Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 06, 2015, 08:46:15 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 236
51  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Second Cities on: February 21, 2015, 12:59:58 pm
1830

Northern Liberites, PA (7)
Albany (9)
Salem (14)
Norfolk (24)
Georgetown, DC (28), replacing Alexandria
Newport (33)
Hartford (39)
Augusta, GA (42), to Savannah
Lexington (48), swaps places with Louisville
Dover, NH (52) to Portsmouth
Frederick (61)
Trenton (71), as Newark becomes largest
Wilmington, NC , replacing Fayetteville
Columbia, SC (78), to Charleston
Zanesville, OH (83), to Cincinnati
52  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Second Cities on: February 21, 2015, 12:48:05 pm
1820

Northern Liberties (7)
Salem (10)
Albany (11)
Norfolk (16)
Alexandria (17)
Newport (21)
Hartford (36)
Louisville, KY (44) to Lexington
Frederick, MD (49) to Baltimore
Fayetteville, NC (51) to New Bern
Elizabeth, NJ (52)
53  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Second Cities on: February 21, 2015, 12:41:43 pm
1810

Northern Liberties, PA (6)
Salem (9)
Albany (10), tie with Schenectady broken
Norfolk (14), swaps places with Richmond
Newport (15)
Alexandria, DC (17), swaps places with Washington
Hartford (39), as New Haven advances to first, and New London drops to 3rd.
Elizabeth, NJ (43), to Trenton, first time in large cities for either
54  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Second Cities on: February 21, 2015, 12:33:04 pm
1800

Northern Liberties, PA (6)
Salem ( 8 )
Newport (11), Providence becomes largest city
Richmond (13), Norfolk becomes largest city
Albany, Schenectady (17t) Schenectady becomes 2nd city (tie)
New Haven (26), New London becomes largest city
Washington, DC (31), to Alexandria after creation of District of Columbia
55  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Second Cities on: February 21, 2015, 12:25:14 pm
Second Largest Cities in a State 1790

Northern Liberties, PA (6 overall), to Philadelphia
Salem (7), to Boston
Providence (9), to Newport
Albany (19), to New York
Norfolk (20), to Richmond
Hartford (23), to New Haven
56  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 21, 2015, 12:18:46 pm
The submitted map can be represented as a graph, with the vertices representing the regions, and the links representing the boundary between the regions.   Since we will making our population shifts/chops along these boundaries, we can eliminate any links where there are not connected counties.  There were none in this example, but in Michigan they might occur if four regions met at the junction of four counties.  In that case, the diagonally opposite regions would not be linked.



57  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Major City vs. Giant Suburb on: February 21, 2015, 04:32:41 am
It's simple, what's the line between them?

There are a lot of very big suburbs, and a lot of major cities. Sometimes they are right next to each other, which also blurs the line. Is Ft. Worth a giant suburb of Dallas, or a major city in its own right? There's also Baltimore and DC, and of course Minneapolis and St. Paul.
 
Looking at America's largest cities, which is the last Major City (besides the capitol cities) and which is the first Giant Suburb?
If you take the 100 largest cities beginning in 1920, when personal car ownership was becoming large enough to support suburbs, a cutoff of 1960 could be used to classify as a city, while 1970+ would be a suburb.   Cities that dropped out of the Top 100 are in parentheses.

Boston: (Cambridge), (Lawrence), (Lowell), (Lynn), (Somerville)

Albany: (Schenectady), (Troy)

New York: Newark, Jersey City, Paterson, Yonkers, (Elizabeth), (Bayonne)

Philadelphia: (Camden)

(Scranton): (Wilkes-Barre)

Washington: Arlington

Chicago: Gary

Minneapolis: St. Paul

Kansas City: Kansas City, KS

Tampa: St. Petersburg

Dallas: Fort Worth

Seattle: Tacoma

San Francisco: Oakland, (Berkeley)

Los Angeles: Long Beach

++++++++++++++++++++

1970s: Anaheim, Fort Lauderdale, Riverside, Santa Ana, Virginia Beach, Warren

1980s: Arlington, TX, Aurora, CO, Huntington Beach, Metairie

1990: Fremont, Garland, Glendale, CA, Hialeah

2000: Glendale. AZ, Chesapeake, Irving, Mesa, Plano

2010: Chandler, Chula Vista, Durham, Gilbert, Henderson, Irvine, North Las Vegas, San Bernardino, Scottsdale, Winston-Salem

++++++++

Meanwhile, many of the cities that we don't really consider major cities were dropping from the Top 100.  While not really bedroom communities, they are more like satellite employment center, sharing suburbs with the large neighbors.

1930 (added): Chattanooga. Gary(S), Long Beach(S), Miami, Rockford, Sacramento, Tampa
1930(dropped): Harrisburg, Lawrence(S), Manchester, St. Joseph, Savannah, Sioux City, Troy(S)

1940(added): Charlotte, Little Rock, Savannah, Shreveport
1940(dropped): Bayonne(S), Rockford, Schenectady(S), Wilkes-Barre(S)

1950(added): Arlington VA, Austin, Baton Rouge, Berkeley(S), Corpus Christi, Mobile, Phoenix
1950(dropped): Duluth, Little Rock, Lowell(S), Lynn(S), Somerville(S), Utica, Waterbury

1960(added): Albuquerque, Amarillo, Fresno, Greensboro, Honolulu, Jackson, Lincoln, Lubbock, Madison, Montgomery, Rockford, St. Petersburg(S), San Jose, Tucson
1960(dropped): Allentown, Berkeley(S), Cambridge(S), Camden(S), Canton, Elizabeth(S), Fall River, Knoxville. New Bedford, Peoria, Reading, Scranton, Trenton, Wilmington

10 of the 31 new big cities from 1930 to 1960 were state capitals, while three were dropped (Little Rock is in both groups).
58  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 20, 2015, 08:42:10 pm
Somehow I knew that is what you would do. Smiley  For erosity, would not a map with juts containing now much area, but a lot of population, garner far less of a penalty, as compared with what makes for the minimum line length of more rural districts large in area, unless you somehow take a ratio of line length to population for subsets of each CD? Your method really emphasizes overall equality in population. That will tend to result I suspect in "uglier" maps. Anyway, it will be interesting to compare what your map looks like that gets the high score with your system vis  a vis Mike's, and get forumite reaction to it. Good luck!
Can you give me a hypothetical example of the bolded part?  I'm not sure what you are saying.



Think of a long thin tendril that is not very big, but contains a lot of people. Picture it being in Manhattan or something. The overall effect on the line length is trivial. The psephological impact might be large.
Definition of districts within multi-region CDs would be at a second phase.

In New York the initial phase would define 6 regions, a 19-district region for the NY UCC, and 2-district regions for Buffalo, Rochester, and Albany-Schenectady, and 2 single-district regions.
59  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 20, 2015, 08:19:25 pm
To be connected, counties must be contiguous.   In general there must be a direct, non-circuitous way to travel between the counties, particularly considering the distribution of the population.  There is no requirement that the route be entirely in the two counties, but if the route goes through other counties it should not be through population concentrations, or drawn in a way to evade the population concentrations.

Can this be defined in a way that a person sitting at a computer with a program such as MapQuest could determine whether such a connection exists? As I read this it has a substantial subjective component, and two groups working on the connectivity map could reasonably come up with two different plans.
The organizers would define the connectivity map.  Presumably if they provided an app, this could be a displayable layer.  Any scoring would verify connectivity.

The Census Bureau has a county contiguity file for the United States, which can be trimmed to an individual state (eg the census file includes the contiguity between Monroe, MI and Lucas, OH). 

From census files the land boundary (direct) distance and areas can be obtained.  The substantiality of each border can be calculated.  I have used the border distance divided by the square root of the area of the smaller county.  We can imagine that the counties are wood blocks that have been glued together.  If there is longer surface the bond will be tighter.  Shorter, and we might be able to break them apart.  The size of block is an indication of the leverage that may be applied.

Where we can twist the blocks apart, we might use pegs or reinforcing rods.  This is the equivalent to roads connecting the counties.  Some of the reinforcing rods might be outside the boundary of the junction, but they can be seen as reinforcing the connectivity, particularly if they are not through the populated areas.

I used the primary/secondary road shapefile from the census bureau, as well as the urban areas shapefile.

If the organizer were a public commission, they could prepare a preliminary definition of connectivity, which would be reviewed by the government of each county.
60  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 20, 2015, 12:18:03 pm
Scoring example:



This is a submitted map.  The three multi-county Urban County Clusters (UC), Detroit, Lansing, and Grand Rapids are highlighted in purple.

Each region is comprised of a group of connected counties, and has a population that is approximately equal to that of a whole number of congressional districts of ideal size.  For Michigan, the ideal population (the quota) is 705,974 which is the state's population of 9,883,640 divided by the total number of congressional districts (14). 

The population of each region is shown as the actual population relative to the quota.  For example, the population of the blue region in the Upper Peninsula and northern Lower Peninsula is 701,034, which is 0.993 (99.3%) of the quota.

An urban county cluster must be wholly contained in a region.  There may be multiple UCC in a region.   There are 11 single county UCC in Michigan (not shown).  In this submited plan, the Muskegon UCC is in the same region as the Grand Rapids UCC, and the Jackson UCC is in the same region as the Lansing UCC.

It is within the rules to have multiple larger UCC in a region.  The Detroit and Lansing UCC could be be combined into a single region with a population equal to about 7 districts.  But this would reduce the total number of regions from 8 to 7, and any 8-region plan automatically defeats a 7-region plan.  The Lansing and Grand Rapids UCC could be combined into a single 2-district region.  But this will create a band across the state.  The area south of the band has a population equivalent to 2.4 districts, too large for two regions, but too small for 3 regions.
61  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 20, 2015, 09:32:36 am
Somehow I knew that is what you would do. Smiley  For erosity, would not a map with juts containing now much area, but a lot of population, garner far less of a penalty, as compared with what makes for the minimum line length of more rural districts large in area, unless you somehow take a ratio of line length to population for subsets of each CD? Your method really emphasizes overall equality in population. That will tend to result I suspect in "uglier" maps. Anyway, it will be interesting to compare what your map looks like that gets the high score with your system vis  a vis Mike's, and get forumite reaction to it. Good luck!
Can you give me a hypothetical example of the bolded part?  I'm not sure what you are saying.

62  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 20, 2015, 09:06:49 am
This is a connectivity map.



Connectivity is not used as part of an erosity measure, but rather as a more stringent criteria than literal contiguity for placing adjacent counties in the same district.   Connectivity would be defined before any maps were drawn.

To be connected, counties must be contiguous.   In general there must be a direct, non-circuitous way to travel between the counties, particularly considering the distribution of the population.  There is no requirement that the route be entirely in the two counties, but if the route goes through other counties it should not be through population concentrations, or drawn in a way to evade the population concentrations.

Continuity of land use may also be considered.  If the land on both sides of the boundary is crop lands, or urban development, the boundary itself is likely artificial.

The length of the border may be considered.  If the direct distance between the end points of the boundary is greater than 20% of the square root of the land area of the smaller county, the counties should generally be considered connected, unless there is a substantial reason not to, such as a substantial physical barrier.     If the direct distance between the end points of the boundary is less than 20% of the square root of the land area of the smaller county, a justification for connectivity may be needed.  If another county intrudes near the boundary, this may be a consideration.  For example the jog up of the northern boundary of Ottawa County cuts the length of the Muskegon-Kent boundary from 12 to 6 miles, but you have an area that is 12 miles wide to both the east and west of the boundary in the two counties.

On the map, green links are between connected counties.  Orange links are where the boundary is entirely in the Great Lakes.  These counties are not considered to be connected.    The links between Mackinac and Emmet and Cheboygan use the bridge.

The red dots are where four counties have a common junction point, or a near common junction point.  Point contiguity or near-point contiguity is not considered connected.

The yellow links are counties I would consider to be connected, but I could see someone arguing that they are not.  Red links are counties I would not consider to be connected, and would need stronger justification to change.

In general, we should be liberal in the granting of connected status.   It is only intended to restrict the most tenuous instances of literal contiguity.  It is not part of the measurement of erosity, or an indication of community of interest.
63  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 19, 2015, 10:41:49 pm
Which plan do you like best now, Jimtex?
I am going to present and score several, and then we can compare.  Perhaps you will try to create your own plan.

I did, and compared it to "yours" above, as modified by me. Smiley 

If you are using some scoring system other than Muon2's, except maybe for penalizing microchops, matters however will descend into further chaos than they are now however.  One scoring system at a time should be tested, is my suggestion. Muon2 isn't applying his zoom thing anyway I don't think, which is perhaps the most problematical part of his system until further refined, other than what we discussed about uber penalizing double chops that add up to a microchop of a multi county UCC.
I am proposing a simpler, alternate scoring system.

By focusing on regions containing whole UCC's you get something that is more Iowa-like with 8 regions.

Erosity is measured by the simplified internal border length.  This avoids the whole issue of road connectivity. 

I do use connectivity as a constraint on a limited basis, but only as a substitute for pure contiguity.  For example, Gratiot and Shiawassee are contiguous, while Saginaw and Clinton are not.  I define Gratiot and Shiawassee as not being _connected_, and therefore you can not have a region (or district) that goes directly between Gratior and Shiawassee.  However, if the Gratiot-Shiawassee boundary is part of a region boundary you are charged for it (about 3/4 of a mile).

The equality measurement is the amount needed to bring the regions into substantial equality.  It in effect is a measure of the total chopped population.  It avoids the whole issue of chop size calculation.
64  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 19, 2015, 05:14:36 pm
Which plan do you like best now, Jimtex?
I am going to present and score several, and then we can compare.  Perhaps you will try to create your own plan.
65  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 19, 2015, 02:57:42 pm
This is a plan I created in 2013:



66  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 18, 2015, 02:24:27 pm
I messed up.  I switched Mecosta, but used the population of Osceola.  Clare and Mason are slightly too large to improve equality with a simple swap.

This is based on the plan named Train 2015 B, with an adjustment.  As originally proposed, it required a double shift to transport the excess population from Saginaw Bay district to Detroit.  But a transfer of Osceola from Saginaw Bay to Lansing, reduces the difference between those two districts, and permits a direct transfer from Lansing to Detroit.  Overall, the shifted population is 6.6% of a quota.
67  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 18, 2015, 12:21:11 am
This is based on what Muon has labelled as Torie 2015 C.  Its main feature is no chops needed for the Grand Rapids region.   Note I required this to be within 0.5% x sqrt(2) of 2 quotas, which is barely.  Otherwise, you have a bit of systemic population bias.



There is an alternate that would move the shift from Flint to Detroit to Flint to Saginaw Bay, reduce the shift northward from Lansing to Saginaw Bay, and increase the shift eastward from Lansing to Detroit.
68  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 17, 2015, 10:43:54 pm
Quick question that I missed the answer to: if, say, you have a large multi-district UCC, and you have the minimum number of districts in it, but more than one of those districts crosses the UCC boundary, does that give you any extra penalty?  What if, say, there's a county that is not part of the UCC but is literally only accessible through the UCC, does that get mulliganed or not?

Spoiler alert: in particular I'm thinking about various ways to draw the Pittsburgh area.  It has to take at least parts of four districts but do three of them need to be entirely within the UCC, especially with non-UCC Greene in the corner mucking things up?
The Pittsburgh UCC requires 4 districts, so Greene can be included.  I'm ambivalent whether you have one district with just a small portion of the UCC, or two districts that are closer to 1/2 and 1/2, or perhaps three districts that extend outside the UCC, if one includes Greene.  I'd probably try to put Greene with a district that comes in from the east.  Fayette is fairly remote from Pittsburgh, in likely gets pulled into the UCC based on settlement along the Monongahela.  Then if could reach Erie, I'd have the other district heading that way.  If I couldn't reach Erie, I'd go east so as to leave as much population north of the UCC to put in the Erie district.

In Virginia, I included Accomack and Northampton with the Hampton Roads UCC, and stripped some of the UCC off the north.  That was based on the region between the James and Potomac being rather short of population, and it also needed some of the excess from the Washington UCC. Conceivably you could cross the Chesapeake, as has been done in the past based on some COI argument, even though there are no longer ferries operating.
69  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Fellow map nerds! I need a favor! on: February 17, 2015, 05:49:50 pm
Rather than splitlining this one makes use of an algorithm in which the average voter distance from the center of the district is minimized. I would love someone to figure out how this would impact congress Smiley  http://bdistricting.com/2010/WA_Congress/
It produces block lists.  If you had block lists for election precincts, you could convert election results to district results.   Election precincts that were split could be allocated on the basis of population.  Election precincts are small enough that there is unlikely to be a big political difference across the precincts.
70  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 17, 2015, 03:45:29 pm
Here is our collaborative effort with Missaukee rather than Osceola shifted.  The increase in the number shifted is slight, from 9.1% to 9.3%, the number of chops is reduced from 5 to 4, and erosity is reduced.

71  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 17, 2015, 02:54:03 pm
Edit: Missaukee not Manistee

Jimtex, I don't think your "instructions" are part of the game, nor the 10% figure wherever that came from. Also, there is no penalty for the size of an I-chop, so one can play with that to get a higher score in other areas. Sure, your approach is a more efficient process I admit, once you have gathered the data base on a spread sheet, which takes a fair amount of work, including knowing where the counties are (so putting the percentages of each county on a map is probably what one should do first perhaps following your method).
Your first map came in at 11.5%.   The version with Osceola (not Manistee Missaukee) shifted came in at 9.1%.  There was no magic about 10%, it was just to indicate the level of equality one can achieve in a state with more populous counties than Iowa.

I believe that is a mistake to not consider the size of the chops.  To paraphrase Reynolds v Sims, people vote, not chops.   To survive a legal challenge, we are going to going to have to establish that reducing county division was of paramount concern.  Stranding 64,000 persons is better than stranding 81,000 unless there was a significant erosity cost.

A commission in Michigan that wanted public participation would provide an application that might have an interface similar to what I drew.  They would publish their numbers, so interested parties could verify them (as you know governments sometimes make mistakes in this area).  They would publish a standard for describing a plan, so that if some drew map with a spreadsheet and paint, they could submit a plan.

In a real app, you would be able to click on the county and it would be painted.  You might be able to draw areas, etc. but that is hardly needed given the relative small number of counties.  One could hover and see the county name, and switch to a satellite layer with translucent colors.  One could show the actual populations, though that is less practical in my experience.

Quote
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

I would only use road connectivity to control which counties may be directly connected.  In Michigan this is mainly to force the Lake Michigan crossing at the bridge, and to disqualify a few near corner connections.  Within counties I would be inclined to treat contiguity and connectivity as equivalent, other than corner connections of townships.  An exception might be made for a place like King County, WA, where Lake Washington would either have to be crossed on a bridge, or go around the ends of the lake.
72  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 17, 2015, 01:30:05 am
But Osceola can be shifted producing better equality between regions and reducing the stranded population outside UCC to under 10% of the quota (around 64,000).

73  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 16, 2015, 11:54:43 pm
It is less than a macro-chop Jimtex (however defined), and just why absent a macrochop, should UCC's be sacred cows, since the number of votes detached is a relatively trivial percentage? Also the Clinton chop is of rural areas, so they are probably pleased to be detached from the Green, egghead/intellectual, quasi Marxist, gay loving, God-less, cultural cesspool, and bureaucratic, public employee (government and public universities) tax loving parasitical types to boot, that Lansing is all about, in favor of being moved into the culture of the more traditional and steady practical Dutch heavy, into practical money making, and growing the economic pie rather than shrinking it, folks in the Grand Rapids UCC. Tongue

This post was just for fun. It has a mild point (the amount of population is small enough to just chill and it really is rural, which is why the population is small), and then I went ballistic, trolling my butt off, and I loved it. Maybe it will earn me my first death point. Tongue
You failed to follow instructions.  Given this map,



(1) Create whole-county regions with a population approximately equal to a whole number of districts.
(2) Multi-county UCCs must be contained in a single region.
(3) Create as many regions as possible.

Having done that, the following map can be derived which shows the minimum population shifts to bring the regions into balance.

If your plan advanced, the next phase would be to define where the county chops were to be made.  By trying to do everything at once, you have to try to deal with all the problems of chops and erosity at different levels.   In addition, you would have to try to compare competing plans that differed only at a local level, such as choosing between chopping Clinton or Eaton counties. 



Eaton County is quite remote from East Lansing.   East Lansing is in Clinton County.  A typical couple in northern Clinton is a split commuter couple, with one working for Dow in Midland, and the other for the state government or for Michigan State.  The typical couple in western Eaton is a split commuter couple, with one working for the state government or GM, while the other works for a furniture manufacturer, tulip bulb cultivator, or Zondervan in Grand Rapids.
74  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 16, 2015, 05:23:29 pm
I like this as an algorithm to design a plan, but I tried something similar a year or so ago and had difficulty turning it in to a metric to judge plans. At a minimum it requires the mapper to submit their regions with their plan, and that has the downside of potentially disqualifying plans that were designed without regions. My sense is that isn't as good for public participation.
The intent is that the whole process be done in a stepwise fashion.  All participants would submit a regional plan.

If someone skipped that step, they could still produce a regional map.  This is how I comprehend Torie's map.



Presumably, he is going to need a large transfer from the Lansing region to the Grand Rapids region.  That may cause his plan to not advance.

But if it did, I'm pretty indifferent to whether the population is moved from northern Clinton, western Clinton, western Eaton, or perhaps even Calhoun.  If we have complete plans, then we are faced with variants that cause the whole number of plans to explode.

I think it is better in terms of public participation to start out with simple plans.

75  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style on: February 16, 2015, 01:11:29 pm
I'd like to roll back part of the discussion, so I can see where there is agreement and where questions need to be resolved.

At the level of someone looking at the two MI plans and not knowing any detail did the non-political scores seem reasonable relative to each other?
train: Inequality 10, chop 17, erosity 129
Torie: Inequality 10, chop 19, erosity 108

Let's set aside microchops, since they did not come into play for the MI maps. Perhaps they will return if a need arises.

Much of the detailed discussion was on macrochops and their effect on chops and erosity. My goals for them were the following:
=A measure for erosity that treats small scale erosity in urban areas the same way as large scale erosity in rural areas.
=A measure that could be coded in a straightforward way into software like DRA and doesn't change for different maps, for example the links between counties form a table that is known well in advance of the Census data, and the Kent links also become a table in software.
=A mechanism to determine if subunits should have subunits considered within them (in MI that means Detroit, but other states aren't as clean as MI - see IL).

A big part of the macrochop mechanism is the threshold to trigger it. Here are the features I was seeking.
=A threshold to determine what areas are sufficiently urban to warrant special treatment.
=A threshold that favors smaller chops over bigger chops.
=A threshold that doesn't particularly favor placing chops in small counties over large counties.
How about a process that uses decomposition and iteration?  This avoids the issue of mixed chop sizes.

Round 1, Whole State division into regions.

(a) Identify whole-county regions that have a population approximately equal to an integer number of districts (say 5% x sqrt(N)).   Counties in a region must be connected.
(b) Each UCC must be contained within one region.
(c) More regions (ie more single-district regions) is better.
(d) If local equality can be improved by shifting a single county without breaking connectivity it must be shifted.
(e) Inequality can be measured
    (i) total deviation; or
    (ii) total shift count, the population that would have to be moved in the minimal number of
         shifts (number regions - 1) to bring all regions to either full equality or 0.5% equality.
(f) Erosity can be measured using simplified boundaries.  Distance is measured node to node, where a node is either a junction of three or more county boundaries, or two county boundaries and the external boundary of the state (states trimmed to the Great Lakes or ocean).

Round 2) Refinement of inter-region boundaries.

(a) Each pair of districts is treated independently.
(b) Shift direction identifies which side of the boundary the chop occurs on.
(c)  Adjustment must be identified shift population from Round 1, +/- 0.25% of quota.
(d) Chop must be within one county, but any county on the boundary that is connected to the other district may be chopped.
(e) No MCDs may be cut.  If shifting a MCD improves equality without breaking contiguity it must be shifted.
(f)  Erosity is measured by simplified internal distance.  Distance along county lines is excluded.
(g) If necessary to split an MCD, then this would be a separate process.  It is preferable to split a county that does not require an MCD split, with one that does.

Round 3) Definition of districts in multi-district regions.

(a) Large cities (eg Chicago and Detroit) may be treated as counties.  Isolated areas of the remnant county may be treated as part of the city-county, or as separate counties.  For example, Hamtramck, Highland Park, and the Grosse Pointe's could be considered part of the Detroit unit, rather than the Wayne unit.   On the other hand, Chicago might divide the remnant of Cook County into two units.
(b) Larger MCDs (say greater than 10% of a quota) shall be split into subunits.
(c) Districts will be defined using subunits (smaller MCDs, and subunits of larger MCDs).
(d) Between districts, at most one MCD may be divided, even if the division uses subunits.
(e) Districts may not multi-span counties (eg only one district may cross the Oakland-Macomb boundary, one between Oakland-Wayne, one between Macomb-Wayne).  The treatment of Detroit and Wayne as separate units does not make an exception (eg Oakland-Wayne and Oakland-Detroit).
(f) Erosity is measured  by internal simplified distance.  Distance along county lines does not count.
(g) District populations should be within 0.5% of quota.   If this is not possible, then subunits would be split in a 4th round.

Quote
The other area of significant discussion was for the implementation of UCCs. We have a detailed description of the UCCs thanks to jimrtex, and they include both multi-county and single county UCCs. In this implementation the following things were true:
=Chops in multi-county UCCs got higher scores over a base value depending on the excess number of districts.
=Chops in multi-county UCCs would count double if they chopped a county and were sufficiently large.
=Chops in multi-county UCCs could not count double if they otherwise maintained whole counties.
=Chops in single-county UCCs could not count double, but could trigger greater erosity if a macrochop was present.
=Avoiding chops in UCCs smaller than a single district could be rewarded with lower erosity (for example Lansing in MI).
=The threshold to determine if a chop could count double was set at the same level as the macrochop to avoid introducing a separate threshold from the one used to trigger the use of subunits to measure erosity.
Within a UCC, chops up to a threshold are free. 

A cut along county lines within a UCC is still a chop.  A UCC chop does not count as a county chop.

(a) Cutting Clinton is a chop of the Lansing UCC, but not a chop of Clinton.
(b) Cutting along the southern boundary of Clinton is a chop of the Lansing UCC.
(c) Cutting Calhoun is a chop of the Battle Creek UCC, but not a chop of Calhoun.
(d) Cutting a non-UCC county counts as chop of that county.

Chops such as (a), (b), and (d) will tend to be favored because they are smaller.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 236


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines