Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 23, 2014, 03:10:18 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Print
Poll
Question: Which is the fairest map of them all?
Map 1   -1 (14.3%)
Map 2   -2 (28.6%)
Map 3   -2 (28.6%)
Map 4   -1 (14.3%)
Map 5   -0 (0%)
Map 6   -0 (0%)
Map 7   -1 (14.3%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 7

Author Topic: CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll  (Read 4964 times)
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27518
United States


View Profile
« on: April 22, 2012, 11:09:41 am »
Ignore

Rome has seven hills, and I have seven maps. Each has its merits and demerits. Which map best balances the competing considerations, from a non partisan good government standpoint? I will add some commentary shortly so don't vote until I have added it, unless your think such commentary would just be annoying gratuitous chatter. [now added Smiley]

Map 1. Map 1 is close to the Commission map with respect to the configuration of CA-05.  It puts the city of Santa Rosa (170,000 people which presents a continual problem with Santa Rosa county chops), plus Napa plus a snake in Contra Costa via a chop of Vallejo in Solano county. It makes CA-01 nice and square, gives CA-03 a nice look, with no offensive chops other than Vallejo, and gives the coast to CA-02 and no more, but the attachment of Marin to the north coast CD, with the Santa Rosa county slide by, offends some.

Map 2. Map 2 was my initial effort. It limits CA-05 to Marin and the most of Santa Rosa with nothing more, which is the most logical for CA-05, but CA-02 takes Shasta county, which is a negative, making CA-02 something other than compact. CA-03 still looks nice (with no chop of Vallejo or Solano County), but CA-01 needs to chop into Yolo County to take Woodlands (which is does barely without a chop of the town).

Map 3. This map modifies Map 2 to eliminate appending Marin to the north coast via the Santa Rosa County slide by. It achieves this by moving the city of Santa Rosa into CA-02.  The city of Santa Rosa almost equals Marin. CA-01 takes Del Norte county, which might offend some, but that county really is disparate socially, politically and every other way, from the balance of the coast. It is a bit of chore road wise for CA-01 to get there however.

Map 4. This map incorporates the Muon2 chop into SF from the north. That is not a popular choice, and now CA-02 marches all the way to the NE corner of the state, but it has advantages from a county chop-less standpoint. San Mateo is basically united, and although the chops into Alameda and Contra Costa from the south are deeper, CA-03 needs to take but Martinez from Contra Costa over its own nice little bridge crossing the Sacramento River into Martinez from Solano county. CA-11 takes everything on SF bay in Contra Costa. CA-03 is more compact to boot since Solano is not chopped, and CA-03 takes all of Vallejo.

Map 5.  This map is similar to Map 4, but it cuts way back on the breadth of CA-02 (except sadly it still needs to take Shasta County) through the simple expedient of CA-05 taking the city of Richmond across yet a third bridge (which I did not know was there before yesterday), and notice that it takes the whole city, and nothing more - nice. CA-03 becomes almost a chop-less uber-compact paradise, taking but one precinct in Lake County. If it took one precinct in West Sacramento city, even that chop could be eliminated.

Map 6. This map is similar to Map 3 (no more maps with SF being chopped from the north), except that CA-05 loses Vallejo, and does not chop into Solano county, using that third bridge I discovered to get over to Contra Costa on the bay. The quid pro quo is that Yuba City and its burbs are squeezed really tight by CA-01, but that metro area is not chopped, and it does leave CA-03 more compact, as CA-01 takes more lightly populated counties and precincts in the north Central Valley.

Map 7. This map is the same as Map 6, except that Santa Rosa city is put in CA-05, so that CA-05 has a rather ugly elongated spike up into Santa Rosa County, losing everything in the county but Santa Rosa city and Rohnert Park immediately to the south (including losing most of Petaluma on the east side of US 101).  It basically turns CA-05 into a purely urban CD.



« Last Edit: April 22, 2012, 11:58:41 am by Torie »Logged

only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58775
India


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2012, 11:21:33 am »
Ignore

Map four wins on aesthetic/compactness grounds without including any obvious unfairnesses, but of course that's not the same thing as your question, which I cannot answer.
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27518
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2012, 11:55:03 am »
Ignore

Map four wins on aesthetic/compactness grounds without including any obvious unfairnesses, but of course that's not the same thing as your question, which I cannot answer.

CA-02 is hardly "compact" is it?  Anyway, my scintillating commentary is now up for your reading "pleasure" Lewis. Tongue
Logged

only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58775
India


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2012, 12:08:35 pm »
Ignore

I overlooked something when I wrote that anyways. Sad (And I don't mean the thread of gratuituous chatter, even though I overlooked that too. Sad ) So I guess 2 or 3. Or maybe 6. Or maybe 7.
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27518
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2012, 12:13:44 pm »
Ignore

I overlooked something when I wrote that anyways. Sad (And I don't mean the thread of gratuituous chatter, even though I overlooked that too. Sad ) So I guess 2 or 3. Or maybe 6. Or maybe 7.

What did you "overlook" about map 4?
Logged

only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58775
India


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2012, 12:18:54 pm »
Ignore

Why, the obvious biggie ie divorce of Lake and Napa. Suffice to say it was a very casual glance.

Good thing I haven't voted in the poll yet.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2012, 12:21:10 pm by Minion of Midas »Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27518
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2012, 12:39:02 pm »
Ignore

Why, the obvious biggie ie divorce of Lake and Napa. Suffice to say it was a very casual glance.

Good thing I haven't voted in the poll yet.

I picked the poll option that "allows" folks to change their vote. I always do.  Smiley

Why is uniting Lake and Napa such a high priority for you?  Lake is the "resort" county mostly - kind of sui generis. I remember my Dad signing us up to stay for a week at a resort up there in "Hobergs" or something like that - maybe this one. It turned out to be for lower middle class and working class folks, where their teenagers could get laid without much effort, with lots of softball and sports and the like. My Dad checked us out the next day.  If I had been a bit older, I would have refused to leave actually.  Getting laid trumps class solidarity any day of the week. Tongue
Logged

muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8868


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2012, 12:44:05 pm »

I've started looking at the whole county analysis I did for the Iowa-style states and apply it to my regional approach to CA. One interesting region I found is Colusa, Contra Costa, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, San Francisco, Solano, Sonoma, and Yolo comprise the population of 5 CDs with only 625 extra people. Within that region the core wine counties of Mendocino, Napa, and Sonoma are only 5298 over pop for a district and Colusa, Lake, Solano, and Yolo are only 2628 under population for a district. I'll try to post a wine county region map based later today.
Logged


Partial solar eclipse of October 23, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
dpmapper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 255
View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2012, 01:04:05 pm »
Ignore

I voted for 3.  However, is there a way to give Napa to CA-3 in exchange for putting Del Norte + more of Sonoma County (all except maybe Petaluma and Sonoma city) into CA-2, and letting CA-5 take all of Vallejo and maybe Benicia for a complete surround of the north bay? 
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27518
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2012, 01:09:57 pm »
Ignore

I voted for 3.  However, is there a way to give Napa to CA-3 in exchange for putting Del Norte + more of Sonoma County (all except maybe Petaluma and Sonoma city) into CA-2, and letting CA-5 take all of Vallejo and maybe Benicia for a complete surround of the north bay? 

Look at map 4.  CA-03 with this map design can't go farther north, without chopping Woodlands, which has 35,000 people or something.
Logged

dpmapper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 255
View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2012, 01:47:14 pm »
Ignore

I voted for 3.  However, is there a way to give Napa to CA-3 in exchange for putting Del Norte + more of Sonoma County (all except maybe Petaluma and Sonoma city) into CA-2, and letting CA-5 take all of Vallejo and maybe Benicia for a complete surround of the north bay? 

Look at map 4.  CA-03 with this map design can't go farther north, without chopping Woodlands, which has 35,000 people or something.

It wouldn't need to go north if it's taking Napa County.  It would actually come south, since Del Norte slides from CD-1 to CD-2, so CD-1 takes some of CD-3's northern reaches.  CD-3 gains Napa, loses a bit in the north + the remainder of Vallejo. 
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27518
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2012, 03:33:12 pm »
Ignore

I've started looking at the whole county analysis I did for the Iowa-style states and apply it to my regional approach to CA. One interesting region I found is Colusa, Contra Costa, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, San Francisco, Solano, Sonoma, and Yolo comprise the population of 5 CDs with only 625 extra people. Within that region the core wine counties of Mendocino, Napa, and Sonoma are only 5298 over pop for a district and Colusa, Lake, Solano, and Yolo are only 2628 under population for a district. I'll try to post a wine county region map based later today.


Here is your algorithm map Mike. You commit the "sin" of chopping W. Sacto from Sacto, but get away with it because it gets rid of most of the CA-04 chop into Sacto in return. Its other sin is tri-chopping San Joaquin county, and chopping Tracy a bit to boot, while excising Stockton from most of the county that it hosts. But it does have a lot of merit, except of course for McNerney in CA-09, who would put you on his enemies list. It must be nice to do good and do well at the same time.  Tongue

Anyway, I have labeled my DRA drf data file for this map 8 the Muon2 algorithm map in your honor. Smiley

After I figure out what dpmapper wants, I will need to redo the poll, and perhaps you can move all of these scintillating posts to that thread.



« Last Edit: April 22, 2012, 03:52:50 pm by Torie »Logged

Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13612


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2012, 03:55:43 pm »
Ignore

A Marin and Petaluma based district taking in the Richmond area is a complete no-no. Go ahead and cross the Golden Gate but do NOT cross that bridge Torie just discovered. The differential in median income across that bridge is probably higher than the median income of America. Those two areas just don't belong. Muon's ideas wouldn't work either, judging from the map Torie made in the last post.

So the 1st, 2nd and the 4th maps would be acceptable with the others being unacceptable. The 2nd is the best of those options and what I voted for. Map 4 is actually very good except for the SF chop, but like I said is still preferable to crossing the Richmond-San Rafael bridge. I think the 1st is still more preferable to the 4th due to it not crossing over and taking in Redding and Modoc County. But they are close by and the 2nd is clearly better in my opinion.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27518
United States


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 22, 2012, 05:38:50 pm »
Ignore

A Marin and Petaluma based district taking in the Richmond area is a complete no-no. Go ahead and cross the Golden Gate but do NOT cross that bridge Torie just discovered. The differential in median income across that bridge is probably higher than the median income of America. Those two areas just don't belong. Muon's ideas wouldn't work either, judging from the map Torie made in the last post.

So the 1st, 2nd and the 4th maps would be acceptable with the others being unacceptable. The 2nd is the best of those options and what I voted for. Map 4 is actually very good except for the SF chop, but like I said is still preferable to crossing the Richmond-San Rafael bridge. I think the 1st is still more preferable to the 4th due to it not crossing over and taking in Redding and Modoc County. But they are close by and the 2nd is clearly better in my opinion.

Well the Commission took CA-05 into Richmond, so why can't Muon2?  The class warfare thing was really only applied to get rid of the beach cities CD in LA county, so that a second quasi black CD could be created, and they used class warfare as an excuse. They ignored the class warfare theme in the Silicon Valley, as well as in San Diego county, really.  I mean if they had class on their craniums for reasons other than as window dressing, Cupertino would not have been appended to the no-they-haven't-quite-made-it-yet-and-thus-are-constrained-to-live-cheek-to-jowel-with-the-Hispanics  "Asian" CD, and the Bilbray CD would not have eschewed wealthy Villa Park on steroids Rancho Santa Fe in favor of frumpy Poway (oh dear!), now would it? And that unfortunate Antelope Valley CD on its county chopping way to that charmless middle class haven where the overpaid LA cops and firemen live otherwise known as Simi Valley, would not have swallowed en route the chic family values lawyer and MD oriented node of Porter Ranch in Chatsworth either, turning the creature into the most ugly of ducklings, correct?

That really is the main goal here. What rules need to be set up, which make sense for CA, so we don't get another cf map next time?  I mean they are not needed really for a Commission made up of the Sbane, Lewis, Muon2, dpmapper, and Johnny's of this world, since we know all the rules, and will make each other's lives a living hell if we play games, since we know all the games too, but well we aren't on the Commission, and our types never well be. They will put folks on who can be gamed to death, and then some.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2012, 07:26:46 pm by Torie »Logged

Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13612


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 22, 2012, 07:10:13 pm »
Ignore

Ca-5 does not take in Richmond or Marin County nor Petaluma. Santa Rosa isn't really that wealthy (nor is it working class of course). That being said I don't like that much. I prefer the 2nd map with Richmond and the rest of working class COCO county with Vallejo and Fairfield. Also Marin County gets put with Santa Rosa which works fine. Redding with the coast doesn't work as well, admittedly, but that county isn't actually that attached to the valley. If you go up there, you will see that most of the county, including Redding and a few areas to the south are not that agricultural. I don't really have a huge problem with putting it in the wilderness district, though it's not ideal. Better than putting Marin County with Richmond. Just because Tupac was from Marin county doesn't give it street cred! Tongue

Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27518
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 22, 2012, 07:34:13 pm »
Ignore

Ca-5 does not take in Richmond or Marin County nor Petaluma. Santa Rosa isn't really that wealthy (nor is it working class of course). That being said I don't like that much. I prefer the 2nd map with Richmond and the rest of working class COCO county with Vallejo and Fairfield. Also Marin County gets put with Santa Rosa which works fine. Redding with the coast doesn't work as well, admittedly, but that county isn't actually that attached to the valley. If you go up there, you will see that most of the county, including Redding and a few areas to the south are not that agricultural. I don't really have a huge problem with putting it in the wilderness district, though it's not ideal. Better than putting Marin County with Richmond. Just because Tupac was from Marin county doesn't give it street cred! Tongue



OK so you put a high premium on the class warfare theme. That is a factor to me, but not as a dispositive one as for you, I guess. Pity that the Commission applied the theme inconsistently, just like most of the other themes. The Commission's map come to think of it had so many mix and match themes that it ended it kind of cacophonous - sort of like a 12 tone symphony. Now granted, some folks like 12 tone music, but it is an acquired taste. One does not fall in love with it the first time one hears it.
Logged

Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13612


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2012, 07:41:50 pm »
Ignore

Yeah, the commission map is all over the place. Still, I don't know if they did anything as bad as putting Richmond with Marin County. I mean, Marin County has a median income approaching 100k and Richmond is right around 50k. And it's not as if Marin county is only 20 or 30,000 people or something, and the same with Richmond and surroundings.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27518
United States


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 22, 2012, 08:29:54 pm »
Ignore

Yeah, the commission map is all over the place. Still, I don't know if they did anything as bad as putting Richmond with Marin County. I mean, Marin County has a median income approaching 100k and Richmond is right around 50k. And it's not as if Marin county is only 20 or 30,000 people or something, and the same with Richmond and surroundings.

Yes, yes, but it mitigates the CA-03 chop in CCC. It is all a balancing test, which is why I wanted input. Once I get the dpmapper map done, the new poll will have nine maps in it. Tongue
Logged

muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8868


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: April 22, 2012, 10:54:19 pm »


That really is the main goal here. What rules need to be set up, which make sense for CA, so we don't get another cf map next time?  I mean they are not needed really for a Commission made up of the Sbane, Lewis, Muon2, dpmapper, and Johnny's of this world, since we know all the rules, and will make each other's lives a living hell if we play games, since we know all the games too, but well we aren't on the Commission, and our types never well be. They will put folks on who can be gamed to death, and then some.

This is the question for me. Some states do fine even without a commission, and in part that seems to be a set of criteria with enough definition to constrain the worst of games. Even in CA, counties get some cred as units to be preserved. From commission testimony, they have at least the weight of municipalities, if not more. As Torie has often noted the problem lies in shifting definitions for socioeconomic groupings.

With that in mind, I push for minimal county fragments (BTW I don't need a 3-chop in San Joaquin), and if there are chops the preference is to avoid municipal chops and create minimal population incursions into a county when needed. Other C of I factors can then guide mapping beyond the predefined C of I represented by counties and municipalities.

As I mentioned, I have looked again at multi-district regions as if they were large single districts. I can apply the formula from the Iowa type districts to estimate the following ranges of deviation between the smallest and largest deviation for CA with 58 counties:

2 regions, range 45
3 regions, range 229
4 regions, range 723
5 regions, range 1767
6 regions, range 3665

I can draw 5 regions with a range of 1033, but it has one region that is not very compact. There is a 4-region plan based on the suggestion I had above with a range of 896. It's consistent with the estimates, and is the basis for a fresh look at the plan.

Region A: 4 CDs, deviation -188, Butte, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, and Yuba.

Region B: 5 CDs, deviation +625, Colusa, Contra Costa, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, San Francisco, Solano, Sonoma, and Yolo.

Region C: 14 CDs, deviation -271, Alameda, Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Fresno, Inyo, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Mono, Monterey, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne.

Region D: 30 CDs, deviation -166, Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare, and Ventura.

Though this might not always group counties the way one likes, it imposes a rational constraint to keep counties whole and reduce the exposure to arbitrary influence.
Logged


Partial solar eclipse of October 23, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13612


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 22, 2012, 11:11:45 pm »
Ignore

Yeah, the commission map is all over the place. Still, I don't know if they did anything as bad as putting Richmond with Marin County. I mean, Marin County has a median income approaching 100k and Richmond is right around 50k. And it's not as if Marin county is only 20 or 30,000 people or something, and the same with Richmond and surroundings.

Yes, yes, but it mitigates the CA-03 chop in CCC. It is all a balancing test, which is why I wanted input. Once I get the dpmapper map done, the new poll will have nine maps in it. Tongue

Right, but what I'm saying is that CA-3 chopping into CCC makes infinitely more sense than a district from Marin County chopping into CCC. It is a balancing test, and the 2nd map is the right mix. It's not perfect obviously, no map is going to be, but it's the best of the lot. Maybe I'm missing it, but does crossing the Richmond-San Rafael bridge lead to one less chop than CA-3 chopping CCC?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27518
United States


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: April 23, 2012, 12:36:49 am »
Ignore

I voted for 3.  However, is there a way to give Napa to CA-3 in exchange for putting Del Norte + more of Sonoma County (all except maybe Petaluma and Sonoma city) into CA-2, and letting CA-5 take all of Vallejo and maybe Benicia for a complete surround of the north bay? 

Look at map 4.  CA-03 with this map design can't go farther north, without chopping Woodlands, which has 35,000 people or something.

It wouldn't need to go north if it's taking Napa County.  It would actually come south, since Del Norte slides from CD-1 to CD-2, so CD-1 takes some of CD-3's northern reaches.  CD-3 gains Napa, loses a bit in the north + the remainder of Vallejo. 


Here you go. CA-05 gets uncomfortably close to Fairfield, but not there, so not bad - at all. The alternative which would push CA-05 away from Fairfield would be for CA-02 to take Siskiyou County, and the cost of CA-02 crossing I-5 causes that pawn move to be too expensive. '


Logged

muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8868


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 23, 2012, 04:02:02 am »

Yeah, the commission map is all over the place. Still, I don't know if they did anything as bad as putting Richmond with Marin County. I mean, Marin County has a median income approaching 100k and Richmond is right around 50k. And it's not as if Marin county is only 20 or 30,000 people or something, and the same with Richmond and surroundings.

Yes, yes, but it mitigates the CA-03 chop in CCC. It is all a balancing test, which is why I wanted input. Once I get the dpmapper map done, the new poll will have nine maps in it. Tongue

Right, but what I'm saying is that CA-3 chopping into CCC makes infinitely more sense than a district from Marin County chopping into CCC. It is a balancing test, and the 2nd map is the right mix. It's not perfect obviously, no map is going to be, but it's the best of the lot. Maybe I'm missing it, but does crossing the Richmond-San Rafael bridge lead to one less chop than CA-3 chopping CCC?

If one assumes that as in IA (or AR in 2000) de minimus population deviations are permitted to maintain county integrity, then my plan makes for fewer county chops. Even with an exact population requirement, the needed chops would be preferable since the counties would remain largely whole.

Logged


Partial solar eclipse of October 23, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
dpmapper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 255
View Profile
« Reply #22 on: April 23, 2012, 08:31:42 am »
Ignore


Here you go. CA-05 gets uncomfortably close to Fairfield, but not there, so not bad - at all. The alternative which would push CA-05 away from Fairfield would be for CA-02 to take Siskiyou County, and the cost of CA-02 crossing I-5 causes that pawn move to be too expensive. '




Looks good.  I like keeping CA-03 farther away from SF and the CA-05 wraparound of the north bay is a nice way to do it.  I understand sbane's concern about Richmond but it at least gets paired with Vallejo here.  Yes, other than being on the same body of water, it's an odd fit with Marin but these things inevitably happen; nobody complains about Daly City and East Palo Alto being matched with Atherton and Menlo Park. 
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8868


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: April 23, 2012, 10:09:46 am »

Here's my offering for wine country showing how it fits into the northern half of the state. All CDs are within 100 of the ideal population. All counties with enough population have a district entirely within, and Sacto and Alameda have two CDs entirely within. No county has part of more than two CDs not counting those entirely within. County splits are organized to split off only a small part where possible leaving most of the county intact. For example these are the populations of the fragments split:

Butte: 7.8K
Colusa: 0.6K
Napa: 3.3K
Placer: 0.5K
Sonoma: 2.0K

Logged


Partial solar eclipse of October 23, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27518
United States


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: April 23, 2012, 11:46:21 am »
Ignore

Here's my offering for wine country showing how it fits into the northern half of the state. All CDs are within 100 of the ideal population. All counties with enough population have a district entirely within, and Sacto and Alameda have two CDs entirely within. No county has part of more than two CDs not counting those entirely within. County splits are organized to split off only a small part where possible leaving most of the county intact. For example these are the populations of the fragments split:

Butte: 7.8K
Colusa: 0.6K
Napa: 3.3K
Placer: 0.5K
Sonoma: 2.0K



Ah, well I already knew that you were smarter than me, Mike. Smiley  Given the walls (see below), I thought it was impossible, but then I thought it was a crime to chop Section 5 protected Merced (which to do your twist, you chopped). I guess it is OK to remove white people from it, is that were its at? And didn't you while losing a San Joaquin chop, pick up two others (Madera and Merced)? Did you avoid a chop somewhere else?  I assume your map is based on the Ridgecrest based chop. And didn't you reduce the Hispanic percentage in the Monterey based CD (not that that is dispositive of anything of course)?

Oh, I think you did that extra chop for VRA reasons, even though the Commission didn't care much about the Hispanic percentage in CA-16.  So you took CA-08 farther north?  You didn't do the Ridgecrest chop, but chopped Placer County instead. Taking empty Alpine is OK I guess, but not San Andreas. And that picked up about half of the population that you needed, and you got the other half from the extra CA-16 area county chop, excusing it with the VRA?  I am just wondering where you picked up the population is all.

The Placer affair of course illustrates the conundrum here. The issue with your algorithm, is when to allow it to be violated.  Sometimes the geographic barriers or communities of interest, or issues of compactness, or protecting cross county metro areas from being chopped (e.g. West Sacramento from Sacramento, although the Sacto area needed to be chopped anyway), are just too compelling. Or you need an extra county chop to avoid an ugly chop of some town with some population. For example, I don't think it acceptable to chop Woodlands in half, and considered that a constraint. So how do we allow for human judgement while still being sufficiently leashed to avoid going where this Commission went?

« Last Edit: April 23, 2012, 11:56:44 am by Torie »Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines