Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 03, 2015, 03:22:32 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 339
1  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Mid Atlantic Madness on: Today at 11:43:44 am
I was looking at the two plans for SE PA, and they seem to illustrate the trade of UCC penalties for erosity.





The seven county region in SE PA almost precisely accommodates 7 CDs, so it's hard to imagine a top plan that doesn't take advantage of that. Since there are 7 CDs and no whole county subregions that form a whole number of CDs there should be at most 6 county chops, and both plans have that. The size of Lancaster, Chester, and Berks require that at least one of those counties gets a macrochop. Macrochops increase erosity both internally and on their perieters, so it's advisable to keep the macrochops internal to a region if lower erosity is a goal. Torie's plan does that by using Chester for the macrochop.

OTOH, the Philly UCC doesn't include Lancaster or Berks which are single county UCCs. The PHilly UCC has a cover of 6 and a pack of 5. Train's map adheres to that, but Torie's map increases the cover of Philly by 1. Using my MI model for scoring, neither would get a pack penalty, Torie's plan gets a cover penalty, and train's plan gets a single county UCC penalty.

I'm not a fan of the single county UCC penalty (though I'm tracking it since it's come up so many times), so let me ignore it for now. That leaves train's plan penalty-free, but with I suspect a higher erosity due to the shift of the macrochop out to Berks. Torie's plan is probably lower erosity when a detailed count is made. That actually seems like a reasonable trade to me, since this is the kind of flexibility I'd like to see. I'll put the task of a detailed score on my to do list to see how much trade there is.
2  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Mid Atlantic Madness on: March 02, 2015, 10:33:22 pm
I can apply your suggestion just fine in 0 pack UCCs like Lansing. It's very hard to write a rule that applies in multi CD UCCs. You can look at a large county like Livingston and say that's bad. It becomes hard when there's a large UCC with a small excess and some small counties on its periphery. I would rather encourage a chop of a whole county rather thana chop into a larger county. If this ddoesn't make sense I'll find a state with an example.

Why not just have a double penalty for a chop into a county in a large UCC that also exceeds the cover minimum?

I understand your concern, but the additional potential erosity points would tend to discourage the chop (overwhelmingly so, if all intra-county cuts count, rather than just those cuts over the minimum as I propose). And you can sever the county without penalty, if both the cover and pack maximum/minimum are not violated (to deal with close cases, one might perhaps consider the pack/cover rule as not being violated if the amount of the otherwise pack CD outside the UCC, or the additional CD in the UCC, caused by the whole county severance, is less than a macrochop in size). Anything beyond a macrochop pad to me is just traducing the whole meaning of UCC's, and is a huge loophole.

You final point is about having two smaller chops into a UCC being penalized as opposed to one larger chop (the infamous Lansing example again). I don't think that should be penalized myself, beyond the chop penalty itself. That is protecting UCC's over other counties without good reason in my view.  

Actually my final point was to consider the distinction between small UCCs like Lansing and large UCCs greater than one CD. I can see the value of treating small UCCs like single county UCCs and your rule would be easy to implement for those. I think it is in this class that you have most observed the problems of overprotecting the UCC.

I think problems occur in larger UCCs where there will be a lot of combinations that make a rule for whole county chop vs chop in vs chop out hard to construct. For those I think the separate cover and pack penalties remain the best tool, and I think they would also best pass your public square test by their simplicity.

Actually I think my rule is simple - almost elegant really. Whether it has drawbacks in actual implementation remains to be seen with examples (which I can't envision at the moment, but no doubt your most active and creative mind is trying to do so Smiley ). In big UCC's, nest CD's per the pack rule, and if you sever off a county, if that sucks another CD in per the cover rule, that is penalized. If it doesn't, well something has to be cut off from the UCC, and if it is a whole county, that's great, and no penalty. Other than that, all chops are the same, everywhere, subject to triggering the intra-county erosity test, which while complicated, is necessary, to avoid mischief in how the chop in densely populated areas is effected. But with my unnecessary cuts only get a penalty rule, if you draw the chop cleanly, almost by definition you won't get hit too much with penalty points.

I'm afraid this is actually pretty opaque to me. I highlighted the part that I can't parse. The sucks in vs if it doesn't feels arbitrary, though I'm sure it's not supposed to be. What determines if a whole county chop or a partial chop due to a different district is the one that goes over the cover limit? I strongly support a rule that makes no priority among districts that cross beyond the UCC; they should all be measured the same.

I may need a stepwise procedure. I'm that kind of guy. Smiley
3  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Mid Atlantic Madness on: March 02, 2015, 02:21:46 pm
I can apply your suggestion just fine in 0 pack UCCs like Lansing. It's very hard to write a rule that applies in multi CD UCCs. You can look at a large county like Livingston and say that's bad. It becomes hard when there's a large UCC with a small excess and some small counties on its periphery. I would rather encourage a chop of a whole county rather thana chop into a larger county. If this ddoesn't make sense I'll find a state with an example.

Why not just have a double penalty for a chop into a county in a large UCC that also exceeds the cover minimum?

I understand your concern, but the additional potential erosity points would tend to discourage the chop (overwhelmingly so, if all intra-county cuts count, rather than just those cuts over the minimum as I propose). And you can sever the county without penalty, if both the cover and pack maximum/minimum are not violated (to deal with close cases, one might perhaps consider the pack/cover rule as not being violated if the amount of the otherwise pack CD outside the UCC, or the additional CD in the UCC, caused by the whole county severance, is less than a macrochop in size). Anything beyond a macrochop pad to me is just traducing the whole meaning of UCC's, and is a huge loophole.

You final point is about having two smaller chops into a UCC being penalized as opposed to one larger chop (the infamous Lansing example again). I don't think that should be penalized myself, beyond the chop penalty itself. That is protecting UCC's over other counties without good reason in my view.  

Actually my final point was to consider the distinction between small UCCs like Lansing and large UCCs greater than one CD. I can see the value of treating small UCCs like single county UCCs and your rule would be easy to implement for those. I think it is in this class that you have most observed the problems of overprotecting the UCC.

I think problems occur in larger UCCs where there will be a lot of combinations that make a rule for whole county chop vs chop in vs chop out hard to construct. For those I think the separate cover and pack penalties remain the best tool, and I think they would also best pass your public square test by their simplicity.
4  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Mid Atlantic Madness on: March 02, 2015, 10:23:44 am
I can apply your suggestion just fine in 0 pack UCCs like Lansing. It's very hard to write a rule that applies in multi CD UCCs. You can look at a large county like Livingston and say that's bad. It becomes hard when there's a large UCC with a small excess and some small counties on its periphery. I would rather encourage a chop of a whole county rather than a chop into a larger county. If this doesn't make sense I'll find a state with an example (after I've finished scoring the MI maps on that thread).

Why not just have a double penalty for a chop into a county in a large UCC that also exceeds the cover minimum?
5  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Mid Atlantic Madness on: March 02, 2015, 08:48:17 am
I'm not quite sure what is suggested then for UCCs.

It sounds like single county UCCs get no special treatment, and I lean that way, too.

It sounds like the new UCC pack rule is favored. I'm not sure it's as strong as some think, but it's worth continued consideration.

For the cover rule it sounds like Torie is suggesting looking at the cover of a UCC and if it exceeds the minimum and the number of county chops plus 1 in that UCC a penalty occurs. For example in my favorite guinea pig of Lansing, a cover of 2 would only get a penalty if the county chop count is 0, but not otherwise. I think this breaks down when one is able to exactly fit a number of districts into a subset of the counties in a UCC (like 4 CDs in Wayne+Macomb+St Clair), or if there is a double-spanning chop (perhaps for the VRA).

The simple cover rule still seems to me to be the strongest of the UCC rules, and I would not shy away from the double penalty it incurs (unless one wants to revisit microchops). Nonetheless, I'll keep working on the MI map set and try to put together a comprehensive study.
6  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Mid Atlantic Madness on: March 01, 2015, 10:43:54 pm
So let me talk more about links using Torie's plan for Chester. First, it looks like Honey Brook twp along the Lancaster line is chopped. I'm not sure how Torie wants to fix that, but I'll treat it like it's all in CD 16.



Chester is macrochopped, so the county seats don't matter. Instead one looks at the townships on the perimeter that have state and federal highways.

Along the Lancaster border:
West Nottingham twp: PA 272
Lower Oxford twp: PA 472
Upper Oxford twp: PA 896
West Fallowfield twp: no connection
West Sadsbury twp: PA 41, PA 372, US 30 (three highways, but only counts as one link to the twp)
West Caln twp: PA 340
Honey Brook twp: US 322, PA 10 (These enter through two different precincts of Honey Brook. They count as one link if the twp is not chopped, but each would count separately if it is chopped like above. Note PA 10 )

Other than Honey Brook, Torie has kept all the links within CD-16, so they don't add to erosity. That chopped twp would add a point of erosity between CD-6 and 16.

That gives an example of how I build a map of all the links to determine erosity. It's time consuming for each macrochopped county. The good part is that if I save it, I don't have to do it again.
7  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Mid Atlantic Madness on: March 01, 2015, 09:46:30 pm
The precise lines in SE PA, were dictated by trying to minimize inter-county highway cuts, while avoiding subunit chops. Job one of course is to first identify the county seat, and work from there. I was unable to find a way for PA-08 to chop into Philly without a ward chop, so it chopped into Montco instead. And I needed to make sure PA-02 took in downtown Philly where the courthouse is, to avoid a highway cut from Montco by having the most direct highway able to go from Norristown to the Philly courthouse, without ever touching PA-01. This aspect of the game is the most time consuming. The way PA-16 juts into Chester County was no accident either. Finally, the cut into Montco by PA-06 was designed to avoid a traveling chop, which I think should be prohibited, and thus I won't due it.

I'd also opine that this "aspect of the game", such as it is, seems pretty artificial.  I haven't paid much attention to it with my own metro-area lines, and I am unlikely to see a particularly compelling reason to start doing so.

When there is no macrochop in a county there needs to be some modest constraints on the chops and erosity. That means assigning each prior link before the chop to one of the pieces created by the chop. Since the primary highway link exists as the proxy for an economic community of interest, it is least arbitrary of many choices to make that assignment. erosity is reduced when those links are kept inside a district. My observation is that if one is making reasonable choices (like the many Lapeer chops) they will tend to respect much of those primary links.

When there is a macrochop a different regime is present. Now all highway links across a county line count as proxies for the town-scale CoIs. It is still the case that erosity is reduced when those links are kept internal to a district. But in the macrochop case, there is potentially more than one link between two counties to consider.
8  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: MI maps - muon2 scoring on: February 28, 2015, 11:42:02 pm
Here's the rescore of muon2 B

Here's my plan to reduce chops in MI without relying on microchops. I used a UCC chop of whole county Livingston and a threshold of 47% BVAP for the Detroit CDs. This allowed the removal of one chop in Oakland and a chop outside of the Detroit UCC.

The Muskegon chop is a macrochop and the townships are used to determine cut links there. The other two outstate chops are small. The chop in Ionia isn't a microchop, but it could be if it were moved to the SW corner of Eaton. However if microchops get no advantage as county or UCC chops then to place it there would be counterproductive, despite a better shape.

The Detroit CDs are 48.3% and 47.5% BVAP for CDs 13 and 14 respectively. It's quite possible that the BCVAP in CD 13 is over 50% since there is a 7.5% HVAP population and a large Arab population which would have high non-citizen rates.

MI muon2 2015B




SKEW 1 (R) (5D, 2d, 2e, 4r, 1R) [3R in muon2 A2]
POLARIZATION 18 [14 in muon2 A2]
INEQUALITY 10 (range), 11 (ave dev) (range 5425, ave dev 1599) [11/13 in muon2 A2]
CHOP 8 raw (UC:9, UP:10, US:11) [9/10/12/13 in muon2 A2]
EROSITY 116 [119 in muon2 A2]

If the lowered BVAP is permissible, this beats muon2 A2 in all categories except polarization which is not used as a primary score.
9  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: The Demographic Evolution of the American Electorate, 19742060 on: February 28, 2015, 09:09:17 pm
One factor that is overlooked is the integration of ethnic groups into mainstream culture. If the modern VRA/Census classifications had been done 100 years earlier, there might have been specific breakouts for Italians, Poles, and Irish. Despite language and cultural differences they integrated over a few generations. I wouldn't be surprised if in 2060 people wonder why Latinos and Asians were given special treatment in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. I suspect the history of slavery would keep awareness of the special status of blacks in the US.
Well people might wonder in 2060 why some Latino's were given the opportunity to stay in the country given they came to the US illegally.

I'm 50/50  if Blacks will keep their "special status" as you put it. I always see them staying with the Democrat Party  though.

I didn't see many in 1960 questioning the status of European immigrants (and their descendents) who didn't bother to be documented on entry to the US in the 1800's. Why should it be different when facts are shifted by 100 years?
10  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 28, 2015, 08:40:19 pm
Here's a test case to try to understand the role (or not) of microchops and their potential interaction with single and multi-county UCCs.

MI muon2 2015A


There are no chops except in the big three counties and Detroit neighborhoods are whole. There is an extra chop of the Detroit UCC, instead of in Lansing like with Torie's plans. There is also an extra chop in Oakland to bring CD 14 over 50% BVAP, much like the IRL map. The study is in CD 7, which is slightly under the 0.5% threshold below quota, but within a microchop of the quota.

The neighboring CDs are above quota and could be used to bring CD 7 up. One could move two townships on the eastern edge of Kalamazoo (pop 3276), the southwestern township of Eaton (pop 3150), or Rockwood in Wayne (pop 3289) to make all the districts within deviation of quota.

Without the last shift identified above the CHOP score would be 7 for UCCs, 7 for counties, and 1 for Detroit. That's a low score of 15. It could go down to 14 if a 47% BVAP in Wayne would satisfy the VRA allowing an Oakland chop to be eliminated. For comparison trainB was a CHOP of 16.

But that doesn't include the fix to CD 7. If it is a pure non-scoring microchop, then the above paragraph applies. If it is full scoring chop then it matters which of the three UCC choices I use. In Wayne or Eaton it creates an additional UCC chop as well as a county chop, but in the single-county UCC Kalamazoo, there would be no UCC chop. That seems strange to me. If it gets a fractional score as suggested by Torie, that leaves the question of the UCC penalty up in the air.

Should the three choices outlined above score equally on CHOP or not? Should the fact that it's a microchop matter for either the UCC or the county chop? If it matters, should it only matter for one of the two possible scores?

Edit: It should say 8 UCC chops, not 7. I was focusing on the microchop impact, and forgot to count the whole county chop from CD 8 in the Detroit UCC.

I'm cross posting this here for discussion as to whether this map is good policy despite the chops to the Detroit UCC and whther it should be in the mix of maps that would go to a commission.

On the originating thread I posed a map that required a microchop to complete CD7, but otherwise all chops were in the big three counties. In this version (muon A2) I placed the microchop in Washtenaw in a way to keep Milan intact in CD 7. All other chops are in the big three counties. CDs 13 and 14 are both over 50% BVAP (though CD 13 is 50.02%) and the neighborhoods are kept intact.

MI muon2 2015A2



SKEW 3 (R) [4D, 1d, 4e, 5r, 0R]
POLARIZATION 14
INEQUALITY 11 (range), 13 (ave dev) (range 6021, ave dev 1764)
CHOP 8 raw (UC 9, UP 11, US 12)
EROSITY 119

The chop score remains very low, even with all sorts of UCC penalties. However placing all those chops comes with a cost in erosity despite the nice lines in Oakland and Macomb. Erosity in the urban area remains a strong tool to keep this plan from knocking out others, though the low chop score would probably keep it as a Pareto equivalent of other top plans.

Another interesting feature is the very low polarization score - there are 4 very competitive districts, and nothing completely safe for the Pubs with (only 1 is better than R+3.3 and that one is R+4.8 ). However that competitiveness created a skew to the Pubs since it took a couple of lean D districts and moved them to highly competitive (3 are at D+1).
11  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: MI maps - muon2 scoring on: February 28, 2015, 08:37:47 pm
On the originating thread I posed a map that required a microchop to complete CD7, but otherwise all chops were in the big three counties. In this version (muon A2) I placed the microchop in Washtenaw in a way to keep Milan intact in CD 7. All other chops are in the big three counties. CDs 13 and 14 are both over 50% BVAP (though CD 13 is 50.02%) and the neighborhoods are kept intact.

MI muon2 2015A2



SKEW 3 (R) (4D, 1d, 4e, 5r, 0R)
POLARIZATION 14
INEQUALITY 11 (range), 13 (ave dev) (range 6021, ave dev 1764)
CHOP 9 raw (UC 10, UP 12, US 13)
EROSITY 119

The chop score remains very low, even with all sorts of UCC penalties. However placing all those chops comes with a cost in erosity despite the nice lines in Oakland and Macomb. Erosity in the urban area remains a strong tool to keep this plan from knocking out others, though the low chop score would probably keep it as a Pareto equivalent of other top plans.

Another interesting feature is the very low polarization score - there are 4 very competitive districts, and nothing completely safe for the Pubs with (only 1 is better than R+3.3 and that one is R+4.8 ). However that competitiveness created a skew to the Pubs since it took a couple of lean D districts and moved them to highly competitive (3 are at D+1).

The UCC single county chop score (US) could be decreased by putting the microchop somewhere other than Washtenaw. However, I like the idea of keeping a city together, so I'll keep it in Wastenaw for this version. In any case I'm not sold on the single UCC score so it's a useful exercise to keep it there for that reason, too.

I've cross posted this map on the chops and erosity thread for discussion about policy aspects as opposed to scoring aspects for this thread.
12  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: MI maps - muon2 scoring on: February 27, 2015, 08:19:52 pm
I certainly didn't say all the UCC rules are good, and I anticipate that any of them may force unintended preferences in maps. These were all suggested in the longer thread. I hope this will give us all a chance to see what impacts each of the UCC rules would have on the plans we've drawn. I'll be working may way through the others on the big thread as I get time.
13  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: MI maps - muon2 scoring on: February 27, 2015, 12:19:27 pm
UC - raw score plus UCC multicounty cover
UP - UC plus UCC pack
US - UP plus UCC single county cover

cover and pack are defined in the OP. I hope that helps.
14  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: MI maps - muon2 scoring on: February 27, 2015, 07:37:17 am
Anyway, for scoring,  "your" map is below (as best I could draw it), avoiding subunit chops, assuming that they are penalized in the chop score (as they should be). I must admit "your" MI-04 achieves absolute perfection. Smiley


MI jimrtex 2015A

It wasn't really "my" map.  I found a map on the Internet, and was using it for example.  You've jumped ahead to the next step.  But your going back and forth about whether it is better to split Eaton or Ingham illustrates a weakness of a single comprehensive stage.  It become exceedingly complex when trying to consider where the boundary should be between Grand Rapids and Lansing, when it is somehow tied to the division of Hamtramck.   If your statewide map had been approved, then there could be a simple focused discussion on where to get 13,647 persons, where all the options might be considered.

The switch of Osceola (not Missaukee) was automatic.  When a single county on a boundary can be switched and improve the equality between the two districts, then it is shifted.  The algorithm is simple.   Determine counties in the more populous district that have less population than the difference.   Choose the one that reduces the difference the most, while not breaking contiguity.

I had noticed that the shift of Missaukee would produce a 3rd district within 0.5% bounds.  I'll submit it as a joint effort.

Quote
This version of MI-08 might be better from a road cut standpoint. I leave that to Muon2 to figure out.

MI jimrtex 2015A2


INEQUALITY 11 (range), 9 (ave dev) (range 5977, ave dev 1257) [11/9 in Torie D]
CHOP 12 raw (UC 14, UP 16, US 17) [12/13/14/16 Torie D]
EROSITY 112 (changes 1/2:5[6], 1/4:5[5], 2/3:10[2], 2/4:5[5], 3/4:4[2], 3/5:1[0], 3/8:5[3], 4/5:4[4], 4/8:0[1], 5/8:0[1], 5/10:4[3], 5/11:4[3], 8/11:1[1], 10/11:11[10] net +13) [99 in Torie D]

Shifting the chop from Saginaw to Ingham doesn't affect the raw CHOP, but does increase the UCC cover count, though if single county UCCs are counted it's a wash. Note that Kent is now a macrochop so erosity increases there, plus the other shofts tend to hurt erosity as well.

Shifting the chop from Clinton to Eaton increases the ave dev INEQUALITY to 10 and leaves the CHOP the same. The EROSITY drops to 110.

Edit: The chop into Ingham decreases the Detroit UCC pack from 5 to 4 so the UP score goes up an additional 1 beyond the 1 for GR.
15  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: MI maps - muon2 scoring on: February 27, 2015, 06:55:54 am
This plan has the same problem with CDs 1,2,3 and 4 as Torie C. To score it I'll make the same adjustment I described there.

Well I dealt with the inequality issue by switching out townships in Clinton, and at the cost of grotesque erosity (but I can afford that probably still, even though my map to win gets uglier with each iteration (boo!), I lost the hood chop in Detroit in favor of a micro-chop of Hamtramck.  (Yes, the BVAP for MI-13 drops to 49.1%, but that is still probably legal, inasmuch as there are a fair number of non citizen and/or non voting Hispanics in the CD), so blacks will still be casting a majority of the votes. So assuming micro-chops are freebies, I move back into the lead!  Smiley

MI Torie 2015D


Anyway, this illustrates again a problem with the pareto optimality regime. A map can win with a massive dose of additional erosity, just in order to lose a chop or two. That is what we are seeing here. I am losing a ton of erosity points, just to get rid of two or three chops, including in one iteration, a fair amount of erosity just to get rid of one micro-chop, and in the case of Detroit, massively more erosity (that should not be rewarded). So a total score concept makes some sense, or to be pareto optimal, the variation in the total score cannot exceed a certain amount.

The Detroit plan to Hamtramck looks like an equivalent of the Orchard Lake jut. However, I can't get the populations to match (CD 12=+196, CD 13=+6984, CD 14=-3504), so I can't score it. Are there microchops in there, as you suggest? I can't cover the gap with just one to Hamtramck. A zoom with town lines would help.

edit: I found a precinct in Hamtramck that gets CD 14 to +2075 as you have. However, the precinct population is 5579, so it's too big to be a microchop. That doesn't fix my CD 12/13 discrepancy, but both are within limits with the precinct move.

Yes, sorry about that. The chop in Hamtramck was too big (I kept looking so hard for less black precincts to cut, and obviously was trying too hard). The only micro-chop I could find that worked is as below (leaving MI-13 at its absolutely max legal population). BVAP is 48.5%, still probably legal given the 7.5% HVAP population (but cutting it close perhaps).  So equality goes to hell, but hey, it's only a secondary tie breaker. Tongue




INEQUALITY 12 (range), 11 (ave dev) (range 6743, ave dev 1527) [12/12 in Torie C]
CHOP 12 raw (UC 13, UP 14, US 16) [no change from Torie C]
EROSITY 99 (changes 13/14:12[8] net +4) [95 in Torie C]

There's no longer a microchop savings here, but if there was some credit the CHOP would drop accordingly. The range was about the same as Torie C, but the ave dev improved enough to gain a point, but at the expected cost in erosity.
16  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Which syllable do you emphasize in the word ... on: February 26, 2015, 11:51:44 am
ElecTORal college

ElECToral map

Also kind of depends on how quickly I am speaking, too, though, now that I think about it.

A pronunciation distinction that depends on the word that follows is what I do as well. Perhaps it's a feature of the Midwestern dialect.
17  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: MI maps - muon2 scoring on: February 25, 2015, 06:24:45 pm
MI Torie 2015A




Political leaning by district (in order): r, r, r, e, D, e, D, d, d, r, r, d, D, D; 0R, 5r, 2e, 3d, 4D.
SKEW: 1 (R)
POLARIZATION: 16

Population range 4990, average deviation 1257
INEQUALITY: 10 (range), 9 (ave dev)

UCC scores
Detroit cover 6, pack 5; no penalties
Grand Rapids cover 2, pack 0; 1 for pack
Lansing cover 2, pack 0; 1 for cover
Saginaw, Jackson; 2 for single county
Total UCC chops 7

County chops
Kent 1; macrochop
Clinton 1; macrochop
Jackson 1
Saginaw 1
Lapeer 1
Macomb 1; macrochop
Oakland 2; macrochop
Wayne 2; macrochop
Total county chops 10

Local chops
Detroit 1;
Detroit neighborhood; 1
Total local chops 2

CHOP: 12 raw (UC:13, UP:14, US:16)

Erosity by segment
seg 1/2: 3
seg 1/4: 7
seg 2/3: 9 (3 on county line, 6 internal Kent)
seg 2/4: 7 (2 on Kent county line)
seg 2/6: 1
seg 3/4: 2
seg 3/5: 1
seg 3/6: 3
seg 3/8: 8 (3 without the Clinton macrochop)
seg 4/5: 3
seg 5/8: 2 (1 without the Clinton macrochop)
seg 5/10: 3
seg 5/11: 3
seg 6/7: 1
seg 6/8: 1
seg 7/8: 3
seg 7/11: 1
seg 7/12: 6
seg 8/11: 1
seg 9/10: 6
seg 9/11: 10
seg 9/13: 6
seg 11/12: 1
seg 12/13: 13
seg 13/14: 8 (CD 13 in neighborhood 10 has two discontiguous pieces which adds one to erosity)

EROSITY: 106

This could drop if the Clinton macrochop became just a chop. The change of Saginaw from train's map, eliminating the macrochop, reduced that segment 4/5 from 12 to 3. The erosity within the Detroit UCC dropped compared to train's map. The chop went up, so both plans would survive a Pareto test.
18  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 25, 2015, 01:29:11 am
A midnight snack for thought:

I'm taking a desultory spin at Florida, for God knows what reason, and... uh... I'm not sure that penalizing for UCC fans is much value added in this state.



That's a fan.  Pity.

(map is very much a work in progress)

If there's interest in going outside the Great Lakes states with their well defined county subdivisions, I should open a new thread. I anticipate different issues in states like FL.
19  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 25, 2015, 01:26:46 am
I went back to the data set I used to make the table of inequality for range. In that I took as many whole county split states as I could make with the 0.5% maximum deviation and found the average absolute deviation. Like the range it follows an exponentially falling dependence on the average number of counties per district. I then did a regression fit. From that I took a hypothetical state of 72 counties (the average) and determined the expected average deviation one should get as additional districts are added.

Ave DevInequality
0-20
2-301
30-1002
100-2203
220-3704
370-5405
540-7106
710-8807
880-10508
1050-13609
1360-150010
1500-164011
1640-176012
1760-188013
1880-199014
1990-210015

For each additional 100 in ave dev, add 1 to inequality. If the average is exactly on the boundary use the lower number.

If this makes sense I can use it in my rescoring of the plans. I can also go to a coarser step size in the table based on the exponential relationship, but I think that is more likely to favor plans with more chops.
20  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: The Demographic Evolution of the American Electorate, 19742060 on: February 25, 2015, 01:06:55 am
One factor that is overlooked is the integration of ethnic groups into mainstream culture. If the modern VRA/Census classifications had been done 100 years earlier, there might have been specific breakouts for Italians, Poles, and Irish. Despite language and cultural differences they integrated over a few generations. I wouldn't be surprised if in 2060 people wonder why Latinos and Asians were given special treatment in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. I suspect the history of slavery would keep awareness of the special status of blacks in the US.
21  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 24, 2015, 06:16:02 pm
train made an observation that high erosity in urban areas went along with areas with many small munis. I've been updating and making more accurate my Detroit area muni map, with connections. What I see is that the areas with a lot of links that could contribute to erosity are also those areas with a number of subunits with small population, which can often be used to get populations within limits or otherwise reduce inequality. Effectively the higher erosity in that area acts as a tradeoff with lower inequality and seems consistent with the Pareto principle between those measures.

Yes, but that only actually has an effect on scoring if the most unequal districts happen to be in those metro areas.  If you have a more rural whole-county district which is leading the inequality derby, the tradeoff in places like Oakland and Wayne and Allegheny is rendered irrelevant, which seems wrong.

Another reason to measure inequality by average rather than simply range, perhaps?

I agree that it lends weight to measurement by average. I'd like to be sure one couldn't get away with one outlier district in population.
22  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 24, 2015, 05:29:32 pm
train made an observation that high erosity in urban areas went along with areas with many small munis. I've been updating and making more accurate my Detroit area muni map, with connections. What I see is that the areas with a lot of links that could contribute to erosity are also those areas with a number of subunits with small population, which can often be used to get populations within limits or otherwise reduce inequality. Effectively the higher erosity in that area acts as a tradeoff with lower inequality and seems consistent with the Pareto principle between those measures.

This is the updated map with connections (after a few hours with some mapping software). I've added the Detroit neighborhood boundaries. The blue lines are local connections within counties. Roads on the border count in both munis for connections. The red lines are highway connections across the county lines. Numbered highways on the county border may be used, but cannot be exclusively used to cross the line. That is there must be state highway entirely on each side to make a connection. Otherwise all the munis along the northern border of Wayne would count a connection by touching 8 Mile Rd (MI 102).


23  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 24, 2015, 01:41:46 pm
Isn't it a VRA violation to not put Southfield in a Black district? Either way, I suspect not doing so would be unpopular, even if not illegal.

No, since the only violation can occur if the black population of the area is unable to elect the candidates of their choice. That analysis must be viewed in the context of the whole state, so if there are a reasonable number of districts where the black minority would be able to elect the candidates of choice, it doesn't matter that certain black populations are excluded from those districts.

As a practical matter, that was done in certain legislative districts in IL in 2011. Politically some black communities were shifted to white districts to make them safer for Dems. Major groups representing black issues supported the Dem plan, since politically the Dems would align with their issues, and the number of districts that would elect the candidate of choice of the blacks was not impacted.

=====

This does raise an interesting thought. In our work on southern states we identified counties that had significant black populations, and like the UCCs, thought that they should be grouped together and covered with the minimum number of districts to preserve their voting strength. In principle one could go though the same exercise with county subunits in Wayne and Oakland and recognize those areas as a unique community of interest.
24  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 23, 2015, 11:27:38 pm
For Michigan for example, it might be useful to draw a map with the absolutely minimum number of chops, using your system as modified, and mine, where we still disagree, and see how many erosity points it has versus say my map, and see what that ratio is.

I feel pretty confident that this map is as chop-minimizing as you can get, vis-a-vis the Torie UCC rules:



Bay, Jackson, and Lapeer are all I-chops.

The Detroit districts are, as last time, drawn to the 47% BVAP standard; another chop of Oakland would be necessary if you wanted to break 50%.

No, it's not a serious suggestion.  Tongue

EROSITY: 113 (includes Lansing UCC not acting as a supercounty for erosity)
25  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 23, 2015, 07:21:27 pm
Torie, my comments were only about what is a chop and how it is scored. Not microchops, not macrochops, just chops. Within the last two days I have said that I can work with microchops counting as chops at the county level and that macrochops need be nothing more than the threshold for using subunits for erosity. This is not about whether UCCs are in or out. I would like concurrence on plain old, vanilla flavored county chops that I thought were agreed to over two years ago when we were drawing plans for CA and other states.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 339


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines