Ohio - a celebration of the Muon2 rules
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 10:14:26 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Ohio - a celebration of the Muon2 rules
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: Ohio - a celebration of the Muon2 rules  (Read 4068 times)
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: May 31, 2017, 08:40:56 PM »

Nice map, but you need to show the chops to score it.
It shows the chops, other than Columbus.

Well the Dayton area CD needs a chop for sure, along with a chop into Geauga. You must not be using the 0.5% variance in population constraint. If that is the case, then we are doing an apples to oranges exercise, with you having your own set of rules.

Is this a requirement in the US Constitution, or federal statute?


I don't want to revive that discussion, which you had with Muon2. Different metrics make different maps.

What if my map is qualitatively better?




Higher deviations in population tend to make for maps that fit the other constraints better. I have no idea what population constraint you are using. But it doesn't matter. It is going to be enough of a tough sell to push the 0.5% constraint, that seems pretty safe legally, assuming the states agree to it. Anyway, do your thing.  You will anyway. Smiley

Why is your division of the Cincinnati UCC acceptable? The concept of UCC is so that you can't have districts stretching outward from major cities. One of yours almost reaches Michigan, and the other reaches West Virginia, yet the majority of the population in each is in the Cincinnati suburbs.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: June 01, 2017, 02:05:01 PM »

Why is your division of the Cincinnati UCC acceptable? The concept of UCC is so that you can't have districts stretching outward from major cities. One of yours almost reaches Michigan, and the other reaches West Virginia, yet the majority of the population in each is in the Cincinnati suburbs.
Here is a possible scoring system:

Quota: Population of total area divided by number of elected persons.

Entitlement: Population of sub-area divided by quota. (e.g. the quota for Franklin County is 1.715).

Normalized Population: Population of an area divided by the quota. Conventionally, this is displayed as mixed decimal fraction with three digits of accuracy (to 0.1% of a district population), but should be computed as a rational number.

Magnitude: Entitlement trunctated to whole number that is less than equal to entitlement. Sub-areas with an entitlement of less than a quota have a magnitude of zero.

Sub-areas should have a number of districts equal to the magnitude wholly within them, and no more than magnitude plus one districts wholly or partially within them.

(1) Penalty for failure to have magnitude districts wholly within a sub-area:

Magnitude minus normalized population of the magnitude most populated districts wholly or partially within a sub-area.

(2) Penalty for excessive division:

Normalized population of smallest districts in excess of magnitude plus one largest districts.

(3) Penalty for inequality:

Population that would have to be shifted to reach full equality.

Example:

Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati UCC's have magnitude 2, while Dayton UCC has magnitude of 1. All other UCCs have magnitude of zero.

Franklin, Cuyahoga, and Hamilton counties have magnitude 1, all others have a magnitude of zero.

Columbus (Franklin) has magnitude 1, all others have a magnitude of one.

Scoring of Torie and Jimrtex plans.


Cleveland UCC (magnitude 2):

Torie does not have two districts wholly in UCC, but includes all of UCC within 3 districts. Penalty the portion of the second largest district outside the UCC (population of Ashtabula 0.123).

Jimrtex does have two districts wholly in UCC, but is divided among four districts. Penalty for fourth district (population of Medina 0.231).

Columbus UCC (magnitude 2):

Torie and Jimrtex both have two districts wholly within the UCC, and one district containing the remainder. No penalties.

Cincinnati UCC (magnitude 2):

Torie has one district wholly within the UCC, and two districts partially within the UCC. Penalty for portion of district outside Warren-Ashtabula district 0.432.

Jimrtex has two districts wholly in UCC and a third extending outside the UCC (no penalty)

Dayton UCC (magnitude 1):

Both Torie and Jimrtex have one district wholly in UCC (no penalty).

All other UCCs (magnitude 0):

All are wholly contained in a single district (no penalty)

(Dis)respect for UCC:

Torie: 0.555
Jimrtex: 0.232

Large counties: Franklin, Cuyahoga, Hamilton (magnitude 1)

Torie and Jimrtext have one district wholly in counties, and the remainder in a second district. No penalty.

Large city: Columbus (Franklin) (magnitude 1):

Jimrtex has one district almost entirely in Columbus, with only a full small enclaves preventing this. A small penalty of perhaps 0.030. Torie apparently has a more substantial division of Columbus, likely around 0.100 to 0.200.

Division of small counties/inequality:

It really doesn't matter whether a specific area has been identified as in Torie's map for Geauga, which would be classified as a county split, or simply whether a shift would be necessary to achieve equality. Jimrtex has an inequality of 0.220, with 0.101 of that due to the split of Clermont. Another 0.055 is due to balancing the Dayton and Akron districts, which are present in Tories districts. There is no reason to suppose that the remaining is materially different than Torie's plan.

Total Penalties:

UCC: T 0.555, J 0.232
Counties: T 0.000, J 0.000
Cities: T 0.100-0.200, J 0.030
Inequality: T 0.119, J 0.220

Total: T 0.764, J 0.482


Logged
BuckeyeNut
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,458


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: June 02, 2017, 09:23:39 AM »
« Edited: June 02, 2017, 09:27:50 AM by Rust Belt or Die »

I'd love to comment, but Torie's image links seem to have broken.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: June 03, 2017, 10:35:22 AM »


Why is your division of the Cincinnati UCC acceptable? The concept of UCC is so that you can't have districts stretching outward from major cities. One of yours almost reaches Michigan, and the other reaches West Virginia, yet the majority of the population in each is in the Cincinnati suburbs.

The GOP should place Butler County into the 1st district, and then condense the 2nd district to parts of Hamilton, Claremont, and Warren County. That covers metro Cincinnati. This would then let the 10th district be the Dayton MSA.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,047
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: June 03, 2017, 10:46:04 AM »


Why is your division of the Cincinnati UCC acceptable? The concept of UCC is so that you can't have districts stretching outward from major cities. One of yours almost reaches Michigan, and the other reaches West Virginia, yet the majority of the population in each is in the Cincinnati suburbs.

The GOP should place Butler County into the 1st district, and then condense the 2nd district to parts of Hamilton, Claremont, and Warren County. That covers metro Cincinnati. This would then let the 10th district be the Dayton MSA.

Why in the world would you want to chop Hamilton into halves?  Do you also propose to chop the city of Cincinnati as well?  Tongue
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: June 03, 2017, 11:14:56 AM »


Why is your division of the Cincinnati UCC acceptable? The concept of UCC is so that you can't have districts stretching outward from major cities. One of yours almost reaches Michigan, and the other reaches West Virginia, yet the majority of the population in each is in the Cincinnati suburbs.

The GOP should place Butler County into the 1st district, and then condense the 2nd district to parts of Hamilton, Claremont, and Warren County. That covers metro Cincinnati. This would then let the 10th district be the Dayton MSA.

Why in the world would you want to chop Hamilton into halves?  Do you also propose to chop the city of Cincinnati as well?  Tongue
How is that worse than your division of the UCC?

Could you score your plan on a district by district basis? I think we have identified a defect in Muon's scoring system.

Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,047
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: June 03, 2017, 11:29:30 AM »


Why is your division of the Cincinnati UCC acceptable? The concept of UCC is so that you can't have districts stretching outward from major cities. One of yours almost reaches Michigan, and the other reaches West Virginia, yet the majority of the population in each is in the Cincinnati suburbs.

The GOP should place Butler County into the 1st district, and then condense the 2nd district to parts of Hamilton, Claremont, and Warren County. That covers metro Cincinnati. This would then let the 10th district be the Dayton MSA.

Why in the world would you want to chop Hamilton into halves?  Do you also propose to chop the city of Cincinnati as well?  Tongue
How is that worse than your division of the UCC?

Could you score your plan on a district by district basis? I think we have identified a defect in Muon's scoring system.



His is a Pub gerrymander. And unlike both of your maps, I don't macro-chop a county in that UCC area. But you have your own metrics. I'm following Muon2's. 
Logged
DPKdebator
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,073
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.81, S: 3.65

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: June 04, 2017, 06:30:30 PM »

I don't think this is the right place to ask this kind of question, but what is the tool used to make the original map on page 1 (is it Dave's Redistricting?), and how do you determine the results of the CDs in 2016? Is it done by hand or with a tool?
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: June 04, 2017, 06:48:00 PM »

I don't think this is the right place to ask this kind of question, but what is the tool used to make the original map on page 1 (is it Dave's Redistricting?), and how do you determine the results of the CDs in 2016? Is it done by hand or with a tool?

Dave's Redistricting is the tool, but if you want to calculate 2016 PVI or population estimates you'll have to do it yourself.
Logged
DPKdebator
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,073
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.81, S: 3.65

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: June 04, 2017, 08:22:31 PM »

I don't think this is the right place to ask this kind of question, but what is the tool used to make the original map on page 1 (is it Dave's Redistricting?), and how do you determine the results of the CDs in 2016? Is it done by hand or with a tool?

Dave's Redistricting is the tool, but if you want to calculate 2016 PVI or population estimates you'll have to do it yourself.

I see that DRA 2.2 was used. Is it better than 2.5 for any reason besides being able to use Bing Maps?
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: June 06, 2017, 11:44:02 PM »
« Edited: June 07, 2017, 12:45:41 AM by jimrtex »

This is a side by side comparison of county-based maps:

Torie: Would require moving 94204 persons (0.122 quotas) across county boundaries to equalize population. It is 94819 persons (0.123 quotas) short of two whole districts in the Cleveland UCC, and 333300 persons (0.433 quotas) short of two whole districts in the Cincinnati UCC. Total adjustment:
522323 persons (0.679 quotas)

The internal boundary length is 1777 miles.



Jimrtex: Would require moving 169348 persons (0.262 quotas) across county boundaries to equalize population. It also has 177734 persons (0.231 quotas) in a fourth district in the Cuyahoga UCC. Total adjustment: 379415 persons (0.493 quotas). The internal boundary length is 1714 miles.


Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.23 seconds with 12 queries.