Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 30, 2015, 12:01:24 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  US House Redistricting: Wisconsin
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] Print
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Wisconsin  (Read 12279 times)
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27682
United States


View Profile
« Reply #125 on: June 24, 2012, 04:38:46 pm »
Ignore

Here is the enacted map and stats, and my Michigan rule map and stats.  The game with the Michigan rule map of course vis a vis the 2011 enacted map, was to share the Pub wealth of WI-05 with other Pub held CD's that could use some Pub padding. Sesenbrenner was a pig.



« Last Edit: June 24, 2012, 08:19:48 pm by Torie »Logged

muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9119


View Profile
« Reply #126 on: June 25, 2012, 10:59:21 am »

Here is the enacted map and stats, and my Michigan rule map and stats.  The game with the Michigan rule map of course vis a vis the 2011 enacted map, was to share the Pub wealth of WI-05 with other Pub held CD's that could use some Pub padding. Sesenbrenner was a pig.





I agree that the Pubs missed the mark here, though perhaps not so much as in KS. You also shore up the Pub districts better against a wave since the passed map puts everything at risk except WI-5. I still find the amount of possible partisan manipulation with pure MI rules higher than I like.

I took my preferred county plan and added microchops to even the population (within 100). Not counting the microchops it only splits Milwaukee and only between two CDs. It's something like I would expect a commission to do. It definitely helps the Dems in this case compared to the passed map, but the result is closer to the overall partisan lean of the state. I've included both the approximate PVI from 08 to match your numbers as well as the true PVI with both 04 and 08.



CD 1: (08 +1.7) PVI D+1.7
CD 2: (08 +15.5) PVI D+14.7
CD 3: (08 +3.2) PVI D+3.4
CD 4: (08 +17.6) PVI D+16.7
CD 5: (08 -9.9) PVI R+10.6
CD 6: (08 -5.7) PVI R+7.8
CD 7: (08 +1.7) PVI D+1.9
CD 8: (08 +0.1) PVI R+1.5
Logged


Triple transit of Jupiter on January 24, 2015 with shadows of Europa, Callisto, and Io appearing from left to right. Image captured from Bate Papo Estelar/Astronomio ao Vivo (Brazil) live feed.
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6060


View Profile
« Reply #127 on: June 25, 2012, 11:34:32 am »
Ignore

Here is the enacted map and stats, and my Michigan rule map and stats.  The game with the Michigan rule map of course vis a vis the 2011 enacted map, was to share the Pub wealth of WI-05 with other Pub held CD's that could use some Pub padding. Sesenbrenner was a pig.






Technically it was Paul Ryan and his staff that seems to have taken a lead on the mapping this decade. Sensenbrenner was eclipsed as the delegation point man.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27682
United States


View Profile
« Reply #128 on: January 28, 2015, 01:07:38 pm »
Ignore

One thing led to another, and I ended up drawing this "contest" map for WI, as an exercise to show the Pub gerrymander did not accomplish much, other than make WI-01 lean Pub rather than a tossup from a PVI perspective.

However, it raises an issue. The second map below is an alternative, that does shift about 1.5 PVI points between WI-07, making WI-07 tilt Dem, and WI-03 competitive (lean Dem) per 2008 numbers. (With the trends, WI-07 might be tossup with this map, and WI-03 tilt Dem.)

The chop into Dunn County (like the name Tongue), is necessary, and notice that it gets rid of a highway chop, so this map has one more necessary county chop than the contest map, but one less highway chop. I guess that is OK, but where two maps are tied this way, some might prefer that one county chop racks up more penalty points than one highway chop (and I still think township and city chops should count for something, just less penalized than county chops).

What is even more problematical however, is doing the second "unnecessary" county chop, to lose a highway chop (a "gratuitous" county chop as it were, that need not be done to get within the 0.5% deviation limit in population from the CD quota). In the second map that was done with Sauk County. A map without a gratuitous chop should be favored I think over the map with such a chop. A gratuitous county chop should not be allowed to reduce the highway cut count I guess is my suggestion.

The 0.5% population play does make for an interesting redistricting game I must admit - much more interesting than without it. And there are a lot of games that can be played with it - a lot. Tongue



 





« Last Edit: January 28, 2015, 06:14:55 pm by Torie »Logged

muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9119


View Profile
« Reply #129 on: January 29, 2015, 05:39:53 am »

WI was one of the original states for which I posted a regional county connection map back in 2012. All of the links are based on state highways between county seats.



The first Torie map in the previous post cuts 11 links on the boundary between CD 3 and CD 7.

The second map cuts 9 links not counting the chop in Dunn. The chop in Dunn has a link between the two parts which is also cut, bringing the total to 10 that is how it would be judged on the one interpretation (used in the AL discussion). If viewed this way it has one more chop and one less erosity and is Pareto equivalent to the first map.

However, depending on how one counts the links, a secondary path between Dunn and Chippewa follows WI-64. If that link becomes active after the chop then the number of cut links rises to 11, the same as in the first. IIRC this interpretation was used in a discussion of MD plans way back when, in part because there was no concept of macrochops. If this view is used, then the second map loses to the first one. It's worth exploring the relative merits of the two interpretations.

I've been putting together a detailed example for MI which I hope will illustrate the counting in a chopped county as well as provide some justification for the crossover to macrochops for large chops.
Logged


Triple transit of Jupiter on January 24, 2015 with shadows of Europa, Callisto, and Io appearing from left to right. Image captured from Bate Papo Estelar/Astronomio ao Vivo (Brazil) live feed.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27682
United States


View Profile
« Reply #130 on: January 29, 2015, 08:04:51 am »
Ignore

For cut counts, you only count state highways connecting county seats unless there is a macro-chop, and then you count all state highways involved with the "macro-chopped" county (btw, Dunn is intermediate chopped rather than macro-chopped isn't it, or has that distinction been lost even though a UCC is involved (somehow I am under the impression that macrochoops only pop up with UCC's)? That is a new one for me. It strikes me as way too complicated. If one wants to draw a distinction between macro [intermediate] and micro chops (that too is problematical for me given you have the 0.5% population variance leeway), simpler is just to count micro-chops at one half point each (maybe .5 points for county microchops and .25 points for town and city microchops, and ban gratuitous ones to game reducing the highway cuts. By the time you are done Mike constructing this labyrinth, only a physicist will understand your metric. Tongue At this juncture, I doubt anyone on the Forum really does.

Do you ban traveling chops by the way?  That was an issue vis a vis whether WI-05 could go into Ozaukee County or not via chopping through Washington County (doing a microchop of both Washington County and Germantown). Alternatively, WI-04 could take in all of Ozaukee, WI-05 micro-chopping into Washington County, with no chop of Erin Township, but with an  intermediate chop of the City of Milwaukee. Which of these maps chop wise scores highest in your universe, my original map, the traveling chop map, or the City of Milwaukee chopped map?

« Last Edit: January 29, 2015, 08:59:43 am by Torie »Logged

Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27682
United States


View Profile
« Reply #131 on: January 29, 2015, 03:06:37 pm »
Ignore

WI was one of the original states for which I posted a regional county connection map back in 2012. All of the links are based on state highways between county seats.



The first Torie map in the previous post cuts 11 links on the boundary between CD 3 and CD 7.

The second map cuts 9 links not counting the chop in Dunn. The chop in Dunn has a link between the two parts which is also cut, bringing the total to 10 that is how it would be judged on the one interpretation (used in the AL discussion). If viewed this way it has one more chop and one less erosity and is Pareto equivalent to the first map.

However, depending on how one counts the links, a secondary path between Dunn and Chippewa follows WI-64. If that link becomes active after the chop then the number of cut links rises to 11, the same as in the first. IIRC this interpretation was used in a discussion of MD plans way back when, in part because there was no concept of macrochops. If this view is used, then the second map loses to the first one. It's worth exploring the relative merits of the two interpretations.

I've been putting together a detailed example for MI which I hope will illustrate the counting in a chopped county as well as provide some justification for the crossover to macrochops for large chops.

You seem to have highways in Clark that I just don't see at all. I guess any paved road will do to get to the adjacent county, even if not a state highway, is that right?  In a microchop area with no state highways, do you just use any paved road for the quasi county? (I do see now that highway 73 does apparently wind through Clark, just not a yellow line or labeled.)
« Last Edit: January 29, 2015, 04:26:49 pm by Torie »Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines