US with Canadian parties

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Massachusetts

The Boston metropolitan area would be a mix of Liberal and NDP enclaves. Downtown, the North End, Beacon Hill, Back Bay, and Allston-Brighton would lean NDP, the rest of the city of Boston would be strongly Liberal, and the inner ring of suburbs would be vaguely split with NDP areas of strength in the north and west and Liberal areas in the south and southeast (the split, if geographically distinguishable, would likely be between Newton/Wellesley and Needham). The Boston exurbs would be mostly Liberal with some Tory parts, primarily, I think, in Plymouth and Norfolk Counties; in 2011 large parts may have gone NDP but the Liberals would hold up better in Greater Boston than they did in Greater Toronto overall. The main Tory areas, if any, would be in Worcester County (outside the city of Worcester and its immediate surrounding area, which I think would be Liberal, with possible Tory encroachment over the past decade) and some of the suburbs of Springfield. Springfield itself would be solidly Liberal, as would Chicopee, Holyoke, and probably West Springfield. The rest of the Connecticut Valley would be ancestrally Liberal but NDP in 2011 and likely to stay with the Dippers in the future; the Berkshires would probably be the NDP base area in the state outside Boston. I'm not sure what Cape Cod would look like, probably mixed with the Lower Cape as generally speaking more Grit/Dipper and the Upper Cape more Tory. The Islands would be solidly Liberal, as would New Bedford and Fall River, until 2011 when I would think all of these areas would be ripe for NDP pickup. The Merrimack Valley and North Shore would be mostly Liberal with some Conservative areas until 2011, when the Tories would sweep the less-urban parts and the NDP the more-urban.

Provincially, I'd imagine a BC-esque setup with a center-right Liberal Party and staunchly leftist NDP, whose main bases would be in central Massachusetts into Norfolk and Plymouth and in western Massachusetts and Boston, respectively. There would probably also be a relatively strong provincial Green Party, especially in the west and in the Cape and Islands.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

MA (Right-click/View image to embiggen)



Parenthetical parties are how I think the ridings would be 'traditionally' perceived as leaning. Italics are self-explanatory.

I think the Liberals would have won every riding except for Brookline--Newton--Cambridge--Somerville (or equivalent) in 1993 and the PCs would have won Framingham--Lexington--Acton, Worcester--Attleboro, Lowell--Merrimack--Newburyport, Cape--Islands--Plymouth, Revere--Salem--Gloucester, Needham--Quincy, and possibly Springfield--Uxbridge (or equivalents) in 1984.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In a 'normal' year the only Massachusetts ridings that I would expect the Tories to have a realistic chance of winning would be Framingham--Lexington--Acton and Cape--Islands--Plymouth. The ridings that I have as 'weak Grit' would probably more or less always go Liberal, just not by very spectacular margins (also keep in mind that Revere--Salem--Gloucester, Needham--Quincy, Bristol--Brockton, and the non-NDP parts of Boston and Berkshires--Riverlands--Twin Towns would, I think, traditionally be very Liberal, even more strongly than they are Democratic in real life). In a Liberal majority government they would probably win every riding except the NDP inner-suburbs one; in a Liberal minority government (think 2000/2003) the Tories would still probably only take Framingham--Lexington--Acton.

The Berkshires were represented in Congress for a long time by one of the last labor-friendly agrarian-center-left Republicans, Silvio Conte. I'm intimately familiar with the area and I think somebody like Tommy Douglas would have been very popular here (Hell, among people who know the name he's very popular now).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Very cool. I would probably name the Cape district just "Cape Cod", or if you insist, "Cape Cod-The Islands".

Also, I'm thinking that the Tories probably wouldn't have won anything, because A) the GOP doesnt have any districts there and B), if we extrapolate the 2011 Canadian results into the US, it means the Tories probably wouldn't have enough support to go to places like MA.

Keep in mind that the Framingham--Lexington--Acton riding turned out as essentially some of the most GOP parts of the state (along with a few Democratic suburbs that really aren't enough to countervail that) kind of smashed together, and that the districts as they currently exist do, at least somewhat, favor Democrats more than a 'fair' map necessarily would. Up until 2011 I indeed can't imagine the Tories winning outside Framingham--Lexington--Acton and possibly Cape--Islands--Plymouth (I can't think of many people in Plymouth County who would appreciate being in a riding just named 'Cape Cod' or 'Cape--Islands') except in years like 1984; but in 2011 remember that we're dealing with vote-splitting as a very real problem for the center-left and left in a lot of areas similar to exurban Boston.

The more I think about it the more I wonder if Revere--Salem--Gloucester and Needham--Quincy might actually go narrowly NDP.

It's also possible, depending on how we are doing some of this cultural and political transpositioning, that Massachusetts could be a little like Newfoundland and stay Liberal even after the collapse.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Plymouth--Cape Cod and the Islands works very well, thank you, actually. I like it.

Come to think of it, I think Lowell--Merrimack--Newburyport might be somewhat more Liberal-inclined, and Worcester--Attleboro somewhat less so, than I initially imagined. There are a lot of parts of the Merrimack Valley that go GOP but do so more because of perceived liberal/urban elitism (you know how it is...) on the part of the state/national party than because of inherent conservatism. There are a lot of old industrial towns in that area and it's pretty Catholic, and increasingly Hispanic from what I've heard.

Worcester County, on the other hand, is increasingly yuppie hell, except for the northwestern and west-central parts.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Names?

I can't speak for Teddy, but might I suggest, if he doesn't have better names, Waterbury--Litchfield Hills, Stamford--Bridgeport West, New Haven--Bridgeport East, Woodstock--Storrs--Norwich--New London, Windsor Locks--Hartford North, and Middletown--Hartford South?

I can do New York later this afternoon if anybody wants.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm working on New York now. 24 out of 34 ridings completed.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

New York















Names for New York/Westchester/Nassau ridings:

Long Island West-Central (Purple)
Great Neck--Port Washington--Hempstead--Freeport (Red)
Long Beach--Lynbrook--Elmont (Yellow)
Far Rockaway--Jamaica Bay--Rochdale (Teal)
Flushing Meadows--Queens East (Silver)
Queens Center (Lavender)
Queen North-West (Cyan)
Canarsie--Prospect Park (Pink)
Flatbush--Midwood--Sheepshead Bay (Chartreuse)
Sunset Park--Borough Park--Bensonhurst (Cornflower)
Staten Island--Coney Island (Olive)
Brooklyn North-Center--Crown Heights (Buff)
Manhattan South (Orange)
Manhattan Center (Lime Green)
Manhattan North (Indigo)
Bronx South (Gold)
Bronx West-Center (Tan)
Bronx North-East--New Rochelle--Yonkers (Light pink)
White Plains--Mount Kisco--Bedford (Dark brown)
Newburgh--Ramapo (Medium brown)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Very cool. I think some of the names could be improved to sound more Canadian.

I'm all ears.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We could definitely put it like that. I don't like that either. The district would be about a hundred thousand undersized, about twice the recommended deviation, and I thought for quite a while about which was preferable. Now that I think of it yet again, I think I agree with you; just give that olive bit of Brooklyn to Flatbush--Midwood--Sheepshead Bay and/or Sunset Park--Borough Park--Bensonhurst (and slap '--Coney Island' on the relevant name or names).

The Bronx, though, kind of has to have part of it kicked in with Yonkers and New Rochelle.

I could start work on New Jersey, Alabama, Colorado, or Arizona, whichever we'd prefer.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'll be doing Alabama and Mississippi tonight.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

ALABAMA



All ridings are hardcore Tory except for Montgomery--Tombigbee--Tuscaloosa, which would lean whatever the default 'minority' party would be, and Birmingham, which is marginal between that party and the Tories. Huntsville--Tennessee Valley and The Shoals would have once been Liberal, but no longer.

If the South is our Quebec-analogue, though, all ridings would be Bloc Sud until 2011, when they would all flip Tory.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

MISSISSIPPI



Delta--Natchez is majority black. Jackson--Pearl--Ridgeland--Kosciusko might be black enough to be vaguely swingy and will probably be majority or at least plurality black in a decade or two. The other three ridings are colossally Tory. Starkville--Meridian--Brookhaven isn't elegant, but it's no worse than what's there now, and unlike Edmonton--Sherwood Park in the actual Canada it doesn't look uncomfortably like a Roman salute. The split of De Soto is supposed to go along Interstate 55.

It would be fun if the American Parliament used the Australian naming system, because the arguments between District of Faulkner and District of Presley for the north-east riding, and which bluesman to use for the riverine riding, would be amazing.

Vicksburg should be in the Delta riding, and too much of the Memphis suburbs shouldn't. If we can figure out some way to have my Delta--Natchez but avoid my...unfortunate Starkville--Meridian--Brookhaven, I think that that would be nice.

In Alabama I was going for CoI, not compactness, but if you can think of a way to avoid splitting the Tennessee Valley or the Black Belt, by all means go ahead. I have some familiarity with Alabama, and I honestly don't think that anything that would look more compact would feel more compact from the perspective of somebody living and voting in one of these ridings.

Jefferson is a better name, you're right.

ETA: Made a more compact Mississippi, am putting map together as we speak.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Better MISSISSIPPI



Commentary about the partisan/racial makeup still holds true.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It is rather long but it's another CoI question. The counties along the Mississippi River are all very poor, relatively rural, and full of blacks except for De Soto itself, which I split for population reasons (it has those of the Memphis suburbs which are in Mississippi and as such is more populous than the rest of the river counties). Your Mississippi Delta district has several white areas in the east and north-east that have been in the Tupelo district in real life since forever.

The best way to keep the riverine CoI whole without splitting De Soto would be to put the rest of De Soto in the Tupelo riding, then put Franklin and Amite in Delta--Natchez, which ends up underpopulated but not too badly (putting Pike and Walthall in too fixes this but does genuinely make it lumpy-looking and non-compact), and also a little more nicely shaped. Shall we try that?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Mine's about 9% over the quotient. There isn't any specific reason for it and in fact the eastern riding would also be closer to the quotient if I switched Marion, Perry, and Greene, so let's do that.

Your map splits the Jackson area, incidentally. Small parts of the city proper are actually in Madison and Rankin.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

MISSISSIPPI FINAL



I'm convinced that this is best from a CoI standpoint, at least with regards to the river and the Gulf Coast/Hattiesburg. The Jackson MSA is also kept together.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Have we more or less accepted my Alabama map? If so, I'd like to get a few other people's input on our different Mississippi maps before we decide which one to use. Some point soon I can do Colorado and Arizona.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Have we more or less accepted my Alabama map? If so, I'd like to get a few other people's input on our different Mississippi maps before we decide which one to use. Some point soon I can do Colorado and Arizona.

I'd like to  hear what Xahar thinks, but I dont mind going with your map.

Okay, let's wait on Xahar for a while and if we don't hear from him by tomorrow what do you say we just go from there?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

To be honest, I still prefer my second map, the one that fixed the horror that was the Starkville-to-Brookhaven riding but kept De Soto split along I55.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

ARIZONA MAP ONE, REJECTED BY BOUNDARY COMMISSION

State



Maricopa/Pinal/Pima



I wasn't terribly concerned with county lines because Arizona has two counties that are larger than a riding anyway. Still, other than the three big central counties, the only split is Mohave, which is split along the Colorado River.

Riding names and descriptions:

The blue riding, Eastern Mountains--Canyonlands, is traditionally semisolidly Tory but in the recent past has become marginal, perhaps (but maybe not) going NDP in 2011.
The green riding, Western Desert, is hardcore Tory and would have previously been hardcore Reform and hardcore American Alliance.
The purple riding, Phoenix North, is solidly Tory at present.
The red riding, Mesa--Scottsdale, is hardcore Tory and would have previously been hardcore Reform and hardcore American Alliance.
The yellow riding, Glendale--Phoenix West, is solidly NDP at present, once solidly Liberal.
The teal riding, Tempe--Phoenix East, is solidly NDP at present, once solidly liberal.
The black riding, Chandler--Gilbert--East Pinal, is solidly Tory at present.
The red-orange riding, Southern Desert, traditionally leans Liberal but in the recent past has become Grit-Tory marginal, with NDP-supporting minorities tactically voting Liberal (though this may flip in the near future).  I tend to think it would go very narrowly Grit in 2011, the only riding in Arizona to remain so.
The spring green riding, Tucson, is traditionally Liberal but flipped NDP in either 2008 or 2011.

The split between Western Desert and Southern Desert in Maricopa is supposed to follow Interstate 8 but I couldn't show that on DRA. The split of Pinal goes through the San Tan Valley and then south across the desert. The split of Pima hugs the outskirts of the built-up area and includes the areas north and east of Tucson in the urban riding.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

ARIZONA MAP REJECTED BY BOUNDARY COMMISSION

I wasn't even thinking of mountain ranges outside the northern and eastern parts of the state, sorry! Can't believe I missed that.

If you have any ideas, let me know. The only one I'm really attached to is Tucson, which is the area of Arizona that I'm actually somewhat familiar with.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

ARIZONA, SECOND ATTEMPT

With this one I started in Maricopa and Pima and worked my way out, because the other way around obviously failed.

State view:



Maricopa/Pinal/Pima view:



This time there are five heavily Tory ridings.

Phoenix North
Glendale
Tempe South--Chandler
Tempe North--Mesa--Scottsdale
Western Desert

Two marginal.

Eastern Mountains
Southern Desert

Two Grit/Dipper.

Phoenix South
Tucson

Colorado (whose physical geography I'm more comfortable with) coming if we have no more or only minor problems with this, but first I need to rest, because I've been up all night with unrelated issues.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That's good. It keeps most of what I was trying to do with the outer ridings, which are areas I'm much more familiar with than Maricopa, and it seems like a more logical division of Maricopa than what I ended up doing.

One thing, though: The main centers of the Mogollon culture were slightly to the south-east of most of your riding named after it, and the Mogollon Mountains are in New Mexico. Might I suggest Anasazi?

Colorado coming up tonight after I watch primary stuff.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

COLORADO



The two things that I am concerned people might find as bases for criticism here are the undersized Arapahoe and the fact that I put Colorado Springs in Eastern Plains and Pueblo in Pueblo--West of the Rockies. I did the former because of Arapahoe County's growth rate; in ten years it seems likely to be a more normal-sized riding. The latter is because I truly felt that the ski areas should be put in a riding with Boulder and Fort Collins and this in turn meant that the Grand Junction district had to include at least one populous county on the High Plains rather than in the mountains. I chose Pueblo because it is demographically somewhat similar to western Colorado, particularly south-western Colorado. It has a lot of Hispanics, very nearly if not outright a plurality by now. Colorado Springs does not and is demographically and politically much more 'of the plains' than Pueblo is. If I had not done this I would have had to put almost the entirety of Colorado outside the Rocky Mountain Front in one district, since Colorado's High Plains outside El Paso and Pueblo Counties only have about a hundred thousand people. I found this unacceptable so I made what I thought was the most reasonable split of the southern end of the urbanized area possible.

Denver and Boulder--Fort Collins--Aspen would now be solidly NDP, probably Grit prior to 2008 or 2011. Arapahoe and North Front were once relatively safe Tory excepting years like 1993 but are currently Tory-NDP marginal because demographics. Jefferson--Douglas is still Tory but getting closer and closer in recent elections and could definitely go NDP given a few years. Pueblo--West of the Rockies, pending whatever demographic changes a few more years of the Hispanicizing of the rural American West might bring, is almost entirely safe Tory except in extremely bad years, and Eastern Plains is safe Tory even then. Pueblo--West of the Rockies I can imagine being fairly Grit in the past; Eastern Plains strikes me as the sort of riding that would be either one of the few loyal PC seats in the nineties or one of the strongest Reform/American Alliance seats in the country.

2-2-3 between the left and the right, basically, similar to the actual Colorado but perhaps a bit more competitive in general.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Possibly, however that might cause exacerbate significant tensions between several of the native peoples in the riding, especially the Hopi and the Navajo.

Ooooh, right, I forgot about the negative implications of the word 'Anasazi' to some native peoples. Mogollon is probably best, then, you're right. I was aware of the Mogollon Mountain Range but not the Mogollon Rim.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed.