Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 13, 2016, 08:45:41 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 270
51  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Arizona takes first step to return redistricting process to Republican control on: February 03, 2016, 02:27:23 pm
I think you might be repeating yourself there by and large. So let us step back. For each number of chops, the odds are high that there is but one map with the lowest erosity, and thus for each number of chops, there is but one map that reaches the pareto optimal frontier. Do you agree with that?
Let's take a bigger step back. Why are you assuming population equality, particularly in a state like Arizona with its highly concentrated population centers?

Let's replace the House and Senate with a unicameral legislature with 90 members. We'll apportion these out among the counties.

Graham and Greenlee are paired, as are Yuma and La Paz.

Maricopa 53
Pima 14
Pinal 5
Yavapai 3
Mohave 3
Yuma + La Paz 3
Coconino 2
Cochise 2
Navajo 2
Apache 1
Gila 1
Santa Cruz 1
Graham + Greenlee 1

Subapportion to cities to the extent possible. Draw reasonable districts of similar, but not identical population, with population in range of 47,348 to 94,697.

Solons would cast a weighted vote in the legislature.

For Maricopa County:

Phoenix 20
Mesa 6
Gilbert 3
Chandler 3
Glendale 3
Scottsdale 3
Surprise 2
Tempe 2
Peoria 2
Avondale 1
Goodyear 1
Buckeye 1
Remainder 6*

The remaining areas could be attached to larger cities, in which case the apportionment might change, or be formed into 6 separate districts.

Pima County (13)

Tucson 7
Casa Adobes CDP 1
Catalina Foothills CDP 1
Remainder 4*

Pinal County: (5)

San Tan Valley CDP 1
Casa Grande 1
Remainder 3*

Yavapai: (3)

Remainder 3* (no place has enough population for its own district.

Yuma+La Paz: (3)

Yuma 1
Remainder 2*
52  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Temporal Weighted Apportionment on: February 03, 2016, 12:31:48 pm
Florida is entitled to 41.2 representatives in between 9 and 13 districts.



The population per representative is quite similar to that of the Florida Senate, which has 40 members.

There are 3 large UCCs in Florida: Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach; Tampa-St.Petersburg; and Orlando. In additions there are several smaller UCCs that require keeping counties together: (by counties) Manatee and Sarasota; Volusia and Flagler; Martin and St. Lucie; Escambia and Santa Rosa; and Duval, Clay, and St. Johns.

The Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach UCC has a population for about 12 representatives. Because of its connectivity issues, Monroe is treated as part of the UCC. Miami-Dade and Monroe are split off as one district with 5.6 representatives. Broward and Palm Beach are entitled to 6.6 representatives, which is too large, but Palm Beach is entitled to 2.8 representatives, which is too small. To avoid dividing counties, Broward was made its own district, and other counties outside the UCC were added to Palm Beach.

The Orlando UCC is entitled to 4.7 representatives and can be kept in one district.

The Tampa-St. Petersburg UCC is entitled to just over 6 representatives, and must be divided. My original attempt was to keep Hillsborough and Pinellas together, with possibly Pasco, stripping Hernando from from the UCC.

I then started filling in other districts.

Beginning with Collier, Lee, and Charlotte on the Gulf Coast, there was insufficient population unless Manatee-Sarasota were included, or the district jumped inland up to Polk. I preferred the coastal configuration with Manatee and Sarasota, though I initially included some of the inland rural counties.

I had initially placed Martin and St.Lucie with Palm Beach, but that would leave Brevard-Volusia-Flagler-Indian River short of enough population, which would require the area to be added to the Jacksonville district or to come inland. Eventually I settled on the coastal district from Flagler through Martin, which while long and skinny does reflect actual settlement patterns. To make enough population for Palm Beach, I added three rural counties around Lake Okeechobee. They do have a connection to Palm Beach since Belle Glade is in Palm Beach County.

My initial effort was to place Polk in a district winding through the gap between Hillsborough and Lake up to Marion. This was quite ugly, so I eventually split Hillsborough and Pinellas, so that both are part of districts that extend outside the UCC in opposite directions.

After drawing a panhandle district with enough population, and getting the Jacksonville district enough population, there was an area including Marion(Ocala) and Alachua(Gainesville) that might have had enough population for a district, but it would have had to included Citrus, Levy, Sumter, and Hernando, and required an almost perfect split into three districts barely over 3.0.

So instead the Jacksonville and Panhandle districts absorbed this area. The initial boundary followed the Suwanee River, but had a large population imbalance of 4.8 in Jacksonville and 3.2 in the Panhandle, and would have the Jacksonville district extending to the Gulf Coast with Levy. So a few counties were added to the panhandle district.

It would be feasible to place Marion and Alachua in the Panhandle district, which would give the area four medium population centers (Pensacola, Tallahassee, Gainesville, and Ocala) separate from the larger Jacksonville, but the population imbalance would be large, and the panhandle district already has 25 counties.

So a quite reasonable Panhandle and Jacksonville district can be drawn. But they both are compromised by including the area in between.

1201 - Miami or Miami-Dade & Monroe or Miami, Everglades, & Florida Keys - 5.6 representatives.

1202 - Fort Lauderdale or Broward - 3.8 representatives.

1203 - Palm Beach & Lake Okeechobee - 3.0 representatives.

1204 - St.Petersburg & Metro North - 4.0 representatives.

1205 - Orlando - 4.6 representatives.

1206 - Jacksonville, Ocala, & Gainesville or Jacksonville & North Florida or North Florida - 4.4 representatives.

1207 - Gulf Coast - 4.0 representatives.

1208 - Tampa & Central Florida - 4.4 representatives.

1209 - Atlantic Coast - 3.8 representatives.

1210 - Panhandle - 3.6 representatives.
53  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Temporal Weighted Apportionment on: February 03, 2016, 10:36:02 am
I think the second one makes more sense. I like that it keeps the Saginaw Midland Bay City area together.
This is a second alternative, placing Grand Rapids and Muskegon with the northern part of the state.



About half the population is in the southern four counties, and my preference is that large districts be closer to 3 representatives than five. I also had to go north a bit from the Tri-Cities in order to get the northern district below 5.0.

I think I will use the first alternative. The original four-district map stretched things too thin, removing much of the flexibility.
54  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Arizona takes first step to return redistricting process to Republican control on: February 03, 2016, 10:32:28 am
http://tucson.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/house-panel-oks-change-in-redistricting-process/article_2a0fb5af-d47b-577c-bd52-e58598ed80ac.html

Quote
PHOENIX A House panel approved a change in the redistricting process that, if ratified by voters, could have the lines for future legislative and congressional elections drawn only by Republicans.

Quote
and instead has commissioners running for office like any other politician. Rep. Ken Clark, D-Phoenix, said that, given the GOP voter registration edge, it is virtually certain to produce a commission of five Republicans.

Potentially more significant, the measure would remove restrictions that now exist on who can serve. Clark said that would allow candidates and even registered lobbyists to create legislative and congressional districts.

As expected, Arizona Republicans are moving forward with their plan to fulfill their self-imposed obligation to corrupt the electoral process in their favor as much as possible. Making voters approve commissioners is just a subtle way of crafting an all-Republican commission, as the electorate currently gives them an undeniable and reliable majority. Further, allowing lobbyists and politicians to participate means they might as well just give it back to the Republican-led legislature.

As a casual observer and given events since 2011 with Arizona redistricting, I'd expect this to pass the legislature and go to voters later this year. I don't think voters are going to understand what they are voting on and what it will do without a major campaign against the initiative, so without that, this will probably be a done deal.
The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission in the 2000s drew a congressional district through the bottom of the Grand Canyon.

"Look kids, there is another congressional district waaaay down there." (Kid looks across to opposite rim and points) "Over there?" "No that is the same district that we are in." (Waves). "Look carefully, see that brown ribbon?" "Are those ants in that other congressional district?"

This time they deliberately underpopulated Democratic districts, and overpopulated Republican districts. Hopefully Justice Kennedy will call them on it, because Breyer, Ginsberg, Kagan, and Sotamayor won't.

When the redistricting commission was approved, it was claimed that legislative districts would be as equal in population as congressional districts. Now it is claimed that you can do a partisan gerrymander as long as the deviation is within 5%.

When the redistricting commission was approved, it was required to start out with a grid map. They still do. But then they simply ignore that map.

The commission starts out with two Democrats and two Republicans. They choose the chairperson from 5 names chosen by a judicial panel. In 2011, one of the "independents" had a framed photo with them and Nancy Pelosi. Another "independent" was head of the Arizona ACLU whose politics were so left-wing, that it was said that in comparison the Arizona Democratic Party was like Barry Goldwater. Colleen Mathis was the least worst choice.

The two Democrats and Mathis chose the Republican counsel. As a mapping consultant they chose a company that had never done redistricting, but whose specialty was micro-targeting for Democratic campaigns - that is identify Democratic voters on a very fine scale. Might be handy for gerrymandering.

The independent redistricting commission in Arizona is not subject to open meetings laws, like other Arizona agencies are. Mathis and a mapping consultant were drawing maps at her house in intimate weekend map-drawing sessions.

Mathis was making deals with the Democratic commissioners. Real sweet when you only need a 3:2 vote to approve a map.

Arizona should completely dump their current redistricting scheme and start over.
55  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Name one good thing about Jim Gilmore on: February 02, 2016, 06:28:11 pm
He is a veteran.
56  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Name one good thing about Jeb Bush on: February 02, 2016, 06:27:45 pm
Loyal to his family.
57  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Iowa Caucus results thread (entrance poll @8pm ET) on: February 02, 2016, 05:52:27 pm

State delegates per county

You should be able to combine these two to produce a projection of actual state delegates. These should be totaled by congressional district since most national delegates are allocated at that level.
58  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Iowa Caucus results thread (entrance poll @8pm ET) on: February 02, 2016, 05:38:51 pm
According to the link on uselectionatlas It seems the raw votes are

Clinton     69,631
Sanders   69,319
O'Malley       758

So Clinton wins by around 300 votes.

These are the State Delegate Equivalent numbers multiplied by 100.  Not raw vote totals in any way, shape, or form.

Note that means each county's vote totals should sum up to a multiple of 100 (modulo rounding errors).  This is not the case in Kossuth, Hancock, or Fremont counties, where some results must have just been irretrievably lost.

I was thinking they would report this in terms of the precinct delegates.  I guess maybe the reason they don't is that some delegates are not explicitly committed??
Each precinct elected delegates to county conventions.

The number of delegates per precinct is based on the Obama(P2012)+Hatch(G2014) results, and not the turnout in the precinct.

Further, the total number of delegates at each county convention is not based on the Obama(P2012)+Hatch(G2014) vote. If it were, then the convention in Polk County would be so Uugge it could not be held in the Trump Convention Center if there were such a beast, or some smaller counties could hold their convention in a living room (a couch and two chairs, if someone sat on the floor or an armrest, and the chairman stood next to the coffee table).

So county delegates can't be added, any more than we could add up state legislators and get a useful number.
59  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Iowa Caucus results thread (entrance poll @8pm ET) on: February 02, 2016, 05:22:37 pm
According to the link on uselectionatlas It seems the raw votes are

Clinton     69,631
Sanders   69,319
O'Malley       758

So Clinton wins by around 300 votes.

That's impossible, because the Iowa Democratic Party wrote in their press release that turnout was 171,109 voters.

The atlas link does seem to match the results at NY times site. on a county by county basis.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/primaries/iowa?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-abc-region&region=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region
The AP is not estimating the popular vote. It is projecting the number of state delegates (multiplied by 100).

For example in Taylor County, there were 30 delegates elected to the county convention, 21 for Clinton, and 9 for Sanders. The IDP shows Clinton with 70% of the "vote", which is 21/30. That is, she won 70% of the delegates to the county convention.

Taylor County elects 2 state delegates. AP and the Atlas show this as 200 units, and divides it as 140 60.

I don't know how the IDP estimates the state delegates. They could conceivably do it just like the AP and the Atlas, but not multiply by 100. So it would be 1.4 to 0.6, and then they would round at the state total.

This would have the advantage that it would would work with partial county results. Let's imagine that Bedford was still out, which would make it Clinton 16, Sanders 7, and 7 delegates not yet chosen.

Clinton could be projected as 16/30 * 2 = 1.07 state delegates (or 107 units)
Sanders would be 7/30 * 2 = 0.47 (or 47)
Still out 7/30 * 2 = 0.47 (or 47).

The alternative would be to attempt to project what will happen at the county convention. If we assume that all the county delegates will show up and vote for their candidate, then a 21:9 split translates to 1.4 and 0.6 state delegates, which rounds to 1 for Clinton and 1 for Sanders.

How I got to a 21:9 split for county delegates in Taylor County.

County delegates are allocated to each precinct in proportion to the Obama(P2012) + Hatch(G2014) vote:

Blockton 92
Bedford 403
Clearfield 161
Gravity 127
Legion 183
Lenox 649
New Market 174

The precinct results are:

Blockton: 100%:0%. which means 1:0 or some integer multiple.
Bedford 71.4%:28.6%, 5:2 or some multiple.
Clearfield 100%:0%, 1:0 or some multiple
Gravity 50%:50%, 1:1 or some multiple.
Legion 66.7%:33.3%, 2:1 or some multiple.
Lenox 63.6%:36.4%, 7:4 or some multiple.
New Market 66.7%: 33.3%, 2:1 or some multiple.

If the multiple in every precinct is 1, then it would be 19:9, which would give Clinton 67.9%, which is not the 70.0% shown on the IDP website.

Sw we calculate the Obama+Hatch vote divided by the minimum number of delegates for a precinct.

Blockton 92/1 = 92.0
Bedford 403/7 = 57.5
Clearfield 161/1 = 161.0
Gravity 127/2 = 63.5
Legion 183/3 = 61.0
Lenox 649/11 = 59.0
New Market 174/3 = 58.0

The ratio of Obama+Hatch to delegates appears to be around 60, with Blockton and Clearfield needing more delegates.

Clearfield 161/2 = 80.5, and 100%:0% = 2:0 county delegates.
Blockton 92/2 = 46.0, and 100%:0% = 2:0 county delegates.

With these adjustments the county convention would be 21:9, which matches the 70%:30% split on the IDP website.

As a further check, we divide the 1789 Obama+Hatch votes by 30 = quota of 59.6 votes/delegate allocated.

Blockton 92/Q = 1.54 (rounds to 2)
Bedford 403/Q = 6.76 (7)
Clearfield 161/Q = 2.70 (round to 3)
Gravity 127/Q = 2.13 (rounds to 2)
Legion 183/Q = 3.07 (rounds to 3)
Lenox 649/Q = 10.88 (rounds to 11)
New Market 174/Q = 2.92 (rounds to 3)

This totals to 31. It appears that for some reason, county conventions have delegates that are a multiple of 5. Since the number of county delegates is fixed, we drop a delegate from Blockton, which has the smallest fraction over 0.50.

This would mean that it was actually:

Blockton 1:0
Clearfield 3:0

And still 21:9 for the county.

But this still doesn't tell us the popular vote. We don't know know how many attended the caucus and Legion, and we know that, Clinton had more support than Sanders (but it could be one person, or even a lucky coin flip), and Sanders had 1/6 of the delegates (this is the threshold when electing 3 delegates). So Clinton had between 50% and 83.3% of an unknown number of voters in Legion.
60  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Iowa Caucus results thread (entrance poll @8pm ET) on: February 02, 2016, 10:08:32 am
At glance at the raw vote results indicates to me the Clinton most likely won the popular vote as well so I am not sure what Sanders is trying to do by pushing to release the raw vote count.  He is better off talking about the near tie in terms of delegates and all the coin tosses.
Popular vote is translated into county delegates on a precinct by precinct basis. The county delegates are then translated into state delegates. This is an estimate, and assumes that county delegates chosen by a group of Clinton supporters will support Clinton at the county convention.

In past caucuses, the ratio of popular vote to state delegates has been higher in more populous counties, and the highest has usually been in Johnson County (Iowa City and University of Iowa). And it is quite possible that the popular vote to county delegates is variable within a county.

A well-organized campaign would have someone at every precinct in the state, and would have reported the popular vote back to the party.
61  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Iowa Caucus results thread (entrance poll @8pm ET) on: February 02, 2016, 09:49:01 am
lol at all the frustrated, delusional Bernie assholes trying to pretend Bernie beat expectations and never had a chance in Iowa.
CNN had Bernie up 9 in Iowa, and the polls have been MOE for the last month.
Just 12 hours ago these kids were saying Bernie was going to easily win because of the enthusiasm gap.  Now they hope we've all forgotten.  Steve McQueen remembers.



Nope, and it looks like she won just because she got lucky with coin flips.

"THE COINS WERE RIGGED!  CHECK THEM OUT - THEY HAD HEADS ON BOTH SIDES!!!"

How did the Sanders people want a dead-tie precinct to be decided?
If they just handed it to Sanders the count would be 695-693 Clinton.

That's ok.  Clinton people have a president.  Bernie people have a childish little sob story about how the election was stolen from them by a coin flip that they can annoy people with for the next few months.
Except the coin flips weren't deciding delegates to the state conventions, they were deciding delegates to county conventions.

The rural counties that I looked at had 10s of county delegates, who would choose two or three state delegates. It is quite improbable that a county delegate will change the distribution of the state delegates. In the more populous counties, the ratio of county delegates to state delegates will be lower, so a particularly propitious lucky coin flip may have changed a delegate.
62  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Iowa Caucus results thread (entrance poll @8pm ET) on: February 02, 2016, 09:31:36 am
AP says there are 1681 precincts, but Microsoft has it at 1683 precincts.
There are a couple of extra non-geographical caucuses for people who are out of state, particularly military. There is some sort of way to register to participate.

Since Microsoft is working with the parties, they may have taken that into account. The AP may just be set up to use conventional precincts.
63  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Iowa Caucus results thread (entrance poll @8pm ET) on: February 02, 2016, 05:00:48 am
Are there exact precinct results available anywhere?  Or will there be?

https://www.idpcaucuses.com/#/state

Click on a county to get a precinct-level result map of that county.

It's just a percentage in each precinct.  This isn't the most useful, though I may be able to reverse engineer some results with some effort.
The precinct results are the percentages of delegates to the county convention.  You will notice that the percentages are the decimal equivalent of small integer ratios (eg 2/7 equal 28.6%). One problem is that a lot of precincts are 50%:50%, which means that they could be 1:1, 2:2, 3:3, ... etc. Somewhere there must be the number of delegates per precinct, but I haven't come across it.

The allocation is proportional to the Obama+Hatch results in the 2012 and 2014 elections. So you should be able to figure it out (the Iowa SOS does have precinct level results).

But the popular vote is much higher. For example, the Des Moines precinct that was shown on NPR had a popular vote count of 232:224, with 3 persons missing. But there were only 9 delegates awarded (5:4). So the precinct will be reported as 55.6% for Clinton, even though the popular vote was 50.9% Clinton.

2008 ratio of caucus attendees to state delegate

State delegates per county - 2016

Democratic results

It appears that the ratio of the Obama+Hatch popular vote to county delegates is not constant across counties.

For example:

Taylor 1789 Obama+Hatch :: 30 county delegates
Ringgold 1738 Obama+Hatch :: 80 county delegates
Decatur 2559 Obama+Hatch :: 70 county delegates

But for precincts within a county, the ratio of Obama+Hatch :: county delegates is a constant.

So for example in Taylor the quota is 1789/30 = 59.63

And by precinct:

Blockton 92/Q = 2 (rounded), Clinton 2, Sanders 0
Bedford 403/Q = 7, Clinton 5, Sanders 2
Clearfield 161/Q = 3, Clinton 3, Sanders 0
Gravity 127/Q = 2, Clinton 1, Sanders 1
Legion 183/Q = 3, Clinton 2, Sanders 1
Lenox 649/Q = 11, Clinton 7, Sanders 4
New Market 174/Q = 3, Clinton 2, Sanders 1

Total: 1789/Q = 30, Clinton 21, Sanders 9

Clinton is shown as receiving 70% of the vote in Taylor. That may be roughly correct, subject to rounding in each precinct, and assuming attendance per delegate was constant across precincts.

Taylor County will elect 2 delegates to the state convention. I think a 21:9 split will come out 1.4 : 0.6, and Sanders will get the favorable rounding, so that in the state totals, Taylor will be reported as 1 each.

A similar occurrence happens in Ringgold where a 53:27 Clinton majority at the county convention will produce a 1:1 split at the state convention.

But in Decatur. a 35:33:1:1 split may produce a 2:1 split at the state convention since Decatur has 3 state delegates (O'Malley and Uncommitted each have one county delegate). There could be some serious courting of those two delegates.

Since the highest number of attendees per state delegate has usually been in Johnson County (Iowa City and University of Iowa), I suspect that Sanders actually had a popular vote plurality. Likely not a majority since O'Malley was probably getting squeezed everywhere.

Because the size of the county convention varies, and is not proportional to the Obama+Hatch popular vote, it would be meaningless to produce statewide totals. I suspect that county conventions in larger counties are smaller in a relative sense. The Obama+Hatch popular vote in Polk was 116.44 x that in Ringgold. If the size of the county conventions was proportional, then Ringgold would have 80 county delegates, and Polk would 9300 county delegates.

Note that Polk does have 228 state delegates which is 114 x that of Ringgold.
64  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Iowa Caucus results thread (entrance poll @8pm ET) on: February 02, 2016, 12:04:29 am
AP says Sanders is leading in Delegates (actual delegates) 19-18. Clinton still leads in precinct level delegates 568-557.
The 568-557 is the projected number of state delegates, based on the assumption that the county conventions will elect their state delegates in proportion to the county delegates chosen tonight. The county delegates are not bound, but presumably the delegates chosen tonight were vetted by the campaigns. I think the O'Malley and uncommitted will probably miss the thresholds, and won't actually elect any state delegates.

Most of the national delegates are actually allocated by congressional district (8, 8, 8, and 6), with 6 for the western CD. So a 5:3 split is at least a 56:44 majority (with rounding).
65  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican Iowa Caucus results thread (entrance poll @8pm ET) on: February 01, 2016, 10:58:08 pm
So how does the delegate count break down?
Cruz 8,
Trump 7,
Rubio 7,
Carson 3,
Rand, Bush, Kasich, Fiorina, Huckabee 1
Christie 0

Kasich, Fiorina, Huckabee, and Christie are all just above 0.5 delegates, and Christie is missing out with the smallest fraction over 1/2.

More likely it is 7th, 8th and 9th get 1 delegate, and 10th place gets none.
66  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: ABC News: IA R & D caucus location websites don't work for new voters on: February 01, 2016, 09:19:01 pm
Precinct lines run along streets (as do census blocks). So just pick an address on your side of the block.

Most places ...
67  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Temporal Weighted Apportionment on: February 01, 2016, 02:49:45 pm
Michigan is entitled to 21.6 representatives in five to seven districts.



The Detroit UCC has enough population for 9.2 representatives, which are placed in two districts, one for Wayne County, and the other for the northern four counties.

The remaining 12.4 representatives is just barely enough for four districts. Starting with the Upper Peninsula and coming down the Lower Peninsula, the first encountered major source of population is the Saginaw-Midland-Bay City area. Taking the Tri-Cities into the northern district, puts Flint and Lansing in a district. This in turn places a district across the southern part of the state, leaving the Lake Michigan shore line plus from Grand Rapids-Muskegon southward for the fourth district.

It is feasible to put Saginaw in the northern district, but this then forces the Flint-Lansing district to push upward to include Mount Pleasant and areas to the west. Four districts is feasible, but leaves very little wiggle room.

Three districts for 12.4 representatives is very flexible, since the district populations don't need to be balanced.

2601 - Wayne County or Detroit-Wayne - 4.0 representatives.

2602 - Detroit Metro North - 5.2 representatives.

2603 - Upper Peninsula & Northern Lower Peninsula or Northern Michigan or Great Lakes or Michilimackinac - 3.0 representatives.

2604 - Lansing-Flint-Saginaw - 3.2 representatives.

2605 - Southern Michigan - 3.2 representatives.

2606 - Grand Rapids & Lake Michigan Shore - 3.0 representatives.


This alternative divides the area outside Detroit into three districts rather than four. Saginaw and the Michigan Thumb are switched to the northern district, and the southern district is divided, with Jackson, Ann Arbor, and Monroe, placed with Lansing and Flint; and Kalamazoo and Battle Creek placed with Grand Rapids.


68  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 4th quarter fundraising #s on: February 01, 2016, 03:41:20 am
How did Walker spend nearly $2 million after he dropped out?
$400K was refund of contributions. Lots of credit card payments, and it looks like a lot of expenses for staffers that must have been on personal credit cards. Walker didn't drop out until just before the beginning of the 3rd quarter, so the bills would have been received and paid in the fourth quarter.

He still has about $1.2 million in debt.
69  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Temporal Weighted Apportionment on: February 01, 2016, 03:13:28 am
Michigan is entitled to 21.6 representatives in five to seven districts.



The Detroit UCC has enough population for 9.2 representatives, which are placed in two districts, one for Wayne County, and the other for the northern four counties.

The remaining 12.4 representatives is just barely enough for four districts. Starting with the Upper Peninsula and coming down the Lower Peninsula, the first encountered major source of population is the Saginaw-Midland-Bay City area. Taking the Tri-Cities into the northern district, puts Flint and Lansing in a district. This in turn places a district across the southern part of the state, leaving the Lake Michigan shore line plus from Grand Rapids-Muskegon southward for the fourth district.

It is feasible to put Saginaw in the northern district, but this then forces the Flint-Lansing district to push upward to include Mount Pleasant and areas to the west. Four districts is feasible, but leaves very little wiggle room.

Three districts for 12.4 representatives is very flexible, since the district populations don't need to be balanced.

2601 - Wayne County or Detroit-Wayne - 4.0 representatives.

2602 - Detroit Metro North - 5.2 representatives.

2603 - Upper Peninsula & Northern Lower Peninsula or Northern Michigan or Great Lakes or Michilimackinac - 3.0 representatives.

2604 - Lansing-Flint-Saginaw - 3.2 representatives.

2605 - Southern Michigan - 3.2 representatives.

2606 - Grand Rapids & Lake Michigan Shore - 3.0 representatives.
70  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Temporal Weighted Apportionment on: January 31, 2016, 05:49:04 pm
Arkansas is entitled to 6.4 representatives in two districts.



The two districts will be just above the minimum of 3.0 and fairly equal in population. Since the northwest is the most populous area outside of Little Rock, it was made the base of one district, and Little Rock the center of the other, spreading out to the south and west.

I would add some counties to one district and then some to the other keeping the population in balance. The final map is based roughly on the terrain, with the exceptions of Texarkana being placed in the western district, and Little Rock in the eastern district. You will notice a slight notch into the western district around Little Rock. The population of the two districts was equalized.

501 - Western Arkansas or Ozarks or Northwestern Arkansas - 3.2 representatives.

502 - Eastern Arkansas - 3.2 representatives.
71  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Question about tomorrow's Democratic procedures on: January 31, 2016, 02:34:33 pm
This could really be applied to the Republicans as well, but I'm mainly looking at the Democrats, but I think I heard somewhere that most precincts would do a tally with O'Malley's supporters and then another caucus to reallocate his caucus support.  Is that true, or is that only if one of the other two don't get above a certain threshold or what?
They use different methods.

Traditionally, a caucus was simply to organize the party, since nominations are made in the primaries. A precinct caucus would choose precinct committeemen and precinct committeewomen, choose delegates to the county convention: "Does anyone want to go the county convention, it will be in Buford City on the 23rd? Raise your hands." A few people reluctantly raise their hands, and are picked. They need one more, and they cajole the husband of one of the other volunteers to also go. There could be a little political discussion, but who really wants to debate politics with their neighbors?

The presidential preference part has been grafted on to the caucus, and has become more formal over time, particularly with the Democrats.

The purpose of the precinct caucus is still to choose delegates to the county convention, but they are chosen on the basis of presidential preference. The candidates will try to identify leaders in each precinct, who will recruit neighbors to attend, and keep them together at the caucus.



At Democratic caucuses, attendees will group together based on presidential preference. There can be an attempt to recruit other people. If there are only a couple of O'Malley supporters they might not want to look too oddball, and they may be reluctant to admit that they support O'Malley, and may switch. After the groups stabilize, or 30 minutes, a head count will be taken, and viability determined.

Groups that are too small will be dissolved and the voters can switch. There could be some horsetrading. If a small group joins a larger groups, they may be offered the chance to choose a county delegate.

Another headcount is taken, the county delegates allocated to each group, who choose the delegates.

This same process is repeated at the county conventions, which choose the delegates to congressional district conventions. The congressional district conventions choose the delegates to the national convention.



Republicans will vote on ballots, and these will be reported to the state party. Delegates to the national convention will be allocated on this basis.

Republicans will then choose county delegates. They might take into account presidential preferences. In 2012, Republicans reported initially that Romney had won, but after a recount that Santorum had actually won. By the time of the state convention, Paul delegates dominated. They had done a better job at getting elected to county conventions, and perhaps showing up for them.

In 2016, the initial count taken at the caucuses will determine the allocation of national delegates. The composition of the state convention that chooses the actual delegates may be different.
72  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Outside of college towns, how concentrated is Sanders support in Iowa? on: January 31, 2016, 01:46:14 pm
Yeah, I've been saying for a while that the talk of the Sanders vote being overconcentrated is overblown.  He has plenty of rural supporters, especially in a state like Iowa with so many rural white liberals, and Clinton has plenty of urban supporters, especially in areas with higher minority populations.  Yes Sanders is very popular in white college towns, but he would not be polling like he is if his support were concentrated in or limited to those areas.  
It should be remembered that delegates are based on past Democratic performance. There were Iowa City precincts where Joni Ernst got 10% of the vote, and will be sending bunches of delegates to the county convention.

Republican farmers in the west weren't polled. Instead it was Democrats in Sioux Falls and Council Bluffs, and other small towns. And caucus-goers will be more intensely political. Union members, at least those active in union politics, will show up. Only about 20-25% of registered Democrats will caucus.
73  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Temporal Weighted Apportionment on: January 31, 2016, 02:58:01 am
I know some judges who ride, but probably not on their judicial circuit. Wink
In Texas, district courts in smaller counties are generally arranged so that there is one dominant county where the judge can sit most of the time, and then smaller counties that don't have enough cases for a full time judge are attached. The district judge might hear cases in those counties for a week once a month, or once every two months.

I thought that might be the case in Illinois - where the circuits are designed more to match case loads than regions of interest. I was probably thinking of Abraham Lincoln, who used to ride circuit as well, traveling from Springfield for various trials.

Texas does not have district courts with multiple judges, but instead has overlapping districts. Harris County has 60+ district courts. One court is designated the administrative court, and cases are assigned randomly, though there are specialties - civil, criminal, juvenile).

In less populated areas, the districts are not necessarily coterminous. A larger county such as Tom Green or Taylor might be assigned

Texas District Courts (PDF)

BTW, how would the Chicago and Cook delegations be elected to conform with the VRA?

Proportional Approval Voting (YouTube)

For Chicago: WNHCVAP 40%, BCVAP 35%, HCVAP 19%, ACVAP 5%.
For Cook County (excluding Chicago): WNHCVAP 64%, BCVAP 17%, HCVAP 12%, ACVAP 6%

The HCVAP/HVAP ratio is about 60% in both districts, but the native HVAP to naturalized HVAP is higher in Chicago, presumably to a higher share of Puerto Ricans in Chicago, compared to Cook County, particularly Cicero.

I think that Gutierrez could be elected in Chicago, along with Danny Davis and Bobby Rush, and a white Republican and a white Democrat, leaving one position open. Robin Kelly would presumably run for one of the Cook County seats.
74  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Temporal Weighted Apportionment on: January 31, 2016, 12:17:11 am
Since judges are elected in IL the judicial system might be a reasonable way to divide the downstate area. In this split the southern region (1.321 M) exactly matches the 5th Appellate Court and its included circuit courts. The central region (1.463 M) includes all of the 4th Appellate Court plus the 21st Circuit Court (Iroquois and Kankakee). The northern region (1.510 M) includes all the remaining parts of the 2nd and 3rd Appellate Court not in the Chicago UCC or the 21st Circuit.

I'm not sure how low in population you can go including rounding. So if the southern region is too low you could shift Macoupin and Jersey, splitting the 7th Circuit Court, but equalizing the population between those two regions.





It is not that unreasonable. I think orienting the map at an angle may help since it removes some of the bias towards east-west and north-south lines.

It did change the rounding, as DuPage-Will lost a term.
75  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Temporal Weighted Apportionment on: January 30, 2016, 11:24:15 pm
Illinois is entitled to 28 representatives, with between six and 9 districts.





The Chicago UCC has enough for 18.66 districts, with 9.34 for the remainder of the state. The remainder of the state can be divided into two or three districts. The three districts would be quite near the minimum, while two districts would be near the maximum.

Starting from Rockford and picking up the Quad Cities area, it was clear that Peoria would be needed to get to the 3.00 minimum. Coming up from the south included the Carbondale and St.Louis suburbs.
This left a third district with Springfield, Decatur, Champaign-Urbana, Bloomington, and the southern exurbs of Chicago.

The initial version had the middle district extending to the Mississippi. The final version has more of an eastern Illinois flavor, with a bump out to include Springfield, while the northern (or western) district and southern districts include all of the Mississippi.

Cook County is entitled to 11.34 representatives. This splits into a Chicago and a non-Chicago (Cook County) district that takes advantage of the 6.0 limit to keep states, UCCs, counties, etc. within a single district. Their are not many options splitting the suburban counties, since the Cook panhandle cuts DuPage off from the north. Kendall was placed in the northern district based on a perception of a stronger connection to Kane than Will counties. If Kendall has a stronger connection to Will, and indirectly to DuPage, it could be switched.

1701 - Chicago - 6.0 representatives.

1702 - Cook County - 5.4 representatives.

1703 - DuPage-Will - 3.6 representatives.

1704 - Chicagoland North-West - 3.8 representatives.

1705 - Northern Illinois or Western Illinois - 3.2 representatives.

1706 - Eastern Illinois or Central Illinois - 3.0 representatives.

1707 - Southern Illinois - 3.0 representatives.

Kendall and DeKalb are together in the same judicial circuit, and until recently they were both in the same circuit as Kane. The Metro West municipal council of governments includes Kane, Kendall and DeKalb. I think your arrangement for the collars is fine.

Since judges are elected in IL the judicial system might be a reasonable way to divide the downstate area. In this split the southern region (1.321 M) exactly matches the 5th Appellate Court and its included circuit courts. The central region (1.463 M) includes all of the 4th Appellate Court plus the 21st Circuit Court (Iroquois and Kankakee). The northern region (1.510 M) includes all the remaining parts of the 2nd and 3rd Appellate Court not in the Chicago UCC or the 21st Circuit.

I'm not sure how low in population you can go including rounding. So if the southern region is too low you could shift Macoupin and Jersey, splitting the 7th Circuit Court, but equalizing the population between those two regions.


The minimum is a hard 3.0 of the state sub-apportionment. For Illinois, the quota is 458,237, or a minimum 1,374,211. I was concerned somewhat about mischievous plans that would target 2.901+ or 5.099-. In addition, these would not necessarily round to three and five, since the rounding is not independent.

An oddity in Illinois is that the raw apportionment for all seven districts was less than half way to the next unit. That is, in apportioning the 140 representative-terms (140 = 28.0x5), the fraction for all  seven districts was below 0.5:

0.413
0.398
0.393
0.307
0.268
0.154
0.066

Chicago (5.883 to 6.000) and DuPage-Will (3.480 to 3.600) both got favorable roundings, producing a slight bias towards the Chicago area.

The districts would be drawn by a federal redistricting commission. This is necessary in order that the apportionment of the extra terms be coordinated between states and districts.

Under the US Constitution, the Congress has the authority to apportion representatives on the basis of population:  "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers" (14th Amendment), and nothing precludes this apportionment varying biennially - so long as the variation is based on maintaining proportionality between censuses, and each State has at least one representative. Under Article I, Section 4, the Congress has authority to regulate the manner of election of representatives, which includes both the establishment of districts, and the election therefrom.

An alternate approach would be like was done in Ohio (under the 1851 Constitution), where the fraction determined the terms in which there was extra representation:

   0.2 Extra representative in 5th term.
   0.4 Extra representatives in 3rd and 4th terms.
   0.6 Extra representatives in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd terms.
   0.8 Extra representatives in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th term.

This resulted in variation of the size of the legislature, and there was a size-based bias. If applied to Congress, there would still be the need to allocate terms among the districts in the state.

The federal redistricting commission could still take into account local input, and might consider the use of courts that are organized on a regional basis. My inclination would be to keep the circuit courts whole, and so I would switch the 5th Circuit to the southern district.

Do circuit judges in Illinois still ride circuit?
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 270


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines