City of Hudson's weighed voting system under scrutiny

[Torie]

With some help from partner Dan using photoshop, here's a map illustrating the least change regime.

[jimrtex]

With some help from partner Dan using photoshop, here's a map illustrating the least change regime.

When will the Common Council have its hearing on your plan?

[Torie]

Stay tuned to this channel.

[jimrtex]

With some help from partner Dan using photoshop, here's a map illustrating the least change regime.

Personally, I would reverse the color scheme, showing the proposed wards with the overtint, and the current boundaries with lines.

Potential voter:

I live here in this yellow area. That means I'm in Ward 5.

[jimrtex]

I came up a cool idea. Give the wards names, like in Australia:

Possibilities:

Clermont, Half Moon, Furgary, Paper Wheel, Rope Walk, Brick Works, Mad Colors, Diamond Street, Promenade, Van Buren, Madison, Irving, Van Winkle, Worth, Fitzgerald, Dewey, Jenkins, White Oak, Willow, ...

[Torie]

What's the fairest least change map of them all guys: version 1, 2 or 3? The washed out green in one of the maps needs to be enhanced if it becomes the one that is used.

[jimrtex]

What's the fairest least change map of them all guys: version 2, 2 or 3? The washed out green in one of the maps needs to be enhanced if it becomes the one that is used.

By fairest, I assume you mean most comely in presentation.

I like the green of #1, since it provides the best contrast with the cyan of Ward 4.

Can you show the the new alignment of 2nd Street, and eliminate the spur to the button factory?

I like the placement of the ward labels in #1. That shows what people are actually voting on. The existing boundaries are for reference only. Anyone living in Hudson (and their parents and grandparents) would be familiar with the existing wards.

Objectively, what is happening is that Ward 5 is being divided into two wards:

Ward 1: 593 persons moved to Ward 3.
Ward 2: 186 persons moved to Ward 4
Ward 3: 390 persons moved to Ward 6
Ward 4: No deductions.
Ward 5: Split into Ward 5 and Ward 6, 278 persons to Ward 4.

Total shifts 1447.

[Torie]

What's the fairest least change map of them all guys: version 1, 2 or 3? The washed out green in one of the maps needs to be enhanced if it becomes the one that is used.

By fairest, I assume you mean most comely in presentation.

I like the green of #1, since it provides the best contrast with the cyan of Ward 4.

Can you show the the new alignment of 2nd Street, and eliminate the spur to the button factory?

I like the placement of the ward labels in #1. That shows what people are actually voting on. The existing boundaries are for reference only. Anyone living in Hudson (and their parents and grandparents) would be familiar with the existing wards.

Objectively, what is happening is that Ward 5 is being divided into two wards:

Ward 1: 593 persons moved to Ward 3.
Ward 2: 186 persons moved to Ward 4
Ward 3: 390 persons moved to Ward 6
Ward 4: No deductions.
Ward 5: Split into Ward 5 and Ward 6, 278 persons to Ward 4.

Total shifts 1447.

You are the one that thought that showing the existing wards in red lines, and the new wards in color, was better than my version 1. Thus I did versions 2 and 3 (the only difference is where the text of "ward 3 goes), and now you say you like version 1 best. Color me confused.

[Kevinstat]

What's the fairest least change map of them all guys: version 1, 2 or 3? The washed out green in one of the maps needs to be enhanced if it becomes the one that is used.

By fairest, I assume you mean most comely in presentation.

I like the green of #1, since it provides the best contrast with the cyan of Ward 4.

Can you show the the new alignment of 2nd Street, and eliminate the spur to the button factory?

I like the placement of the ward labels in #1. That shows what people are actually voting on. The existing boundaries are for reference only. Anyone living in Hudson (and their parents and grandparents) would be familiar with the existing wards.

Objectively, what is happening is that Ward 5 is being divided into two wards:

Ward 1: 593 persons moved to Ward 3.
Ward 2: 186 persons moved to Ward 4
Ward 3: 390 persons moved to Ward 6
Ward 4: No deductions.
Ward 5: Split into Ward 5 and Ward 6, 278 persons to Ward 4.

Total shifts 1447.

You are the one that thought that showing the existing wards in red lines, and the new wards in color, was better than my version 1. Thus I did versions 2 and 3 (the only difference is where the text of "ward 3 goes), and now you say you like version 1 best. Color me confused.

I think what Jimrtex would like is to take, say your #3 (the green and cyan in that map aren't that different from #1, and if your using MS Paint or something like that you can't just click a button and make lines appear/disappear and colors change) and move all the ward labels to where they are in your #1 (with the "W" "Ward 4" intentionally straddling the red line at the old 2-4 boundary, "Ward 2" further from the new line with Ward 4 and the "3" in Ward 3 not looking like a "6" or "8" at first glance).

For good measure (with my own preferences here rather than guessing at Jimrtex's), instead of Moving "Ward 1" all the way to where it was in map #1, you could move it to straddle the old 1-3 line.  Having the red lines be dotted rather than solid would also be nice (I realize why you made them thick and solid when they were the new lines), but again it's not like you can just wave a magic wand and have those changes made.

Another possibility, which I think might be the best, is to keep the tints and lines or your #1 and simply change the ward labels to red to match the color of the boundaries (and also move "Ward 1" to go over both pink and blue area).  You could also try to fit a "Proposed wards outlined in red" somewhere, like on the other side of Route "9G/23B" from your colored boxes with "outlined in red" under "Proposed wards".  While some people (like Jimrtex) might prefer the tints to be the new districts and the lines to be the old, no one could argue that such a revised map #1 wouldn't be clear.

[jimrtex]

What's the fairest least change map of them all guys: version 1, 2 or 3? The washed out green in one of the maps needs to be enhanced if it becomes the one that is used.

By fairest, I assume you mean most comely in presentation.

I like the green of #1, since it provides the best contrast with the cyan of Ward 4.

Can you show the the new alignment of 2nd Street, and eliminate the spur to the button factory?

I like the placement of the ward labels in #1. That shows what people are actually voting on. The existing boundaries are for reference only. Anyone living in Hudson (and their parents and grandparents) would be familiar with the existing wards.

Objectively, what is happening is that Ward 5 is being divided into two wards:

Ward 1: 593 persons moved to Ward 3.
Ward 2: 186 persons moved to Ward 4
Ward 3: 390 persons moved to Ward 6
Ward 4: No deductions.
Ward 5: Split into Ward 5 and Ward 6, 278 persons to Ward 4.

Total shifts 1447.

You are the one that thought that showing the existing wards in red lines, and the new wards in color, was better than my version 1. Thus I did versions 2 and 3 (the only difference is where the text of "ward 3 goes), and now you say you like version 1 best. Color me confused.

You said you didn't like the washed out green of Version 2. I said I liked the green color from Version 1 because it provided a better contrast from the cyan used for Ward 4. I did not say I like Version 1. I said that I liked the green.

I think the ward labels should recognize the proposed wards.

Therefore "Ward 1" etc. should be placed more like in the Version 1.

What you are selling to the voters is the new wards. The description of those new wards in text in the initiative is incomprehensible to anyone. The only way that anyone can begin to understand them is to draw a map. But even with the outline of the wards, it is hard to understand. It is like looking at a floor plan and seeing where the walls will be, but not recognizing the rooms.

I do think it would be useful to show the new route of N Second Street, since it is mentioned in your new initiative, and to drop the spur to the button factory. If someone asks why, you can explain that 2nd Street was rerouted when the dump was covered.

The old ward boundaries are just reference material.

[Torie]

I am still not sure what version you like best. It appears to be version 1.

[muon2]

I like version 2, but with a shade of green like that in version 1. I like the placement of the ward labels in 2, since they have the advantage of being in both the current and proposed wards of their number. I would darken the label for Ward 3 so that it has better contrast with the color of the ward. If you move to the green in version 1 you might need to darken the Ward 2 label as well.

[Torie]

I like version 2, but with a shade of green like that in version 1. I like the placement of the ward labels in 2, since they have the advantage of being in both the current and proposed wards of their number. I would darken the label for Ward 3 so that it has better contrast with the color of the ward. If you move to the green in version 1 you might need to darken the Ward 2 label as well.

Perhaps the labels should be in black?

[muon2]

I like version 2, but with a shade of green like that in version 1. I like the placement of the ward labels in 2, since they have the advantage of being in both the current and proposed wards of their number. I would darken the label for Ward 3 so that it has better contrast with the color of the ward. If you move to the green in version 1 you might need to darken the Ward 2 label as well.

Perhaps the labels should be in black?

Black should be fine, maybe dark grey if the contrast is too great with black.

[Torie]

Here are the mappies. I will let the folks preparing the slide show/video pick and choose what they want to use. Do they look OK now?

[jimrtex]

I am still not sure what version you like best. It appears to be version 1.

I am still not sure what version you like best. It appears to be version 1.

Stylistically, I would do something like this. Please forgive the specific content. Colors were chosen randomly by QGIS, but I am content with this set.



Assumption 1: This is primarily a sales tool for petition signers and voters, but it could be included in your informational packet to the Common Council. I don't know whether it can be part of the legal documentation.

Assumption 2: The legal description of the ward boundaries is incomprehensible to an ordinary voter. Even you and I need to convert it to a map to understand it.

Assumption 3: You are not modifying the existing ward boundaries, you are replacing them. Your rationale for doing so is to produce equal-population wards, so that weighted voting can be eliminated.

Assumption 4: You will likely explain that each ward will elect two aldermen, and one supervisor, "just like now".

Assumption 5: An ordinary voter or petition signer will want to know which ward they will be in. "How will this affect me?"  You don't necessarily want to focus too much on the change. Most voters voted for their current aldermen and supervisors, and the current wards have been in place for 130 years (except for the newly annexed areas, where they have been used for 100 years.

Assumption 6: The Common Council will be more cynical. "How will this affect my political career?"

Assumption 7: Petition does not have to have indication of a voter's ward or election district, only their street address.

You're trying to get an ordinary voter to sign the petition or vote for it in November:

Torie: Will you sign this petition?
Voter: What's it for?
Torie: It will create five wards of equal population [points to map where voter can see that the populations are about the same], so we can do away with weighted voting.
Voter: I've never understood weighted voting, it seems unfair [they probably won't be interested in knowing about the incompetent calculation of voting weights, Banzhaf Power Index, the effect of two aldermen per ward, or hypotheticals of unconstitutionality]
Voter: [Contemplates map with its pretty colors, but then looks for their home]Let's see, I live here on Robinson Street.
Torie: You'll be in Ward 4.
Voter: [Signs]

The current wards aren't that important. And if people realize that between 23% and 32% of voters will be shifted, it is likely to be considered a negative.

[muon2]

Here are the mappies. I will let the folks preparing the slide show/video pick and choose what they want to use. Do they look OK now?

I like this one. I think it's the best way to present it to the public.

[jimrtex]

Here are the mappies. I will let the folks preparing the slide show/video pick and choose what they want to use. Do they look OK now?

I like this one. I think it's the best way to present it to the public.

Some numbers:

New Ward 1:
From Ward 1: 593
From Ward 3: 686

New Ward 2:
From Ward 2: 1291

New Ward 3:
From Ward 5: 901
From Ward 3: 390

New Ward 4:
From Ward 4: 811
From Ward 2: 186
From Ward 5: 278

New Ward 5:
From Ward 5: 1267

That is: Ward 1 is the successor to Ward 3; Wards 3 and Ward 5 are successors to Ward 5. The change to Ward 3 is so significant that it almost assuredly would move the polling place from St.Mary's to the Fire Station.

While Ward 4 is expanding at the expense of its neighbors, and Ward 2 is losing some, it can not be considered a simple adjustment when 36% of the voters are new.

[Torie]

Well given that half of ward 5 needs to be calved away, about 20% of the population, 36% is a splendidly modest least change number. Somebody did a really good job with that map! 

[jimrtex]

Well given that half of ward 5 needs to be calved away, about 20% of the population, 36% is a splendidly modest least change number. Somebody did a really good job with that map!  

Given that Ward 5 has almost 2/5 of the population, the proper analysis is to see it as a division of the ward into two wards, just as when Ward 4 was divided into two wards. And then since Ward 1 has less than half the population of an average ward, dissolve it.

Every change in ward boundaries has been accomplished by division:

(1) Division of city into two wards (City -> 1,2 on 3rd Street)
(2) Division of city into four wards (1 -> 1,2 on Warren Street; 2 -> 3,4 on Warren-Public Square-Columbia-Columbia Turnpike)
(3) Division of 4th ward into two wards (4 -> 4,5 on 5th Street).

The least change regime is to divide Ward 5 into two wards (5 -> 5,6 on railroad tracks and State Street).

[Torie]

Well given that half of ward 5 needs to be calved away, about 20% of the population, 36% is a splendidly modest least change number. Somebody did a really good job with that map!  

Given that Ward 5 has almost 2/5 of the population, the proper analysis is to see it as a division of the ward into two wards, just as when Ward 4 was divided into two wards. And then since Ward 1 has less than half the population of an average ward, dissolve it.

Every change in ward boundaries has been accomplished by division:

(1) Division of city into two wards (City -> 1,2 on 3rd Street)
(2) Division of city into four wards (1 -> 1,2 on Warren Street; 2 -> 3,4 on Warren-Public Square-Columbia-Columbia Turnpike)
(3) Division of 4th ward into two wards (4 -> 4,5 on 5th Street).

The least change regime is to divide Ward 5 into two wards (5 -> 5,6 on railroad tracks and State Street).

Fair enough, but that would make the map a mess (including inter alia crossing Warren Street where the 4th ward would need to find extra population). It would also traduce communities of interest, and the delicate political balance that I effected, and lose at the ballot box. So call it the least change practicable map.

[jimrtex]

Well given that half of ward 5 needs to be calved away, about 20% of the population, 36% is a splendidly modest least change number. Somebody did a really good job with that map!  

Given that Ward 5 has almost 2/5 of the population, the proper analysis is to see it as a division of the ward into two wards, just as when Ward 4 was divided into two wards. And then since Ward 1 has less than half the population of an average ward, dissolve it.

Every change in ward boundaries has been accomplished by division:

(1) Division of city into two wards (City -> 1,2 on 3rd Street)
(2) Division of city into four wards (1 -> 1,2 on Warren Street; 2 -> 3,4 on Warren-Public Square-Columbia-Columbia Turnpike)
(3) Division of 4th ward into two wards (4 -> 4,5 on 5th Street).

The least change regime is to divide Ward 5 into two wards (5 -> 5,6 on railroad tracks and State Street).

Fair enough, but that would make the map a mess (including inter alia crossing Warren Street where the 4th ward would need to find extra population). It would also traduce communities of interest, and the delicate political balance that I effected, and lose at the ballot box. So call it the least change practicable map.

Which communities of interest would it defame, slander, speak ill of, misrepresent, malign, vilify, denigrate, disparage, slur, impugn, smear, besmirch, run down, blacken the name of, cast aspersions on, badmouth, dis, or talk smack?

Why would it require Ward 4 to cross Warren Street?

[Torie]

Where else is Ward 4 going to get more population, if it can't poach from the old Ward 5, nor old ward 1, nor any more of ward two? That only leaves one place.

In other news, I tried downloading google earth pro, and it does not have a license box pop up, so that I can enter the license key of gepfree. Can you guys do it? I want to be able to measure areas within a polygon for my latest mapping brainstorm for Hudson. Can you uber smart guys guess what I want to do?  

But so far, no dice.

You answer the above, and I will give you my most fascinating primer of the COI's of Hudson. I know that you can hardly wait.

[jimrtex]

Where else is Ward 4 going to get more population, if it can't poach from the old Ward 5, nor old ward 1, nor any more of ward two? That only leaves one place.

In other news, I tried downloading google earth pro, and it does not have a license box pop up, so that I can enter the license key of gepfree. Can you guys do it? I want to be able to measure areas within a polygon for my latest mapping brainstorm for Hudson. Can you uber smart guys guess what I want to do?  

But so far, no dice.

You answer the above, and I will give you my most fascinating primer of the COI's of Hudson. I know that you can hardly wait.

22% of persons displaced:

1 -> 2 130
1 -> 3 463
2 -> 4 186
4 -> 5 75
5 -> 4 333 (net 258)
3 -> 6

I didn't think you needed a license for Google Earth Pro anymore.

The areas (in km2 of my wards are)

2: 0.659
3: 2.718
4: 1.328
5: 0.825
6: 0.492

But I can't guess what you are trying to do.

[Torie]

The license is free. But after I download it, the pro features don't work, because there is no license box to enter the license code - gepfree.

I wanted to draw ward lines, where their existing percentage of the total Hudson population and the percentage of land area that they take are equal.

Your map shoves the 2nd ward around, and is erose. As I said, least change that is also practicable change.