Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 25, 2015, 05:14:21 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1069
1  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / MOVED: European Union cities tournament (round 1) on: January 24, 2015, 08:50:41 am
This topic has been moved to Forum Community - Survivor Board.

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=206238.0
2  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of modern houses on: January 23, 2015, 07:40:43 pm
Depends on the house, the location, and the setting. Some I like very much, some I loathe. It's all about good design, and part of good design is to be in harmony with the surroundings.
3  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Real Life Picture Thread (PAPOY Creepfest 2015) on: January 23, 2015, 05:43:24 pm


Martin Van Buren was married here as well in 1802 (house is in Catskill, NY). He actually practiced law in Hudson for a time.
4  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Largest U.S. Metro Areas Survivor (Semifinal Round) on: January 23, 2015, 05:33:40 pm
NYC and Boston.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Sarah Palin: "Of course" interested in 2016 White House bid on: January 23, 2015, 05:21:40 pm
Who is she again?  The name rings a vague bell. I guess her speaking fees are dropping. Time to juice them up again.
6  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Which city is deader for the GOP: Chicago or San Francisco on: January 23, 2015, 04:29:07 pm
Illinois, like NY, is less ideological than the left coast. So things can swing a bit more.
7  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Are you still a virgin? on: January 23, 2015, 04:27:01 pm
I can't remember.
8  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: US House Redistricting: Michigan on: January 23, 2015, 10:56:23 am
Well we can quibble about the highway cuts. Rochester Road seems to quit being a state highway at the south end (the color changes), but maybe not, and I don't see a highway cut with my microchop into West Bloomfield.

I don't get the bit about one or more chops to create a microchop (we are talking about looking at internal chops give a microchop, versus not doing so), but putting that aside, what I was saying, was that with no macrochop, I don't see language about worrying about intra UCC chops, because you don't get to that level of "granularity" as you put it absent a microchop. What can you get away with absent a macrochop, that you can't if there is one? What exactly turns on the categorization, in practical terms?

"State highways are not particularly relevant at the township level, since there aren't enough to establish connectivity. If there is one it might be the preferred connection, but it isn't a guarantee. A state highway on the border of a unit counts in both units for establishing a path for a connection. In your example, I see no reward for the microchop, it looks to me like it increases erosity by one. On your other point I'm still assessing my suggestion that the sum of microchops in a unit be considered as a potential chop, which would address the case you raise when turning Troy into a microchop."

The above is also opaque. I thought highway cuts between CD's were relevant. I assumed highways along borders are not deemed cut. Yes, there are not tons of highways within individual townships But in cities, there seem to be in Oakland County), which is why you are free up to a point to chop away at some townships. How is this relevant to anything we are talking about?  The issue is chop count versus erosity, and whether it is desirable to encourage penalty free chops to reduce highway cuts.

We are not communicating well today. Sad
9  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Boehner flirts with treason on: January 23, 2015, 10:40:08 am
Your made up title departing from the title actually used in the article, is tendentious Lief, and maybe against the terms of use, but I ain't looking it up or going to pursue that. The real title was tendentious enough, but no, you wanted more. Anyway, in my view, it's a free country, and anyone can invite anyone into this country, to speak anywhere, if otherwise legal (so no, it would not be appropriate to invite Castro, because it is not legal for him to go to DC, and he couldn't get a visa anyway), and it doesn't bother me. This is just a policy difference spat, and having disagreements about foreign policy is anything but treason - it's as American as apple pie.

Oh the hypocrisy.

Again,
Just imagine if Democrats did the same with left-wing Latin American Presidents when a Republican is in office...

I didn't make up the law about Cuba and Castro. But we should follow laws, even if we don't like them (unless one wants to engage in civil disobedience, and face the consequences). In point of fact, I would repeal the Cuba embargo, and allow Castro to go anywhere he wants, anytime, myself, but that is just me.

How about Nancy Pelosi inviting Chavez in 2007? I'm really curious how our resident blue avatars would have reacted to that. Roll Eyes

He's welcome too. In fact, he should give a lecture and take questions, with me in the audience, so that I can trash him publicly. Bring it on baby! Tongue  Stereotyping "blue avatars" in such a crude way is such a tired and boring exercise around here. Most blue avatars I suspect are all in favor of open dialogue and free speech, and more than willing to let SOB's say what they want to say. We are not afraid they will somehow corrupt the Fruited Plain.  Thanks. 
10  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Boehner flirts with treason on: January 23, 2015, 09:50:47 am
Your made up title departing from the title actually used in the article, is tendentious Lief, and maybe against the terms of use, but I ain't looking it up or going to pursue that. The real title was tendentious enough, but no, you wanted more. Anyway, in my view, it's a free country, and anyone can invite anyone into this country, to speak anywhere, if otherwise legal (so no, it would not be appropriate to invite Castro, because it is not legal for him to go to DC, and he couldn't get a visa anyway), and it doesn't bother me. This is just a policy difference spat, and having disagreements about foreign policy is anything but treason - it's as American as apple pie.

Oh the hypocrisy.

Again,
Just imagine if Democrats did the same with left-wing Latin American Presidents when a Republican is in office...

I didn't make up the law about Cuba and Castro. But we should follow laws, even if we don't like them (unless one wants to engage in civil disobedience, and face the consequences). In point of fact, I would repeal the Cuba embargo, and allow Castro to go anywhere he wants, anytime, myself, but that is just me.
11  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: US House Redistricting: Michigan on: January 23, 2015, 09:25:46 am
The above text is almost impenetrable. What exactly happens that causes a penalty with lines within a UCC when a macrochop is in play, that would not happen absent a macrochop?  Exactly how is the penalty free leash shortened?  Where in the text are you penalized for chopping counties within a UCC?

Perhaps the text in your second paragraph is a badly needed fix for multi county UCC's. Sensitivity to county chops within a UCC and subunits of counties should always be in play, whether or not the 105% threshold is breached. If not, then you draw within UCC's solely based on erosity and the VRA, and in that case maybe the highest scoring map would have one of the black UCC's picking up blacks in both Macomb and Oakland, and not going to Pontiac (assuming that Detroit UCC was within the 105% test). And microchops should count, so you can't do multiple microchops. The map below does two chops, one in Troy and the other in West Bloomfield (a microchop), in order to lose a highway cut (a state highway ends, so it pays to get the CD to take it in all to the end). One should not be rewarded for the West Bloomfield microchop. It's just ludicrous. And with more microchops elsewhere, the Troy chop could be made micro as well.

12  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Boehner flirts with treason on: January 23, 2015, 07:47:58 am
Your made up title departing from the title actually used in the article, is tendentious Lief, and maybe against the terms of use, but I ain't looking it up or going to pursue that. The real title was tendentious enough, but no, you wanted more. Anyway, in my view, it's a free country, and anyone can invite anyone into this country, to speak anywhere, if otherwise legal (so no, it would not be appropriate to invite Castro, because it is not legal for him to go to DC, and he couldn't get a visa anyway), and it doesn't bother me. This is just a policy difference spat, and having disagreements about foreign policy is anything but treason - it's as American as apple pie.
13  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: US House Redistricting: Michigan on: January 23, 2015, 07:42:35 am
The Detroit UCC was macrochopped by going out into Lapeer?  Is it clear in the text that chops out, are the same as chops in, for penalty purposes, when it comes to UCC's? If below the 105% threshold, than is it open season to chop within the UCC without penalty per the text?
14  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Atlas Ministry of Purity Crimes Self-Reporting Thread on: January 22, 2015, 10:02:40 pm
Low on the social totem pole? Are we conflating theology with low self esteem simfan in your text (I am low on the social pole and have low self esteem, and thus to desire anyone is "sinful")? I don't think in Catholic theology "disordered" = "sinful."  E.g., having a sexual attraction to the same sex is "disordered" but only sinful if physical acts are involved, and that has nothing to do with being gay, but about sex outside of marriage, and obtains equally for hetero sex.

To the extent the above is purported to be self description, rather than meant to be jocular jive for a thread that's mostly along those lines, the fit does not ring true to me at all, you being at elite schools and all, highly educated, smart, etc. But humans are complex individuals, and appearances can be totally deceiving, and I realize that more now, than when someone other than ancient. Best.
15  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: US House Redistricting: Michigan on: January 22, 2015, 09:47:52 pm
Thanks for the comment and review. I suspect however that failure to penalize county chops within a UCC, equally applies to VA. That is a policy decision, but to ignore intra UCC county lines will be problematic, and controversial, in the public square. If ignored in MI, the array in the Detroit UCC would be different in all probability, particularly the lines of MI-09 and CD-10 and CD-11 where they intersect.

How can Macomb and Oakland be deemed "macro-chopped" if the Detroit UCC is treated as but one county for chop purposes?
16  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: US House Redistricting: Michigan on: January 22, 2015, 04:28:17 pm
I thought I did clean up the Detroit lines, but my issue here, is that I don't see in the text of your rules anything about intra county chops where there is no macrochop into the county or UCC, so internal units don't matter. And I interpret your text as treating a UCC as one county, so not only intra county subdivisions, but counties themselves within the UCC, don't matter. As to chop count you can draw the lines anyway you want, and only have to worry about erosity. Perhaps I am misinterpreting your text. Remember that I am a lawyer, so I am a text driven kind of guy! Tongue

I am still concerned about multiple chops into one county not being penalized. It seems unfair to the county or UCC taking the hit.

My focus here on this exercise of course, is not playing the game here on Atlas, but fashioning something with more universal application that will withstand all the nit picking. I have no doubt that is why you are spending so much time on this as well, no?
17  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: US House Redistricting: Michigan on: January 22, 2015, 03:22:08 pm
Speaking of my dislike for two chops into a UCC, I also dislike any county that is not a UCC taking a two chop hit, and try to avoid that myself. It seems unfair to the county being cut up. Thus, it might be considered to levy an extra chop penalty when one does double chop a county or UCC. Find some other county to chop. And within a UCC, can one chop counties galore without penalty, as if one county, absent there being a macrochop into the UCC?  That really gives an incentive to do multiple microchops into a UCC, or at least intermediate chops. And the Detroit UCC has no chops into it at all, just a chop out into Lapeer County. So does that mean anything goes chop wise with the UCC, other than worrying about erosity?  If so, that is not good. Why was I spanked for not respecting Detroit hoods, if there is no penalty attached.
18  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: US House Redistricting: Michigan on: January 22, 2015, 01:42:29 pm
Let me address the microchop concerns you raise. One thing you may be missing is that CHOP is not the only measure used to judge a plan. Microchops don't increase the chop count, but they do impact erosity, and generally microchops will increase erosity.

If a plan added a lot of gratuitous microchops, it is highly likely that the erosity increases. Suppose there are two plans, but one adds a bunch of microchops. If they keep the same chop count, then by the Pareto rule the morearose plan is excluded. Thus the gratuitous microchop plan is eliminated.

If one plan adds a bunch of microchops, increasing erosity but reducing chops, then both can go forward as they are pareto equivalent. Rarely a microchop reduces erosity, but it does in your Lenox township example, but if you look at the shape that makes sense. The indent for CD 9 was reduced by the microchop. I tend to doubt there are enough state highways around (that is your proxy still for erosity right?), to be a panacea for microchop city. You might ponder this one some more.

That said, a modification that adds one chop when the sum of all microchops in a unit exceeds 0.5% of the quota may make sense.  That would help to fix the issue.

On your concern about the 1% effect, that is valid on its face. However, there is also a measure of inequality used as a ties breaker if the chops and erosity are the same. A plan that stretches to 1% with microchops would be competingagainst plans that use microchops to decrease inequality, and could be eliminated by them.  Is that in the text somewhere?  I am not sure just being a tie breaker is good enough, if a bunch of microchops are used to avoid a non microchop somewhere. I think this comment of mine should be taken seriously. It just won't be accepted in the public square.

Still waiting for responses to my other questions which you keep ignoring. Smiley
19  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Atlas Ministry of Purity Crimes Self-Reporting Thread on: January 22, 2015, 08:20:42 am
To be fair to the anti-sex forces that now run this forum with an iron fist, I do not believe that heterosexual relations have been outlawed yet (unless of course they take place in Thailand, in which case you are guilty of being a child rapist). So while King will likely incur 40-50 death points for this disgusting display of vulgar and obscene pornography, I don't think he will be banned for it.

You sir have taken the art of hyperbole to a whole new level. You do know that DAVE has written into the text of our rules of use that "hyperbole" is subject to death points?  Good luck to you my friend. You might need it. Tongue

By the way, I've been in Thailand. Putting aside the death points issue, do I need to hire a criminal lawyer?
20  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: US House Redistricting: Michigan on: January 22, 2015, 08:04:52 am
Nicely done. Much clearer.

 "Maybe having a 5% rule plus whatever play there is in adjacent CD’s given the 0.5% rule would resolve that."

I am not sure why you don't accept theaddendum revising the definition of a macrochop, so we don't have to do the nub, which is just plain silly to me, since you end up at once with both the nub, and more population deviations in the CD's from the ideal population number.

Your system seems to favor as many microchops as possible in order to avoid a non microchop. That strikes me as problematical. We really have a 1% play here if I understand this, since first you are allowed a .5% population deviation in CD's with no chops, and then  another .5% bite for microchops, with microchops having no scoring penalty at all apparently. I think there should be some penalty for microchops. To me having two fewer microchops should be scored the same as one macrochop (although with a macrochop it makes sense to worry about internal county subunits - in fact even with a non micro, non macro chop (an "intermediate chop"), it makes sense to worry about internal county subdivsions.

 Perhaps we will just have to disagree on this one. I don't think a zero penalty regime for microchops will sell in the public square. I favor the distinction between macrochops, intermediate chops and microchops, but microchops  should not be a get out of jail free regime in my opinion.

In reading your system again, there seems to be no penalty for a macro chop versus an intermediate chop as long as you have no chops of internal county subdivisions, as opposed to incurring another chop penalty, which surprises me. Am I misinterpreting your text?  If so, playing the nub game appears to be unnecessary if the macrochop entails no concomitant internal county chops.

Have I stated the policy choice fairly here, or am I still getting it wrong, or missing something, as to the effect of your system, and the policy choices made?

I still don't have an answer to my intra county chop erosity question. In your metric, do you count intra-county highway cuts?

And oh yes, this issue is still hanging out there unanswered:

"And is it impossible to a maco-chop [incur a chop penalty] of a county with less than 1% of the ideal population size of a CD? If so, that too seems undesirable, since there would then be an incentive to chop mini counties. I suggest that the rule be, if it is not already, that a micro chop is where one portion of a county chop is less than the micro chop quota, and the other portion is more than the micro-chop quota, as opposed to both portions being less."

Don't you care about the evisceration of mini counties?  Tongue In fact, why can't you microchop every connty in the state just for spite, or to collect some CD population adjustments bit by bit over many counties, so in the end all you have are a zillion microchops and nothing else, because you can without penalty?
21  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: US House Redistricting: Michigan on: January 21, 2015, 06:38:40 pm
Does the below make the macro-chop for Clinton magically disappear by exploiting the 0.5% leeway in CD populations? If so, we have a problem, and such a result would never survive public square derision at this “anomaly.” Maybe having a 5% rule plus whatever play there is in adjacent CD’s given the 0.5% rule would resolve that. And if Jackson is a macro-shop, maybe a double one if a single county UCC generates a double penalty, does the second map “solve” that problem?  Don’t like that either, but I suppose that if single county UCC’s don’t matter, that is OK, and this version is more likely to have highway cuts, and a higher erosity score, which is good, so the prior map would have a higher score.

Can you avoid a macro-chop into a UCC by having two smaller chops into a multi county UCC, so instead of avoiding a second chop into a UCC, and searching for a chop elsewhere, you actually arrange the second chop to be into the UCC to get down below 25K plus per chop? If so, that rewards two smaller chops into a UCC. Don't like that one either. It should either be neutral, or penalized. I prefer just one chop into a multi county UCC myself.

This uber complicated system needs to be entirely scrubbed to avoid all of this game playing potential that I am exploring in this series of posts I am making, and needs to be taken seriously in my opinion.

I posed some other questions above which were not responded to btw. Cheers. Smiley

 


22  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: US House Redistricting: Michigan on: January 21, 2015, 11:26:50 am
Well, based on all of the above chit chat, and assuming no double chop penalty for a macro-chop into a multi-county UCC (and thus being able to chop Clinton County), I came up with the below, with the only intra-county macro-chop being one in Detroit that I don't think can be avoided.

One potential problem with this point count structure, is that it rewards doing an otherwise unnecessary micro county chop in order to get the population of a CD adjusted enough to effect an intra-county micro chop in lieu of a macro one. Not good. Or does a micro chop of a county count the same as a macro-chop? If not, does a micro chop of a county count the same as a macro chop of a city or township? I would rather have a macro chop of a city or township than a county micro-chop. The point count rules needs to work through all of this carefully and clearly to avoid playing these undesirable types of games. I am not sure the rules are adequate with respect to these considerations.

"Definition: The initial map for counties chops consists of UCCs and counties not in UCCs. The CHOP score is determined by counting the chops excluding microchops. In units with a macrochop, the CHOP score is increased by the chops of its subunits. If any of the subunits have a macrochop, its subunits are considered for the purposes of the CHOP score."

I don't see any penalty for doing a double macro chop into a multi county UCC, which I think should be considered. It also seems that there is no penalty for a county micro-chop, and there should be in my view, although less than the penalty for a macro-chop - perhaps a half point. Sure it is more complicated, but we already are complicated, and the idea is to generate the best results, is it not?


Is there a state and US highway cut count for with respect to CD lines that bisect counties by the way?

And is it impossible to do a maco-chop of a county with less than 1% of the ideal population size of a CD? If so, that too seems undesirable, since there would then be an incentive to chop mini counties. I suggest that the rule be, if it is not already, that a micro chop is where one portion of a county chop is less than the micro chop quota, and the other portion is more than the micro-chop quota, as opposed to both portions being less.



23  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: US House Redistricting: Michigan on: January 21, 2015, 08:48:31 am
Thought Holly was a city. Didn't realize I chopped Lennox. Why is Lennox a microchop, and Holly isn't? Your rules as written are hard to understand. I wish they could be more clearly stated.
24  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: NYC Atlas Meetup Week of April 6th on: January 20, 2015, 07:13:31 pm
Now convenient for me, so sure.
25  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of jmfcst's sock accounts on: January 20, 2015, 07:08:53 pm
A majority of forumites apparently just want to keep the Mods busy, perhaps so they have less time to poke their noses elsewhere. Tongue

In any event, the jmfcst's socks have zero tolerance in the Cave (a unanimous point of view I might add in a venue where often there is no unanimity). The subject socks  will be exorcised with dispatch. Thanks.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1069


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines