Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2014, 05:01:16 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  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 3938 times)
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8090


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: April 27, 2012, 03:28:42 pm »


If I was confusing it's because there are two different criteria at play. A minor chop into a county or city is both a) less than 20% of the political jurisdiction and b) less than 5% of the CD. For small counties only part a) matters, so it matches your statement. Part b) is to address chops in large counties. The transition occurs when a county is larger than 25% of a CD.


Quote
The Pomona chop is the CA-35 LA County chop out as it were (although most of the CD is in SB County, but that is LA County's escape route in any event). The Pomona area chop and the LA County chop into Seal Beach are the only two LA County involved chops on the map.

Ah. I'll have to trace your tree of linkages in this latest map.

I will send you my file tonight after I cleanse the black CD of chops. I would appreciate your fly specking  it.

Got it on your formula. The 5% of a CD figure might be low. I mean, what is wrong with a chop that takes in an entire city on the border of a county part of a larger mass of tracts that has a population of say 85,000 (unless it is a county seat, which is one of the reasons that I decided that CA-04 should not take Yuba City (shearing a county of its major town and county seat seems wrong to me if it can be avoided), while W. Sacto is the not the main action in town for Solano County).  Also if the percentage is too low, you might have a map to goes from Victorville to S. Lake Tahoe, or something (absent a written finding to the contrary). No!  Smiley

Pending further discussion, go KISS baby, and have the same percentage for both - 20%. 

How about compactness and shape?  Compactness really only obtains for a couple of areas of California, but compactness was on my mind always when drawing CA-01 and CA-02. And that Palos Verdes to Hancock Park "class warfare" CD that the Commission drew is just an obscene sin.

And how about "unnecessary" sword cuts into a county sometimes over empty zone, when less of a sword cut crossing no empty zone was available (switch out the sword cut of the Commission into Ventura County from Simi Valley to the Thousand Oaks area), and get rid of that horrid Westminster sword cut into OC.

Should erosity and wanderlust and sword cuts require written findings justifying them in lieu of the alternative that would avoid that (assuming in both instances the chop rules are otherwise met)?

My initial tracing has me content except for the Salinas CD (keep it out of either S. Cruz or S. Clara.) I'm also not happy about the Sacto region, but I'll put something together later.

The 5% actually stems from my desire to extend this to state house districts as well. At 5% I can leave the fragment out and still meet federal standards. My KISS is simply different than yours. Smiley That same motivation also drives my wall tolerance of 0.5%, which could possibly stand up federally for the compelling state interest of counties intact. My macro rules should be independent of the state, then fine tuned for the particulars of the state.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26851
United States


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: April 27, 2012, 03:53:05 pm »
Ignore

I don't think those are good enough reasons to keep it as low as 5% for CD's, or that matter in CA, assembly districts as well, which are about 450,000 persons a pop. National standards are nice and all, but some other time. I just don't think it is much of a problem to have 20% of a CD in another county from a public policy perspective.  5% is only 35,000 people. As I said, that may push a map in the "wrong" direction, and I really don't want to have to get a written finding to push it back in the right direction.  15% would probably work, maybe even 10% (I will have to see how big my chops are Tongue). The CA-20 double chop is just a section 5 issue as we discussed, and would require a legal opinion to do it, so I think we have resolved that (presumably one would be written).  I don't think Sacto generates another chop having analyzed it to death, but if it does, let me know. That was the trickiest part of the state to chop count. Thanks for looking at it. (I also don't think Sacto taking W. Sacto should count as a chop really (a situation unique to the state really), but carving out an exception for it is probably not worth the candle.)
Logged

muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8090


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: April 27, 2012, 07:10:07 pm »

I don't think those are good enough reasons to keep it as low as 5% for CD's, or that matter in CA, assembly districts as well, which are about 450,000 persons a pop. National standards are nice and all, but some other time. I just don't think it is much of a problem to have 20% of a CD in another county from a public policy perspective.  5% is only 35,000 people. As I said, that may push a map in the "wrong" direction, and I really don't want to have to get a written finding to push it back in the right direction.  15% would probably work, maybe even 10% (I will have to see how big my chops are Tongue). The CA-20 double chop is just a section 5 issue as we discussed, and would require a legal opinion to do it, so I think we have resolved that (presumably one would be written).  I don't think Sacto generates another chop having analyzed it to death, but if it does, let me know. That was the trickiest part of the state to chop count. Thanks for looking at it. (I also don't think Sacto taking W. Sacto should count as a chop really (a situation unique to the state really), but carving out an exception for it is probably not worth the candle.)

If all counties were smaller than a district, then for n districts the minimum number of county fragments with exact population equality is 2n-2 (assuming there isn't a perfect combination of counties as in WV). Mathematically, every district completely embedded in a large county removes two fragments from the computation. So when I see no districts entirely in Sacto county when two are possible, I know there are more splits than the minimum.

I'm not convinced that 140 K is a "minor split". If that's your desire I'd rather see 5% across the board as a forgiven without justification, and skip 20% entirely. I was just trying to be accommodating for small counties that a commission needed to split. Tongue
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26851
United States


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: April 27, 2012, 07:20:23 pm »
Ignore

I don't think those are good enough reasons to keep it as low as 5% for CD's, or that matter in CA, assembly districts as well, which are about 450,000 persons a pop. National standards are nice and all, but some other time. I just don't think it is much of a problem to have 20% of a CD in another county from a public policy perspective.  5% is only 35,000 people. As I said, that may push a map in the "wrong" direction, and I really don't want to have to get a written finding to push it back in the right direction.  15% would probably work, maybe even 10% (I will have to see how big my chops are Tongue). The CA-20 double chop is just a section 5 issue as we discussed, and would require a legal opinion to do it, so I think we have resolved that (presumably one would be written).  I don't think Sacto generates another chop having analyzed it to death, but if it does, let me know. That was the trickiest part of the state to chop count. Thanks for looking at it. (I also don't think Sacto taking W. Sacto should count as a chop really (a situation unique to the state really), but carving out an exception for it is probably not worth the candle.)

If all counties were smaller than a district, then for n districts the minimum number of county fragments with exact population equality is 2n-2 (assuming there isn't a perfect combination of counties as in WV). Mathematically, every district completely embedded in a large county removes two fragments from the computation. So when I see no districts entirely in Sacto county when two are possible, I know there are more splits than the minimum.

I'm not convinced that 140 K is a "minor split". If that's your desire I'd rather see 5% across the board as a forgiven without justification, and skip 20% entirely. I was just trying to be accommodating for small counties that a commission needed to split. Tongue

Well think about 10% at least. I will take a look at my chops on the  map, and try to get a real on the ground feel as to how much of a problem a tight constraint is, and just how necessary a written finding might be and when. (I sent you the drf file by the way.)

I understand your Sacto point, and saw it too (which bothered me of course, so I thought and thought and thought about it), but I think when what would otherwise be two nestings CD within a county, are moving out of that county to service the chop quota of two other CD's in separate appending counties (here CA-03 and CA-04),  then no additional chop is in fact created. If you nest a Sacto CD, then either CA-03 or CA-04 (depending on which CD the wandering nester is servicing), will have to chop some other county.  Play with it, and see if you can find a way to lose a chop. I could not, and I think the above might be why.  Hey, you're the genius on these things. Figure it out!  Smiley
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 07:33:05 pm by Torie »Logged

Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26851
United States


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: April 27, 2012, 07:54:58 pm »
Ignore



And here is a potential problem for an absolute minimum muni-chop rule. Notice that there are two chops here into LA city. One of the chops could be eliminated by a counter-clockwise twist. Assume that by doing the twist, CA-29 can take the VRA hit (it can't - it only has about a 1% pad over the 50% HCVAP minimum), and there were a road and territory available for CA-28 to suck up in the Antelope Valley which would not involve another muni chop (there probably isn't, and the road if any while paved will be twisty). If done, CA-25 will get further involved with the SF Valley, and CA-29 will take more of the La Crescenta Valley area which is over a hill, and really, really belongs with La Canada-Flintridge, while the Antelope Valley is chopped. Should the twist be done anyway (I strongly doubt it), just to keep the Commission critters on as tight a leash as possible, or should extra muni chops be allowed based on a written finding of something that is on the list as a justification for a finding (like going over hills and dales to suck up "alien" folks tied to their fellow aliens elsewhere)?

Anyway, the muni chop rules need to be carefully written,  to stand scrutiny. This ain't Michigan.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 08:00:42 pm by Torie »Logged

muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8090


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: April 27, 2012, 08:52:44 pm »

I don't think those are good enough reasons to keep it as low as 5% for CD's, or that matter in CA, assembly districts as well, which are about 450,000 persons a pop. National standards are nice and all, but some other time. I just don't think it is much of a problem to have 20% of a CD in another county from a public policy perspective.  5% is only 35,000 people. As I said, that may push a map in the "wrong" direction, and I really don't want to have to get a written finding to push it back in the right direction.  15% would probably work, maybe even 10% (I will have to see how big my chops are Tongue). The CA-20 double chop is just a section 5 issue as we discussed, and would require a legal opinion to do it, so I think we have resolved that (presumably one would be written).  I don't think Sacto generates another chop having analyzed it to death, but if it does, let me know. That was the trickiest part of the state to chop count. Thanks for looking at it. (I also don't think Sacto taking W. Sacto should count as a chop really (a situation unique to the state really), but carving out an exception for it is probably not worth the candle.)

If all counties were smaller than a district, then for n districts the minimum number of county fragments with exact population equality is 2n-2 (assuming there isn't a perfect combination of counties as in WV). Mathematically, every district completely embedded in a large county removes two fragments from the computation. So when I see no districts entirely in Sacto county when two are possible, I know there are more splits than the minimum.

I'm not convinced that 140 K is a "minor split". If that's your desire I'd rather see 5% across the board as a forgiven without justification, and skip 20% entirely. I was just trying to be accommodating for small counties that a commission needed to split. Tongue

Well think about 10% at least. I will take a look at my chops on the  map, and try to get a real on the ground feel as to how much of a problem a tight constraint is, and just how necessary a written finding might be and when. (I sent you the drf file by the way.)

I understand your Sacto point, and saw it too (which bothered me of course, so I thought and thought and thought about it), but I think when what would otherwise be two nestings CD within a county, are moving out of that county to service the chop quota of two other CD's in separate appending counties (here CA-03 and CA-04),  then no additional chop is in fact created. If you nest a Sacto CD, then either CA-03 or CA-04 (depending on which CD the wandering nester is servicing), will have to chop some other county.  Play with it, and see if you can find a way to lose a chop. I could not, and I think the above might be why.  Hey, you're the genius on these things. Figure it out!  Smiley

You may be counting counties chopped, instead of the chops themselves. For example you have three CDs that go into Sacto county and also include part one one neighboring county. That's a total of six chops, but only three counties because you've tri-chopped Sacto. If you rearranged those three districts to place one CD entirely in Sacto there are still three chop fragments outside of Sacto, but only two inside. One chop disappeared because the CD is entirely within the county. One of the remaining pieces has three fragments, and in principle it can be brought to two, but it may not if you have more than two CDs with only one fragment.

I'll think about 10%, but it seems arbitrary. At least I can point to a federal decision on which to rest 5%.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26851
United States


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: April 27, 2012, 09:22:33 pm »
Ignore

I don't think those are good enough reasons to keep it as low as 5% for CD's, or that matter in CA, assembly districts as well, which are about 450,000 persons a pop. National standards are nice and all, but some other time. I just don't think it is much of a problem to have 20% of a CD in another county from a public policy perspective.  5% is only 35,000 people. As I said, that may push a map in the "wrong" direction, and I really don't want to have to get a written finding to push it back in the right direction.  15% would probably work, maybe even 10% (I will have to see how big my chops are Tongue). The CA-20 double chop is just a section 5 issue as we discussed, and would require a legal opinion to do it, so I think we have resolved that (presumably one would be written).  I don't think Sacto generates another chop having analyzed it to death, but if it does, let me know. That was the trickiest part of the state to chop count. Thanks for looking at it. (I also don't think Sacto taking W. Sacto should count as a chop really (a situation unique to the state really), but carving out an exception for it is probably not worth the candle.)

If all counties were smaller than a district, then for n districts the minimum number of county fragments with exact population equality is 2n-2 (assuming there isn't a perfect combination of counties as in WV). Mathematically, every district completely embedded in a large county removes two fragments from the computation. So when I see no districts entirely in Sacto county when two are possible, I know there are more splits than the minimum.

I'm not convinced that 140 K is a "minor split". If that's your desire I'd rather see 5% across the board as a forgiven without justification, and skip 20% entirely. I was just trying to be accommodating for small counties that a commission needed to split. Tongue

Well think about 10% at least. I will take a look at my chops on the  map, and try to get a real on the ground feel as to how much of a problem a tight constraint is, and just how necessary a written finding might be and when. (I sent you the drf file by the way.)

I understand your Sacto point, and saw it too (which bothered me of course, so I thought and thought and thought about it), but I think when what would otherwise be two nestings CD within a county, are moving out of that county to service the chop quota of two other CD's in separate appending counties (here CA-03 and CA-04),  then no additional chop is in fact created. If you nest a Sacto CD, then either CA-03 or CA-04 (depending on which CD the wandering nester is servicing), will have to chop some other county.  Play with it, and see if you can find a way to lose a chop. I could not, and I think the above might be why.  Hey, you're the genius on these things. Figure it out!  Smiley

You may be counting counties chopped, instead of the chops themselves. For example you have three CDs that go into Sacto county and also include part one one neighboring county. That's a total of six chops, but only three counties because you've tri-chopped Sacto. If you rearranged those three districts to place one CD entirely in Sacto there are still three chop fragments outside of Sacto, but only two inside. One chop disappeared because the CD is entirely within the county. One of the remaining pieces has three fragments, and in principle it can be brought to two, but it may not if you have more than two CDs with only one fragment.

I'll think about 10%, but it seems arbitrary. At least I can point to a federal decision on which to rest 5%.

Well another issue is how to count chops, but I think my chart is the proper way: how much does each CD chop?  Putting that aside, revise my map in Sacto in a way that you think loses a chop (and I will point out why it doesn't - I think Tongue). It's easier for my tired old brain to work that way.

I have realized that any limitation of the percentage of a CD that is part of a chop would be close to a disaster for CA (the limitation on the percentage of a county that can be chopped would remain in place (unless a very small county perhaps, but maybe not - that area in Norcal is the issue there), is the protection against the real abuse anyway).  Can you figure out why?  Smiley
Logged

Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26851
United States


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: April 27, 2012, 09:52:56 pm »
Ignore

OK, I had this one "illicit" 35% chopper of Gardena. The map below gets rid of that. Is the fix worth the erosity?  Or should the chop be allowed by an erosity finding?  And suppose that the fix diluted the black percentage down from 43% (which it was before this latest fix - it was 46% before I got rid of the CA-44 related chops), to say 37% (here it only drops it to down to 42.5%)?  Should racial dilution involved in how a  can be chopped be relevant (even if not to justify an extra  chop), or is it opening a Pandora's box?  



And hey, here is a way to get rid of the chop entirely and actually lose a chop. Should this be legally required?  Smiley  I think we will need an extra chop finding escape clause, with one of the grounds, or maybe the only ground, being erosity. So then "erosity" needs to be defined. Tongue

« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 10:01:10 pm by Torie »Logged

muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8090


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: April 27, 2012, 10:35:30 pm »


You may be counting counties chopped, instead of the chops themselves. For example you have three CDs that go into Sacto county and also include part one one neighboring county. That's a total of six chops, but only three counties because you've tri-chopped Sacto. If you rearranged those three districts to place one CD entirely in Sacto there are still three chop fragments outside of Sacto, but only two inside. One chop disappeared because the CD is entirely within the county. One of the remaining pieces has three fragments, and in principle it can be brought to two, but it may not if you have more than two CDs with only one fragment.

I'll think about 10%, but it seems arbitrary. At least I can point to a federal decision on which to rest 5%.

Well another issue is how to count chops, but I think my chart is the proper way: how much does each CD chop?  Putting that aside, revise my map in Sacto in a way that you think loses a chop (and I will point out why it doesn't - I think Tongue). It's easier for my tired old brain to work that way.

I have realized that any limitation of the percentage of a CD that is part of a chop would be close to a disaster for CA (the limitation on the percentage of a county that can be chopped would remain in place (unless a very small county perhaps, but maybe not - that area in Norcal is the issue there), is the protection against the real abuse anyway).  Can you figure out why?  Smiley

Then help me out with your chart, because it doesn't seem consistent in counting chops. For instance in San Bernardino there are three CDs. CD 8 you list 2 chops, which I see correspond to SanB and Kern. Fine. CD 31 has none because it's all in SanB.

But CD 35 is listed as only one chop, and I count 2: SanB and LAC. I have to count the LAC piece since it has more than the minimum one left over fragment. If a county that is cut in two generates a chop for each piece, a remaining fragment in a large county that is cut in two should also count as a chop for each piece. What am I missing?

To your second point, I'm not seeing the disaster you see. I fear perhaps you are more conscious of political sensibilities than my friends in IA and the fair map folks in OH.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5523
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: April 27, 2012, 11:05:15 pm »
Ignore

Yes, but if a wall location ends up creating a nasty Lancaster chop, or forces stuff to go where it should not go, that is a problem.  And there may be crossings that should be "disfavored."  Having some statistical limits like you suggested might work, which can be violated under certain circumstances. Or maybe we have defined regions, in which there may be only one chop out unless the VRA demands otherwise, or to unite a city that is already mostly in one CD. And Sacto taking W. Sacto, or uniting Yuba City and Marysville, perhaps should not count as a chop for example. 
Muon's rule works better in states where you have small square counties filled with cornfields, and regions can be pretty arbitrary.   This is less true in California where there are pretty distinct regions often separated by mountain ranges.

You are better off determining the regions first, and then doing an apportionment.   And then playing around a bit to get to population equality.

I would define the regions as:

Bay Area: Marin, SF, SM, SC, Alameda, Contra Costa,
North Bay: Solano, Napa, Sonoma (this is mainly to provide flexibility for the Bay Area going north rather than east or south if a few 100,000 more voters are needed).
North Coast
North Valley (Begins at Sacramento - it doesn't matter that Sacramento isn't like Redding, that will be handled when you start drawing districts).
Mountains
Central Coast (Sta Cruz to Sta Barbara, plus San Benito),
South Valley (begins at San Joaquin)
Trans-Mountain (they're going to stuck with somebody no matter what)
Southern California (includes Ventura and Los Angeles).   Even though LA could be apportioned separately, there is no need for it, and it really isn't a problem if districts cross into Orange, San Bernadino, Kern, and Ventura counties.

I suspect that if you don't include part of LA County with Kern, you would be forcing a district to cross over from Santa Clara into Santa Cruz.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8090


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: April 27, 2012, 11:22:02 pm »

Let me expound more on the traditional ways to count county chops. One presumes that each county has an ideal configuration. For small counties that configuration is to be entirely within one district. For large counties that configuration is to have the maximum number of whole districts within the county and the remainder in a single district.

There are two ways to count the traditional configuration. Most common is to assign it zero chops for both small and large counties. That treats the baseline with an ideal of zero. The other way is to count the total number of districts in each county so that small counties start at one and large counties start at the number of whole districts that can be placed within plus one for the remainder. This starts with a baseline ideal equal to the number of counties plus the maximum number of districts that can be placed entirely within counties.

For any district which is not ideal one counts all the districts in the county, and in the first method of counting one subtracts the districts entirely within and in the second method one does not. Note that in the first method one jumps from zero to two and it is not possible to have a county with one fragment. In the second method one can never have zero pieces in a county so there is no jump of two for the first chop.

As I noted the first method is preferred since it has an ideal of zero, and it puts a premium on avoiding the first chop. It does allow one to go below the number in my aforementioned formula by chopping more than two districts into a county. The second one has the feature of treating two counties each split in two the same as one county with no split and one with a three-way split.

Suppose there are five counties for four districts. The counties are each 80% of the population for a district. They are arranged as a central county A and four counties that wrap completely around A: B, C, D, and E in clockwise rotation. Imagine two ways of mapping: I) one where A is whole and shares into B, which shares to C, which shares to D, which ends at E; II) the other divides A into four slices and leaves the other four counties whole. The first method of chop counting scores I) as 6 chops (2n-2) and II) as 4 chops. The second method counts both as 8 chops.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8090


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: April 27, 2012, 11:32:49 pm »

Yes, but if a wall location ends up creating a nasty Lancaster chop, or forces stuff to go where it should not go, that is a problem.  And there may be crossings that should be "disfavored."  Having some statistical limits like you suggested might work, which can be violated under certain circumstances. Or maybe we have defined regions, in which there may be only one chop out unless the VRA demands otherwise, or to unite a city that is already mostly in one CD. And Sacto taking W. Sacto, or uniting Yuba City and Marysville, perhaps should not count as a chop for example.  
Muon's rule works better in states where you have small square counties filled with cornfields, and regions can be pretty arbitrary.   This is less true in California where there are pretty distinct regions often separated by mountain ranges.


But the problem with the mountain states is determining when it's OK to cross or not. Just look at all the debate we had about whether WA should use the Snoqualmie Pass or not. Even in CA there seems to be an inconsistency such as the lack of obstruction to use the long pass from Eureka to Redding, but no suggestion to use the mild pass from Gilroy (Santa Clara) to Los Banos (Merced).

Edit: I will note that by using that pass I can link the two section 5 counties and bring the HVAP to 51.5% with the infamous SLO wall. Smiley
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 11:48:25 pm by muon2 »Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4410
United States


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: April 28, 2012, 02:21:10 am »
Ignore

Granted, I haven't really been following this thread all too closely, but after seeing Torie's sig, I have to ask: What did the poor people of Eureka do to get screwed over like that?
Logged

Seriously, it was time to change back to the real avatar.
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38373
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: April 28, 2012, 04:00:33 am »
Ignore

That map is clearly an abomination, but I'm sure you knew that.
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: 8090


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: April 28, 2012, 07:36:41 am »

Granted, I haven't really been following this thread all too closely, but after seeing Torie's sig, I have to ask: What did the poor people of Eureka do to get screwed over like that?

Not make the same quality wine as Napa, Sonoma, and Mendocino. Cheesy
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26851
United States


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: April 28, 2012, 08:54:36 am »
Ignore

Muon2 I am still waiting for a Sacto area map that loses a chop. As I said, it appears that if a CD in Sacto is nested, that it creates another chop elsewhere. If somehow that reduces the overall chop count, than something is wrong with that count method. It appears that what you are saying, is that if a CD chops into a county with nested CD's, with say an extra 500,000 people, and five other CD's chop into it, picking up 100,000 people each, those 5 chops don't count as chops. Do I have that right?
Logged

Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26851
United States


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: April 28, 2012, 08:55:16 am »
Ignore

That map is clearly an abomination, but I'm sure you knew that.

Which map? Smiley
Logged

muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8090


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: April 28, 2012, 09:22:13 am »

Muon2 I am still waiting for a Sacto area map that loses a chop. As I said, it appears that if a CD in Sacto is nested, that it creates another chop elsewhere. If somehow that reduces the overall chop count, than something is wrong with that count method. It appears that what you are saying, is that if a CD chops into a county with nested CD's, with say an extra 500,000 people, and five other CD's chop into it, picking up 100,000 people each, those 5 chops don't count as chops. Do I have that right?

They count as chops. In method one I count it as 5 chops, but if all 500K goes to one CD with the rest nested it would be zero. In your map LAC has two chops by this count, but Ventura has none.

In method two I just count all the districts in the county whether they are wholly in or not. But then all counties count at least one. So chops count there, too, it would be 5 plus the number of nested districts.

To show you a chop reduction, I need to know how you want me to count. I believe I can reduce it either way, but the plans will be different.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26851
United States


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: April 28, 2012, 09:50:39 am »
Ignore

Quote
The first method of chop counting scores I) as 6 chops (2n-2) and II) as 4 chops.

I agree with this method of counting, having played with it, for your hypo.  It basically counts the number of chops within each county with CD's not wholly contained therein.

Here is my problem.  The map below pushes CA-06 entirely within Sacto, so now the county has two chops, losing one. However, that chopped is gained back by the chop into Sutter by CA-04.  So no lost chop.



How about the muni chop issue that  I discussed above?  

And have you figured out yet why we can't have a percentage if CD rule involved in a chop in CA? Do you just pick and choose which questions you choose to answer from your students?  Smiley

You are right. CA-35 has two chops. I was just labeling the entrance and exit routes for LA County. The entrance and exit points should each count as two chops rather than one. You are right.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2012, 10:10:13 am by Torie »Logged

Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13223


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: April 28, 2012, 10:40:21 am »
Ignore

That map is clearly an abomination, but I'm sure you knew that.

Indeed. I like Torie's version of SoCal (probably because he is familiar with it but is screwing it up now) but the NorCal map is a mess. Richmond with Marin and Eureka with an inland district. Tsk tsk. Also the northern central valley is split in two when there could be one rural district.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2012, 10:42:15 am by Senator Sbane »Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13223


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: April 28, 2012, 10:44:46 am »
Ignore

Granted, I haven't really been following this thread all too closely, but after seeing Torie's sig, I have to ask: What did the poor people of Eureka do to get screwed over like that?

Not make the same quality wine as Napa, Sonoma, and Mendocino. Cheesy

But they grow better weed. Tongue
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8090


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: April 28, 2012, 10:50:17 am »

Quote
The first method of chop counting scores I) as 6 chops (2n-2) and II) as 4 chops.

I agree with this method of counting, having played with it, for your hypo.  It basically counts the number of chops within each county with CD's not wholly contained therein.

Here is my problem.  The map below pushes CA-06 entirely within Sacto, so now the county has two chops, losing one. However, that chopped is gained back by the chop into Sutter by CA-04.  So no lost chop.



How about the muni chop issue that  I discussed above?  

And have you figured out yet why we can't have a percentage if CD rule involved in a chop in CA? Do you just pick and choose which questions you choose to answer from your students?  Smiley

You are right. CA-35 has two chops. I was just labeling the entrance and exit routes for LA County. The entrance and exit points should each count as two chops rather than one. You are right.

I'll get to your Sacto issue now that I know how to count. In the Sacto area I count 9 chops in your original map: 3 for Sacto, 2 for Yolo, 2 for Placer, and 2 for San Joaquin. Is that right? Your map above has 8: 2 for Sacto, 2 for Sutter, 2 for Placer, and 2 for San Joaquin.

On the muni chops, certainly the commission justification route is consistent with our previous holdings. Another option for large cities is to utilize census-recognized neighborhoods. One can treat them as separate municipalities for chop rules. I've looked at this in some eastern cities, but I haven't investigated that as an option in CA.

I thought I did answer the CD percent rule, by noting that I am less connected to specific jurisdictional pairings than some others here. If there's a more technical issue that I'm missing, let me know.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2012, 10:55:57 am by muon2 »Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26851
United States


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: April 28, 2012, 02:57:29 pm »
Ignore

OK, I see the count issue, but something is wrong if replacing one chop for another generates an additional chop net. I guess it gets back to the idea that if a nested CD leaves the nest to meet another CD's chop quota, that does not generate another net chop. I am having trouble getting my mind around this, but I don't think a map chopping into Yuba City is better than a map chopping into West Sacto. And I guess if I can send CD-09 to take West Sacto somehow, then I lose a chop. I don't like it. Maybe the way to count is by chops into a CD. Sacto has one chop in no matter which map it is. You count a CD as chopping in rather than out by whether a  majority of the CD is in the county or out. Nested CD's are like walled CD's, which don't really save on chops if other CD's have not yet met their chop quota. That is why I said I guess, that is only where a county has a population to support 3 whole CD's, that one must be nested unless three other CD's are using that county CD's one way or the other to meet their chop quota.

How about every time a CD crosses a county line but fails to take the whole county counts as one chop, rather not two? Does that fix it?

The problem with the 20% or 10% or 5% CD rule, is that CA has some huge counties, and some tiny ones. Suppose that LA County has exactly 15.5 CD's in it. So LA County must chop out in three places to get each of the chopping CD's down below a 20% chop, generating one more chop, and precluding LA County from being a walled county of course, with but one chop out. And suppose that LA plus San Bernardino has 17.5 CD's. Now to meet your rules, the San Bernardino CD needs to cross Luther Pass to take a bunch of small Sierra Counties, so that its excess after swallowing whole counties gets down below 20%, creating a disgusting CD that no one could possibly praise - or tolerate.  It just won't work. We cannot have such a rule. The Midwest with a lot of counties, more equal in size, and lots of handy small ones, allows perhaps for such a rule with some constraints that are tolerable. CA does not.

In addition, a CD being bisected by two counties is fine if it is in a metro area. Nobody cares if half of CA-35 were in LA County suburbs, and half in SB suburbs. It is one urban mass.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2012, 03:38:52 pm by Torie »Logged

Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26851
United States


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: April 28, 2012, 03:45:22 pm »
Ignore

That map is clearly an abomination, but I'm sure you knew that.

Indeed. I like Torie's version of SoCal (probably because he is familiar with it but is screwing it up now) but the NorCal map is a mess. Richmond with Marin and Eureka with an inland district. Tsk tsk. Also the northern central valley is split in two when there could be one rural district.

Well you can have one wine CD, one north Central Valley CD, the SF metro area made whole, the coast made whole, etc. So many choices, so little time. Another issue is compactness. This map does the best job of that I think. I don't really have a problem with CA-01 going to the coast myself. Del Norte is a very different place from the rest of the coast anyway, with Humboldt a transition county. In any event, several choices are reasonable really. They all have their costs and benefits.
Logged

muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8090


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: April 28, 2012, 03:46:18 pm »

OK, I see the count issue, but something is wrong if replacing one chop for another generates an additional chop net. I guess it gets back to the idea that if a nested CD leaves the nest to meet another CD's chop quota, that does not generate another net chop. I am having trouble getting my mind around this, but I don't think a map chopping into Yuba City is better than a map chopping into West Sacto. And I guess if I can send CD-09 to take West Sacto somehow, then I lose a chop. I don't like it. Maybe the way to count is by chops into a CD. Sacto has one chop in no matter which map it is. You count a CD as chopping in rather than out by whether a  majority of the CD is in the county or out. Nested CD's are like walled CD's, which don't really save on chops if other CD's have not yet met their chop quota. That is why I said I guess, that is only where a county has a population to support 3 whole CD's, that one must be nested unless three other CD's are using that county CD's one way or the other to meet their chop quota.

How about every time a CD crosses a county line but fails to take the whole county counts as one chop, rather not two? Does that fix it?

Here's a version that reduces chops even more and stays within your boundaries for the Sacto area CDs, except for Plumas which I moved to CD 1. I also got the Yuba City area together in one area at teh expense of the Oroville area town partitioned into separate CDs. In this plan there are only 7 chops: 3 in Butte, 2 in El Dorado, and the perennial 2 in San Joaquin.



You are really hung up on keeping West Sacto with Sacto. Is putting West Sacto with the valley that much worse than slicing Elk Grove into the Stockton CD? I'd relax and say some metro splits are just meant to be. Smiley

On the question, your suggestion would mean for instance that Ventura is worth one chop as you have drawn it. What that implies is that small counties have an ideal chop count of zero, but large counties can do no better than one. It doesn't really work, unless one goes all the way to the second method I outlined which counts all CDs in a county, so all counties have a minimum of one plus whole districts that can be contained. It's not as good of a method as the first choice, but see if that gives you what you want in Sacto, and we'll see where it takes you elsewhere.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
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