering look to boot.  I-5 is a good connector highway to join together a lightly populated CD zone. So that is the cost for giving the class warfare theme a high priority. Is it worth it to you? 

By the way, not all of what CA-05 takes in CCC is that down market. It takes in a lot more than just Richmond, and I think Pinole is quite middle class. Perhaps only about half of the population in CA-05 in CCC is really sub-middle class. That is because it takes in more of CCC than my original map, because I kicked out CA-09 from CCC. Do you agree? I ask because that area is in your former neck of the woods.
Yeah, not all of that area is working class of course. But it doesn't really have any place with a median income above 80k, which is just above the median income of the Bay Area. And it really goes well with Fairfield and Vacaville in any case (or Concord, Pleasant Hill and Martinez within CCC). It just makes so much more sense than jumping the bay and putting it with upper class Marin which might care more about trees, global warming and buying fair trade whole foods for their vegan diet than "kitchen table" issues.

And all of that is worth appending Shasta to CA-02 I take it?  Mittens by the way gave a kick ass speech tonight. If you listen to it, some of it will sound like some of my posts. :)


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Sbane on April 24, 2012, 10:52:47 PM
That map's not bad if you just follow my fix to put CCC in the 3rd and most of the rest of Central Valley in the 3rd with the 5th picking up as much of Sonoma County as needed to get up to full population. That also basically resolves the issue dpmapper has of areas around the Bay Area being diluted by Bay Area votes.

That was my original map more or less, sbane. It causes CA-02 to suck up Shasta County. CA-02 crossing I-5 is a negative, and it gives CA-02 a non compact and wandering look to boot.  I-5 is a good connector highway to join together a lightly populated CD zone. So that is the cost for giving the class warfare theme a high priority. Is it worth it to you? 

By the way, not all of what CA-05 takes in CCC is that down market. It takes in a lot more than just Richmond, and I think Pinole is quite middle class. Perhaps only about half of the population in CA-05 in CCC is really sub-middle class. That is because it takes in more of CCC than my original map, because I kicked out CA-09 from CCC. Do you agree? I ask because that area is in your former neck of the woods.
Yeah, not all of that area is working class of course. But it doesn't really have any place with a median income above 80k, which is just above the median income of the Bay Area. And it really goes well with Fairfield and Vacaville in any case (or Concord, Pleasant Hill and Martinez within CCC). It just makes so much more sense than jumping the bay and putting it with upper class Marin which might care more about trees, global warming and buying fair trade whole foods for their vegan diet than "kitchen table" issues.

And all of that is worth appending Shasta to CA-02 I take it?  Mittens by the way gave a kick ass speech tonight. If you listen to it, some of it will sound like some of my posts. :)

Well, like I said most of Shasta County has a mountain feel to it, yes including Redding. Most of the agricultural areas start from Tehama County. It's not ideal but it will have to do in my mind. Maybe some ranchers from that area will be pissed off and want to shoot me in the face. I dunno.

A good Mitt speech, eh? So he went beyond saying he believes in America and that it is the greatest nation created since the big bang? Not saying that it isn't a bold statement, but did he go into more specifics than pointing out Obama might have once worked as a community organizer? I will check it out. Maybe not soon as I am studying for finals, and to procrastinate, redistricting. I'm still pissed at him (and Santorum I guess) for denying me the chance to analyze meaningful California results.



Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 24, 2012, 11:06:48 PM
That map's not bad if you just follow my fix to put CCC in the 3rd and most of the rest of Central Valley in the 3rd with the 5th picking up as much of Sonoma County as needed to get up to full population. That also basically resolves the issue dpmapper has of areas around the Bay Area being diluted by Bay Area votes.

That was my original map more or less, sbane. It causes CA-02 to suck up Shasta County. CA-02 crossing I-5 is a negative, and it gives CA-02 a non compact and wandering look to boot.  I-5 is a good connector highway to join together a lightly populated CD zone. So that is the cost for giving the class warfare theme a high priority. Is it worth it to you? 

By the way, not all of what CA-05 takes in CCC is that down market. It takes in a lot more than just Richmond, and I think Pinole is quite middle class. Perhaps only about half of the population in CA-05 in CCC is really sub-middle class. That is because it takes in more of CCC than my original map, because I kicked out CA-09 from CCC. Do you agree? I ask because that area is in your former neck of the woods.
Yeah, not all of that area is working class of course. But it doesn't really have any place with a median income above 80k, which is just above the median income of the Bay Area. And it really goes well with Fairfield and Vacaville in any case (or Concord, Pleasant Hill and Martinez within CCC). It just makes so much more sense than jumping the bay and putting it with upper class Marin which might care more about trees, global warming and buying fair trade whole foods for their vegan diet than "kitchen table" issues.

And all of that is worth appending Shasta to CA-02 I take it?  Mittens by the way gave a kick ass speech tonight. If you listen to it, some of it will sound like some of my posts. :)

Well, like I said most of Shasta County has a mountain feel to it, yes including Redding. Most of the agricultural areas start from Tehama County. It's not ideal but it will have to do in my mind. Maybe some ranchers from that area will be pissed off and want to shoot me in the face. I dunno.

A good Mitt speech, eh? So he went beyond saying he believes in America and that it is the greatest nation created since the big bang? Not saying that it isn't a bold statement, but did he go into more specifics than pointing out Obama might have once worked as a community organizer? I will check it out. Maybe not soon as I am studying for finals, and to procrastinate, redistricting. I'm still pissed at him (and Santorum I guess) for denying me the chance to analyze meaningful California results.


The best part of Mittens speech was asking just how it is "fair" that the "Richmond" folks are consigned to crap schools, with no realistic alternatives, government workers paid more than private sector workers doing the same job, union members against their will having their dues in part diverted to politicians and causes they don't support, running up the debt that future generations will have to pay off degrading their standard of living, regulations that make near zero economic sense, if you do a reasonable balancing test of the cost and the benefits (Mittens didn't say this, but some huge development was stopped in mid stream over some fox or something, while it is all studied some more), and so forth. It was prose poetry, and damn it, he's right!  Period. :)

Mittens in short threw Obama's "fairness" rhetoric right back in his face, in a nice way. It was a very carefully crafted speech, and Mittens delivered it extremely well. His speech coach obviously has worked with him, and he worked on it. The man has discipline. Discipline is a virtue in my little universe.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Sbane on April 24, 2012, 11:15:03 PM
Romney is lucky Obama is hated in "real" America, or else he would lose. He might pull this out but it will be hard for him to get anything done. Same with Obama too though.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 24, 2012, 11:34:34 PM
If I stick to my Ventura subregion, here's the chance for human intervention. This is the other rotation that keeps splits of Ventura to one but splits SLO instead. Like the other plan this needs 13 K from LAC for pop balance.

()


That won't sell/work either Mike. Sorry. But by all means finish your algorithm map. I have decided to get more rigorous about this myself, and I will try to delete Chino Hills from the LA County Asian CD, unless the VRA precludes it, because it dilutes too much the Hispanic CD in SB County. SD County should have put one chop out of it, by the way.  Extra county chops beyond the VRA require another very good reason, like keeping a metro area together, or due to compelling geographic barriers, like between Kern and SLO or Ventura County for example. :)

So we need to define geographic barriers with some rigor so it is clear when it permits the violation of other rules. I made my suggestion based on types of highway connection, do you have one to offer?

My notion of county splits would include three levels. One is for de minimis splits of under 0.5% of a district required to satisfy OMOV. The next is for minor splits that are less than 5% of a district and less than 20% of a county. Finally there are major splits that exceed 5% on both pieces. My preference is for lesser splits. Districts entirely within a county do not count as a split.

So applying this to the southern wine county of Santa Barbara, my first offering has a minor split of the remainder of Ventura and a minor split in LAC. The second offering removes the spit from Ventura and replaces it with a major split of SLO. Using neither of these but keeping the wall around the north of this subregion requires at least a return to the minor split of Ventura and two major splits in LAC (not counting the inevitable split on the east).

BTW I find that even with Chino Hills I get a 63.1% HVAP CD entirely in SB.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 24, 2012, 11:49:09 PM
Reasonable questions Mike, of which I am fully aware, and have been, and will continue to ponder. It helps to draw a zillion maps to refine one's thinking on this. The goal is to write a paper, so we offer up that thinking to the public square, tough agonizing thinking which if one is susceptible, would bring on migraine headaches. But just like porn, which you know it when you see it, you know it when you see a map like your past couple of maps, in my little arrogant opinion. No rules should force anyone to do that sort of thing - ever. Sure it is a tough task, but we need and must do better.  We are not there - yet. Maybe there needs to be California specific rules, in recognition of its rather unique complexity. Maybe, I don't know that either - yet.

And maybe after rules are written, they could be violated with a supra majority, just as an escape hatch. There already is that in the statute, but obviously it failed. So maybe the process part requires having more out of the closet politically savvy members involved. Maybe the politicians should pick a couple of members from each party (so if the three non hack members from each party are not persuaded by the hacks, they will be outvoted, but will still have input), out of the 5 from each party, or 4 out of the 14 Commission members. That way, more of the games will be called out by one set of political "hacks" or the other. So we should address process as well. And maybe the process should call for a written explanation in some detail, when the "rules," whatever they are, are violated, with the statute clear that it requires clear and convincing evidence. Maybe.

Hopefully you agree. If not, you are even more stubborn than I am, which is pretty frightening. :)


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 25, 2012, 11:50:45 AM
That won't sell/work either Mike. Sorry. But by all means finish your algorithm map. I have decided to get more rigorous about this myself, and I will try to delete Chino Hills from the LA County Asian CD, unless the VRA precludes it, because it dilutes too much the Hispanic CD in SB County. SD County should have put one chop out of it, by the way.  Extra county chops beyond the VRA require another very good reason, like keeping a metro area together, or due to compelling geographic barriers, like between Kern and SLO or Ventura County for example. :)

So we need to define geographic barriers with some rigor so it is clear when it permits the violation of other rules. I made my suggestion based on types of highway connection, do you have one to offer?

My notion of county splits would include three levels. One is for de minimis splits of under 0.5% of a district required to satisfy OMOV. The next is for minor splits that are less than 5% of a district and less than 20% of a county. Finally there are major splits that exceed 5% on both pieces. My preference is for lesser splits. Districts entirely within a county do not count as a split.

So applying this to the southern wine county of Santa Barbara, my first offering has a minor split of the remainder of Ventura and a minor split in LAC. The second offering removes the spit from Ventura and replaces it with a major split of SLO. Using neither of these but keeping the wall around the north of this subregion requires at least a return to the minor split of Ventura and two major splits in LAC (not counting the inevitable split on the east).

BTW I find that even with Chino Hills I get a 63.1% HVAP CD entirely in SB.

This is the remaining chop of Ventura that makes any sense with my regional walls to reduce county splits. As I alluded to, it requires the unpleasant chop into Lancaster (with a chop of 124K, most of the city goes to Kern). If you think this is better than the first two options, I need to know how to recognize this as an appropriate time to bend the algorithm to human input.

()


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Sbane on April 25, 2012, 12:30:39 PM
Meh, Torie's map in his sig (and iirc I had a similar map) is much preferable to that. And between the two options you posted, I would say they are equally flawed (or good).


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 25, 2012, 01:44:09 PM
Meh, Torie's map in his sig (and iirc I had a similar map) is much preferable to that. And between the two options you posted, I would say they are equally flawed (or good).

Quite, but with the SLO/Monterey wall, your map is the best one can do I think. That chop of Lancaster is a killer though.  But then that it is what the Commission did; that act by it will be one of the sharpest "j'accuses in the White Paper (a Brit term for you there :P)

I have been meaning to ask my "source" about just how it came about that the SLO/Monterey wall was decided upon, which makes such a hash out of everything.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 25, 2012, 02:15:59 PM
Meh, Torie's map in his sig (and iirc I had a similar map) is much preferable to that. And between the two options you posted, I would say they are equally flawed (or good).

Quite, but with the SLO/Monterey wall, your map is the best one can do I think.
By that do you mean my first one with the Kern-Ventura link? That's the one most consistent with the algorithm.

Quote
That chop of Lancaster is a killer though.  But then that it is what the Commission did; that act by it will be one of the sharpest "j'accuses in the White Paper (a Brit term for you there :P)
That's why I avoided it until my first two maps with links to northern Ventura were treated so unkindly. :P

Quote
I have been meaning to ask my "source" about just how it came about that the SLO/Monterey wall was decided upon, which makes such a hash out of everything.

I assumed that it was the easiest path to meet section 5, keeping the district largely as is. I'm curious to see what you find out.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 25, 2012, 02:45:23 PM
Meh, Torie's map in his sig (and iirc I had a similar map) is much preferable to that. And between the two options you posted, I would say they are equally flawed (or good).

Quite, but with the SLO/Monterey wall, your map is the best one can do I think.
By that do you mean my first one with the Kern-Ventura link? That's the one most consistent with the algorithm.

Quote
That chop of Lancaster is a killer though.  But then that it is what the Commission did; that act by it will be one of the sharpest "j'accuses in the White Paper (a Brit term for you there :P)
That's why I avoided it until my first two maps with links to northern Ventura were treated so unkindly. :P

Quote
I have been meaning to ask my "source" about just how it came about that the SLO/Monterey wall was decided upon, which makes such a hash out of everything.

I assumed that it was the easiest path to meet section 5, keeping the district largely as is. I'm curious to see what you find out.

If the Hispanic percentage were upped in a CD in which Monterey is wholly contained from what it was, how could adding a slice of SLO to it raise a section 5 issue?  My new Monterey County CD clocks in at a 46.3% Hispanic VAP population. The previous CD was at 44.3% per the DRA utility's numbers.

()


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 25, 2012, 10:19:29 PM

I have been meaning to ask my "source" about just how it came about that the SLO/Monterey wall was decided upon, which makes such a hash out of everything.

I assumed that it was the easiest path to meet section 5, keeping the district largely as is. I'm curious to see what you find out.

If the Hispanic percentage were upped in a CD in which Monterey is wholly contained from what it was, how could adding a slice of SLO to it raise a section 5 issue?  My new Monterey County CD clocks in at a 46.3% Hispanic VAP population. The previous CD was at 44.3% per the DRA utility's numbers.

()

I would agree with your interpretation, and I did much the same thing in my January plan. That was also the basis for the Merced split in this month's offering. I just wonder if the commission had advice the drew them towards keeping the sect 5 counties whole to minimize any DOJ issue.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 25, 2012, 10:28:59 PM
Here is LAC for the plan with the Kern-Ventura connection. The purple CD is 50.9% AVAP (Brea is almost completely intact in the CD). The medium blue CD is 43.3% BVAP. There are 6 CDs with >50% HCVAP. There are only 2 CDs that span the county line and in both cases a part of the split makes up less than 5% of a CD.

()


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: jimrtex on April 25, 2012, 11:10:14 PM
I have been meaning to ask my "source" about just how it came about that the SLO/Monterey wall was decided upon, which makes such a hash out of everything.

I think that the central coast is really close to two representatives, and also 1 and 1 uf you split at the county line.  But since you can't be exact, you could try to set the northern line at Sta Clara-Sta Cruz, be a little bit off at Monterey-SLO, and a lot off at Sta Barbara-Ventura, or reverse it.

If you start at Monterey-SLO, then you can be a little bit off at both ends.   Monterey is not easy to split on a north-south basis.  Not a lot of people live around Big Sur, and you probably don't want to be chopping the Salinas Valley - which may raise VRA concerns.

They might have been conscious of how ugly the Sta Barbara coastal district is (at least on a political map).  It could even be considered a poster child for why the commission exist.

And since the commissioners were classified by region during their selection process, they might have done an initial apportionment based on that.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 25, 2012, 11:22:09 PM
Quote
By that do you mean my first one with the Kern-Ventura link? That's the one most consistent with the algorithm.

The map below, which I thought sbane drew in a degraded state, but you did I see, Mike. :P If you are going to cross the River Styx by using the the SLO/Monterey wall, that is the best one can do I think. But those who place the wall there will not be going to heaven. The best they can hope for is limbo.

We need wall placement rules. Put that on the list. :)

()


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 26, 2012, 08:54:25 AM

We need wall placement rules. Put that on the list. :)


I think I have firm rules for walls. Walls exist around regions of whole counties that are nearly equal to a whole number of districts. By nearly equal I would use population deviations that have stood up before SCOTUS. Perhaps we'll get a better idea of their view on deviations from the WV case. In any case we can predict what range one should get given the number of regions and counties in a state. If the result is statistically close to that deviation then the regions can be considered.

For CA with 58 counties the predicted ranges for different numbers of regions are
2 regions, range 45
3 regions, range 229
4 regions, range 723
5 regions, range 1767
6 regions, range 3665

For the purposes of forming regions counties in a region must be connected. Two counties are connected if one can travel from the county seat of one county to the count seat of the other county on US or state highways without passing through another county.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 26, 2012, 09:26:37 AM
Yes, but if a wall location ends up creating a nasty Lancaster chop, or forces stuff to go where it should not go, that is a problem.  And there may be crossings that should be "disfavored."  Having some statistical limits like you suggested might work, which can be violated under certain circumstances. Or maybe we have defined regions, in which there may be only one chop out unless the VRA demands otherwise, or to unite a city that is already mostly in one CD. And Sacto taking W. Sacto, or uniting Yuba City and Marysville, perhaps should not count as a chop for example. 


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 26, 2012, 10:56:31 AM
Yes, but if a wall location ends up creating a nasty Lancaster chop, or forces stuff to go where it should not go, that is a problem.  And there may be crossings that should be "disfavored."  Having some statistical limits like you suggested might work, which can be violated under certain circumstances. Or maybe we have defined regions, in which there may be only one chop out unless the VRA demands otherwise, or to unite a city that is already mostly in one CD. And Sacto taking W. Sacto, or uniting Yuba City and Marysville, perhaps should not count as a chop for example. 

But can you describe exceptions a priori so that we don't have map makers coming up with rules a posteriori to suit their needs? Iowa has learned to live with some unusual pairings because they trust their rules to prevent mischief. Could other states do the same?


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 26, 2012, 11:34:14 PM
I am thinking we should go with the Michigan rules, with wall placement up to the Commission unless it ends up chopping a metro area. If it does, that wall has to go. I think that horrible SLO /Monterey wall forces a chop of the Santa Cruz metro area. Now that I got rid of the Chino Hills chop, I think my map now has the minimum chops of counties other than two chops forced by the VRA, and after I massaged the black CD, there should be a minimum of city chops (other than as forced by the VRA).  I shaved CA-35 down to a minimum 50% CVAP to minimize the chop into San Bernardino City (I only had to take about 10 precincts or something).

If you think I have an extra county chop, let me know. The idea is that each CD generates two chops, except one CD with which you start (CA-01 here), unless a county can hold at least three CD's, and then at least one most be wholly contained in that county. Interior walls that make one CD a one chopper, forces another CD to be a three chopper (e.g., in my map, CA-04). At least that is my way to try to break through the fog of chop counts, which itself gives one a headache. Let me know your thoughts.

I am still unclear why your map itself uses the SLO/Monterey wall btw. Surely you don't find favor with it do you? Not if it produces maps that are well, like the Commission's - or yours. :P

()

()

()




Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 27, 2012, 08:36:22 AM
I am thinking we should go with the Michigan rules, with wall placement up to the Commission unless it ends up chopping a metro area. If it does, that wall has to go. I think that horrible SLO /Monterey wall forces a chop of the Santa Cruz metro area. Now that I got rid of the Chino Hills chop, I think my map now has the minimum chops of counties other than two chops forced by the VRA, and after I massaged the black CD, there should be a minimum of city chops (other than as forced by the VRA).  I shaved CA-35 down to a minimum 50% CVAP to minimize the chop into San Bernardino City (I only had to take about 10 precincts or something).

If you think I have an extra county chop, let me know. The idea is that each CD generates two chops, except one CD with which you start (CA-01 here), unless a county can hold at least three CD's, and then at least one most be wholly contained in that county. Interior walls that make one CD a one chopper, forces another CD to be a three chopper (e.g., in my map, CA-04). At least that is my way to try to break through the fog of chop counts, which itself gives one a headache. Let me know your thoughts.

I am still unclear why your map itself uses the SLO/Monterey wall btw. Surely you don't find favor with it do you? Not if it produces maps that are well, like the Commission's - or yours. :P

()

()

()


If it's to be MI rules, then there has to be something to replace the constraints of the MI townships, or it still seems a bit loose. What you really want is something that generates a wall between LAC and both Kern and Ventura, and I'm not sure how you get that without a Torie on the Commission. I prefer that wall myself, but I'm looking for a model that might lead in that direction. For instance should one consider the magnitude of a county (or city) chop?

On VRA districts how did the Asians fare? Does section 5 really force 3 chops for the Salinas district? That seems hard to justify in your methodology. To break the M-SLO wall one should contain the northern chop to only SCruz or SClara.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 27, 2012, 09:09:08 AM
On Section 5, there is enough ambiguity that diluting the Hispanic percentage or chopping a Section 5 county that the chop may be justified. Any VRA chop should require a written legal opinion that without doing it, the risk of a Section 5 (or a Section 2 violation for that matter) is more than remote. I would no problem getting rid  of that chop into Gilroy, although it does force a Monterey CD shave into the Santa Cruz suburbs (or if you go into Santa Clara instead, a shave into the Silicon Valley). However, hewing to a clear chop rule is more bright line, and should trump the metro shave consideration, where the two are in conflict.

As to the type of chop, I have been pondering some sort of percentage limitations, and am thinking that the statute should have some preferred guidelines, which if violated require a written finding by the Commission justifying breaking the guidelines. That at least should concentrate the minds of those there that are just dialing it in. However, for very small cities (say 15,000 or less, maybe 10,000 or less), sometimes they might need to be chopped more severely to avoid a map looking grotesque. For larger ones, a 20% guideline might be reasonable. I think in fact I hewed to such a guideline throughout the state, except for Vallejo. I would sign off on a written finding on that one I think. Obviously, that was the toughest part of the state to map.

The same concept might be stated for the separation of CD's along the Sierra-Techachpi line in the south, keeping CD's from crossing in and out of the Central Valley, and keeping CD's not in a metro area from nibbling in (the Santa Cruz thing).  

It might also be good to require staff to draw up alternative maps hewing to all these guidelines. I think if the Commissioners could see a group of well done alternatives, they might have done a better job. And of course, the partisan numbers should be revealed. I suspect that some knew the numbers, and some of the dial it inners did not.

It is kind of interesting that in the end, my obsession with Michigan gave me some "training" for this exercise. One never knows where things will lead sometimes, does one?  I doubt a year ago I could do what I can do now. I think I maybe have a new skill. :P

Oh, as to the Asians, since the rule in the 9th Circuit is 50% CVAP, no Asian CD's are required. However, an Asian CD should have been drawn like we did in LA County, because it can be drawn without violating other guidelines. But that is a judgment call. In the Silicon Valley, one can go either the Asian route or the class warfare route (one can't get to 50% AVAP anyway up there without violating other guidelines, much less 50% ACVAP of course). That to me is a fairly close call.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 27, 2012, 09:53:17 AM
On Section 5, there is enough ambiguity that diluting the Hispanic percentage or chopping a Section 5 county that the chop may be justified. Any VRA chop should require a written legal opinion that without doing it, the risk of a Section 5 (or a Section 2 violation for that matter) is more than remote. I would no problem getting rid  of that chop into Gilroy, although it does force a Monterey CD shave into the Santa Cruz suburbs (or if you go into Santa Clara instead, a shave into the Silicon Valley). However, hewing to a clear chop rule is more bright line, and should trump the metro shave consideration, where the two are in conflict.

As to the type of chop, I have been pondering some sort of percentage limitations, and am thinking that the statute should have some preferred guidelines, which if violated require a written finding by the Commission justifying breaking the guidelines. That at least should concentrate the minds of those there that are just dialing it in. However, for very small cities (say 15,000 or less, maybe 10,000 or less), sometimes they might need to be chopped more severely to avoid a map looking grotesque. For larger ones, a 20% guideline might be reasonable. I think in fact I hewed to such a guideline throughout the state, except for Vallejo. I would sign off on a written finding on that one I think. Obviously, that was the toughest part of the state to map.

The same concept might be stated for the separation of CD's along the Sierra-Techachpi line in the south, keeping CD's from crossing in and out of the Central Valley, and keeping CD's not in a metro area from nibbling in (the Santa Cruz thing).  

It might also be good to require staff to draw up alternative maps hewing to all these guidelines. I think if the Commissioners could see a group of well done alternatives, they might have done a better job. And of course, the partisan numbers should be revealed. I suspect that some knew the numbers, and some of the dial it inners did not.

It is kind of interesting that in the end, my obsession with Michigan gave me some "training" for this exercise. One never knows where things will lead sometimes, does one?  I doubt a year ago I could do what I can do now. I think I maybe have a new skill. :P

Oh, as to the Asians, since the rule in the 9th Circuit is 50% CVAP, no Asian CD's are required. However, an Asian CD should have been drawn like we did in LA County, because it can be drawn without violating other guidelines. But that is a judgment call. In the Silicon Valley, one can go either the Asian route or the class warfare route (one can't get to 50% AVAP anyway up there without violating other guidelines, much less 50% ACVAP of course). That to me is a fairly close call.

That may work for the chop rules. For walls I would suggest a page out of Iowa. If an initial set of walls creates a problem, the commission can send it back asking for a version with a specific requirement such as no wall between Monterey and SLO and at least no wall between at least one of either SCruz or SClara to insure a section 5 map. The walls can create regions according to the statistical tables above. Swaps between regions of counties can only occur in one county as with CDs for MI.

BTW what is your differential between AVAP and ACVAP?


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 27, 2012, 10:11:29 AM
Good suggestions. I got the differential for CA-35 from the Commission's numbers for its version of that CD, a 12.79% differential (so CA-35 needed to be 62.8% HVAP, which it is in my map). For the Asian CD's that the Commission drew (sort of in Chu's case), there is about an 11 point differential in the Silicon Valley, and about 7 points for Chu's CD in LA County.
 
()


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 27, 2012, 12:59:30 PM

As to the type of chop, I have been pondering some sort of percentage limitations, and am thinking that the statute should have some preferred guidelines, which if violated require a written finding by the Commission justifying breaking the guidelines. That at least should concentrate the minds of those there that are just dialing it in. However, for very small cities (say 15,000 or less, maybe 10,000 or less), sometimes they might need to be chopped more severely to avoid a map looking grotesque. For larger ones, a 20% guideline might be reasonable. I think in fact I hewed to such a guideline throughout the state, except for Vallejo. I would sign off on a written finding on that one I think. Obviously, that was the toughest part of the state to map.


I have been thinking about the chop rules and I agree that it makes sense to require specific justification for more than a "minor chop". I would stick to 20% of a county or city as a threshold. For the example you gave of a small city chopped to avoid a bizarre shape you can make that one of the possible findings. I would also explicitly allow any chop into a county where all other CDs in the county are wholly contained (eg SF).

I would however put an absolute upper limit on a minor chop size. Consider a CD spanning LAC and OC. A 20% county chop limit allows a completely free hand in crossing the border since a whole CD is less than 20% of LAC and just over 20% of OC. I think that much freedom in mapmaking is worth avoiding, so I will continue to advocate for an upper limit of 5% of a CD in a fragment to be considered a minor chop.

BTW do I see a tiny chop into Pomona that I assume you could not avoid?


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 27, 2012, 01:10:05 PM

As to the type of chop, I have been pondering some sort of percentage limitations, and am thinking that the statute should have some preferred guidelines, which if violated require a written finding by the Commission justifying breaking the guidelines. That at least should concentrate the minds of those there that are just dialing it in. However, for very small cities (say 15,000 or less, maybe 10,000 or less), sometimes they might need to be chopped more severely to avoid a map looking grotesque. For larger ones, a 20% guideline might be reasonable. I think in fact I hewed to such a guideline throughout the state, except for Vallejo. I would sign off on a written finding on that one I think. Obviously, that was the toughest part of the state to map.


I have been thinking about the chop rules and I agree that it makes sense to require specific justification for more than a "minor chop". I would stick to 20% of a county or city as a threshold. For the example you gave of a small city chopped to avoid a bizarre shape you can make that one of the possible findings. I would also explicitly allow any chop into a county where all other CDs in the county are wholly contained (eg SF).

I would however put an absolute upper limit on a minor chop size. Consider a CD spanning LAC and OC. A 20% county chop limit allows a completely free hand in crossing the border since a whole CD is less than 20% of LAC and just over 20% of OC. I think that much freedom in mapmaking is worth avoiding, so I will continue to advocate for an upper limit of 5% of a CD in a fragment to be considered a minor chop.

BTW do I see a tiny chop into Pomona that I assume you could not avoid?


Your text confuses me a bit. You are saying for county chops, if less than 5% no written finding, if between 5%-20% just what again (?), and of course a written finding over 20%.  You could deal with the county size issue by having the 20% limit apply both to the percentage of the county and the percentage of the CD involved in the chop, no?  For a small county, having to justify a 5%-20% chop seems just silly (the answer is because the county is small!). :)

The Pomona chop is the CA-35 LA County chop out as it were (although most of the CD is in SB County, but that is LA County's escape route in any event). The Pomona area chop and the LA County chop into Seal Beach are the only two LA County involved chops on the map.

Quote
I would also explicitly allow any chop into a county where all other CDs in the county are wholly contained (eg SF).


Yes of course. That (e.g., SF) is in effect a "walled" CD, so its existence automatically justifies a chop (you might notice in my chart above, that the 4 county chopping CA-05 "blames" walled SF for on of its excess chops, and walled CA-02 for the other).


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 27, 2012, 01:20:21 PM

As to the type of chop, I have been pondering some sort of percentage limitations, and am thinking that the statute should have some preferred guidelines, which if violated require a written finding by the Commission justifying breaking the guidelines. That at least should concentrate the minds of those there that are just dialing it in. However, for very small cities (say 15,000 or less, maybe 10,000 or less), sometimes they might need to be chopped more severely to avoid a map looking grotesque. For larger ones, a 20% guideline might be reasonable. I think in fact I hewed to such a guideline throughout the state, except for Vallejo. I would sign off on a written finding on that one I think. Obviously, that was the toughest part of the state to map.


I have been thinking about the chop rules and I agree that it makes sense to require specific justification for more than a "minor chop". I would stick to 20% of a county or city as a threshold. For the example you gave of a small city chopped to avoid a bizarre shape you can make that one of the possible findings. I would also explicitly allow any chop into a county where all other CDs in the county are wholly contained (eg SF).

I would however put an absolute upper limit on a minor chop size. Consider a CD spanning LAC and OC. A 20% county chop limit allows a completely free hand in crossing the border since a whole CD is less than 20% of LAC and just over 20% of OC. I think that much freedom in mapmaking is worth avoiding, so I will continue to advocate for an upper limit of 5% of a CD in a fragment to be considered a minor chop.

BTW do I see a tiny chop into Pomona that I assume you could not avoid?


Your text confuses me a bit. You are saying for county chops, if less than 5% no written finding, if between 5%-20% just what again (?), and of course a written finding over 20%.  You could deal with the county size issue by having the 20% limit apply both to the percentage of the county and the percentage of the CD involved in the chop, no?  For a small county, having to justify a 5%-20% chop seems just silly (the answer is because the county is small!). :)

If I was confusing it's because there are two different criteria at play. A minor chop into a county or city is both a) less than 20% of the political jurisdiction and b) less than 5% of the CD. For small counties only part a) matters, so it matches your statement. Part b) is to address chops in large counties. The transition occurs when a county is larger than 25% of a CD.


Quote
The Pomona chop is the CA-35 LA County chop out as it were (although most of the CD is in SB County, but that is LA County's escape route in any event). The Pomona area chop and the LA County chop into Seal Beach are the only two LA County involved chops on the map.

Ah. I'll have to trace your tree of linkages in this latest map.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 27, 2012, 02:45:17 PM

As to the type of chop, I have been pondering some sort of percentage limitations, and am thinking that the statute should have some preferred guidelines, which if violated require a written finding by the Commission justifying breaking the guidelines. That at least should concentrate the minds of those there that are just dialing it in. However, for very small cities (say 15,000 or less, maybe 10,000 or less), sometimes they might need to be chopped more severely to avoid a map looking grotesque. For larger ones, a 20% guideline might be reasonable. I think in fact I hewed to such a guideline throughout the state, except for Vallejo. I would sign off on a written finding on that one I think. Obviously, that was the toughest part of the state to map.


I have been thinking about the chop rules and I agree that it makes sense to require specific justification for more than a "minor chop". I would stick to 20% of a county or city as a threshold. For the example you gave of a small city chopped to avoid a bizarre shape you can make that one of the possible findings. I would also explicitly allow any chop into a county where all other CDs in the county are wholly contained (eg SF).

I would however put an absolute upper limit on a minor chop size. Consider a CD spanning LAC and OC. A 20% county chop limit allows a completely free hand in crossing the border since a whole CD is less than 20% of LAC and just over 20% of OC. I think that much freedom in mapmaking is worth avoiding, so I will continue to advocate for an upper limit of 5% of a CD in a fragment to be considered a minor chop.

BTW do I see a tiny chop into Pomona that I assume you could not avoid?


Your text confuses me a bit. You are saying for county chops, if less than 5% no written finding, if between 5%-20% just what again (?), and of course a written finding over 20%.  You could deal with the county size issue by having the 20% limit apply both to the percentage of the county and the percentage of the CD involved in the chop, no?  For a small county, having to justify a 5%-20% chop seems just silly (the answer is because the county is small!). :)

If I was confusing it's because there are two different criteria at play. A minor chop into a county or city is both a) less than 20% of the political jurisdiction and b) less than 5% of the CD. For small counties only part a) matters, so it matches your statement. Part b) is to address chops in large counties. The transition occurs when a county is larger than 25% of a CD.


Quote
The Pomona chop is the CA-35 LA County chop out as it were (although most of the CD is in SB County, but that is LA County's escape route in any event). The Pomona area chop and the LA County chop into Seal Beach are the only two LA County involved chops on the map.

Ah. I'll have to trace your tree of linkages in this latest map.

I will send you my file tonight after I cleanse the black CD of chops. I would appreciate your fly specking  it.

Got it on your formula. The 5% of a CD figure might be low. I mean, what is wrong with a chop that takes in an entire city on the border of a county part of a larger mass of tracts that has a population of say 85,000 (unless it is a county seat, which is one of the reasons that I decided that CA-04 should not take Yuba City (shearing a county of its major town and county seat seems wrong to me if it can be avoided), while W. Sacto is the not the main action in town for Solano County).  Also if the percentage is too low, you might have a map to goes from Victorville to S. Lake Tahoe, or something (absent a written finding to the contrary). No!  :)

Pending further discussion, go KISS baby, and have the same percentage for both - 20%. 

How about compactness and shape?  Compactness really only obtains for a couple of areas of California, but compactness was on my mind always when drawing CA-01 and CA-02. And that Palos Verdes to Hancock Park "class warfare" CD that the Commission drew is just an obscene sin.

And how about "unnecessary" sword cuts into a county sometimes over empty zone, when less of a sword cut crossing no empty zone was available (switch out the sword cut of the Commission into Ventura County from Simi Valley to the Thousand Oaks area), and get rid of that horrid Westminster sword cut into OC.

Should erosity and wanderlust and sword cuts require written findings justifying them in lieu of the alternative that would avoid that (assuming in both instances the chop rules are otherwise met)?


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 27, 2012, 03:28:42 PM

If I was confusing it's because there are two different criteria at play. A minor chop into a county or city is both a) less than 20% of the political jurisdiction and b) less than 5% of the CD. For small counties only part a) matters, so it matches your statement. Part b) is to address chops in large counties. The transition occurs when a county is larger than 25% of a CD.


Quote
The Pomona chop is the CA-35 LA County chop out as it were (although most of the CD is in SB County, but that is LA County's escape route in any event). The Pomona area chop and the LA County chop into Seal Beach are the only two LA County involved chops on the map.

Ah. I'll have to trace your tree of linkages in this latest map.

I will send you my file tonight after I cleanse the black CD of chops. I would appreciate your fly specking  it.

Got it on your formula. The 5% of a CD figure might be low. I mean, what is wrong with a chop that takes in an entire city on the border of a county part of a larger mass of tracts that has a population of say 85,000 (unless it is a county seat, which is one of the reasons that I decided that CA-04 should not take Yuba City (shearing a county of its major town and county seat seems wrong to me if it can be avoided), while W. Sacto is the not the main action in town for Solano County).  Also if the percentage is too low, you might have a map to goes from Victorville to S. Lake Tahoe, or something (absent a written finding to the contrary). No!  :)

Pending further discussion, go KISS baby, and have the same percentage for both - 20%. 

How about compactness and shape?  Compactness really only obtains for a couple of areas of California, but compactness was on my mind always when drawing CA-01 and CA-02. And that Palos Verdes to Hancock Park "class warfare" CD that the Commission drew is just an obscene sin.

And how about "unnecessary" sword cuts into a county sometimes over empty zone, when less of a sword cut crossing no empty zone was available (switch out the sword cut of the Commission into Ventura County from Simi Valley to the Thousand Oaks area), and get rid of that horrid Westminster sword cut into OC.

Should erosity and wanderlust and sword cuts require written findings justifying them in lieu of the alternative that would avoid that (assuming in both instances the chop rules are otherwise met)?

My initial tracing has me content except for the Salinas CD (keep it out of either S. Cruz or S. Clara.) I'm also not happy about the Sacto region, but I'll put something together later.

The 5% actually stems from my desire to extend this to state house districts as well. At 5% I can leave the fragment out and still meet federal standards. My KISS is simply different than yours. :) That same motivation also drives my wall tolerance of 0.5%, which could possibly stand up federally for the compelling state interest of counties intact. My macro rules should be independent of the state, then fine tuned for the particulars of the state.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 27, 2012, 03:53:05 PM
I don't think those are good enough reasons to keep it as low as 5% for CD's, or that matter in CA, assembly districts as well, which are about 450,000 persons a pop. National standards are nice and all, but some other time. I just don't think it is much of a problem to have 20% of a CD in another county from a public policy perspective.  5% is only 35,000 people. As I said, that may push a map in the "wrong" direction, and I really don't want to have to get a written finding to push it back in the right direction.  15% would probably work, maybe even 10% (I will have to see how big my chops are :P). The CA-20 double chop is just a section 5 issue as we discussed, and would require a legal opinion to do it, so I think we have resolved that (presumably one would be written).  I don't think Sacto generates another chop having analyzed it to death, but if it does, let me know. That was the trickiest part of the state to chop count. Thanks for looking at it. (I also don't think Sacto taking W. Sacto should count as a chop really (a situation unique to the state really), but carving out an exception for it is probably not worth the candle.)


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 27, 2012, 07:10:07 PM
I don't think those are good enough reasons to keep it as low as 5% for CD's, or that matter in CA, assembly districts as well, which are about 450,000 persons a pop. National standards are nice and all, but some other time. I just don't think it is much of a problem to have 20% of a CD in another county from a public policy perspective.  5% is only 35,000 people. As I said, that may push a map in the "wrong" direction, and I really don't want to have to get a written finding to push it back in the right direction.  15% would probably work, maybe even 10% (I will have to see how big my chops are :P). The CA-20 double chop is just a section 5 issue as we discussed, and would require a legal opinion to do it, so I think we have resolved that (presumably one would be written).  I don't think Sacto generates another chop having analyzed it to death, but if it does, let me know. That was the trickiest part of the state to chop count. Thanks for looking at it. (I also don't think Sacto taking W. Sacto should count as a chop really (a situation unique to the state really), but carving out an exception for it is probably not worth the candle.)

If all counties were smaller than a district, then for n districts the minimum number of county fragments with exact population equality is 2n-2 (assuming there isn't a perfect combination of counties as in WV). Mathematically, every district completely embedded in a large county removes two fragments from the computation. So when I see no districts entirely in Sacto county when two are possible, I know there are more splits than the minimum.

I'm not convinced that 140 K is a "minor split". If that's your desire I'd rather see 5% across the board as a forgiven without justification, and skip 20% entirely. I was just trying to be accommodating for small counties that a commission needed to split. :P


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 27, 2012, 07:20:23 PM
I don't think those are good enough reasons to keep it as low as 5% for CD's, or that matter in CA, assembly districts as well, which are about 450,000 persons a pop. National standards are nice and all, but some other time. I just don't think it is much of a problem to have 20% of a CD in another county from a public policy perspective.  5% is only 35,000 people. As I said, that may push a map in the "wrong" direction, and I really don't want to have to get a written finding to push it back in the right direction.  15% would probably work, maybe even 10% (I will have to see how big my chops are :P). The CA-20 double chop is just a section 5 issue as we discussed, and would require a legal opinion to do it, so I think we have resolved that (presumably one would be written).  I don't think Sacto generates another chop having analyzed it to death, but if it does, let me know. That was the trickiest part of the state to chop count. Thanks for looking at it. (I also don't think Sacto taking W. Sacto should count as a chop really (a situation unique to the state really), but carving out an exception for it is probably not worth the candle.)

If all counties were smaller than a district, then for n districts the minimum number of county fragments with exact population equality is 2n-2 (assuming there isn't a perfect combination of counties as in WV). Mathematically, every district completely embedded in a large county removes two fragments from the computation. So when I see no districts entirely in Sacto county when two are possible, I know there are more splits than the minimum.

I'm not convinced that 140 K is a "minor split". If that's your desire I'd rather see 5% across the board as a forgiven without justification, and skip 20% entirely. I was just trying to be accommodating for small counties that a commission needed to split. :P

Well think about 10% at least. I will take a look at my chops on the  map, and try to get a real on the ground feel as to how much of a problem a tight constraint is, and just how necessary a written finding might be and when. (I sent you the drf file by the way.)

I understand your Sacto point, and saw it too (which bothered me of course, so I thought and thought and thought about it), but I think when what would otherwise be two nestings CD within a county, are moving out of that county to service the chop quota of two other CD's in separate appending counties (here CA-03 and CA-04),  then no additional chop is in fact created. If you nest a Sacto CD, then either CA-03 or CA-04 (depending on which CD the wandering nester is servicing), will have to chop some other county.  Play with it, and see if you can find a way to lose a chop. I could not, and I think the above might be why.  Hey, you're the genius on these things. Figure it out!  :)


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 27, 2012, 07:54:58 PM
()

And here is a potential problem for an absolute minimum muni-chop rule. Notice that there are two chops here into LA city. One of the chops could be eliminated by a counter-clockwise twist. Assume that by doing the twist, CA-29 can take the VRA hit (it can't - it only has about a 1% pad over the 50% HCVAP minimum), and there were a road and territory available for CA-28 to suck up in the Antelope Valley which would not involve another muni chop (there probably isn't, and the road if any while paved will be twisty). If done, CA-25 will get further involved with the SF Valley, and CA-29 will take more of the La Crescenta Valley area which is over a hill, and really, really belongs with La Canada-Flintridge, while the Antelope Valley is chopped. Should the twist be done anyway (I strongly doubt it), just to keep the Commission critters on as tight a leash as possible, or should extra muni chops be allowed based on a written finding of something that is on the list as a justification for a finding (like going over hills and dales to suck up "alien" folks tied to their fellow aliens elsewhere)?

Anyway, the muni chop rules need to be carefully written,  to stand scrutiny. This ain't Michigan.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 27, 2012, 08:52:44 PM
I don't think those are good enough reasons to keep it as low as 5% for CD's, or that matter in CA, assembly districts as well, which are about 450,000 persons a pop. National standards are nice and all, but some other time. I just don't think it is much of a problem to have 20% of a CD in another county from a public policy perspective.  5% is only 35,000 people. As I said, that may push a map in the "wrong" direction, and I really don't want to have to get a written finding to push it back in the right direction.  15% would probably work, maybe even 10% (I will have to see how big my chops are :P). The CA-20 double chop is just a section 5 issue as we discussed, and would require a legal opinion to do it, so I think we have resolved that (presumably one would be written).  I don't think Sacto generates another chop having analyzed it to death, but if it does, let me know. That was the trickiest part of the state to chop count. Thanks for looking at it. (I also don't think Sacto taking W. Sacto should count as a chop really (a situation unique to the state really), but carving out an exception for it is probably not worth the candle.)

If all counties were smaller than a district, then for n districts the minimum number of county fragments with exact population equality is 2n-2 (assuming there isn't a perfect combination of counties as in WV). Mathematically, every district completely embedded in a large county removes two fragments from the computation. So when I see no districts entirely in Sacto county when two are possible, I know there are more splits than the minimum.

I'm not convinced that 140 K is a "minor split". If that's your desire I'd rather see 5% across the board as a forgiven without justification, and skip 20% entirely. I was just trying to be accommodating for small counties that a commission needed to split. :P

Well think about 10% at least. I will take a look at my chops on the  map, and try to get a real on the ground feel as to how much of a problem a tight constraint is, and just how necessary a written finding might be and when. (I sent you the drf file by the way.)

I understand your Sacto point, and saw it too (which bothered me of course, so I thought and thought and thought about it), but I think when what would otherwise be two nestings CD within a county, are moving out of that county to service the chop quota of two other CD's in separate appending counties (here CA-03 and CA-04),  then no additional chop is in fact created. If you nest a Sacto CD, then either CA-03 or CA-04 (depending on which CD the wandering nester is servicing), will have to chop some other county.  Play with it, and see if you can find a way to lose a chop. I could not, and I think the above might be why.  Hey, you're the genius on these things. Figure it out!  :)

You may be counting counties chopped, instead of the chops themselves. For example you have three CDs that go into Sacto county and also include part one one neighboring county. That's a total of six chops, but only three counties because you've tri-chopped Sacto. If you rearranged those three districts to place one CD entirely in Sacto there are still three chop fragments outside of Sacto, but only two inside. One chop disappeared because the CD is entirely within the county. One of the remaining pieces has three fragments, and in principle it can be brought to two, but it may not if you have more than two CDs with only one fragment.

I'll think about 10%, but it seems arbitrary. At least I can point to a federal decision on which to rest 5%.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 27, 2012, 09:22:33 PM
I don't think those are good enough reasons to keep it as low as 5% for CD's, or that matter in CA, assembly districts as well, which are about 450,000 persons a pop. National standards are nice and all, but some other time. I just don't think it is much of a problem to have 20% of a CD in another county from a public policy perspective.  5% is only 35,000 people. As I said, that may push a map in the "wrong" direction, and I really don't want to have to get a written finding to push it back in the right direction.  15% would probably work, maybe even 10% (I will have to see how big my chops are :P). The CA-20 double chop is just a section 5 issue as we discussed, and would require a legal opinion to do it, so I think we have resolved that (presumably one would be written).  I don't think Sacto generates another chop having analyzed it to death, but if it does, let me know. That was the trickiest part of the state to chop count. Thanks for looking at it. (I also don't think Sacto taking W. Sacto should count as a chop really (a situation unique to the state really), but carving out an exception for it is probably not worth the candle.)

If all counties were smaller than a district, then for n districts the minimum number of county fragments with exact population equality is 2n-2 (assuming there isn't a perfect combination of counties as in WV). Mathematically, every district completely embedded in a large county removes two fragments from the computation. So when I see no districts entirely in Sacto county when two are possible, I know there are more splits than the minimum.

I'm not convinced that 140 K is a "minor split". If that's your desire I'd rather see 5% across the board as a forgiven without justification, and skip 20% entirely. I was just trying to be accommodating for small counties that a commission needed to split. :P

Well think about 10% at least. I will take a look at my chops on the  map, and try to get a real on the ground feel as to how much of a problem a tight constraint is, and just how necessary a written finding might be and when. (I sent you the drf file by the way.)

I understand your Sacto point, and saw it too (which bothered me of course, so I thought and thought and thought about it), but I think when what would otherwise be two nestings CD within a county, are moving out of that county to service the chop quota of two other CD's in separate appending counties (here CA-03 and CA-04),  then no additional chop is in fact created. If you nest a Sacto CD, then either CA-03 or CA-04 (depending on which CD the wandering nester is servicing), will have to chop some other county.  Play with it, and see if you can find a way to lose a chop. I could not, and I think the above might be why.  Hey, you're the genius on these things. Figure it out!  :)

You may be counting counties chopped, instead of the chops themselves. For example you have three CDs that go into Sacto county and also include part one one neighboring county. That's a total of six chops, but only three counties because you've tri-chopped Sacto. If you rearranged those three districts to place one CD entirely in Sacto there are still three chop fragments outside of Sacto, but only two inside. One chop disappeared because the CD is entirely within the county. One of the remaining pieces has three fragments, and in principle it can be brought to two, but it may not if you have more than two CDs with only one fragment.

I'll think about 10%, but it seems arbitrary. At least I can point to a federal decision on which to rest 5%.

Well another issue is how to count chops, but I think my chart is the proper way: how much does each CD chop?  Putting that aside, revise my map in Sacto in a way that you think loses a chop (and I will point out why it doesn't - I think :P). It's easier for my tired old brain to work that way.

I have realized that any limitation of the percentage of a CD that is part of a chop would be close to a disaster for CA (the limitation on the percentage of a county that can be chopped would remain in place (unless a very small county perhaps, but maybe not - that area in Norcal is the issue there), is the protection against the real abuse anyway).  Can you figure out why?  :)


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 27, 2012, 09:52:56 PM
OK, I had this one "illicit" 35% chopper of Gardena. The map below gets rid of that. Is the fix worth the erosity?  Or should the chop be allowed by an erosity finding?  And suppose that the fix diluted the black percentage down from 43% (which it was before this latest fix - it was 46% before I got rid of the CA-44 related chops), to say 37% (here it only drops it to down to 42.5%)?  Should racial dilution involved in how a  can be chopped be relevant (even if not to justify an extra  chop), or is it opening a Pandora's box?  

()

And hey, here is a way to get rid of the chop entirely and actually lose a chop. Should this be legally required?  :)  I think we will need an extra chop finding escape clause, with one of the grounds, or maybe the only ground, being erosity. So then "erosity" needs to be defined. :P

()


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 27, 2012, 10:35:30 PM

You may be counting counties chopped, instead of the chops themselves. For example you have three CDs that go into Sacto county and also include part one one neighboring county. That's a total of six chops, but only three counties because you've tri-chopped Sacto. If you rearranged those three districts to place one CD entirely in Sacto there are still three chop fragments outside of Sacto, but only two inside. One chop disappeared because the CD is entirely within the county. One of the remaining pieces has three fragments, and in principle it can be brought to two, but it may not if you have more than two CDs with only one fragment.

I'll think about 10%, but it seems arbitrary. At least I can point to a federal decision on which to rest 5%.

Well another issue is how to count chops, but I think my chart is the proper way: how much does each CD chop?  Putting that aside, revise my map in Sacto in a way that you think loses a chop (and I will point out why it doesn't - I think :P). It's easier for my tired old brain to work that way.

I have realized that any limitation of the percentage of a CD that is part of a chop would be close to a disaster for CA (the limitation on the percentage of a county that can be chopped would remain in place (unless a very small county perhaps, but maybe not - that area in Norcal is the issue there), is the protection against the real abuse anyway).  Can you figure out why?  :)

Then help me out with your chart, because it doesn't seem consistent in counting chops. For instance in San Bernardino there are three CDs. CD 8 you list 2 chops, which I see correspond to SanB and Kern. Fine. CD 31 has none because it's all in SanB.

But CD 35 is listed as only one chop, and I count 2: SanB and LAC. I have to count the LAC piece since it has more than the minimum one left over fragment. If a county that is cut in two generates a chop for each piece, a remaining fragment in a large county that is cut in two should also count as a chop for each piece. What am I missing?

To your second point, I'm not seeing the disaster you see. I fear perhaps you are more conscious of political sensibilities than my friends in IA and the fair map folks in OH.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: jimrtex on April 27, 2012, 11:05:15 PM
Yes, but if a wall location ends up creating a nasty Lancaster chop, or forces stuff to go where it should not go, that is a problem.  And there may be crossings that should be "disfavored."  Having some statistical limits like you suggested might work, which can be violated under certain circumstances. Or maybe we have defined regions, in which there may be only one chop out unless the VRA demands otherwise, or to unite a city that is already mostly in one CD. And Sacto taking W. Sacto, or uniting Yuba City and Marysville, perhaps should not count as a chop for example. 
Muon's rule works better in states where you have small square counties filled with cornfields, and regions can be pretty arbitrary.   This is less true in California where there are pretty distinct regions often separated by mountain ranges.

You are better off determining the regions first, and then doing an apportionment.   And then playing around a bit to get to population equality.

I would define the regions as:

Bay Area: Marin, SF, SM, SC, Alameda, Contra Costa,
North Bay: Solano, Napa, Sonoma (this is mainly to provide flexibility for the Bay Area going north rather than east or south if a few 100,000 more voters are needed).
North Coast
North Valley (Begins at Sacramento - it doesn't matter that Sacramento isn't like Redding, that will be handled when you start drawing districts).
Mountains
Central Coast (Sta Cruz to Sta Barbara, plus San Benito),
South Valley (begins at San Joaquin)
Trans-Mountain (they're going to stuck with somebody no matter what)
Southern California (includes Ventura and Los Angeles).   Even though LA could be apportioned separately, there is no need for it, and it really isn't a problem if districts cross into Orange, San Bernadino, Kern, and Ventura counties.

I suspect that if you don't include part of LA County with Kern, you would be forcing a district to cross over from Santa Clara into Santa Cruz.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 27, 2012, 11:22:02 PM
Let me expound more on the traditional ways to count county chops. One presumes that each county has an ideal configuration. For small counties that configuration is to be entirely within one district. For large counties that configuration is to have the maximum number of whole districts within the county and the remainder in a single district.

There are two ways to count the traditional configuration. Most common is to assign it zero chops for both small and large counties. That treats the baseline with an ideal of zero. The other way is to count the total number of districts in each county so that small counties start at one and large counties start at the number of whole districts that can be placed within plus one for the remainder. This starts with a baseline ideal equal to the number of counties plus the maximum number of districts that can be placed entirely within counties.

For any district which is not ideal one counts all the districts in the county, and in the first method of counting one subtracts the districts entirely within and in the second method one does not. Note that in the first method one jumps from zero to two and it is not possible to have a county with one fragment. In the second method one can never have zero pieces in a county so there is no jump of two for the first chop.

As I noted the first method is preferred since it has an ideal of zero, and it puts a premium on avoiding the first chop. It does allow one to go below the number in my aforementioned formula by chopping more than two districts into a county. The second one has the feature of treating two counties each split in two the same as one county with no split and one with a three-way split.

Suppose there are five counties for four districts. The counties are each 80% of the population for a district. They are arranged as a central county A and four counties that wrap completely around A: B, C, D, and E in clockwise rotation. Imagine two ways of mapping: I) one where A is whole and shares into B, which shares to C, which shares to D, which ends at E; II) the other divides A into four slices and leaves the other four counties whole. The first method of chop counting scores I) as 6 chops (2n-2) and II) as 4 chops. The second method counts both as 8 chops.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 27, 2012, 11:32:49 PM
Yes, but if a wall location ends up creating a nasty Lancaster chop, or forces stuff to go where it should not go, that is a problem.  And there may be crossings that should be "disfavored."  Having some statistical limits like you suggested might work, which can be violated under certain circumstances. Or maybe we have defined regions, in which there may be only one chop out unless the VRA demands otherwise, or to unite a city that is already mostly in one CD. And Sacto taking W. Sacto, or uniting Yuba City and Marysville, perhaps should not count as a chop for example.  
Muon's rule works better in states where you have small square counties filled with cornfields, and regions can be pretty arbitrary.   This is less true in California where there are pretty distinct regions often separated by mountain ranges.


But the problem with the mountain states is determining when it's OK to cross or not. Just look at all the debate we had about whether WA should use the Snoqualmie Pass or not. Even in CA there seems to be an inconsistency such as the lack of obstruction to use the long pass from Eureka to Redding, but no suggestion to use the mild pass from Gilroy (Santa Clara) to Los Banos (Merced).

Edit: I will note that by using that pass I can link the two section 5 counties and bring the HVAP to 51.5% with the infamous SLO wall. :)
()


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on April 28, 2012, 02:21:10 AM
Granted, I haven't really been following this thread all too closely, but after seeing Torie's sig, I have to ask: What did the poor people of Eureka do to get screwed over like that?


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on April 28, 2012, 04:00:33 AM
That map is clearly an abomination, but I'm sure you knew that.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 28, 2012, 07:36:41 AM
Granted, I haven't really been following this thread all too closely, but after seeing Torie's sig, I have to ask: What did the poor people of Eureka do to get screwed over like that?

Not make the same quality wine as Napa, Sonoma, and Mendocino. :D


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 28, 2012, 08:54:36 AM
Muon2 I am still waiting for a Sacto area map that loses a chop. As I said, it appears that if a CD in Sacto is nested, that it creates another chop elsewhere. If somehow that reduces the overall chop count, than something is wrong with that count method. It appears that what you are saying, is that if a CD chops into a county with nested CD's, with say an extra 500,000 people, and five other CD's chop into it, picking up 100,000 people each, those 5 chops don't count as chops. Do I have that right?


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 28, 2012, 08:55:16 AM
That map is clearly an abomination, but I'm sure you knew that.

Which map? :)


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 28, 2012, 09:22:13 AM
Muon2 I am still waiting for a Sacto area map that loses a chop. As I said, it appears that if a CD in Sacto is nested, that it creates another chop elsewhere. If somehow that reduces the overall chop count, than something is wrong with that count method. It appears that what you are saying, is that if a CD chops into a county with nested CD's, with say an extra 500,000 people, and five other CD's chop into it, picking up 100,000 people each, those 5 chops don't count as chops. Do I have that right?

They count as chops. In method one I count it as 5 chops, but if all 500K goes to one CD with the rest nested it would be zero. In your map LAC has two chops by this count, but Ventura has none.

In method two I just count all the districts in the county whether they are wholly in or not. But then all counties count at least one. So chops count there, too, it would be 5 plus the number of nested districts.

To show you a chop reduction, I need to know how you want me to count. I believe I can reduce it either way, but the plans will be different.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 28, 2012, 09:50:39 AM
Quote
The first method of chop counting scores I) as 6 chops (2n-2) and II) as 4 chops.

I agree with this method of counting, having played with it, for your hypo.  It basically counts the number of chops within each county with CD's not wholly contained therein.

Here is my problem.  The map below pushes CA-06 entirely within Sacto, so now the county has two chops, losing one. However, that chopped is gained back by the chop into Sutter by CA-04.  So no lost chop.

()

How about the muni chop issue that  I discussed above?  

And have you figured out yet why we can't have a percentage if CD rule involved in a chop in CA? Do you just pick and choose which questions you choose to answer from your students?  :)

You are right. CA-35 has two chops. I was just labeling the entrance and exit routes for LA County. The entrance and exit points should each count as two chops rather than one. You are right.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Sbane on April 28, 2012, 10:40:21 AM
That map is clearly an abomination, but I'm sure you knew that.

Indeed. I like Torie's version of SoCal (probably because he is familiar with it but is screwing it up now) but the NorCal map is a mess. Richmond with Marin and Eureka with an inland district. Tsk tsk. Also the northern central valley is split in two when there could be one rural district.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Sbane on April 28, 2012, 10:44:46 AM
Granted, I haven't really been following this thread all too closely, but after seeing Torie's sig, I have to ask: What did the poor people of Eureka do to get screwed over like that?

Not make the same quality wine as Napa, Sonoma, and Mendocino. :D

But they grow better weed. :P


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 28, 2012, 10:50:17 AM
Quote
The first method of chop counting scores I) as 6 chops (2n-2) and II) as 4 chops.

I agree with this method of counting, having played with it, for your hypo.  It basically counts the number of chops within each county with CD's not wholly contained therein.

Here is my problem.  The map below pushes CA-06 entirely within Sacto, so now the county has two chops, losing one. However, that chopped is gained back by the chop into Sutter by CA-04.  So no lost chop.

()

How about the muni chop issue that  I discussed above?  

And have you figured out yet why we can't have a percentage if CD rule involved in a chop in CA? Do you just pick and choose which questions you choose to answer from your students?  :)

You are right. CA-35 has two chops. I was just labeling the entrance and exit routes for LA County. The entrance and exit points should each count as two chops rather than one. You are right.

I'll get to your Sacto issue now that I know how to count. In the Sacto area I count 9 chops in your original map: 3 for Sacto, 2 for Yolo, 2 for Placer, and 2 for San Joaquin. Is that right? Your map above has 8: 2 for Sacto, 2 for Sutter, 2 for Placer, and 2 for San Joaquin.

On the muni chops, certainly the commission justification route is consistent with our previous holdings. Another option for large cities is to utilize census-recognized neighborhoods. One can treat them as separate municipalities for chop rules. I've looked at this in some eastern cities, but I haven't investigated that as an option in CA.

I thought I did answer the CD percent rule, by noting that I am less connected to specific jurisdictional pairings than some others here. If there's a more technical issue that I'm missing, let me know.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 28, 2012, 02:57:29 PM
OK, I see the count issue, but something is wrong if replacing one chop for another generates an additional chop net. I guess it gets back to the idea that if a nested CD leaves the nest to meet another CD's chop quota, that does not generate another net chop. I am having trouble getting my mind around this, but I don't think a map chopping into Yuba City is better than a map chopping into West Sacto. And I guess if I can send CD-09 to take West Sacto somehow, then I lose a chop. I don't like it. Maybe the way to count is by chops into a CD. Sacto has one chop in no matter which map it is. You count a CD as chopping in rather than out by whether a  majority of the CD is in the county or out. Nested CD's are like walled CD's, which don't really save on chops if other CD's have not yet met their chop quota. That is why I said I guess, that is only where a county has a population to support 3 whole CD's, that one must be nested unless three other CD's are using that county CD's one way or the other to meet their chop quota.

How about every time a CD crosses a county line but fails to take the whole county counts as one chop, rather not two? Does that fix it?

The problem with the 20% or 10% or 5% CD rule, is that CA has some huge counties, and some tiny ones. Suppose that LA County has exactly 15.5 CD's in it. So LA County must chop out in three places to get each of the chopping CD's down below a 20% chop, generating one more chop, and precluding LA County from being a walled county of course, with but one chop out. And suppose that LA plus San Bernardino has 17.5 CD's. Now to meet your rules, the San Bernardino CD needs to cross Luther Pass to take a bunch of small Sierra Counties, so that its excess after swallowing whole counties gets down below 20%, creating a disgusting CD that no one could possibly praise - or tolerate.  It just won't work. We cannot have such a rule. The Midwest with a lot of counties, more equal in size, and lots of handy small ones, allows perhaps for such a rule with some constraints that are tolerable. CA does not.

In addition, a CD being bisected by two counties is fine if it is in a metro area. Nobody cares if half of CA-35 were in LA County suburbs, and half in SB suburbs. It is one urban mass.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 28, 2012, 03:45:22 PM
That map is clearly an abomination, but I'm sure you knew that.

Indeed. I like Torie's version of SoCal (probably because he is familiar with it but is screwing it up now) but the NorCal map is a mess. Richmond with Marin and Eureka with an inland district. Tsk tsk. Also the northern central valley is split in two when there could be one rural district.

Well you can have one wine CD, one north Central Valley CD, the SF metro area made whole, the coast made whole, etc. So many choices, so little time. Another issue is compactness. This map does the best job of that I think. I don't really have a problem with CA-01 going to the coast myself. Del Norte is a very different place from the rest of the coast anyway, with Humboldt a transition county. In any event, several choices are reasonable really. They all have their costs and benefits.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 28, 2012, 03:46:18 PM
OK, I see the count issue, but something is wrong if replacing one chop for another generates an additional chop net. I guess it gets back to the idea that if a nested CD leaves the nest to meet another CD's chop quota, that does not generate another net chop. I am having trouble getting my mind around this, but I don't think a map chopping into Yuba City is better than a map chopping into West Sacto. And I guess if I can send CD-09 to take West Sacto somehow, then I lose a chop. I don't like it. Maybe the way to count is by chops into a CD. Sacto has one chop in no matter which map it is. You count a CD as chopping in rather than out by whether a  majority of the CD is in the county or out. Nested CD's are like walled CD's, which don't really save on chops if other CD's have not yet met their chop quota. That is why I said I guess, that is only where a county has a population to support 3 whole CD's, that one must be nested unless three other CD's are using that county CD's one way or the other to meet their chop quota.

How about every time a CD crosses a county line but fails to take the whole county counts as one chop, rather not two? Does that fix it?

Here's a version that reduces chops even more and stays within your boundaries for the Sacto area CDs, except for Plumas which I moved to CD 1. I also got the Yuba City area together in one area at teh expense of the Oroville area town partitioned into separate CDs. In this plan there are only 7 chops: 3 in Butte, 2 in El Dorado, and the perennial 2 in San Joaquin.

()

You are really hung up on keeping West Sacto with Sacto. Is putting West Sacto with the valley that much worse than slicing Elk Grove into the Stockton CD? I'd relax and say some metro splits are just meant to be. :)

On the question, your suggestion would mean for instance that Ventura is worth one chop as you have drawn it. What that implies is that small counties have an ideal chop count of zero, but large counties can do no better than one. It doesn't really work, unless one goes all the way to the second method I outlined which counts all CDs in a county, so all counties have a minimum of one plus whole districts that can be contained. It's not as good of a method as the first choice, but see if that gives you what you want in Sacto, and we'll see where it takes you elsewhere.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 28, 2012, 04:07:00 PM

The problem with the 20% or 10% or 5% CD rule, is that CA has some huge counties, and some tiny ones. Suppose that LA County has exactly 15.5 CD's in it. So LA County must chop out in three places to get each of the chopping CD's down below a 20% chop, generating one more chop, and precluding LA County from being a walled county of course, with but one chop out. And suppose that LA plus San Bernardino has 17.5 CD's. Now to meet your rules, the San Bernardino CD needs to cross Luther Pass to take a bunch of small Sierra Counties, so that its excess after swallowing whole counties gets down below 20%, creating a disgusting CD that no one could possibly praise - or tolerate.  It just won't work. We cannot have such a rule. The Midwest with a lot of counties, more equal in size, and lots of handy small ones, allows perhaps for such a rule with some constraints that are tolerable. CA does not.

In addition, a CD being bisected by two counties is fine if it is in a metro area. Nobody cares if half of CA-35 were in LA County suburbs, and half in SB suburbs. It is one urban mass.

You may have missed my suggestion to this problem. The first thing to note is that the Victorville-Tahoe district was a result of the wall selection, not the 5%/20% rule. My wall map was made by dividing the state into compact regions where there is minimal deviation in each region from a whole number of districts. This insures a maximal number of county splits that involve these minimal population shifts.

()

Subregions use the 5%/20% rule. When the red region is subdivided, it can't avoid the aforementioned Owens Valley CD. That was a product of the walls.

()

As I suggested earlier, one reasonable procedure is for the Commission to reject the initial wall proposal with instructions for what should be done to generate a different wall map, with presumably greater deviation. This would mirror the IA process where the legislature can reject up to two maps that were drawn by strict rules involving counties, population, and compactness.

So since you've seen where the walls lead, give me as your neutral drafter instructions about the how the walls are defective, and what instructions should guide my redraft. :)


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 28, 2012, 04:07:31 PM
No I am not obsessed with W. Sacto, but I am obsessed with one line crossing or the other having two different chop counts.

Quote
What that implies is that small counties have an ideal chop count of zero, but large counties can do no better than one. It doesn't really work ...

Why won't the above "work?"  Sure if a county has 1.5 CD's of population, it will have a chop - maybe two if it is a throughway, rather than walled (like SF).


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 28, 2012, 04:19:54 PM
Your 20% rule would force the crossing yes, if the wall is "wrong."  Without the 20% rule, it would not. So why do we need these regions based on population, just to prop up a 20% rule that does not to me seem to be that important - not nearly as important as chopping up a county. The regions of CA should be based on geography and urban versus rural and the central valley, and so forth, not based on what will cause your 20% rule to avoid creating a cf. Do you agree with me that your 20% rule (5% is just too terrible to contemplate) in my hypo will create an extra chop if LA County has 15.5 CD's of population?

My main problem with the SLO/M wall, is that it cut up the Santa Cruz area. Secondarily, it made things considerably more difficult and less clean down south. The former should require a finding, or simply be banned, if another wall would avoid it. On the second, it is a judgment call. There can be only so much micro management. And if a Ventura County wall creates a 20% "problem" for SLO, but avoids a chop of Santa Cruz metro, that is well worth it. The primary purpose of walls come to think of it beyond crossing the sierras, is to avoid ugly muni/metro chops come to think of it. And no region should force a CD to get too big or two erose, or go too far afield.

Or am I still misunderstanding you?


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 28, 2012, 07:29:43 PM
Your 20% rule would force the crossing yes, if the wall is "wrong."  Without the 20% rule, it would not. So why do we need these regions based on population, just to prop up a 20% rule that does not to me seem to be that important - not nearly as important as chopping up a county. The regions of CA should be based on geography and urban versus rural and the central valley, and so forth, not based on what will cause your 20% rule to avoid creating a cf. Do you agree with me that your 20% rule (5% is just too terrible to contemplate) in my hypo will create an extra chop if LA County has 15.5 CD's of population?

My main problem with the SLO/M wall, is that it cut up the Santa Cruz area. Secondarily, it made things considerably more difficult and less clean down south. The former should require a finding, or simply be banned, if another wall would avoid it. On the second, it is a judgment call. There can be only so much micro management. And if a Ventura County wall creates a 20% "problem" for SLO, but avoids a chop of Santa Cruz metro, that is well worth it. The primary purpose of walls come to think of it beyond crossing the sierras, is to avoid ugly muni/metro chops come to think of it. And no region should force a CD to get too big or two erose, or go too far afield.

Or am I still misunderstanding you?

Yes and no. I could go into detail, but I don't think it's worth another go around. What I sense is that you want standards that can constrain the commission from doing the things they did, but those constraints may also prevent you from having a free hand. The MI standards can be pretty well twisted to partisan intent, so they aren't strong enough in MI, let alone in CA where the lack of townships really opens the field up.

When it comes to regions defined locally, the ones on this forum seem just as fluid to me as the commission's work. In IA they aren't shy about slicing the Des Moines metro any given decade even though it can easily fit in a single CD. Why? Because the constraints that forced the split pays dividends to the public in its political process.

What hard constraints can you stand? Hard in the sense that there needs to be solid justification from the commission that a constraint must be overridden.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 28, 2012, 08:12:44 PM
I would still like to know where my criticisms of your 20% CD rule are off base. Second, is our difference on the chop count, that you don't think CA-05 going into SF should count as a chop, while I do, although obviously a permissible chop? Do you see my point, that no chop rule could sell intuitively that says that one chop into W. Sacto is OK, but another into Yuba City is not? 

As to walls, the Sierras are an impenetrable wall. In a pinch, you might be able to append Mono County to a Sierra foothills CD (but I really cannot imagine how it could ever be justified), but basically Inyo and Mono go with Socal. Alpine preferably should not, but it could. Softer walls, but walls of some sort, would be a Bakersfield CD not going into Socal, except if it is in Kern, and the Central Valley based CD's not going to the coast.  Lake and San Benito and Napa are flex counties. 

What I am opposed to is regional walls based on population solely for the purpose of meeting your 20% CD (or 5% CD rule).  I don't think I can be persuaded on that, or that it would ever sell in CA. But you can try. If  a wall constraint for a regional approach has some other purpose, maybe that has merit.

In general, I think, what is crossed should be left up to the Commission if there is a road etc.  What I am more concerned about is if your rules force maps that would render any recommendations made on a fix for how CA does it, subject to the kind of criticism, that would cause folks not to take the work product produced seriously, and now we are looking for dams to mitigate that potential for derisive criticism. Nor do I really see a public policy reason why a CD as opposed to a county, cannot be bifurcated, that has much that is compelling about it. It seems to me more like rounding error issue. Maybe what drives you is simply to limit the amount of Commission discretion, to make the game or how to game more difficult. I doubt we need to go quite that far, if we have the right procedural fixes.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 28, 2012, 08:34:58 PM
I would still like to know where my criticisms of your 20% CD rule are off base. Second, is our difference on the chop count, that you don't think CA-05 going into SF should count as a chop, while I do, although obviously a permissible chop? Do you see my point, that no chop rule could sell intuitively that says that one chop into W. Sacto is OK, but another into Yuba City is not? 

As to walls, the Sierras are an impenetrable wall. In a pinch, you might be able to append Mono County to a Sierra foothills CD (but I really cannot imagine how it could ever be justified), but basically Inyo and Mono go with Socal. Alpine preferably should not, but it could. Softer walls, but walls of some sort, would be a Bakersfield CD not going into Socal, except if it is in Kern, and the Central Valley based CD's not going to the coast.  Lake and San Benito and Napa are flex counties. 

What I am opposed to is regional walls based on population solely for the purpose of meeting your 20% CD (or 5% CD rule).  I don't think I can be persuaded on that, or that it would ever sell in CA. But you can try. If  a wall constraint for a regional approach has some other purpose, maybe that has merit.

In general, I think, what is crossed should be left up to the Commission if there is a road etc.  What I am more concerned about is if your rules force maps that would render any recommendations made on a fix for how CA does it, subject to the kind of criticism, that would cause folks not to take the work product produced seriously, and now we are looking for dams to mitigate that potential for derisive criticism. Nor do I really see a public policy reason why a CD as opposed to a county, cannot be bifurcated, that has much that is compelling about it. It seems to me more like rounding error issue. Maybe what drives you is simply to limit the amount of Commission discretion, to make the game or how to game more difficult. I doubt we need to go quite that far, if we have the right procedural fixes.

My frustration stems from the fact if you want a procedure where all choices are discretionary or the end map justifies the means, I don't think my skills can help.

I offered two common models for counting chops, and you picked the one you thought made the most sense. But when I applied it uniformly, you didn't like the result. We can pursue your suggestion, though I think it's a posteriori thinking, but I suspect as we get to some other part of CA, you'll find it has flaws. I know that it does when applied in other states. Any count by CD can be morphed to a county method and vice versa. That's a mathematical theorem.

You referenced minimizing chops and their size. But every serious constraint is rejected. Your proposed standard puts virtually no constraint on a state with as many populous counties as CA. Write it in detail, and I'll draw a map to drive everyone here crazy. I'm left feeling that the next commission will draw whatever it feels meets CofIs it defines, and any loose constraints will be fit to their needs. If they want to tilt like they did this decade, they'll be free to do so. Even worse look at what happened in AZ on the second go around for a commission.

What's a scientist to do? :(


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 28, 2012, 08:55:47 PM
My philosophy for neutral mapping is extremely simple. These are my primary points.

1. Districts should be internally connected according to consistently applied rules.

2. There should be as few county splits as possible, and when a county is split in two one fragment should be as small as possible.

3. Counting splits should maintain parity between small and large counties.

Without these I find little way to avoid gaming the system. These are my next tier philosophical points.

4. The VRA provides an out to any rules otherwise created. I feel strongly about section 2 and I hope SCOTUS will finally provide uniformity to how it should be measured. I am not enamored of section 5 as I find the jurisdictions to be anachronistic.

5. Splits small enough to allow a state to avoid exact equality to minimize county splits under SCOTUS rules are best. This allows a state to create two maps, one with county integrity and one with the split as AR did in 2001. My sense is that the map with county integrity survives a challenge.

6. Splits larger than that, but small enough to meet state legislative district deviation under SCOTUS rules are next best. This is because I'd like a set of rules that can apply to mapmaking at multiple levels.

Beyond that is implementation.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 28, 2012, 09:35:24 PM
My philosophy for neutral mapping is extremely simple. These are my primary points.

1. Districts should be internally connected according to consistently applied rules. Sure

2. There should be as few county splits as possible, and when a county is split in two one fragment should be as small as possible. Yes, if we can get a count procedure that does not favor one split over another, due to some nesting preference.

3. Counting splits should maintain parity between small and large counties. No, not if it distorts the count procedure, to force a line crossing one place versus another.

Without these I find little way to avoid gaming the system. These are my next tier philosophical points.

4. The VRA provides an out to any rules otherwise created. I feel strongly about section 2 and I hope SCOTUS will finally provide uniformity to how it should be measured. I am not enamored of section 5 as I find the jurisdictions to be anachronistic. Right.

5. Splits small enough to allow a state to avoid exact equality to minimize county splits under SCOTUS rules are best. This allows a state to create two maps, one with county integrity and one with the split as AR did in 2001. When it is clear that one can vary population, then sure you would to avoid chops within the variance constraints. Until then, a chop is a chop. I think when it comes to the size of the chop, for a chop rule, the percentage of a county taken is sufficient. Otherwise focusing on chop size by the size of a CD, you might force an extra chop or crazy CD's without a further overlay of rules. We need to try to minimize the rules where possible.


6. Splits larger than that, but small enough to meet state legislative district deviation under SCOTUS rules are next best. This is because I'd like a set of rules that can apply to mapmaking at multiple levels.

Beyond that is implementation.

I bolded my comments.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 28, 2012, 09:46:28 PM
My philosophy for neutral mapping is extremely simple. These are my primary points.

2. There should be as few county splits as possible, and when a county is split in two one fragment should be as small as possible. Yes, if we can get a count procedure that does not favor one split over another, due to some nesting preference.

3. Counting splits should maintain parity between small and large counties. No, not if it distorts the count procedure, to force a line crossing one place versus another.


I bolded my comments.

I have dozens of states I've looked at and I've presented detailed rules. Give me your detailed counting rules and your procedure to deal specifically with point 2 given your exact counting rules. I'll test them, though I can say with confidence that any specific count rules will in fact force line crossings in one place versus another.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 28, 2012, 09:52:05 PM

5. Splits small enough to allow a state to avoid exact equality to minimize county splits under SCOTUS rules are best. This allows a state to create two maps, one with county integrity and one with the split as AR did in 2001. When it is clear that one can vary population, then sure you would to avoid chops within the variance constraints. Until then, a chop is a chop. I think when it comes to the size of the chop, for a chop rule, the percentage of a county taken is sufficient. Otherwise focusing on chop size by the size of a CD, you might force an extra chop or crazy CD's without a further overlay of rules. We need to try to minimize the rules where possible.



I bolded my comments.

It's clear to me that you can vary from exact equality up to a range of 1% if the state can show a compelling interest. County and municipal integrity have withstood SCOTUS scrutiny on this point.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 28, 2012, 09:52:09 PM
I would still like to know where my criticisms of your 20% CD rule are off base. Second, is our difference on the chop count, that you don't think CA-05 going into SF should count as a chop, while I do, although obviously a permissible chop? Do you see my point, that no chop rule could sell intuitively that says that one chop into W. Sacto is OK, but another into Yuba City is not? 

As to walls, the Sierras are an impenetrable wall. In a pinch, you might be able to append Mono County to a Sierra foothills CD (but I really cannot imagine how it could ever be justified), but basically Inyo and Mono go with Socal. Alpine preferably should not, but it could. Softer walls, but walls of some sort, would be a Bakersfield CD not going into Socal, except if it is in Kern, and the Central Valley based CD's not going to the coast.  Lake and San Benito and Napa are flex counties. 

What I am opposed to is regional walls based on population solely for the purpose of meeting your 20% CD (or 5% CD rule).  I don't think I can be persuaded on that, or that it would ever sell in CA. But you can try. If  a wall constraint for a regional approach has some other purpose, maybe that has merit.

In general, I think, what is crossed should be left up to the Commission if there is a road etc.  What I am more concerned about is if your rules force maps that would render any recommendations made on a fix for how CA does it, subject to the kind of criticism, that would cause folks not to take the work product produced seriously, and now we are looking for dams to mitigate that potential for derisive criticism. Nor do I really see a public policy reason why a CD as opposed to a county, cannot be bifurcated, that has much that is compelling about it. It seems to me more like rounding error issue. Maybe what drives you is simply to limit the amount of Commission discretion, to make the game or how to game more difficult. I doubt we need to go quite that far, if we have the right procedural fixes.

My frustration stems from the fact if you want a procedure where all choices are discretionary or the end map justifies the means, I don't think my skills can help.

I offered two common models for counting chops, and you picked the one you thought made the most sense. But when I applied it uniformly, you didn't like the result. We can pursue your suggestion, though I think it's a posteriori thinking, but I suspect as we get to some other part of CA, you'll find it has flaws. I know that it does when applied in other states. Any count by CD can be morphed to a county method and vice versa. That's a mathematical theorem.

You referenced minimizing chops and their size. But every serious constraint is rejected. Your proposed standard puts virtually no constraint on a state with as many populous counties as CA. Write it in detail, and I'll draw a map to drive everyone here crazy. I'm left feeling that the next commission will draw whatever it feels meets CofIs it defines, and any loose constraints will be fit to their needs. If they want to tilt like they did this decade, they'll be free to do so. Even worse look at what happened in AZ on the second go around for a commission.

What's a scientist to do? :(

What a scientist is to do, is persuade an informed lay person, that you don't have an intuitive unacceptable flaw, or that any rule has such flaws. I don't think either of us have defined the nub of the problem here adequately. I think my quota approach gets it, but maybe not. Is there any count rule, where switching out one chop for another does not change the total number of chops?  If all count rules still cause a count change depending on where the chop is, that makes the quest to avoid that Quixotic, let me know.

Anyway, maybe we can't agree on everything, but it would be nice to understand better why where we disagree. And we agree on some things, to constrain the Commission further, and some things are better than no things, no?  Be happy.

In any event, the chop count is a technical issue, albeit important because the chop count I agree should be a constraining factor. The percentage of CD is a substantive issue, not in my opinion worth the candle of the potential consequences (if you limit the percentage of county taken absent a finding), maybe requiring more rules to avoid the rule causing nutter results. And I still have not got an answer that if LA County as 15.5 CD's, does that force another chop under a 20% percentage of CD rule?  

Lawyers I guess in their deposition like specific answers to specific questions.

Sorry if I am frustrating you.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 28, 2012, 09:57:26 PM

5. Splits small enough to allow a state to avoid exact equality to minimize county splits under SCOTUS rules are best. This allows a state to create two maps, one with county integrity and one with the split as AR did in 2001. When it is clear that one can vary population, then sure you would to avoid chops within the variance constraints. Until then, a chop is a chop. I think when it comes to the size of the chop, for a chop rule, the percentage of a county taken is sufficient. Otherwise focusing on chop size by the size of a CD, you might force an extra chop or crazy CD's without a further overlay of rules. We need to try to minimize the rules where possible.



I bolded my comments.

It's clear to me that you can vary from exact equality up to a range of 1% if the state can show a compelling interest. County and municipal integrity have withstood SCOTUS scrutiny on this point.

OK, we can suggest doing that then as an option. I have absolutely no objection to doing that, although again I am worried that if we have an absolute minimum chop rule, that might create map distortions. On that one though, maybe if staff can come up with maps that minimize chops using the 1% rule, a finding could say thanks but no thanks, the maps all suck, versus ignoring the 1% flex rule. I am worried however, that it introduces another level of complexity. So it should probably be in an addendum.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 28, 2012, 09:58:21 PM
I would still like to know where my criticisms of your 20% CD rule are off base. Second, is our difference on the chop count, that you don't think CA-05 going into SF should count as a chop, while I do, although obviously a permissible chop? Do you see my point, that no chop rule could sell intuitively that says that one chop into W. Sacto is OK, but another into Yuba City is not? 

As to walls, the Sierras are an impenetrable wall. In a pinch, you might be able to append Mono County to a Sierra foothills CD (but I really cannot imagine how it could ever be justified), but basically Inyo and Mono go with Socal. Alpine preferably should not, but it could. Softer walls, but walls of some sort, would be a Bakersfield CD not going into Socal, except if it is in Kern, and the Central Valley based CD's not going to the coast.  Lake and San Benito and Napa are flex counties. 

What I am opposed to is regional walls based on population solely for the purpose of meeting your 20% CD (or 5% CD rule).  I don't think I can be persuaded on that, or that it would ever sell in CA. But you can try. If  a wall constraint for a regional approach has some other purpose, maybe that has merit.

In general, I think, what is crossed should be left up to the Commission if there is a road etc.  What I am more concerned about is if your rules force maps that would render any recommendations made on a fix for how CA does it, subject to the kind of criticism, that would cause folks not to take the work product produced seriously, and now we are looking for dams to mitigate that potential for derisive criticism. Nor do I really see a public policy reason why a CD as opposed to a county, cannot be bifurcated, that has much that is compelling about it. It seems to me more like rounding error issue. Maybe what drives you is simply to limit the amount of Commission discretion, to make the game or how to game more difficult. I doubt we need to go quite that far, if we have the right procedural fixes.

My frustration stems from the fact if you want a procedure where all choices are discretionary or the end map justifies the means, I don't think my skills can help.

I offered two common models for counting chops, and you picked the one you thought made the most sense. But when I applied it uniformly, you didn't like the result. We can pursue your suggestion, though I think it's a posteriori thinking, but I suspect as we get to some other part of CA, you'll find it has flaws. I know that it does when applied in other states. Any count by CD can be morphed to a county method and vice versa. That's a mathematical theorem.

You referenced minimizing chops and their size. But every serious constraint is rejected. Your proposed standard puts virtually no constraint on a state with as many populous counties as CA. Write it in detail, and I'll draw a map to drive everyone here crazy. I'm left feeling that the next commission will draw whatever it feels meets CofIs it defines, and any loose constraints will be fit to their needs. If they want to tilt like they did this decade, they'll be free to do so. Even worse look at what happened in AZ on the second go around for a commission.

What's a scientist to do? :(

What a scientist is to do, is persuade an informed lay person, that you don't have an intuitive unacceptable flaw, or that any rule has such flaws. I don't think either of us have defined the nub of the problem here adequately. I think my quota approach gets it, but maybe not. Is there any count rule, where switching out one chop for another does not change the total number of chops?  If all count rules still cause a count change depending on where the chop is, that makes the quest to avoid that Quixotic, let me know.

Anyway, maybe we can't agree on everything, but it would be nice to understand better why where we disagree. And we agree on some things, to constrain the Commission further, and some things are better than no things, no?  Be happy.

In any event, the chop count is a technical issue, albeit important because the chop count I agree should be a constraining factor. The percentage of CD is a substantive issue, not in my opinion worth the candle of the potential consequences (if you limit the percentage of county taken absent a finding), maybe requiring more rules to avoid the rule causing nutter results. And I still have not got an answer that if LA County as 15.5 CD's, does that force another chop under a 20% percentage of CD rule?  

Lawyers I guess in their deposition like specific answers to specific questions.

Sorry if I am frustrating you.

As do scientists so they can test the hypothesis. ;)


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 28, 2012, 10:02:45 PM
My philosophy for neutral mapping is extremely simple. These are my primary points.

2. There should be as few county splits as possible, and when a county is split in two one fragment should be as small as possible. Yes, if we can get a count procedure that does not favor one split over another, due to some nesting preference.

3. Counting splits should maintain parity between small and large counties. No, not if it distorts the count procedure, to force a line crossing one place versus another.


I bolded my comments.

I have dozens of states I've looked at and I've presented detailed rules. Give me your detailed counting rules and your procedure to deal specifically with point 2 given your exact counting rules. I'll test them, though I can say with confidence that any specific count rules will in fact force line crossings in one place versus another.

Can you give me a grand unified theory as to why you are so confident?  This is important. You "win" the argument if you are right, at least up to the point that the chop rules need to take cognizance of the one chop location versus another conundrum, maybe to allow enough flex to do one chop versus another.

I don't think either of us fully understand this yet, sad to say. It's that tough. If one of us did, the grand unified theory could be pounded out on the keyboard.

In the meantime, you want me to come up with chop count procedures that I think might avoid the conundrum, so you can knock them down, leaving me wondering if there is one out there that solves the conundrum, that I lack the imagination to come up with, because there is no grand unified theory readily available to moot all of that. I feel so alone. :(

In the meantime I am making this hypothesis for you to "test."  LA county with 15.5 CD's under a 20% CD chop rule would force a gratuitous chop, and two if LA county were walled. Do you disagree?


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 28, 2012, 10:07:27 PM

5. Splits small enough to allow a state to avoid exact equality to minimize county splits under SCOTUS rules are best. This allows a state to create two maps, one with county integrity and one with the split as AR did in 2001. When it is clear that one can vary population, then sure you would to avoid chops within the variance constraints. Until then, a chop is a chop. I think when it comes to the size of the chop, for a chop rule, the percentage of a county taken is sufficient. Otherwise focusing on chop size by the size of a CD, you might force an extra chop or crazy CD's without a further overlay of rules. We need to try to minimize the rules where possible.



I bolded my comments.

It's clear to me that you can vary from exact equality up to a range of 1% if the state can show a compelling interest. County and municipal integrity have withstood SCOTUS scrutiny on this point.

OK, we can suggest doing that then as an option. I have absolutely no objection to doing that, although again I am worried that if we have an absolute minimum chop rule, that might create map distortions. On that one though, maybe if staff can come up with maps that minimize chops using the 1% rule, a finding could say thanks but no thanks, the maps all suck, versus ignoring the 1% flex rule. I am worried however, that it introduces another level of complexity. So it should probably be in an addendum.

The problem is that if it is optional the courts will disallow it. It must be consistently applied to be a valid departure from exact equality. However, one can exchange tighter tolerance on the deviations for more regions. That was the point of the table I compiled and displayed earlier in the thread. The commission could say we don't like the 4-region plan, can you produce one with more regions (and hence fewer splits) but with greater deviation up to the 0.5% SCOTUS limit? That I can do, but the commission will have to abide by one of the regional plans' strictures or the rule has no validity.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 28, 2012, 10:15:22 PM
My philosophy for neutral mapping is extremely simple. These are my primary points.

2. There should be as few county splits as possible, and when a county is split in two one fragment should be as small as possible. Yes, if we can get a count procedure that does not favor one split over another, due to some nesting preference.

3. Counting splits should maintain parity between small and large counties. No, not if it distorts the count procedure, to force a line crossing one place versus another.


I bolded my comments.

I have dozens of states I've looked at and I've presented detailed rules. Give me your detailed counting rules and your procedure to deal specifically with point 2 given your exact counting rules. I'll test them, though I can say with confidence that any specific count rules will in fact force line crossings in one place versus another.

Can you give me a grand unified theory as to why you are so confident?  This is important. You "win" the argument if you are right, at least up to the point that the chop rules need to take cognizance of the one chop location versus another conundrum, maybe to allow enough flex to do one chop versus another.

I don't think either of us fully understand this yet, sad to say. It's that tough. If one of us did, the grand unified theory could be pounded out on the keyboard.

In the meantime, you want me to come up with chop count procedures that I think might avoid the conundrum, so you can knock them down, leaving me wondering if there is one out there that solves the conundrum, that I lack the imagination to come up with, because there is no grand unified theory readily available to moot all of that. I feel so alone. :(

I have looked at many models over the years, and I gave you two that have wide acceptance because they embody some degree of parity. As you could see in my example, the two models I described gave two different interpretations of a swap of split locations. In my experience, that is true for every model I've seen, which is why political scientists look to parity as a way to judge instead.

I'm sincere that if you have a counting method that I can't knock down I'd be overjoyed, but my experience in this subject makes me very skeptical of such claims. I've looked at models that are probably like what you describe. What I suspect yours will do is to favor pie-slicing into large counties to keep small counties intact, but I can't say that with certainty without a model to test.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 28, 2012, 10:17:17 PM

5. Splits small enough to allow a state to avoid exact equality to minimize county splits under SCOTUS rules are best. This allows a state to create two maps, one with county integrity and one with the split as AR did in 2001. When it is clear that one can vary population, then sure you would to avoid chops within the variance constraints. Until then, a chop is a chop. I think when it comes to the size of the chop, for a chop rule, the percentage of a county taken is sufficient. Otherwise focusing on chop size by the size of a CD, you might force an extra chop or crazy CD's without a further overlay of rules. We need to try to minimize the rules where possible.



I bolded my comments.

It's clear to me that you can vary from exact equality up to a range of 1% if the state can show a compelling interest. County and municipal integrity have withstood SCOTUS scrutiny on this point.

OK, we can suggest doing that then as an option. I have absolutely no objection to doing that, although again I am worried that if we have an absolute minimum chop rule, that might create map distortions. On that one though, maybe if staff can come up with maps that minimize chops using the 1% rule, a finding could say thanks but no thanks, the maps all suck, versus ignoring the 1% flex rule. I am worried however, that it introduces another level of complexity. So it should probably be in an addendum.

The problem is that if it is optional the courts will disallow it. It must be consistently applied to be a valid departure from exact equality. However, one can exchange tighter tolerance on the deviations for more regions. That was the point of the table I compiled and displayed earlier in the thread. The commission could say we don't like the 4-region plan, can you produce one with more regions (and hence fewer splits) but with greater deviation up to the 0.5% SCOTUS limit? That I can do, but the commission will have to abide by one of the regional plans' strictures or the rule has no validity.

What is wrong with saying that a 0.5% population variance does not count as a chop, so any excess chop within the 0.5% does not count as exceeding the minimum?  And maybe the absolute minimum chop number should be preferred absent a finding that the forced map or maps suck. Bear in mind here, that the Commission is not made of political pros, so these procedural rules should have more bite than if the Commission were made of partisan pros who know how to game to the max - as opposed to being gamed.

Anyway, isn't this 0.5% thing a side issue to what we are discussing?


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 28, 2012, 10:43:59 PM

5. Splits small enough to allow a state to avoid exact equality to minimize county splits under SCOTUS rules are best. This allows a state to create two maps, one with county integrity and one with the split as AR did in 2001. When it is clear that one can vary population, then sure you would to avoid chops within the variance constraints. Until then, a chop is a chop. I think when it comes to the size of the chop, for a chop rule, the percentage of a county taken is sufficient. Otherwise focusing on chop size by the size of a CD, you might force an extra chop or crazy CD's without a further overlay of rules. We need to try to minimize the rules where possible.



I bolded my comments.

It's clear to me that you can vary from exact equality up to a range of 1% if the state can show a compelling interest. County and municipal integrity have withstood SCOTUS scrutiny on this point.

OK, we can suggest doing that then as an option. I have absolutely no objection to doing that, although again I am worried that if we have an absolute minimum chop rule, that might create map distortions. On that one though, maybe if staff can come up with maps that minimize chops using the 1% rule, a finding could say thanks but no thanks, the maps all suck, versus ignoring the 1% flex rule. I am worried however, that it introduces another level of complexity. So it should probably be in an addendum.

The problem is that if it is optional the courts will disallow it. It must be consistently applied to be a valid departure from exact equality. However, one can exchange tighter tolerance on the deviations for more regions. That was the point of the table I compiled and displayed earlier in the thread. The commission could say we don't like the 4-region plan, can you produce one with more regions (and hence fewer splits) but with greater deviation up to the 0.5% SCOTUS limit? That I can do, but the commission will have to abide by one of the regional plans' strictures or the rule has no validity.

What is wrong with saying that a 0.5% population variance does not count as a chop, so any excess chop within the 0.5% does not count as exceeding the minimum?  And maybe the absolute minimum chop number should be preferred absent a finding that the forced map or maps suck. Bear in mind here, that the Commission is not made of political pros, so these procedural rules should have more bite than if the Commission were made of partisan pros who know how to game to the max - as opposed to being gamed.

Anyway, isn't this 0.5% thing a side issue to what we are discussing?

Nothing is wrong with that at all. It would be my preference, recognizing that one could generally remove them and still be within the required range in federal court.

As part of a counting method it is not a side issue. If it is part of the counting method then it favors creating regions of whole counties that can take advantage of that rule. A good example of how that comes into play is when you expand to 5% then look at states like OH or KY that have that as part of their mapping rules for the legislature.

I'm still reluctant to say we have these rules, but if you don't like the result you can chuck them. There can be a veto provision, but the veto shouldn't lead to wide open mapping. That just invites trouble. A veto should be tightly constrained, with a backup set of rules (such as my suggestion above) that kick in during a veto.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 29, 2012, 10:23:09 AM
OK, I went the uber nesting route for Sacto, and using the county based chop count method, I come up with the same number of chops: 3 in Sacto, and 2 in Sutter and El Dorado, in lieu of 2 in Yolo and Placer, so I guess I need your help Mike seeing a map using the county chop count method that loses a chop. I did my best and failed. Thanks.

()


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 29, 2012, 12:04:42 PM
OK, I went the uber nesting route for Sacto, and using the county based chop count method, I come up with the same number of chops: 3 in Sacto, and 2 in Sutter and El Dorado, in lieu of 2 in Yolo and Placer, so I guess I need your help Mike seeing a map using the county chop count method that loses a chop. I did my best and failed. Thanks.

()

I would count Sacto here as 0. It's as ideal as it gets, so it counts like a county entirely in a district. I am assuming you aren't counting that way.

I take it you are counting all nested and fractional pieces of Sacto the same. That means Sacto can never have less than three, but small counties can have zero then jump to two with the first split? Is that the method of counting you propose?

If you say that small counties count as one as well since they are served by at least one CD, then you have my second counting method.

In order to take advantage of an uberpacked county, one sometimes needs to shift some other pieces to make the extra chop go away. That's what I was trying to demonstrate in this map. I shifted your Sutter chop into Butte, which already had one and that's when the extra from Sacto vanished.

()


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 29, 2012, 09:33:55 PM
Thanks for the map Mike (horrible as it is :P). Does the chop count change with your second count method? You have now tri-chopped Butte, so that counts as three.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 29, 2012, 11:05:17 PM
Thanks for the map Mike (horrible as it is :P). Does the chop count change with your second count method? You have now tri-chopped Butte, so that counts as three.

With the second method your signature, your two packings, and my version would all count the same. Consider the counties with changes: Sacto+Yolo+Placer+Sutter+Butte+El Dorado. The total for these is 11 for all four maps. Counting CD 1 in Butte, there are six counties and 6 CDs, and 11 is the optimal number for for this arrangement.

In general the optimal number equals the total number of counties plus the number of districts minus one. You can test your map to see if it passes with this method. If not, we can look for a defect. In either case you may want to review my example for both methods and see if you are comfortable with the second counting method, since your initial reaction was to select the first counting method.

If you are comfortable with counting method two and if you are still agreed to the suggestion that chops equal to less than 0.5% of a district don't count, I can see what optimization that might lead to. There's still the question about encouraging smaller chops for chops over 0.5% of a CD, and if there is a workable threshold.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 30, 2012, 10:34:03 AM
My concern about a .5% chop not counting as a chop is that it will force twisted sister maps. I suppose staff could come up with the options using that escape hatch to get a minimum chop count, and the Commission could say that they all suck - in other words the Commission could veto the maps with a supra majority vote, just like is required to pass a map. Then you go back to the minimum chop rules.  That plus the supra majority, with a majority from each party, should preclude anything approaching a Michigan style gerrymander.

I still strongly reject however banning the percentage of CD that chops limitation rule.  The 20% limitation of a county rule that is chopped is sufficient, and the Commission should have the power to override that with a finding as well (e.g., it is OK to have a more than 20% chop of SLO in my signature map on the grounds or protecting the Santa Cruz metro area, with a wall on the Ventura County line, because wall placement elsewhere does lead to a SC chop or a crossing of the Tehachapi 's, or over Luther Pass).

I am pleased that counting the number of chops per county method does not bias where the chops are apparently.  Whew!  :)


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 30, 2012, 12:58:54 PM
My concern about a .5% chop not counting as a chop is that it will force twisted sister maps. I suppose staff could come up with the options using that escape hatch to get a minimum chop count, and the Commission could say that they all suck - in other words the Commission could veto the maps with a supra majority vote, just like is required to pass a map. Then you go back to the minimum chop rules.  That plus the supra majority, with a majority from each party, should preclude anything approaching a Michigan style gerrymander.

I still strongly reject however banning the percentage of CD that chops limitation rule.  The 20% limitation of a county rule that is chopped is sufficient, and the Commission should have the power to override that with a finding as well (e.g., it is OK to have a more than 20% chop of SLO in my signature map on the grounds or protecting the Santa Cruz metro area, with a wall on the Ventura County line, because wall placement elsewhere does lead to a SC chop or a crossing of the Tehachapi 's, or over Luther Pass).

I am pleased that counting the number of chops per county method does not bias where the chops are apparently.  Whew!  :)

So let me summarize the proposed rules.

1. A plan shall minimize county CD pieces. All pieces count towards the total, including one for the case where a county is entirely in a CD. (BTW this works against minimizing the number of counties chopped, since a tri chop counts the same as two dual shops, but that may be OK in CA).

2. When a county is split, the plan shall minimize the number of census places split within the county (ie cities). Census divisions that span a place boundary can be counted on either side of the line.

3. Pieces of counties less than 1 CD, or pieces of places between 20K and 1 CD, shall not be split leaving less than 80% of the county or place in one piece. (I don't think we settled on a number here, so I'm guessing, but you suggested that some small communities may need a larger split.)

4. Pieces that are less than 0.5% of a CD shall not count in assessing rules 1 through 3.

5. Violations of the aforementioned rules require a finding based in federal or state law approved by a supermajority of the mapping body.

Are we ready? Remember, I don't want to draw and then change the rules to suit a change. That's what the biased groups do, and commissions can have biases that aren't partisan. :P

As an aside, I'm not sure how we want to count the VRA in some areas. For instance, I don't think your Merced-Fresno district would meet standards, since there was a finding that a majority-minority district was required for Fresno, and since a 50% HCVAP district would have been possible by including part of Madera. I estimate that requires 61.5% HVAP or more.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 30, 2012, 01:32:17 PM
My concern about a .5% chop not counting as a chop is that it will force twisted sister maps. I suppose staff could come up with the options using that escape hatch to get a minimum chop count, and the Commission could say that they all suck - in other words the Commission could veto the maps with a supra majority vote, just like is required to pass a map. Then you go back to the minimum chop rules.  That plus the supra majority, with a majority from each party, should preclude anything approaching a Michigan style gerrymander.

I still strongly reject however banning the percentage of CD that chops limitation rule.  The 20% limitation of a county rule that is chopped is sufficient, and the Commission should have the power to override that with a finding as well (e.g., it is OK to have a more than 20% chop of SLO in my signature map on the grounds or protecting the Santa Cruz metro area, with a wall on the Ventura County line, because wall placement elsewhere does lead to a SC chop or a crossing of the Tehachapi 's, or over Luther Pass).

I am pleased that counting the number of chops per county method does not bias where the chops are apparently.  Whew!  :)

So let me summarize the proposed rules.

1. A plan shall minimize county CD pieces. All pieces count towards the total, including one for the case where a county is entirely in a CD. (BTW this works against minimizing the number of counties chopped, since a tri chop counts the same as two dual shops, but that may be OK in CA).

2. When a county is split, the plan shall minimize the number of census places split within the county (ie cities). Census divisions that span a place boundary can be counted on either side of the line.

3. Pieces of counties less than 1 CD, or pieces of places between 20K and 1 CD, shall not be split leaving less than 80% of the county or place in one piece. (I don't think we settled on a number here, so I'm guessing, but you suggested that some small communities may need a larger split.)

4. Pieces that are less than 0.5% of a CD shall not count in assessing rules 1 through 3.

5. Violations of the aforementioned rules require a finding based in federal or state law approved by a supermajority of the mapping body.

Are we ready? Remember, I don't want to draw and then change the rules to suit a change. That's what the biased groups do, and commissions can have biases that aren't partisan. :P

As an aside, I'm not sure how we want to count the VRA in some areas. For instance, I don't think your Merced-Fresno district would meet standards, since there was a finding that a majority-minority district was required for Fresno, and since a 50% HCVAP district would have been possible by including part of Madera. I estimate that requires 61.5% HVAP or more.

We are getting close on the rules, but I want to massage them a bit (and of course, only one of us is a near genius, and neither geniuses), so if something comes up in practice that is unanticipated, either of us have a right to say, oh dear, wait a minute. But hopefully that will not happen.  I wonder how many maps given all the constraints would be theoretically possible (putting aside the details of how the interior of a county are chopped up).  Do you have any idea?

That Fresno/Merced CD that I drew is more Hispanic than the one the Commission drew (mine is 58%; theirs is 52.8% HVAP). So that unleashed me, to try to draw a cleaner map. I wonder if there is any commentary on that issue in the Commission's written material, or in the transcripts, all of which will need to be read carefully?  Do you have any idea?  Was it because it was not deemed one community of interest?  Was it because it was impossible to get up to two 50% HCVAP CD's in the area?


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: dpmapper on April 30, 2012, 02:06:00 PM

So let me summarize the proposed rules.

1. A plan shall minimize county CD pieces. All pieces count towards the total, including one for the case where a county is entirely in a CD. (BTW this works against minimizing the number of counties chopped, since a tri chop counts the same as two dual shops, but that may be OK in CA).

2. When a county is split, the plan shall minimize the number of census places split within the county (ie cities). Census divisions that span a place boundary can be counted on either side of the line.

3. Pieces of counties less than 1 CD, or pieces of places between 20K and 1 CD, shall not be split leaving less than 80% of the county or place in one piece. (I don't think we settled on a number here, so I'm guessing, but you suggested that some small communities may need a larger split.)

4. Pieces that are less than 0.5% of a CD shall not count in assessing rules 1 through 3.

5. Violations of the aforementioned rules require a finding based in federal or state law approved by a supermajority of the mapping body.


This is probably buried back in your lengthy discussion, but I don't see any rationale for rule 3.  You're saying that if a county has 600,000 people it can't be split 450,000-150,000 but it can be split 500,000-100,000 (or 500,000-50,000-50,000)?  What is the distinction? 


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 30, 2012, 02:20:06 PM

As an aside, I'm not sure how we want to count the VRA in some areas. For instance, I don't think your Merced-Fresno district would meet standards, since there was a finding that a majority-minority district was required for Fresno, and since a 50% HCVAP district would have been possible by including part of Madera. I estimate that requires 61.5% HVAP or more.

That Fresno/Merced CD that I drew is more Hispanic than the one the Commission drew (mine is 58%; theirs is 52.8% HVAP). So that unleashed me, to try to draw a cleaner map. I wonder if there is any commentary on that issue in the Commission's written material, or in the transcripts, all of which will need to be read carefully?  Do you have any idea?  Was it because it was not deemed one community of interest?  Was it because it was impossible to get up to two 50% HCVAP CD's in the area?
[/quote]

Here's what they say in their report:
Quote
The Commission’s counsel worked with Dr. Barreto to evaluate evidence of racially
polarized voting in Fresno, Kings, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties.
After evaluating that evidence, counsel reported to the Commission that there was strong
evidence of racially polarized voting with respect to Latinos and non-Latinos in Fresno, Orange,
San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. In the judgment of the Commission’s
Voting Rights Act counsel, there were sufficient indicia that the Gingles preconditions had been
satisfied with respect to certain geographically compact Latino populations within those
counties, and there was sufficient evidence concerning the totality of the circumstances, that
there would likely be a Section 2 violation if majority-minority districts were not drawn. Counsel
further reported that the available evidence regarding racially polarized voting in Kings County
elections was inconclusive.

Then they go on to say what section 2 districts they created, but they don't list one for Fresno. ??? Instead they put part of Fresno with Kings and Bakersfield, call it a section 5 district and leave it at 49% LCVAP. Merced is then left with a lower 41% LCVAP, linked to Madera and another part of Fresno, and is again called section 5. I think there is a section 2 vulnerability, and it is implied in the MALDEF submittals. Two full section 2 districts could be drawn, but then the commission wouldn't get its cute Fresno-Visalia district at 30% LCVAP.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 30, 2012, 08:23:50 PM

So let me summarize the proposed rules.

1. A plan shall minimize county CD pieces. All pieces count towards the total, including one for the case where a county is entirely in a CD. (BTW this works against minimizing the number of counties chopped, since a tri chop counts the same as two dual shops, but that may be OK in CA).

2. When a county is split, the plan shall minimize the number of census places split within the county (ie cities). Census divisions that span a place boundary can be counted on either side of the line.

3. Pieces of counties less than 1 CD, or pieces of places between 20K and 1 CD, shall not be split leaving less than 80% of the county or place in one piece. (I don't think we settled on a number here, so I'm guessing, but you suggested that some small communities may need a larger split.)

4. Pieces that are less than 0.5% of a CD shall not count in assessing rules 1 through 3.

5. Violations of the aforementioned rules require a finding based in federal or state law approved by a supermajority of the mapping body.


This is probably buried back in your lengthy discussion, but I don't see any rationale for rule 3.  You're saying that if a county has 600,000 people it can't be split 450,000-150,000 but it can be split 500,000-100,000 (or 500,000-50,000-50,000)?  What is the distinction? 

There are a couple of goals here in search of a rule. One is to encourage smaller chops rather than large chops. The other is to limit the urge to split counties and cities right down the middle. That tends to either dilute or magnify their vote depending on what fraction of a CD they make.

I hope this is the rule Torie massages. It can go a lot of ways. One is to simply say that when there is a choice of cuts, one chooses the one that keeps a bigger fraction of the split entity intact.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 30, 2012, 08:43:08 PM

As an aside, I'm not sure how we want to count the VRA in some areas. For instance, I don't think your Merced-Fresno district would meet standards, since there was a finding that a majority-minority district was required for Fresno, and since a 50% HCVAP district would have been possible by including part of Madera. I estimate that requires 61.5% HVAP or more.

That Fresno/Merced CD that I drew is more Hispanic than the one the Commission drew (mine is 58%; theirs is 52.8% HVAP). So that unleashed me, to try to draw a cleaner map. I wonder if there is any commentary on that issue in the Commission's written material, or in the transcripts, all of which will need to be read carefully?  Do you have any idea?  Was it because it was not deemed one community of interest?  Was it because it was impossible to get up to two 50% HCVAP CD's in the area?

Here's what they say in their report:
Quote
The Commission’s counsel worked with Dr. Barreto to evaluate evidence of racially
polarized voting in Fresno, Kings, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties.
After evaluating that evidence, counsel reported to the Commission that there was strong
evidence of racially polarized voting with respect to Latinos and non-Latinos in Fresno, Orange,
San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. In the judgment of the Commission’s
Voting Rights Act counsel, there were sufficient indicia that the Gingles preconditions had been
satisfied with respect to certain geographically compact Latino populations within those
counties, and there was sufficient evidence concerning the totality of the circumstances, that
there would likely be a Section 2 violation if majority-minority districts were not drawn. Counsel
further reported that the available evidence regarding racially polarized voting in Kings County
elections was inconclusive.

Then they go on to say what section 2 districts they created, but they don't list one for Fresno. ??? Instead they put part of Fresno with Kings and Bakersfield, call it a section 5 district and leave it at 49% LCVAP. Merced is then left with a lower 41% LCVAP, linked to Madera and another part of Fresno, and is again called section 5. I think there is a section 2 vulnerability, and it is implied in the MALDEF submittals. Two full section 2 districts could be drawn, but then the commission wouldn't get its cute Fresno-Visalia district at 30% LCVAP.
[/quote]

Is there pending litigation, or a resolution of litigation, on the Section 2 issue? If you draw a map with two 50% HCVAP CD's in the area, could you put it up again? Thanks. It is still unclear to me, whether inter county Hispanic communities are considered a community of interest, but perhaps you have an opinion on that. The text you quote is a bit loose.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: dpmapper on April 30, 2012, 09:45:11 PM

So let me summarize the proposed rules.

1. A plan shall minimize county CD pieces. All pieces count towards the total, including one for the case where a county is entirely in a CD. (BTW this works against minimizing the number of counties chopped, since a tri chop counts the same as two dual shops, but that may be OK in CA).

2. When a county is split, the plan shall minimize the number of census places split within the county (ie cities). Census divisions that span a place boundary can be counted on either side of the line.

3. Pieces of counties less than 1 CD, or pieces of places between 20K and 1 CD, shall not be split leaving less than 80% of the county or place in one piece. (I don't think we settled on a number here, so I'm guessing, but you suggested that some small communities may need a larger split.)

4. Pieces that are less than 0.5% of a CD shall not count in assessing rules 1 through 3.

5. Violations of the aforementioned rules require a finding based in federal or state law approved by a supermajority of the mapping body.


This is probably buried back in your lengthy discussion, but I don't see any rationale for rule 3.  You're saying that if a county has 600,000 people it can't be split 450,000-150,000 but it can be split 500,000-100,000 (or 500,000-50,000-50,000)?  What is the distinction? 

There are a couple of goals here in search of a rule. One is to encourage smaller chops rather than large chops. The other is to limit the urge to split counties and cities right down the middle. That tends to either dilute or magnify their vote depending on what fraction of a CD they make.

I hope this is the rule Torie massages. It can go a lot of ways. One is to simply say that when there is a choice of cuts, one chooses the one that keeps a bigger fraction of the split entity intact.

Even if I grant that one should prefer 80-20 chops to 50-50 chops (which isn't at all obvious to me), your rule seems pretty weird to me.  The 80% cutoff is quite arbitrary - you're saying that you'd prefer a plan that splits one county 81-19 to a plan that splits a different county 78-22, even if the first plan requires all sorts of weird contortions (still keeping counties whole) and violations of CoI.  That's a ridiculous standard. 


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 30, 2012, 10:00:34 PM
Quote
As an aside, I'm not sure how we want to count the VRA in some areas. For instance, I don't think your Merced-Fresno district would meet standards, since there was a finding that a majority-minority district was required for Fresno, and since a 50% HCVAP district would have been possible by including part of Madera. I estimate that requires 61.5% HVAP or more.

That Fresno/Merced CD that I drew is more Hispanic than the one the Commission drew (mine is 58%; theirs is 52.8% HVAP). So that unleashed me, to try to draw a cleaner map. I wonder if there is any commentary on that issue in the Commission's written material, or in the transcripts, all of which will need to be read carefully?  Do you have any idea?  Was it because it was not deemed one community of interest?  Was it because it was impossible to get up to two 50% HCVAP CD's in the area?

Here's what they say in their report:
Quote
The Commission’s counsel worked with Dr. Barreto to evaluate evidence of racially
polarized voting in Fresno, Kings, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties.
After evaluating that evidence, counsel reported to the Commission that there was strong
evidence of racially polarized voting with respect to Latinos and non-Latinos in Fresno, Orange,
San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. In the judgment of the Commission’s
Voting Rights Act counsel, there were sufficient indicia that the Gingles preconditions had been
satisfied with respect to certain geographically compact Latino populations within those
counties, and there was sufficient evidence concerning the totality of the circumstances, that
there would likely be a Section 2 violation if majority-minority districts were not drawn. Counsel
further reported that the available evidence regarding racially polarized voting in Kings County
elections was inconclusive.

Then they go on to say what section 2 districts they created, but they don't list one for Fresno. ??? Instead they put part of Fresno with Kings and Bakersfield, call it a section 5 district and leave it at 49% LCVAP. Merced is then left with a lower 41% LCVAP, linked to Madera and another part of Fresno, and is again called section 5. I think there is a section 2 vulnerability, and it is implied in the MALDEF submittals. Two full section 2 districts could be drawn, but then the commission wouldn't get its cute Fresno-Visalia district at 30% LCVAP.

Is there pending litigation, or a resolution of litigation, on the Section 2 issue? If you draw a map with two 50% HCVAP CD's in the area, could you put it up again? Thanks. It is still unclear to me, whether inter county Hispanic communities are considered a community of interest, but perhaps you have an opinion on that. The text you quote is a bit loose.

I can only go with what's in the report, vague as it is. In the CA suits the litigants did not challenge the CV districts, so the question did not come up. I presume the logic is that section 5 districts can include coalition and crossover voting, which is not allowed in section 2. This seems like a case where the two sections are in conflict and the commission used the easier standard presented by section 5. We'll see what happens in TX this cycle, but I have a hard time seeing SCOTUS say a weak coalition district will suffice just because it's a section 5 area when a performing district for the single minority is possible under section 2.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 30, 2012, 10:06:54 PM

So let me summarize the proposed rules.

1. A plan shall minimize county CD pieces. All pieces count towards the total, including one for the case where a county is entirely in a CD. (BTW this works against minimizing the number of counties chopped, since a tri chop counts the same as two dual shops, but that may be OK in CA).

2. When a county is split, the plan shall minimize the number of census places split within the county (ie cities). Census divisions that span a place boundary can be counted on either side of the line.

3. Pieces of counties less than 1 CD, or pieces of places between 20K and 1 CD, shall not be split leaving less than 80% of the county or place in one piece. (I don't think we settled on a number here, so I'm guessing, but you suggested that some small communities may need a larger split.)

4. Pieces that are less than 0.5% of a CD shall not count in assessing rules 1 through 3.

5. Violations of the aforementioned rules require a finding based in federal or state law approved by a supermajority of the mapping body.


This is probably buried back in your lengthy discussion, but I don't see any rationale for rule 3.  You're saying that if a county has 600,000 people it can't be split 450,000-150,000 but it can be split 500,000-100,000 (or 500,000-50,000-50,000)?  What is the distinction? 

There are a couple of goals here in search of a rule. One is to encourage smaller chops rather than large chops. The other is to limit the urge to split counties and cities right down the middle. That tends to either dilute or magnify their vote depending on what fraction of a CD they make.

I hope this is the rule Torie massages. It can go a lot of ways. One is to simply say that when there is a choice of cuts, one chooses the one that keeps a bigger fraction of the split entity intact.

Even if I grant that one should prefer 80-20 chops to 50-50 chops (which isn't at all obvious to me), your rule seems pretty weird to me.  The 80% cutoff is quite arbitrary - you're saying that you'd prefer a plan that splits one county 81-19 to a plan that splits a different county 78-22, even if the first plan requires all sorts of weird contortions (still keeping counties whole) and violations of CoI.  That's a ridiculous standard. 

Splitting a jurisdiction into two relatively even parts is used to dilute their vote if the split jurisdiction can no longer compete against the other parts of the district.

It can also be used when the jurisdiction is large enough or nearly so for its own district but by making a relatively even split the jurisdiction can effectively control two districts.

Either way it is a classic gerrymandering technique. I think it is desirable to limit it by attempting to keep most of a jurisdiction intact. I agree that the 20% number is arbitrary, but that's what we had been batting around. As I just suggested it can be modified to remove the reliance on a specific number yet still having a meaningful impact on a map.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: dpmapper on April 30, 2012, 10:30:44 PM


Splitting a jurisdiction into two relatively even parts is used to dilute their vote if the split jurisdiction can no longer compete against the other parts of the district.

It can also be used when the jurisdiction is large enough or nearly so for its own district but by making a relatively even split the jurisdiction can effectively control two districts.

Either way it is a classic gerrymandering technique. I think it is desirable to limit it by attempting to keep most of a jurisdiction intact. I agree that the 20% number is arbitrary, but that's what we had been batting around. As I just suggested it can be modified to remove the reliance on a specific number yet still having a meaningful impact on a map.

So if a jurisdiction is small, splitting it weakens its power.  If it's large, splitting it enhances its power.  If it's medium-sized, I guess it does neither? 

In any case, my point is not that splits aren't bad (and you still haven't convinced me that a 80-20 split isn't equally bad - doesn't that sort of dilute the 80% part and really dilute the 20% part? - but never mind that), but that having a hard and fast rule regarding them is bound to have perverse consequences. 


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 30, 2012, 10:31:43 PM
Maybe maps need to be drawn both ways, given the ambiguity in the VRA law - assuming two 50% HCVAP CD's can in fact be drawn, without looking ludicrous.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on April 30, 2012, 10:33:10 PM


Splitting a jurisdiction into two relatively even parts is used to dilute their vote if the split jurisdiction can no longer compete against the other parts of the district.

It can also be used when the jurisdiction is large enough or nearly so for its own district but by making a relatively even split the jurisdiction can effectively control two districts.

Either way it is a classic gerrymandering technique. I think it is desirable to limit it by attempting to keep most of a jurisdiction intact. I agree that the 20% number is arbitrary, but that's what we had been batting around. As I just suggested it can be modified to remove the reliance on a specific number yet still having a meaningful impact on a map.

So if a jurisdiction is small, splitting it weakens its power.  If it's large, splitting it enhances its power.  If it's medium-sized, I guess it does neither? 

In any case, my point is not that splits aren't bad (and you still haven't convinced me that a 80-20 split isn't equally bad - doesn't that sort of dilute the 80% part and really dilute the 20% part? - but never mind that), but that having a hard and fast rule regarding them is bound to have perverse consequences. 

Thus the "finding" out for most stuff that goes beyond the Michigan rules.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 30, 2012, 11:02:26 PM
Maybe maps need to be drawn both ways, given the ambiguity in the VRA law - assuming two 50% HCVAP CD's can in fact be drawn, without looking ludicrous.

Here are the CDs I drew for the CV during our Jan '12 exercise. The Merced-Fresno CD is 62.0% HVAP which should be about 50.5% HCVAP. The Bakersfield-Kings-Tulare CD is 65.3% HVAP which is equivalent to 50.1% HCVAP for that area.

()
()


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 30, 2012, 11:21:47 PM


Splitting a jurisdiction into two relatively even parts is used to dilute their vote if the split jurisdiction can no longer compete against the other parts of the district.

It can also be used when the jurisdiction is large enough or nearly so for its own district but by making a relatively even split the jurisdiction can effectively control two districts.

Either way it is a classic gerrymandering technique. I think it is desirable to limit it by attempting to keep most of a jurisdiction intact. I agree that the 20% number is arbitrary, but that's what we had been batting around. As I just suggested it can be modified to remove the reliance on a specific number yet still having a meaningful impact on a map.

So if a jurisdiction is small, splitting it weakens its power.  If it's large, splitting it enhances its power.  If it's medium-sized, I guess it does neither? 

In any case, my point is not that splits aren't bad (and you still haven't convinced me that a 80-20 split isn't equally bad - doesn't that sort of dilute the 80% part and really dilute the 20% part? - but never mind that), but that having a hard and fast rule regarding them is bound to have perverse consequences. 

Thus the "finding" out for most stuff that goes beyond the Michigan rules.


The question is not whether splits are bad. Every serious neutral mapping model tries to minimize them. The first thing that the public notices is how many districts serve their jurisdiction, and those splits generally get the most public criticism. Gerrymandering is about trying to tilt the vote, and it isn't only about party, it can also be for power or to deny another power. The closer a jurisdiction is to whole, the less manipulation can take place. So that would say that a 80-20 split is preferable to a 50-50 split if everything else is equal.

Torie, are you saying that this should be the rule, or that you want to massage it first? I still fear you will not be satisfied because all good rules will create a bind in some part of the map. The question for me is whether the rule is soundly based and can be agreed to. If that makes a bad spot or two for an observer, does that obviate the rule? Can the good done by a rule elsewhere in a map overcome uncomfortable results in another?

Chop counting rules are explicit in some states and the 0.5% rule has been used in a number of competitions, such as in OH, so I don't see the need to engage in findings before agreement. I can show you the results. As I've noted, rule 3 is one I stuck in to try to complete the discussion on this point. I'm not exactly comfortable with it as is, but I didn't suggest the 20% originally. If you'd rather not have any constraint on deep chops, then you have to be willing for the commission to make them.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on April 30, 2012, 11:44:57 PM
My concern about a .5% chop not counting as a chop is that it will force twisted sister maps. I suppose staff could come up with the options using that escape hatch to get a minimum chop count, and the Commission could say that they all suck - in other words the Commission could veto the maps with a supra majority vote, just like is required to pass a map. Then you go back to the minimum chop rules.  That plus the supra majority, with a majority from each party, should preclude anything approaching a Michigan style gerrymander.

I still strongly reject however banning the percentage of CD that chops limitation rule.  The 20% limitation of a county rule that is chopped is sufficient, and the Commission should have the power to override that with a finding as well (e.g., it is OK to have a more than 20% chop of SLO in my signature map on the grounds or protecting the Santa Cruz metro area, with a wall on the Ventura County line, because wall placement elsewhere does lead to a SC chop or a crossing of the Tehachapi 's, or over Luther Pass).

I am pleased that counting the number of chops per county method does not bias where the chops are apparently.  Whew!  :)

So let me summarize the proposed rules.

1. A plan shall minimize county CD pieces. All pieces count towards the total, including one for the case where a county is entirely in a CD. (BTW this works against minimizing the number of counties chopped, since a tri chop counts the same as two dual shops, but that may be OK in CA).

2. When a county is split, the plan shall minimize the number of census places split within the county (ie cities). Census divisions that span a place boundary can be counted on either side of the line.

3. Pieces of counties less than 1 CD, or pieces of places between 20K and 1 CD, shall not be split leaving less than 80% of the county or place in one piece. (I don't think we settled on a number here, so I'm guessing, but you suggested that some small communities may need a larger split.)

4. Pieces that are less than 0.5% of a CD shall not count in assessing rules 1 through 3.

5. Violations of the aforementioned rules require a finding based in federal or state law approved by a supermajority of the mapping body.

Are we ready? Remember, I don't want to draw and then change the rules to suit a change. That's what the biased groups do, and commissions can have biases that aren't partisan. :P

We are getting close on the rules, but I want to massage them a bit (and of course, only one of us is a near genius, and neither geniuses), so if something comes up in practice that is unanticipated, either of us have a right to say, oh dear, wait a minute. But hopefully that will not happen.  I wonder how many maps given all the constraints would be theoretically possible (putting aside the details of how the interior of a county are chopped up).  Do you have any idea?

To get back to this question, you need only look at the wide range of maps submitted in some of the competitions. Most of them had stronger rules than what we are talking about here.

For instance, in OH there were quite a few different variations of maps to find groupings of counties that allowed one to take advantage of the 0.5% rule while minimizing chops (they used counting method 1). Those maps were also simultaneously trying to factor in compactness (also used by MI but just to resolving chops) and maximize political fairness and competitiveness, none of which have we even touched on here.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: dpmapper on May 01, 2012, 01:32:52 PM

Thus the "finding" out for most stuff that goes beyond the Michigan rules.

I don't need any experimentation to know that there will be perverse consequences. 

For instance, suppose you've got three adjacent counties with equal population.  How do you split them into two districts, while maintaining your rules?  It's impossible. 

To give a case where it's possible, but has ridiculous implications, consider 5 counties.  County A, with a population of 5, is farthest west, bordering only county B, population 1, just to the east.  B borders both C and D which both have population 5.  Finally county E is farthest east and borders both C and D, with population 2.  Divide this up into 2 districts following your rules - the only way you can do it is if you have one district comprised of counties A, B, and E plus a connecting strip in either C or D. 


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on May 01, 2012, 02:51:45 PM

Thus the "finding" out for most stuff that goes beyond the Michigan rules.

I don't need any experimentation to know that there will be perverse consequences.  

For instance, suppose you've got three adjacent counties with equal population.  How do you split them into two districts, while maintaining your rules?  It's impossible.  

To give a case where it's possible, but has ridiculous implications, consider 5 counties.  County A, with a population of 5, is farthest west, bordering only county B, population 1, just to the east.  B borders both C and D which both have population 5.  Finally county E is farthest east and borders both C and D, with population 2.  Divide this up into 2 districts following your rules - the only way you can do it is if you have one district comprised of counties A, B, and E plus a connecting strip in either C or D.  

The use of a connecting strip between whole counties is not unusual in a state with whole county preservation rules. Ohio Senatorial districts often end up with such a strip. Check out current SD 12 and 33 in OH as examples. New HD 102 in MI is another example in a state with county preservation rules.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: dpmapper on May 01, 2012, 03:04:14 PM

Thus the "finding" out for most stuff that goes beyond the Michigan rules.

I don't need any experimentation to know that there will be perverse consequences. 

For instance, suppose you've got three adjacent counties with equal population.  How do you split them into two districts, while maintaining your rules?  It's impossible. 

To give a case where it's possible, but has ridiculous implications, consider 5 counties.  County A, with a population of 5, is farthest west, bordering only county B, population 1, just to the east.  B borders both C and D which both have population 5.  Finally county E is farthest east and borders both C and D, with population 2.  Divide this up into 2 districts following your rules - the only way you can do it is if you have one district comprised of counties A, B, and E plus a connecting strip in either C or D. 

The use of a connecting strip between whole counties is not unusual in a state with whole county preservation rules. Ohio Senatorial districts often end up with such a strip. Check out current SD 12 and 33 in OH as examples.

Yes, I've seen those.  They're ugly, and if I were a mapmaker I wouldn't want to be forced into one of them for the sake of an arbitrary 80% split cutoff. 


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on May 01, 2012, 11:22:30 PM

Thus the "finding" out for most stuff that goes beyond the Michigan rules.

I don't need any experimentation to know that there will be perverse consequences. 

For instance, suppose you've got three adjacent counties with equal population.  How do you split them into two districts, while maintaining your rules?  It's impossible. 

To give a case where it's possible, but has ridiculous implications, consider 5 counties.  County A, with a population of 5, is farthest west, bordering only county B, population 1, just to the east.  B borders both C and D which both have population 5.  Finally county E is farthest east and borders both C and D, with population 2.  Divide this up into 2 districts following your rules - the only way you can do it is if you have one district comprised of counties A, B, and E plus a connecting strip in either C or D. 

The use of a connecting strip between whole counties is not unusual in a state with whole county preservation rules. Ohio Senatorial districts often end up with such a strip. Check out current SD 12 and 33 in OH as examples.

Yes, I've seen those.  They're ugly, and if I were a mapmaker I wouldn't want to be forced into one of them for the sake of an arbitrary 80% split cutoff. 

A percent split isn't what forced those examples to happen. They arose just from the way county splits are counted. Would you like to suggest a rule that would discourage those type of districts?


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: dpmapper on May 02, 2012, 07:35:38 AM


A percent split isn't what forced those examples to happen. They arose just from the way county splits are counted. Would you like to suggest a rule that would discourage those type of districts?

I'm aware of that, too.  My point was that we shouldn't want to force ourselves into making more of them.  Ohio's rules at least have the virtue of being non-arbitrary; the 80% rule that you are suggesting does not. 

In my 5-county scenario, do you honestly prefer an A/B/strip from C/E district over trying to find a natural division of C or D to make one western district and one eastern district? 

Quote
To give a case where it's possible, but has ridiculous implications, consider 5 counties.  County A, with a population of 5, is farthest west, bordering only county B, population 1, just to the east.  B borders both C and D which both have population 5.  Finally county E is farthest east and borders both C and D, with population 2.  Divide this up into 2 districts following your rules - the only way you can do it is if you have one district comprised of counties A, B, and E plus a connecting strip in either C or D. 

As far as proposing new rules go, no, I think trying to prevent shenanigans by writing a comprehensive set of convoluted and semi-arbitrary rules will be counterproductive.  C'mon, Muon, you're a Republican - you should know all about unintended consequences of well-meaning regulation. 


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on May 02, 2012, 07:57:47 AM


A percent split isn't what forced those examples to happen. They arose just from the way county splits are counted. Would you like to suggest a rule that would discourage those type of districts?

I'm aware of that, too.  My point was that we shouldn't want to force ourselves into making more of them.  Ohio's rules at least have the virtue of being non-arbitrary; the 80% rule that you are suggesting does not. 

In my 5-county scenario, do you honestly prefer an A/B/strip from C/E district over trying to find a natural division of C or D to make one western district and one eastern district? 

By natural it appears you mean compact. Compactness is a perfectly acceptable standard, but there are many different mathematical definitions. It's been abused in many states where compactness is not specifically defined. IL lists compactness, but absent a definition it has been twisted all sorts of ways by who ever draws the map.

Quote
Quote
To give a case where it's possible, but has ridiculous implications, consider 5 counties.  County A, with a population of 5, is farthest west, bordering only county B, population 1, just to the east.  B borders both C and D which both have population 5.  Finally county E is farthest east and borders both C and D, with population 2.  Divide this up into 2 districts following your rules - the only way you can do it is if you have one district comprised of counties A, B, and E plus a connecting strip in either C or D. 

As far as proposing new rules go, no, I think trying to prevent shenanigans by writing a comprehensive set of convoluted and semi-arbitrary rules will be counterproductive.  C'mon, Muon, you're a Republican - you should know all about unintended consequences of well-meaning regulation. 

I'm for allowing the people to have the most say in who their representatives are. I've seen states where the regulation of the mappers aids the public by encouraging more choice, and I've seen states where lack of restrictions on the mappers results in bias whether intentional or unintentional. I'll choose the path that provides the most freedom for the public, not the mappers.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on May 03, 2012, 05:24:29 PM
I haven't seen any other feedback, but if I take into account dpmapper's concern for the shape of some districts due to county preservation, and lack of specific justification for the 20% clause. I would offer the following revised rules. Some simple testing leads me to believe that there is some flexibility, much like the OH contest. I'm also adding a post test to block blatantly partisan maps as one gets in OH or MI on geographic rules alone.

1. A plan shall minimize county CD pieces. All pieces count towards the total, including one for the case where a county is entirely in a CD.

2. Contiguous county pieces require a connection by public road, and two whole counties in a CD shall not be connected if their only connection is through a split piece of a county.

3. When a county is split, the plan shall minimize the number of census places split within the county (ie cities). Census divisions that span a place boundary can be counted on either side of the line.

4. Pieces that are less than 0.5% of a CD shall not count in assessing rules 1 through 3.

5. Violations of the aforementioned rules require a finding based in federal or state law approved by a supermajority of the mapping body.

*****
As an example, here is my plan for the northern inland counties. All CDs are within 100 of the ideal population. County pieces in Siskiyou (12), Glenn (3), Yuba (1), Tuolomme (6), Merced (9) are all under 0.5% of a CD (3515). That leaves a plan with three CD pieces in Alameda and Sacramento,two CD pieces in Fresno, Madera, and San Joaquin, and one in all other counties shown. The excess piece in Madera is due to my drawing of CD 11 to have an HCVAP over 50% (62.0% HVAP).

I also like that the counties including CDs 4-11 are only 28 persons short of the exact population for 8 CDs. 8)

()


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on May 03, 2012, 05:30:36 PM
I put my first salvo of thinking on this on the wrong thread. :P

And what does the bolded bit below mean exactly, and in particular the words "based in?"

Quote
5. Violations of the aforementioned rules require a finding based in federal or state law approved by a supermajority of the mapping body.



Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on May 03, 2012, 05:55:50 PM
I put my first salvo of thinking on this on the wrong thread. :P

And what does the bolded bit below mean exactly, and in particular the words "based in?"

Quote
5. Violations of the aforementioned rules require a finding based in federal or state law approved by a supermajority of the mapping body.



For instance, a split of a community of interest is specific to CA law, so if one wants more chops it requires a supermajority. A federal example would be our difference in the Fresno area. A section 5 map doesn't need Madera, but if one want to preclude any section 2 challenge then the 50% HCVAP district needs to be drawn. That sort of decision would also seem to me to need a supermajority vote of the body.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on May 03, 2012, 09:56:57 PM
Here's the coastal counties. I maintained Torie's walls in the south, so the 0.5% rule wasn't applicable within this region. The region is short of 11 CDs by 4197 persons and gains population from Siskiyou and LAC each with a fragment under 0.5% of a CD.

The wine country is almost together as in my version earlier in the thread. It just loses some of Sonoma county south of Santa Rosa in exchange for all of the north coast. This should please some of the other forum "commissioners" concerned about Eureka paired with Redding. About 68K from Marin south of San Rafael is attached to SF for pop equality, otherwise SV and the central coast is not unlike Torie's map.

There is one split more than the minimum. I was unable to do better than the commission for the Monterey CD (20) without a long appendage into SJ. As drawn CD 20 has HVAP 46.3% for section 5. Staying entirely within Santa Clara county I was still able to get CD 17 to AVAP 50.7% while only splitting SJ.

()


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: dpmapper on May 03, 2012, 10:38:26 PM
2. Contiguous county pieces require a connection by public road, and two whole counties in a CD shall not be connected if their only connection is through a split piece of a county.


Not a bad rule... but doesn't your proposed CD-12 violate it? 


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on May 03, 2012, 11:03:50 PM
2. Contiguous county pieces require a connection by public road, and two whole counties in a CD shall not be connected if their only connection is through a split piece of a county.


Not a bad rule... but doesn't your proposed CD-12 violate it? 

You are right. But as I mentioned many on the thread preferred a community of interest that linked the whole coast, so this commission might well accept that violation. Also, with that grouping of counties Napa will always link to other counties through a split Sonoma, or there would be a split of both Napa and Sonoma for no reason other than to preserve that rule, and for me the first rule has priority over the second. Another alternative I looked at was some other grouping, such as my initial wine country plan, but that created districts on either the east or west side of the state that were roundly rejected.

I understood the sense of the posters was to have rules that had a certain amount of flex so that there was a way out of a bad map. The way they are constructed, there are times where they will conflict with each other and the mapper can choose how to resolve the conflict.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on May 04, 2012, 12:33:33 AM
This is the southern region of CDs. The counties closely match Torie's wall and is only 1019 over population for 31 CDs. The counties can be divided into three groups: Kings-Tulare-Kern-Mono-Inyo-SanB (5 CDs), LA (14 CDs), Riverside-Orange-SanDiego-Imperial (12 CDs), and each of these groups is close enough in population to a whole number of CDs that they could all be drawn within 0.5% of the ideal size without crossing out of their group of counties.

In this map, populations are with 100 of the ideal (except 24 at -119) so the microchop rule is used on four fragments in LAC (22, 24, 26, 27) and one in Riverside (25). There is one extra fragment due to the VRA requirements for CD 23 at 65.2% HVAP and it is over 50% HCVAP.

CD 53 uses the excess in Riverside in Coachella to avoid any part of the city of San Diego and get 65.5% HVAP. That allows all of the city of San Diego to be only in either CD 50 or 52.

The minority CDs are as follows:

CD 23: 65.2% HVAP
CD 27: 63.1% HVAP
CD 29: 63.9% HVAP
CD 32: 61.3% HVAP
CD 34: 64.5% HVAP
CD 35: 51.0% AVAP
CD 36: 68.4% HVAP
CD 37: 43.3% BVAP/44.9% HVAP (BCVAP majority)
CD 38: 67.5% HVAP
CD 39: 72.1% HVAP
CD 42: 51.3% HVAP
CD 46: 65.0% HVAP
CD 53: 65.5% HVAP

()
()


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on May 04, 2012, 02:14:37 AM
I'm not sure I quite understand the purpose of drawing an Asian-majority district in Santa Clara County. I can't think of any reading of the VRA that would require it.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on May 04, 2012, 07:57:19 AM
I'm not sure I quite understand the purpose of drawing an Asian-majority district in Santa Clara County. I can't think of any reading of the VRA that would require it.

I don't think the VRA under the 9th circuit does require it. But I could do it while only splitting one city that had to be split anyway. I chose that to be my community of interest rather than using some other grouping.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on May 04, 2012, 08:57:17 AM
Excellent map, Mike.  I am wondering why you messed with my LA County CD's however.  What bothered you?

Do you have any sense of how many options vis a vis regions, and vis a vis micro chops, the Commission would have to choose from under the micro-chop regime?  That is a sensitive point.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on May 04, 2012, 10:40:57 AM
Excellent map, Mike.  I am wondering why you messed with my LA County CD's however.  What bothered you?

Do you have any sense of how many options vis a vis regions, and vis a vis micro chops, the Commission would have to choose from under the micro-chop regime?  That is a sensitive point.

It was faster for me to start with my January map, so it wasn't that I was trying to mess with your CDs. I do like that Brea is just about the right size to join the Asian tiger so that Chino Hills avoids the chop. Have you looked at that as an option?

I don't know the number of permutations, but from my comments about Napa you can see where I've provided for some trade offs in the rules. For instance I use four microchops to eliminate your single chop into Pomona. If a single chop better preserves a city that becomes a legit tradeoff to consider. With this plan I count 106 total pieces, including whole county pieces, and 10 microchops.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on May 04, 2012, 10:59:45 AM
Well my last map got rid of the Chino Hills chop, and had that small chop in Pomona. Where are the 4 micro-chops, and how do they avoid my small chop into Pomona?  I didn't consider appending Brea to the Asian CD (it lost Chino Hills, and took most of West Covina instead, and it worked out pretty well), and there is a big empty zone between Diamond Bar and Brea through a long pass, and the two towns are really different worlds. That is an undesirable mix, and should be avoided if possible. I much prefer adding Seal Beach to Long Beach.  That is an excellent fit, with Corona being appended to an OC based CD the second best (strong commuter and economic connections there).


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Sbane on May 04, 2012, 11:09:49 AM
Well, it looks like I can't convince you not to cross into CCC from Marin, but other than that good map. The Marin situation can be easily fixed of course, but would need a chop of Solano.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on May 04, 2012, 11:38:13 AM
2. Contiguous county pieces require a connection by public road, and two whole counties in a CD shall not be connected if their only connection is through a split piece of a county.


Not a bad rule... but doesn't your proposed CD-12 violate it? 

You are right. But as I mentioned many on the thread preferred a community of interest that linked the whole coast, so this commission might well accept that violation. Also, with that grouping of counties Napa will always link to other counties through a split Sonoma, or there would be a split of both Napa and Sonoma for no reason other than to preserve that rule, and for me the first rule has priority over the second. Another alternative I looked at was some other grouping, such as my initial wine country plan, but that created districts on either the east or west side of the state that were roundly rejected.

I understood the sense of the posters was to have rules that had a certain amount of flex so that there was a way out of a bad map. The way they are constructed, there are times where they will conflict with each other and the mapper can choose how to resolve the conflict.

You are preserving exactly what rule?  As to this business of the Commission voting for something that is not legal, do you mean simply per the statute having the power to depart from the otherwise applicable rule, maybe by a supra-majority?

Another issue is compactness. To get compactness might require an override of something else. We should consider one of your definitions of that perhaps. This compactness issue mostly obtains in the CA-01/CA-02 territory, or around the Sierra's potentially. But that may be a mechanism by which Sonoma acting as a bridge could be adopted as the price for compactness (the Commission used it as a bridge too of course, I suspect for that reason actually).


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on May 04, 2012, 11:55:46 AM
Well my last map got rid of the Chino Hills chop, and had that small chop in Pomona. Where are the 4 micro-chops, and how do they avoid my small chop into Pomona?  I didn't consider appending Brea to the Asian CD (it lost Chino Hills, and took most of West Covina instead, and it worked out pretty well), and there is a big empty zone between Diamond Bar and Brea through a long pass, and the two towns are really different worlds. That is an undesirable mix, and should be avoided if possible. I much prefer adding Seal Beach to Long Beach.  That is an excellent fit, with Corona being appended to an OC based CD the second best (strong commuter and economic connections there).

I agree that the Chino Hills chop has to go. Leaving it in costs a chop over all since the excess pop is in OC/SD/Riverside, not in SanB. I noted that since Kern and SanB were inked at Ridgecrest I could consider the whole 6 counties as a single unit with 5 CDs. It was short by 11,774 persons which you grab from Pomona (plus the extra 1K pushed through from Tulare's microchop in your map. If I take the 11,774 and divide it between 4 CDs I can make it into 4 microchops. They are in NW LAC from Kern (24), in Claremont from Upland (26), in Pomona from Chino (27), and in Calimesa from Yucaipa (25). The 1 K that you chopped into Tulare I rotated all the way around to a microchop into Agoura Hills from Oak Park.

I didn't realize the Orange Fwy into Brea was any worse than the connection from Anaheim to Corona which also seems pretty empty between. I'll look at your Seal Beach version again, and see what it does to HVAPs. But there's some advantage to multiple implementations, as it shows that there is limited flexibility within the rules.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on May 04, 2012, 12:10:44 PM
2. Contiguous county pieces require a connection by public road, and two whole counties in a CD shall not be connected if their only connection is through a split piece of a county.


Not a bad rule... but doesn't your proposed CD-12 violate it? 

You are right. But as I mentioned many on the thread preferred a community of interest that linked the whole coast, so this commission might well accept that violation. Also, with that grouping of counties Napa will always link to other counties through a split Sonoma, or there would be a split of both Napa and Sonoma for no reason other than to preserve that rule, and for me the first rule has priority over the second. Another alternative I looked at was some other grouping, such as my initial wine country plan, but that created districts on either the east or west side of the state that were roundly rejected.

I understood the sense of the posters was to have rules that had a certain amount of flex so that there was a way out of a bad map. The way they are constructed, there are times where they will conflict with each other and the mapper can choose how to resolve the conflict.

You are preserving exactly what rule?  As to this business of the Commission voting for something that is not legal, do you mean simply per the statute having the power to depart from the otherwise applicable rule, maybe by a supra-majority?

Another issue is compactness. To get compactness might require an override of something else. We should consider one of your definitions of that perhaps. This compactness issue mostly obtains in the CA-01/CA-02 territory, or around the Sierra's potentially. But that may be a mechanism by which Sonoma acting as a bridge could be adopted as the price for compactness (the Commission used it as a bridge too of course, I suspect for that reason actually).

The rule I was preserving was to minimize chops. Consider that I could have split Napa into two pieces shuffled some population in Sonoma and attached the southern piece of Napa to northern Marin through southern Sonoma. At that point there is no rule violation for a bridge since Napa is not whole, but is was a gratuitous chop of Napa that allowed the bypass. It seems silly to chop Napa just to avoid that rule, so I decided that the bridge rule was of lower priority.

Based on comments, I viewed the rules as binding the commission without an override vote. My observation is that not all see the law the same way. I would say the Commission's map violated section 2 of the VRA in the CV, but clearly they agreed that section 5 allowed them to meet the VRA without 50% HCVAP districts in spite of the finding that the Gingles conditions were met.

I agree compactness should count, and there are two ways. One is to look at the district as a whole. The other is to look at how a chop changes the compactness of a district as in MI.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on May 04, 2012, 07:25:00 PM
Is this 4 micro-chops in lieu of one large but still small chop really going to sell? How can it be defended without looking silly?  Maybe a micro-chop only counts where it is in lieu of one non micro chop. I think the idea is to drive to your regional groupings (assuming we have some choices), and require a supra majority to dump them.

A normal majority should make legal determinations, and if they think the VRA demands a rule be violated, with no other way, then that should be enough. You think they thought section 5 trumped section 2, and using a section 5 standard could negate the violation of a section 2 violation, thereby making suspect jurisdictions have an easier standard in some instances?  That makes no sense at all?


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on May 05, 2012, 07:59:09 AM
Is this 4 micro-chops in lieu of one large but still small chop really going to sell? How can it be defended without looking silly?  Maybe a micro-chop only counts where it is in lieu of one non micro chop. I think the idea is to drive to your regional groupings (assuming we have some choices), and require a supra majority to dump them.

The basis of the microchop is that SCOTUS has permitted population deviations in some narrow instances creating a range of up to 1% for CDs, which can be achieved by keeping individual deviations to 0.5%. For example MA had a range of 0.29% for its CDs in the 2000. The WV case will probably add some clarity, and the SCOTUS order is generally viewed as favoring that state's position on deviations. With microchops, a plan can have exact equality and if they are removed by swapping the population back to district on the other side of the county line, the districts are all still within a 1% range.

Generally CDs require exact equality under the standard of Wesberry. In followup cases the court ruled that states can deviate but must provide specific justification for deviations showing they could not be reduced. This is from Karcher:

Quote
The showing required to justify population deviations is flexible, depending on the size of the deviations, the importance of the state's interests, the consistency with which the plan as a whole reflects those interests, and the availability of alternatives that might substantially vindicate those interests yet approximate population equality more closely.

The CA Constitution provides a possibility for deviations:

Quote
Congressional districts shall achieve population equality as nearly
as is practicable, and Senatorial, Assembly, and State Board of
Equalization districts shall have reasonably equal population with
other districts for the same office, except where deviation is
required to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act or allowable by
law
.
...
The geographic integrity of any city, county, city and county,
local neighborhood, or local community of interest shall be
respected in a manner that minimizes their division to the extent
possible without violating the requirements of any of the preceding
subdivisions.

I read all of that as saying if law permits the deviations to meet the constitutional goals properly applied, then there can be population deviations. SCOTUS permits deviations for compelling state interests such as constitutional clauses involving whole counties or towns. Therefore deviations that would exist by swapping microchops back into whole counties are permitted, and if they are not for specific districts, restoring the microchop is the simple remedy. AR did just that in 2001 where they had two maps one with whole counties and one with microchops for equality. The whole county map was not challenged.

In this scenario the commission would have to determine if a certain number of microchops outweighed one regular chop. The size and placement of those microchops could also factor into the commission's determination.

Quote
A normal majority should make legal determinations, and if they think the VRA demands a rule be violated, with no other way, then that should be enough. You think they thought section 5 trumped section 2, and using a section 5 standard could negate the violation of a section 2 violation, thereby making suspect jurisdictions have an easier standard in some instances?  That makes no sense at all?

Reading the report, this is the only conclusion I can draw. If there was some other basis for avoiding a section 2 district when it was possible and the preconditions were met, it is not in the report.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on May 05, 2012, 11:00:50 AM
What is the SCOTUS microchop case, and if the law is clear, why then just not have the population deviations? That makes a lot more sense than a host of microchops, on the theory that they can be done away with, but won't be. In any event, when you say the commission can decide on one bigger chop or four microchops, is that by a normal vote, or a supra majority vote in your thinking? If by normal majority, than the microchop regime gives the commissions more options. I assume you think it needs a supra majority if the issue is one normal chop versus one microchop, is that correct? It is only when you have extra microchops, that this issue arises.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: muon2 on May 05, 2012, 12:20:33 PM
What is the SCOTUS microchop case, and if the law is clear, why then just not have the population deviations? That makes a lot more sense than a host of microchops, on the theory that they can be done away with, but won't be. In any event, when you say the commission can decide on one bigger chop or four microchops, is that by a normal vote, or a supra majority vote in your thinking? If by normal majority, than the microchop regime gives the commissions more options. I assume you think it needs a supra majority if the issue is one normal chop versus one microchop, is that correct? It is only when you have extra microchops, that this issue arises.

There is some lack of clarity in the law, which is why almost all states go to exact equality. The court said that if you don't want exact equality you had better show why in detail. New Jersey lost in the Karcher case, because they couldn't show that they had the best way to achieve state goals with minimum deviation. Yet IA never has exact equality because they have rigidly adhered to their standards. Historically AR and MA also had significant deviations as they held to standards involving counties and towns respectively. However, they both bailed in this cycle and went to exact equality, not because of the courts, but because the legislature didn't like the map those standards would create.

Here's a useful table (http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/redist/redistricting-population-deviation-2000.aspx) showing the states and their deviations in the last cycle. One can see a number with deviations beyond exact population. Of note is the 0.6% range (0.3% max deviation) in ID. That came from a commission and includes a county and city split.

As I noted this is the crux of the WV case. Most observers felt that the SCOTUS order overturning the lower court's decision to force a remap for smaller deviations read favorably for the state. I hope this case clarifies the standard required of a state to deviate from equality.


Title: Re: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
Post by: Torie on May 05, 2012, 10:42:25 PM
I have promised myself to have some rules up in a couple of days for discussion, elaborating on yours, which are a most useful start. Some of this hazarai needed to be worked through. There are just so many sand traps.