Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 23, 2014, 08:26:03 am
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 4162 times)
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13435


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: April 23, 2012, 12:53:15 pm »
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. 

Well, I think the difference here is that you are crossing a bridge to pick up Richmond. Though keeping it with Vallejo makes it slightly better I suppose. East Palo Alto is only 10-20k people and Daly City and EPA are right adjacent to the areas its put with. It's unwise to cross bridges from the peninsula or Marin County to the East Bay. That geographical barrier creates a different community of interest on the two sides of the bay. And this is not something obscure but would be something that would be acknowledged by the majority of Bay Area residents.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8543


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: April 23, 2012, 01:06:05 pm »


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?


The Placer problem was actually quite easy. My 2 northern CDs plus Sacto (region A) has a pop deficit of 188 but it becomes a surplus of 437 when I give it 625 from Colusa to balance the north bay region. There's a little precinct in Placer on the shore of Lake Tahoe that has the right pop and keeps the Tahoma community together. The split actually reduces town splitting so that's a plus. That split actually goes with the South Lake Tahoe pop (about 39K) to join the Owens Valley in the Victorville CD. I haven't finished the south yet, but you can sense my walls from the regions I posted.

I also haven't gotten to a VRA analysis yet, but I wanted to start with the algorithm and it said that San Mateo+Santa Cruz+Monterey = 2 CDs less 10K pop which I picked up from San Benito. So my wall is where the commission put it between Monterey and SLO. If I can't pass Section 5 with Monterey I can violate my subregion and draw much the same CD the commission did with a few small shifts in SJ. The VRA would be one of the times to violate the algorithm. The VRA is what prevents me from putting a district entirely within Fresno, for example.

So I have two areas of human judgement in map making so far. Making necessary county splits in ways that minimize community splits, and accommodating the VRA.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27198
United States


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: April 23, 2012, 01:57:13 pm »
Ignore

There doesn't appear to be a road between Alpine and Placer.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8543


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: April 23, 2012, 02:20:31 pm »

There doesn't appear to be a road between Alpine and Placer.

There is through South Lake Tahoe. My Stockton CD would have 39K too many people including all of the usual Sierra Nevada counties (40K with Alpine). Something needed to go with the Owens Valley so I chopped off South Lake Tahoe from El Dorado for that population. It then provides the link to my one Placer precinct along the lake.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13435


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: April 23, 2012, 03:32:09 pm »
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



I followed the basic format as you and tried to see if you could avoid crossing over into CCC from Marin. I kept the chop in Colusa and SF as you have. Then the SF-Marin district takes in as much of Sonoma County as needed. Only the cities of Sonoma, Windsor and the northern rural areas are excluded. Those areas get put in a district that takes in Mendocino, Lake, Napa, Colusa, Yolo and about 50,000 from Solano. I just avoided splitting Vacaville and basically Vacaville, Fairfield, Benicia and Vallejo get put in a district that goes down to Richmond and takes in some areas in inland CCC like Martinez and Pleasant Hill. I could have extended it towards Pittsburg but that's just nitpicking. What is important is that there is no need to draw a district from Marin into these working class areas. Too bad I didn't save it before it crashed. Sad
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27198
United States


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: April 23, 2012, 06:45:40 pm »
Ignore

There doesn't appear to be a road between Alpine and Placer.

There is through South Lake Tahoe. My Stockton CD would have 39K too many people including all of the usual Sierra Nevada counties (40K with Alpine). Something needed to go with the Owens Valley so I chopped off South Lake Tahoe from El Dorado for that population. It then provides the link to my one Placer precinct along the lake.

I will look for the road again. That Monterey, SLO wall makes a cf of Ventura County. That is the problem with a strict algorithm.  You get a nasty mess in a county, or you do something that will never sell, like appending Placer to a Victorville CD.  But we have been over this before. I wonder if there is any way to get some discipline, but allow exceptions.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8543


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: April 23, 2012, 07:18:29 pm »

There doesn't appear to be a road between Alpine and Placer.

There is through South Lake Tahoe. My Stockton CD would have 39K too many people including all of the usual Sierra Nevada counties (40K with Alpine). Something needed to go with the Owens Valley so I chopped off South Lake Tahoe from El Dorado for that population. It then provides the link to my one Placer precinct along the lake.

I will look for the road again. That Monterey, SLO wall makes a cf of Ventura County. That is the problem with a strict algorithm.  You get a nasty mess in a county, or you do something that will never sell, like appending Placer to a Victorville CD.  But we have been over this before. I wonder if there is any way to get some discipline, but allow exceptions.

Other than some minor pop balancing what I did is place Lake Tahoe with the east side district that includes Owens Valley. If you come up US 395 from OV into Alpine and go north on CA-89 it connects the miniscule piece of Placer that I use on Lake Tahoe. It's exactly where I was vacationing last summer so I had a good chance to see the area. It was easier to go from Alpine to either Mono or Lake Tahoe than over the passes to the west. Often it seemed like West Nevada, minus the casinos.  From my visit, it is hard to convince me that Tahoe can't be appended equally well to OV and the deserts south as it is to suburban Sacto.

I think the exceptions too often come from preconceived notions. An outsider assessing the situation neutrally, might not have those same notions. That's part of the beauty of the Iowa system. The politicians and public aren't always happy, but there's a recognition that game-playing is

I'll get back to you on the Ventura problem. Given the crazy current CD 24 there, and the issues noted it's clear that both commission and political gerrymanders don't satisfy.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38828
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: April 23, 2012, 10:38:27 pm »
Ignore

I have little to add, but I'll mention that I agree with sbane about class being important. Richmond being appended to Marin County is as clear a no-no as can be; I can't imagine any other two places that vote the same way being more different.

Of course, I would have placed Cupertino with Saratoga and Los Altos and Palo Alto and then perhaps up to Menlo Park and thereabouts, so my opinion is to be taken with a grain of salt.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8543


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: April 23, 2012, 10:57:40 pm »

My initial thoughts on Ventura starts with SLO+SB which is 9K short of a district and can be completed like the commission did. In Ventura there is a ridge the separates Santa Paula from the south, and south of that ridge extended across Ventura to the ocean is a population equal to a district. Next Ventura+Kern+Tulare is only 4K short of 3 CDs. A VRA district can be constructed from Tulare going into Bakersfield. That leaves the rest of Kern linking to Santa Paula. There is almost the right amount of population west of I-5 in LAC to make a link that doesn't rely only on the windy road in north Ventura.



The districts are accurate to within 100 persons and the I've added some color to show the inclusion of Hungry Valley SVRA split from its block group.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8543


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: April 23, 2012, 11:37:38 pm »

I have little to add, but I'll mention that I agree with sbane about class being important. Richmond being appended to Marin County is as clear a no-no as can be; I can't imagine any other two places that vote the same way being more different.

Of course, I would have placed Cupertino with Saratoga and Los Altos and Palo Alto and then perhaps up to Menlo Park and thereabouts, so my opinion is to be taken with a grain of salt.

This where I have my greatest disagreement with some of the commission results. Drawing districts to group by class is as bad as drawing districts to group by political party.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
dpmapper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 255
View Profile
« Reply #35 on: April 23, 2012, 11:47:34 pm »
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. 

Well, I think the difference here is that you are crossing a bridge to pick up Richmond. Though keeping it with Vallejo makes it slightly better I suppose. East Palo Alto is only 10-20k people and Daly City and EPA are right adjacent to the areas its put with. It's unwise to cross bridges from the peninsula or Marin County to the East Bay. That geographical barrier creates a different community of interest on the two sides of the bay. And this is not something obscure but would be something that would be acknowledged by the majority of Bay Area residents.

In this map there's no need to rely on the bridge.  That's partly why I suggested it (that, and adding Vallejo to Richmond).  Yes, the east and west halves of the district are very distinct parts of the Bay Area.  But that fact by itself shouldn't entitle the Bay Area to another district just so that they can be split up.  Better they get kept together rather than drawing places like Yolo County in with Richmond, for instance. 
Logged
GM Napoleon
Napoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15410


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: April 24, 2012, 08:56:39 am »
Ignore

I have little to add, but I'll mention that I agree with sbane about class being important. Richmond being appended to Marin County is as clear a no-no as can be; I can't imagine any other two places that vote the same way being more different.

Of course, I would have placed Cupertino with Saratoga and Los Altos and Palo Alto and then perhaps up to Menlo Park and thereabouts, so my opinion is to be taken with a grain of salt.

This where I have my greatest disagreement with some of the commission results. Drawing districts to group by class is as bad as drawing districts to group by political party.

I agree with you on this point.
Logged

When I was in the third grade, I thought that I was Jewish
Because I could count, my nose was big, and I kept my bank account fullish
I told my mom, tears blurring my vision
He said, "Mort, you've loved God since before circumcision"
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27198
United States


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: April 24, 2012, 09:15:15 am »
Ignore

My initial thoughts on Ventura starts with SLO+SB which is 9K short of a district and can be completed like the commission did. In Ventura there is a ridge the separates Santa Paula from the south, and south of that ridge extended across Ventura to the ocean is a population equal to a district. Next Ventura+Kern+Tulare is only 4K short of 3 CDs. A VRA district can be constructed from Tulare going into Bakersfield. That leaves the rest of Kern linking to Santa Paula. There is almost the right amount of population west of I-5 in LAC to make a link that doesn't rely only on the windy road in north Ventura.



The districts are accurate to within 100 persons and the I've added some color to show the inclusion of Hungry Valley SVRA split from its block group.


Well we do have a fundamental disagreement here. I don't think it acceptable to append Victorville (oh it is  Bakersfield, which is even worse) to Santa Paula and bits of Ventura city and Ojai - unless demanded by the VRA (which of course it isn't). If you are going to go this route, you need to append to Ventura County the suburbs west of Woodland Hills in LA City. You have CA-25 in three counties to boot, so it chops twice, just so you have your little road connection.

I want some workable balancing test between respecting obvious communities of interest,  jurisdictional boundaries, metro areas, and compactness and geographical barriers. For example, I would rather chop a county, than chop a sizable town in half - unless there is a compelling reason like the Vallejo thing (one reason the dpmapper map has some attraction is that it avoids chopping Vallejo, which is less acceptable really than chopping Solano). And I might chop another county chop going my version of your route, to unite Tracy. Nabbing Tracy to me is a lot more attractive than Victorville nabbing South Lake Tahoe, which has no ties to the rest of the district (yes, I found the road that I did not know exists over the Sierras via "Luther Pass"  (which I did not know existed either:)). Sure it is easier to have to hew to just one loadstar, but among other things, I don't think the public will accept it if presented to them, and they thought about it. The trick is to find a methodology that will effectively leash abuse and partisan/incumbent/aspiring incumbent games.

I might add that in general, counties have less psychological importance in CA than most places - perhaps in part due to geography and ethnic diversity, and perhaps  in part due anomie and rootlessness, which characterizes CA in a way not as present elsewhere perhaps. But counties are useful, because of course they have some importance, and it is a good leashing mechanism. Splitting cities is less acceptable.

And isn't class a communities of interest factor? Sure it should not trump more important considerations, but at the margins, it is certainly an appropriate metric no? I guess where I am going is some kind of hierarchy of "needs" as it were. In the Silicon Valley, after respecting town boundaries, either going Asian, or going by class seems OK with me. I see no reason why one should trump the other.

And for you uber class warriors, you know the "slums" need to go somewhere. Since Oakland has its own CD, Richmond needs to be appended to middle class areas, or tied to more rural Solano. The SF metro area is rather light on slums - it is just too expensive.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2012, 09:33:28 am by Torie »Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8543


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: April 24, 2012, 11:05:44 am »

My initial thoughts on Ventura starts with SLO+SB which is 9K short of a district and can be completed like the commission did. In Ventura there is a ridge the separates Santa Paula from the south, and south of that ridge extended across Ventura to the ocean is a population equal to a district. Next Ventura+Kern+Tulare is only 4K short of 3 CDs. A VRA district can be constructed from Tulare going into Bakersfield. That leaves the rest of Kern linking to Santa Paula. There is almost the right amount of population west of I-5 in LAC to make a link that doesn't rely only on the windy road in north Ventura.



The districts are accurate to within 100 persons and the I've added some color to show the inclusion of Hungry Valley SVRA split from its block group.


Well we do have a fundamental disagreement here. I don't think it acceptable to append Victorville (oh it is  Bakersfield, which is even worse) to Santa Paula and bits of Ventura city and Ojai - unless demanded by the VRA (which of course it isn't). If you are going to go this route, you need to append to Ventura County the suburbs west of Woodland Hills in LA City. You have CA-25 in three counties to boot, so it chops twice, just so you have your little road connection.

I want some workable balancing test between respecting obvious communities of interest,  jurisdictional boundaries, metro areas, and compactness and geographical barriers. For example, I would rather chop a county, than chop a sizable town in half - unless there is a compelling reason like the Vallejo thing (one reason the dpmapper map has some attraction is that it avoids chopping Vallejo, which is less acceptable really than chopping Solano). And I might chop another county chop going my version of your route, to unite Tracy. Nabbing Tracy to me is a lot more attractive than Victorville nabbing South Lake Tahoe, which has no ties to the rest of the district (yes, I found the road that I did not know exists over the Sierras via "Luther Pass"  (which I did not know existed either:)). Sure it is easier to have to hew to just one loadstar, but among other things, I don't think the public will accept it if presented to them, and they thought about it. The trick is to find a methodology that will effectively leash abuse and partisan/incumbent/aspiring incumbent games.

I might add that in general, counties have less psychological importance in CA than most places - perhaps in part due to geography and ethnic diversity, and perhaps  in part due anomie and rootlessness, which characterizes CA in a way not as present elsewhere perhaps. But counties are useful, because of course they have some importance, and it is a good leashing mechanism. Splitting cities is less acceptable.

And isn't class a communities of interest factor? Sure it should not trump more important considerations, but at the margins, it is certainly an appropriate metric no? I guess where I am going is some kind of hierarchy of "needs" as it were. In the Silicon Valley, after respecting town boundaries, either going Asian, or going by class seems OK with me. I see no reason why one should trump the other.

And for you uber class warriors, you know the "slums" need to go somewhere. Since Oakland has its own CD, Richmond needs to be appended to middle class areas, or tied to more rural Solano. The SF metro area is rather light on slums - it is just too expensive.


In most plans there will be at least two districts in LAC that are not wholly contained in the county. By placing my cut where I did I can keep the SLO-SB district as two whole counties, so it does reduce chops compared to other plans. Counties may be less relevant than in some other states, but the commission's narrative does give weight to them, often providing justification for a split.

Identifying geographical barriers is important in any set of constraints, and it's hard not to slip into an arbitrary definition. For constructing regions and subregions I have preferred to require that all counties in the grouping are connected such that one can go from one county seat to another on designated US or state highways without leaving the group. My subregion of Tulare, Kern, Ventura, SLO, and SB meets that test. Making districts within the subregion only requires a regular road to provide connection since at that point county fragments come into play, though highways are preferred.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2012, 03:13:42 pm by muon2 »Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5746
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: April 24, 2012, 01:49:05 pm »
Ignore

I might add that in general, counties have less psychological importance in CA than most places - perhaps in part due to geography and ethnic diversity, and perhaps  in part due anomie and rootlessness, which characterizes CA in a way not as present elsewhere perhaps. But counties are useful, because of course they have some importance, and it is a good leashing mechanism. Splitting cities is less acceptable.

And isn't class a communities of interest factor? Sure it should not trump more important considerations, but at the margins, it is certainly an appropriate metric no? I guess where I am going is some kind of hierarchy of "needs" as it were. In the Silicon Valley, after respecting town boundaries, either going Asian, or going by class seems OK with me. I see no reason why one should trump the other.

And for you uber class warriors, you know the "slums" need to go somewhere. Since Oakland has its own CD, Richmond needs to be appended to middle class areas, or tied to more rural Solano. The SF metro area is rather light on slums - it is just too expensive.
I don't think the constitution sets a hierarchy among counties, cities, and "communities of interest".

The opponent to the initiative said that "communities of interest" was a code word for "Jim Crow", but he was making some pretty outlandish claims.   I think it is hard to make the case that if voters didn't like the districts the legislators had created for themselves you could vote them out of office.

For example, he noted that the last time "appointed" persons had redistricted they had made wholesale cuts of cities.   The last time appointed persons had redistricted was following an legislative impasse, and the appointees were the special masters appointed by the Supreme Court, who were retired appellate judges, who had quickly put together a map using census tracts.  In older cities, census tracts do conform to city boundaries, because their purpose was to provide census data for smaller areas within cities that was equivalent to that available for townships and towns throughout rural America.  In later developing areas, the census tracts were defined first, and then new road networks and cities were added without regard to the census tracts.

He also suggested that an appointed commission might create SBOE districts with 10% deviation, which is close to 1 million persons (there are 4 districts).   These would be "rotten boroughs".

He also claimed that his alternative would preserve the right of referendum "even for congressional districts".   The initial initiative, which set up the redistricting commission for legislative and SBOE boundaries, includes a referendum procedure (and there will be a referendum on the senate boundaries in June), but left congressional districting in the hands of the legislature.  The last time there had been a referendum on district boundaries, Chief Justice Liberal Rose Bird had written an opinion that ordered the use of the districts drawn by the legislature (ordinarily a law passed by the legislature is suspended, but the plan drawn by the legislature was the only one available with equal population districts).  The voters vetoed the districts, but the legislators elected based on the overturned districts, then simply re-passed them with an urgency clause (2/3 vote) that made them referendum-proof and governor Jerry Brown, the Younger signed it.   The counter-proposal was to make it so redistricting laws could not have an urgency clause.   In the 1980s, the voters could have vetoed the plan a second time, and then have it passed again.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13435


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: April 24, 2012, 02:42:20 pm »
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. 

Well, I think the difference here is that you are crossing a bridge to pick up Richmond. Though keeping it with Vallejo makes it slightly better I suppose. East Palo Alto is only 10-20k people and Daly City and EPA are right adjacent to the areas its put with. It's unwise to cross bridges from the peninsula or Marin County to the East Bay. That geographical barrier creates a different community of interest on the two sides of the bay. And this is not something obscure but would be something that would be acknowledged by the majority of Bay Area residents.

In this map there's no need to rely on the bridge.  That's partly why I suggested it (that, and adding Vallejo to Richmond).  Yes, the east and west halves of the district are very distinct parts of the Bay Area.  But that fact by itself shouldn't entitle the Bay Area to another district just so that they can be split up.  Better they get kept together rather than drawing places like Yolo County in with Richmond, for instance. 

But here you have Santa Rosa, Fairfield and Vacaville being put in non-Bay Area districts. Napa arguably is a part of the Bay Area as well. And it's not as if Yolo fits in well with any other part of the state. West Sacramento should be in a Sacramento district, Davis has no obvious place to go and Woodland should go with the central valley. In the map I like, only the rural areas in Yolo, containing maybe 30k people get put in a Bay Area district, as well as Davis which is fine since it has nowhere better to go.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13435


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: April 24, 2012, 03:02:34 pm »
Ignore


And for you uber class warriors, you know the "slums" need to go somewhere. Since Oakland has its own CD, Richmond needs to be appended to middle class areas, or tied to more rural Solano. The SF metro area is rather light on slums - it is just too expensive.

Oh, sure. We can't really put Richmond with another 500-600k who are of the same class background if we take Oakland out of the equation. Putting it with Vallejo, and the more middle class (but certainly not upper class like Marin) in between those two cities is a no-brainer. Then you need to figure out where to get the 300k odd extra people. If the choice is between Marin, and Fairfield/Vacaville, that is again a no-brainer. The commission went with a third option, Napa and Santa Rosa. That isn't idea but it's not Marin County. Santa Rosa only has a median income of 50k. I was actually surprised it was that low. And as for Fairfield and Vacaville, Fairfield is at 60k and Vacaville is maybe 70-80k. Middle class surely, but certainly no Marin County.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27198
United States


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: April 24, 2012, 05:44:17 pm »
Ignore

Well here are maps 10 and 11. Muon2's map with its Bakersfield to Ojai plus a bit of the City of Ventura via a micro-chop of LA County west of I-5 so he has his little connecting highway to heaven, and Victorville to South Lake Tahoe map over Luther Pass, will complete the dirty dozen when he gets finished), and we will get a chance to rank them all.  


I lost the Tracy cut, and replaced it will a good old partial Vallejo cut. CA-03 to make up for the lost population picks up picks up Colusa and either  all of Sutter and Yuba City is cut off with its Marysville suburb in Yuba County (confusing that Yuba City is not in Yuba County), but loses West Sacto pus two Davis precincts in Map 10, or in Map 11, all of Sutter except for Yuba City where it nips 3 precincts.  I was unable to avoid the 2 precinct nip of Davis in Map 10, and the 3 precinct nip of Yuba City in Map 11.  I tend to prefer Map 10 because it seems more important to me to keep West Sacto with the Sacto Metro area, then Marysville with Yuba City, perhaps because that metro area is less important. What do you think?

It seems clear to me now that CA-09 should move into Sacto County to gets its additional population and nowhere else. Sacto County needs to be tri-chopped in all events. In this one the third chop is from the south rather than the north.  Going anywhere else is just silly really.
 
« Last Edit: April 24, 2012, 05:51:44 pm by Torie »Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13435


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: April 24, 2012, 05:58:45 pm »
Ignore

That map's not bad if you just follow my fix to put CCC in the 3rd and most of the rest of Central Valley in the 3rd with the 5th picking up as much of Sonoma County as needed to get up to full population. That also basically resolves the issue dpmapper has of areas around the Bay Area being diluted by Bay Area votes.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2012, 06:00:35 pm by Senator Sbane »Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8543


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: April 24, 2012, 06:15:24 pm »

If I stick to my Ventura subregion, here's the chance for human intervention. This is the other rotation that keeps splits of Ventura to one but splits SLO instead. Like the other plan this needs 13 K from LAC for pop balance.


Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27198
United States


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: April 24, 2012, 09:30:16 pm »
Ignore

If I stick to my Ventura subregion, here's the chance for human intervention. This is the other rotation that keeps splits of Ventura to one but splits SLO instead. Like the other plan this needs 13 K from LAC for pop balance.




That won't sell/work either Mike. Sorry. But by all means finish your algorithm map. I have decided to get more rigorous about this myself, and I will try to delete Chino Hills from the LA County Asian CD, unless the VRA precludes it, because it dilutes too much the Hispanic CD in SB County. SD County should have put one chop out of it, by the way.  Extra county chops beyond the VRA require another very good reason, like keeping a metro area together, or due to compelling geographic barriers, like between Kern and SLO or Ventura County for example. Smiley
« Last Edit: April 24, 2012, 10:05:37 pm by Torie »Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27198
United States


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: April 24, 2012, 10:06:11 pm »
Ignore

That map's not bad if you just follow my fix to put CCC in the 3rd and most of the rest of Central Valley in the 3rd with the 5th picking up as much of Sonoma County as needed to get up to full population. That also basically resolves the issue dpmapper has of areas around the Bay Area being diluted by Bay Area votes.

That was my original map more or less, sbane. It causes CA-02 to suck up Shasta County. CA-02 crossing I-5 is a negative, and it gives CA-02 a non compact and wandering look to boot.  I-5 is a good connector highway to join together a lightly populated CD zone. So that is the cost for giving the class warfare theme a high priority. Is it worth it to you?  

By the way, not all of what CA-05 takes in CCC is that down market. It takes in a lot more than just Richmond, and I think Pinole is quite middle class. Perhaps only about half of the population in CA-05 in CCC is really sub-middle class. That is because it takes in more of CCC than my original map, because I kicked out CA-09 from CCC. Do you agree? I ask because that area is in your former neck of the woods.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13435


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: April 24, 2012, 10:26:11 pm »
Ignore

That map's not bad if you just follow my fix to put CCC in the 3rd and most of the rest of Central Valley in the 3rd with the 5th picking up as much of Sonoma County as needed to get up to full population. That also basically resolves the issue dpmapper has of areas around the Bay Area being diluted by Bay Area votes.

That was my original map more or less, sbane. It causes CA-02 to suck up Shasta County. CA-02 crossing I-5 is a negative, and it gives CA-02 a non compact and wandering look to boot.  I-5 is a good connector highway to join together a lightly populated CD zone. So that is the cost for giving the class warfare theme a high priority. Is it worth it to you? 

By the way, not all of what CA-05 takes in CCC is that down market. It takes in a lot more than just Richmond, and I think Pinole is quite middle class. Perhaps only about half of the population in CA-05 in CCC is really sub-middle class. That is because it takes in more of CCC than my original map, because I kicked out CA-09 from CCC. Do you agree? I ask because that area is in your former neck of the woods.
Yeah, not all of that area is working class of course. But it doesn't really have any place with a median income above 80k, which is just above the median income of the Bay Area. And it really goes well with Fairfield and Vacaville in any case (or Concord, Pleasant Hill and Martinez within CCC). It just makes so much more sense than jumping the bay and putting it with upper class Marin which might care more about trees, global warming and buying fair trade whole foods for their vegan diet than "kitchen table" issues.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27198
United States


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: April 24, 2012, 10:46:24 pm »
Ignore

That map's not bad if you just follow my fix to put CCC in the 3rd and most of the rest of Central Valley in the 3rd with the 5th picking up as much of Sonoma County as needed to get up to full population. That also basically resolves the issue dpmapper has of areas around the Bay Area being diluted by Bay Area votes.

That was my original map more or less, sbane. It causes CA-02 to suck up Shasta County. CA-02 crossing I-5 is a negative, and it gives CA-02 a non compact and wandering look to boot.  I-5 is a good connector highway to join together a lightly populated CD zone. So that is the cost for giving the class warfare theme a high priority. Is it worth it to you? 

By the way, not all of what CA-05 takes in CCC is that down market. It takes in a lot more than just Richmond, and I think Pinole is quite middle class. Perhaps only about half of the population in CA-05 in CCC is really sub-middle class. That is because it takes in more of CCC than my original map, because I kicked out CA-09 from CCC. Do you agree? I ask because that area is in your former neck of the woods.
Yeah, not all of that area is working class of course. But it doesn't really have any place with a median income above 80k, which is just above the median income of the Bay Area. And it really goes well with Fairfield and Vacaville in any case (or Concord, Pleasant Hill and Martinez within CCC). It just makes so much more sense than jumping the bay and putting it with upper class Marin which might care more about trees, global warming and buying fair trade whole foods for their vegan diet than "kitchen table" issues.

And all of that is worth appending Shasta to CA-02 I take it?  Mittens by the way gave a kick ass speech tonight. If you listen to it, some of it will sound like some of my posts. Smiley
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13435


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: April 24, 2012, 10:52:47 pm »
Ignore

That map's not bad if you just follow my fix to put CCC in the 3rd and most of the rest of Central Valley in the 3rd with the 5th picking up as much of Sonoma County as needed to get up to full population. That also basically resolves the issue dpmapper has of areas around the Bay Area being diluted by Bay Area votes.

That was my original map more or less, sbane. It causes CA-02 to suck up Shasta County. CA-02 crossing I-5 is a negative, and it gives CA-02 a non compact and wandering look to boot.  I-5 is a good connector highway to join together a lightly populated CD zone. So that is the cost for giving the class warfare theme a high priority. Is it worth it to you? 

By the way, not all of what CA-05 takes in CCC is that down market. It takes in a lot more than just Richmond, and I think Pinole is quite middle class. Perhaps only about half of the population in CA-05 in CCC is really sub-middle class. That is because it takes in more of CCC than my original map, because I kicked out CA-09 from CCC. Do you agree? I ask because that area is in your former neck of the woods.
Yeah, not all of that area is working class of course. But it doesn't really have any place with a median income above 80k, which is just above the median income of the Bay Area. And it really goes well with Fairfield and Vacaville in any case (or Concord, Pleasant Hill and Martinez within CCC). It just makes so much more sense than jumping the bay and putting it with upper class Marin which might care more about trees, global warming and buying fair trade whole foods for their vegan diet than "kitchen table" issues.

And all of that is worth appending Shasta to CA-02 I take it?  Mittens by the way gave a kick ass speech tonight. If you listen to it, some of it will sound like some of my posts. Smiley

Well, like I said most of Shasta County has a mountain feel to it, yes including Redding. Most of the agricultural areas start from Tehama County. It's not ideal but it will have to do in my mind. Maybe some ranchers from that area will be pissed off and want to shoot me in the face. I dunno.

A good Mitt speech, eh? So he went beyond saying he believes in America and that it is the greatest nation created since the big bang? Not saying that it isn't a bold statement, but did he go into more specifics than pointing out Obama might have once worked as a community organizer? I will check it out. Maybe not soon as I am studying for finals, and to procrastinate, redistricting. I'm still pissed at him (and Santorum I guess) for denying me the chance to analyze meaningful California results.

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 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines