Megameow's Redistricted USA

[catographer]

California is a huge file that takes a long time to load and draw, so it's blank right now. I did all other 49 states however. These are 2012/2016 PVIs (according to DRA) of districts that I created for states based on 2010 census. 435 districts, no deviations greater than 10,000 (typically kept under 1,000).

I'd love any feedback or criticism. I tried to balance geographic compactness, combining similar communities, keeping counties in-tact, aesthetically well-shaped districts, and partisan proportionality. Non-atlas colors, increments of 5% rounded to nearest tenth. Districts with PVIs under 0.5 are colored yellow for EVEN.
R: 217
EVEN: 12
D: 153

[catographer]

There's no image showing because its hosted on imgur. Can you load it on the Atlas gallery and link to that?

The image is too big for the gallery. Would Photobucket work?

[catographer]

I assume you didn't follow VRA?

Probably not.

Lol no I didn't. Big glaring error/something to fix.

[catographer]

I assume you didn't follow VRA?

Probably not.

Definitely not in Missouri.

In Missouri, the VRA sort of forces something similar to the First Congressional District to exist. (racially mixed, but plurality Black Northern St. Louis County being grouped with racially mixed but plurality Black St. Louis City). Here, you have lily White Southern St. Louis County grouped with the City.

Drawing a VRA compliant district would have the effect of making the remaining St. Louis suburbs a Lean GOP district, and making the district anchored by St. Louis city even stronger Dem.

Yeah Missouri is a good example of how VRA compliance sacrifices partisan proportionality. Missouri should have a 3-5 D-R divide, but as you mentioned I'll have to remove the blue-ish suburban district, making Missouri 2-6. Same thing happens in Virginia, where I could make a 6-5 Dem map like up there, but that means I only have 1 VRA district instead of 2.

[catographer]

Why does it appear that he left some states such as Iowa completely unchanged?

Iowa is not a very big deal, since it's a good map to begin with, but the ridiculously gerrymandered Wisconsin map, or the just plain nonsensical Washington one, is also left intact. And Oregon somehow looks worse than IRL.

I've redrawn Wisconsin in another map I have (not posted yet). It's very difficult to get a 4-4 Wisconsin map, especially since Clinton's vote is concentrated in basically just two districts (Madison & Milwaukee). I made a narrow 4-4 map, but one anchored in South Milwaukee/Kenosha is basically EVEN, and the one in western Wisconsin is only narrowly Democratic, with Trump having won it.

Washington's map is actually quite proportional, with Democrats having a 6-4 advantage IRL that matches the states' lean. I figured Washington didn't need much change then.

Oregon, I made districts that matched county lines almost perfectly. I thought the 4th that goes from Eugene to the California border was awkward, so I made an even redder eastern district, then moved the others up. Bend in now in the same district as the 4th. In a small edit I made after I posted this, the 5th has a GOP PVI, thereby making Oregon have a 3-2 D-R delegation.

[catographer]

Washington's map is actually quite proportional, with Democrats having a 6-4 advantage IRL that matches the states' lean. I figured Washington didn't need much change then.

Honestly, I personally believe that fair maps should roughly result the partisan proportion of the states delegation being roughly double the states partisan leanings. Of course, if this was the case in every state, it would all result in a balanced national map.
[/quote]

Interesting take; that probably makes sense. Regardless, I appreciate the criticism and I'm currently working on edits for new maps that are more appropriate.

[catographer]

Is it possible making Bucks whole in PA-08?

In version where I did that, I had to sacrifice keeping Chester county whole and having Chester's districts grab parts of Reading in Berks.

(For the record, I'm very unhappy with my PA map)

[catographer]

Re: Washington, I don't care about the partisan balance, that map is just bad because it doesn't respect the natural East/West divide. Same with Oregon.

In washington you have to cross due to pop counts - the map presented doesn't appear any more egregious then currently. One crossing at Snoqualamie and one in Klickitat which avoids pass's due to the river valley.

The Oregon map however is horrible. In 2020, with 6 districts, Bend could possibly need to be attached to the Williamette seats for pop equity. Right now, with 5 seats though? Keep the four districts on the west side of the valley, and the second on the east.

My Oregon decision makes me a contrarian I guess x)

[catographer]

Re: Washington, I don't care about the partisan balance, that map is just bad because it doesn't respect the natural East/West divide. Same with Oregon.

In washington you have to cross due to pop counts - the map presented doesn't appear any more egregious then currently. One crossing at Snoqualamie and one in Klickitat which avoids pass's due to the river valley.

Why not make just one crossing instead of two?

I've tried that by pushing the 3rd to the west. But then you have to compensate by dragging the 8th further east, making an ugly mostly-mountain-but-also-exurban-Seattle district.

[catographer]

Is it possible making Bucks whole in PA-08?

In version where I did that, I had to sacrifice keeping Chester county whole and having Chester's districts grab parts of Reading in Berks.

(For the record, I'm very unhappy with my PA map)

I personally find it quite preferable to sacrifice Chester being whole if it's either that or Bucks is split. However, it's certainly an interesting experiment to split Bucks - precisely because it isn't done very often.

My Bucks' district ended up being very similar in PVI to a whole Bucks anyway, because I traded blue Southern Bucks for blue Allentown.