Weighted Voting For Congress

[jimrtex]

In the discussion about weighted voting for Hudson, NY we have come to the conclusion that weighted voting does not work particularly well for small bodies, or where the largest entities control a large bloc of votes.

I want to test on a body that has a size comparable to a legislature and which the districts are are of coarsely comparable sizes.  For my model, I have chosen a 100-member House of Representatives, the apportionment of which is shown in the map above.

What I need are districting plans for the 22 states that have more than one representative.

Guidelines:

(1) Don't split counties, with the possible exceptions of Los Angeles, CA and Cook, IL.  New York City may simply be treated as 5 counties, though of course they likely form communities of interest.

(2) Strong community of interest.

(2a) Each district should have a name, with the state name as part of the name.

(3) Coarse equality.  Precise equality is undesirable.  Even quality within 10% of the average for the state is not so good, unless it just happens to match a community of interest.  As a general guideline, try to keep districts in the range of 2/3 to 1-1/3 of the quota for the state.  You may go outside with justification.

(4) Connectivity is not a requirement, at this scale.  Contiguity might be waived in instances where there is a central district that spans across a state.

(5) Assume there is some mechanism in place to act as a check of excessively partisan plans.

(6) Plans may be subject to state plebiscites, so be prepared to advocate to the state voters that your plan should be adopted.

(7) Provide 2010 Census populations for the districts.  These will be adjusted based on the apportionment populations which include certain overseas Americans.

[traininthedistance]

So New Jersey is kind of a natural for three districts, given the whole North Jersey/Central Jersey/South Jersey division that people map onto the state.  Of course, not calling them exactly that feels really weird to type, and there are more judgment calls than one might think as to what, exactly, counts as Central Jersey.  Anyhoo:



District 1: NEW JERSEY SOUTH.  Population 2,211,987 (deviation -718,644).  Obama 60.7%, Dem 57.8%.  This district is pretty easy for me; it's basically all of the state that cares more about Philadelphia than New York.  Mercer is a bit of a borderline case: it often gets put in Central Jersey, and parts of it probably do identify more with NYC, but historically Trenton was either considered its own thing or closer to a satellite of Philadelphia, and this district is pretty darn underpopulated as it is.  Some folks want to put Ocean in the south as well, but they're just flat-out wrong.  Safe D.

District 2: NEW JERSEY CENTRAL.  Population 3,005,097 (deviation +74,466).  Obama 52.1%, Dem 50.3%.  Aside from putting Mercer in the South, this is just straightforwardly the most expansive definition of Central Jersey that's out there, which is appropriate for this exercise given the extent to which North Jersey really does have the lion's share of the population otherwise.  Of course one could argue that "Central Jersey" really is just the crappier parts of North Jersey.   Anyway, Hunterdon and Union could both plausibly go into the North, but that would stretch even the super-wide range proffered in the ground rules.  Tossup.

District 3: NEW JERSEY NORTH.  Population 3,574,810 (deviation +644,179).  Obama 59.7%, Dem 57.4%.  This district is actually only 51.6% white (53.6% VAP), with Hispanics the largest minority in the low 20s.   Not much left to say about its boundaries.  Safe D.

[jimrtex]

So New Jersey is kind of a natural for three districts, given the whole North Jersey/Central Jersey/South Jersey division that people map onto the state.  Of course, not calling them exactly that feels really weird to type, and there are more judgment calls than one might think as to what, exactly, counts as Central Jersey.  Anyhoo:



District 1: NEW JERSEY SOUTH.  Population 2,211,987 (deviation -718,644).  Obama 60.7%, Dem 57.8%.  This district is pretty easy for me; it's basically all of the state that cares more about Philadelphia than New York.  Mercer is a bit of a borderline case: it often gets put in Central Jersey, and parts of it probably do identify more with NYC, but historically Trenton was either considered its own thing or closer to a satellite of Philadelphia, and this district is pretty darn underpopulated as it is.  Some folks want to put Ocean in the south as well, but they're just flat-out wrong.  Safe D.

District 2: NEW JERSEY CENTRAL.  Population 3,005,097 (deviation +74,466).  Obama 52.1%, Dem 50.3%.  Aside from putting Mercer in the South, this is just straightforwardly the most expansive definition of Central Jersey that's out there, which is appropriate for this exercise given the extent to which North Jersey really does have the lion's share of the population otherwise.  Of course one could argue that "Central Jersey" really is just the crappier parts of North Jersey.   Anyway, Hunterdon and Union could both plausibly go into the North, but that would stretch even the super-wide range proffered in the ground rules.  Tossup.

District 3: NEW JERSEY NORTH.  Population 3,574,810 (deviation +644,179).  Obama 59.7%, Dem 57.4%.  This district is actually only 51.6% white (53.6% VAP), with Hispanics the largest minority in the low 20s.   Not much left to say about its boundaries.  Safe D.

Excellent!

That's exactly how I intended population limits to be used, only to be weighed in on judgement calls like Mercer.  Conceivably you could let counties vote to switch districts so long as the population stayed within limits.

[jimrtex]

So New Jersey is kind of a natural for three districts, given the whole North Jersey/Central Jersey/South Jersey division that people map onto the state.  Of course, not calling them exactly that feels really weird to type, and there are more judgment calls than one might think as to what, exactly, counts as Central Jersey.  Anyhoo:

I was thinking about East Texas and West Texas, and I think that North Jersey, Central Jersey, and South Jersey are better names.  New Jersey is probably the only state where part of the state name is commonly dropped.  York and Hampshire wouldn't know who you were talking about, and Mexico would feel insulted.  East Carolina and West Carolina might be OK.  I'd probably veto Nova.

Dropping the state name from districts that are named after cities would also work (eg Chicago, Philadelphia, or Detroit).

[muon2]

To meet the guidelines I'm will use the following procedure based on my redivision of the 50 states based on Garreau's Nine Nations of North America. The guidelines are referenced in parentheses. The remap of the 50 states used whole counties (1). The groupings followed communities of interest based on the nine nations then subdividing them by maintaining metro areas and using economic, linguistic, and religious factors (2, 6). These states were drawn so that all were between 50% and 200% of the quota in 2010 (3092 K) and are contiguous (3, 4, 7). Election results were not used in drawing these boundaries (5). The divisions and maps for the starting point can be found in this thread.

For this exercise the quota is effectively one half the quota I used for the map above. The population now must line up with state borders. As a first pass I will use the fragments of each of the states above within real states to define districts. The smallest state (WY) represents 18% of the quota, so any fragment smaller than that will be consolidated. When there are more fragments than districts, fragments will be grouped together. Very populous fragments in excess of 2 times the quota will be split by separating the most populous county, and if that needs to be split by separating the most populous city separate from the county. I'm giving more precedence to the communities of interest than to the population range which should make a good mix of sizes to test the weighting. Districts will use an important geographic name as an identifier except for single counties and cities.

I'll follow this post with the individual state divisions. Edit: I'm reworking names based on subsequent comments.

[ilikeverin]

Minnesota is almost pathetically simple:

Minnesota Instate (Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka, Washington, Dakota, Scott, Carver, and Wright Counties): Population 2,974,213 (deviation +322,251).  Obama 57.2%, DFL 56.0%.  Sherbourne might go here, but then you get bits of St. Cloud in the Instate region, which is wrong.  Otherwise, every county that borders Hennepin/Ramsey, and the counties themselves.  Usually quite D.

Minnesota Outstate (all other counties): Population 2,329,712 (deviation -322,251).  Obama 49.9%, DFL 51.5%.  Pretty swingy.

[jimrtex]

Minnesota is almost pathetically simple:

Minnesota Instate (Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka, Washington, Dakota, Scott, Carver, and Wright Counties): Population 2,974,213 (deviation +322,251).  Obama 57.2%, DFL 56.0%.  Sherbourne might go here, but then you get bits of St. Cloud in the Instate region, which is wrong.  Otherwise, every county that borders Hennepin/Ramsey, and the counties themselves.  Usually quite D.

Minnesota Outstate (all other counties): Population 2,329,712 (deviation -322,251).  Obama 49.9%, DFL 51.5%.  Pretty swingy.

Would Minnesota Twin Cities or Twin Cities (MN) or Minneapolis-St.Paul (MN) be preferred names?

Is Minnesota Outstate pejorative?   Is Minnesota or Minnesota State acceptable even though they are overinclusive?  There will be 28 districts that will be named for the state.

What would the unwashed bumpkins from the hinterland prefer?

[traininthedistance]

Georgia is, for all its zillions of counties, really easy to do.  And even with the mandate for coarse equality it all ends up being well within plus or minus 10 percent.



District 1: SOUTH GEORGIA.  Population 3,013,994 (deviation -215,224).  Obama 45.7%, Dem 48.0%.  36% Black (34% Black VAP).  I used the Atlanta media market as the dividing line here: everything south of it is in 1, everything within it (plus the few peripheral northern counties in other markets such as Rome) in 2 and 3.  Likely R, there's an opening for a Blue Dog in a good year here, but it's probably a narrow one.

District 2: ATLANTA.  Population 3,365,297 (deviation +136,079).  Obama 61.4%, Dem 58.2%.  40W/38B/13H (44W/37B/11H VAP), so min-maj.  These five counties were the original Atlanta metro area in 1950 and I imagine they're still considered to be the core of it today.  Obviously the exurbs spill far out into District 3 by now.  Safe D.

District 3: NORTH GEORGIA.  Population 3,308,362 (deviation +79,144).  Obama 36.6%, Dem 35.9%.  Pretty self-explanatory.  Safe R.

[ilikeverin]

Minnesota is almost pathetically simple:

Minnesota Instate (Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka, Washington, Dakota, Scott, Carver, and Wright Counties): Population 2,974,213 (deviation +322,251).  Obama 57.2%, DFL 56.0%.  Sherbourne might go here, but then you get bits of St. Cloud in the Instate region, which is wrong.  Otherwise, every county that borders Hennepin/Ramsey, and the counties themselves.  Usually quite D.

Minnesota Outstate (all other counties): Population 2,329,712 (deviation -322,251).  Obama 49.9%, DFL 51.5%.  Pretty swingy.

Would Minnesota Twin Cities or Twin Cities (MN) or Minneapolis-St.Paul (MN) be preferred names?

Is Minnesota Outstate pejorative?   Is Minnesota or Minnesota State acceptable even though they are overinclusive?  There will be 28 districts that will be named for the state.

What would the unwashed bumpkins from the hinterland prefer?

Minnesota—Twin Cities would be more inclusive, and, I think, would be a fine alternative to "Instate".  (Locally, the region is the "Twin Cities Metro".)  "Outstate" isn't pejorative, to my knowledge.  I don't think there's any other tidy way to refer to "everywhere that isn't near the Twin Cities".  Calling the rest of the state just "Minnesota" or "Minnesota State" would be very confusing and strange.  The Twin Cities doesn't particularly see itself as independent of the rest of the state... many locals have a cabin up north.

[jimrtex]

Georgia is, for all its zillions of counties, really easy to do.  And even with the mandate for coarse equality it all ends up being well within plus or minus 10 percent.



District 1: SOUTH GEORGIA.  Population 3,013,994 (deviation -215,224).  Obama 45.7%, Dem 48.0%.  36% Black (34% Black VAP).  I used the Atlanta media market as the dividing line here: everything south of it is in 1, everything within it (plus the few peripheral northern counties in other markets such as Rome) in 2 and 3.  Likely R, there's an opening for a Blue Dog in a good year here, but it's probably a narrow one.

District 2: ATLANTA.  Population 3,365,297 (deviation +136,079).  Obama 61.4%, Dem 58.2%.  40W/38B/13H (44W/37B/11H VAP), so min-maj.  These five counties were the original Atlanta metro area in 1950 and I imagine they're still considered to be the core of it today.  Obviously the exurbs spill far out into District 3 by now.  Safe D.

District 3: NORTH GEORGIA.  Population 3,308,362 (deviation +79,144).  Obama 36.6%, Dem 35.9%.  Pretty self-explanatory.  Safe R.

Good, I was concerned that there would have to be two Atlanta districts, which would force areas like Dalton to be placed with Savannah and Albany.   To avoid this, it makes sense to trim the suburbs fairly tight.

I could see letting Forsyth, Douglas and Fayette, and perhaps others choosing to join Atlanta, but I bet that they would vote No.  We can also make an assumption that the districts are fairly stable, and these areas would not have been included with Atlanta if Georgia had received its 3rd district 30 years ago.  On the other hand, Forsyth had close to 200,000 4 years ago, after doubling within the previous decade.  That's not really exurban.

It appears you have done a good job delineating the counties that would identify with Columbus, Macon and Augusta.

[jimrtex]

Minnesota is almost pathetically simple:

Minnesota Instate (Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka, Washington, Dakota, Scott, Carver, and Wright Counties): Population 2,974,213 (deviation +322,251).  Obama 57.2%, DFL 56.0%.  Sherbourne might go here, but then you get bits of St. Cloud in the Instate region, which is wrong.  Otherwise, every county that borders Hennepin/Ramsey, and the counties themselves.  Usually quite D.

Minnesota Outstate (all other counties): Population 2,329,712 (deviation -322,251).  Obama 49.9%, DFL 51.5%.  Pretty swingy.

Would Minnesota Twin Cities or Twin Cities (MN) or Minneapolis-St.Paul (MN) be preferred names?

Is Minnesota Outstate pejorative?   Is Minnesota or Minnesota State acceptable even though they are overinclusive?  There will be 28 districts that will be named for the state.

What would the unwashed bumpkins from the hinterland prefer?

Minnesota—Twin Cities would be more inclusive, and, I think, would be a fine alternative to "Instate".  (Locally, the region is the "Twin Cities Metro".)  "Outstate" isn't pejorative, to my knowledge.  I don't think there's any other tidy way to refer to "everywhere that isn't near the Twin Cities".  Calling the rest of the state just "Minnesota" or "Minnesota State" would be very confusing and strange.  The Twin Cities doesn't particularly see itself as independent of the rest of the state... many locals have a cabin up north.

We'll see what the proposed names in Arizona, Colorado, and maybe Washington, Wisconsin, and Indiana are.

[muon2]

One thing I noticed is the wide range in district sizes even if all were equal within the states. There are so many small states that the average district in CA is 20% larger than average.

[muon2]

I have a question related to population equality. For example, If the Boston metro is kept intact, and there is contiguity, then the only division is to separate Worcester and the counties to the west from the rest of the state. That creates MA-Bay with 1.5 times the state's quota and MA-Berkshires with 0.5 times the quota. Is that acceptable? Given the nature of the exercise in weighting, it seems to me that it should be.

[jimrtex]

I have a question related to population equality. For example, If the Boston metro is kept intact, and there is contiguity, then the only division is to separate Worcester and the counties to the west from the rest of the state. That creates MA-Bay with 1.5 times the state's quota and MA-Berkshires with 0.5 times the quota. Is that acceptable? Given the nature of the exercise in weighting, it seems to me that it should be.

I was thinking of Massachusetts as a state where strict contiguity might not be required, because of the extreme concavity caused by Rhode Island.  You have to choose between (1) population imbalance; (2) Using all of Norfolk, which would violate community of interest; (3) splitting Norfolk which violates the rule on splitting counties; or (4) Having a non-contiguity between Worcester and Bristol.

[muon2]

I have a question related to population equality. For example, If the Boston metro is kept intact, and there is contiguity, then the only division is to separate Worcester and the counties to the west from the rest of the state. That creates MA-Bay with 1.5 times the state's quota and MA-Berkshires with 0.5 times the quota. Is that acceptable? Given the nature of the exercise in weighting, it seems to me that it should be.

I was thinking of Massachusetts as a state where strict contiguity might not be required, because of the extreme concavity caused by Rhode Island.  You have to choose between (1) population imbalance; (2) Using all of Norfolk, which would violate community of interest; (3) splitting Norfolk which violates the rule on splitting counties; or (4) Having a non-contiguity between Worcester and Bristol.

Given the imbalance created by the relatively few districts apportioned to many states, including some less than 1/5 the ideal size, I think that the first of those points is the easiest to overlook.

I think splitting counties should be reserved for the sort you originally identified, eg. LA and Cook, where a large city can be separated from the county. I think that counties that overlap communities of interest should be kept whole with the primary area, much as was done in the UCC exercise. So I would place items 2 as a must do and 3 as a can't do.

That leaves item 4. At what point should equality supersede contiguity? Again as long as the districts are within the range of states that have only one district, then it seems that contiguity should be maintained. In this case, the MA-Bay district I described is in between AL and CO in population, so it is not larger than a state with two districts, but it is larger than any state with one district. My initial reaction is that contiguity should be preserved here, but I am open to other thoughts.

[traininthedistance]

I have a question related to population equality. For example, If the Boston metro is kept intact, and there is contiguity, then the only division is to separate Worcester and the counties to the west from the rest of the state. That creates MA-Bay with 1.5 times the state's quota and MA-Berkshires with 0.5 times the quota. Is that acceptable? Given the nature of the exercise in weighting, it seems to me that it should be.

I was thinking of Massachusetts as a state where strict contiguity might not be required, because of the extreme concavity caused by Rhode Island.  You have to choose between (1) population imbalance; (2) Using all of Norfolk, which would violate community of interest; (3) splitting Norfolk which violates the rule on splitting counties; or (4) Having a non-contiguity between Worcester and Bristol.

I feel like splitting counties in MA could plausibly be acceptable due to the fact that county government in New England is weak/nonexistent and town government is strong.  That region of the country is a special case.  I'd personally rather split counties than go non-contiguous here, but obviously this is your thought-experiment and not mine.

I haven't yet checked out whether doing that along NECTA boundaries (or even divisions within the Boston NECTA) would actually lead to districts that are closer to equal; the Boston metro is so dominant that it might not even help much.

Another possible point in favor of splitting Norfolk is that Norfolk County is, itself, noncontiguous.

[jimrtex]

One thing I noticed is the wide range in district sizes even if all were equal within the states. There are so many small states that the average district in CA is 20% larger than average.

California would be apportioned a 100st seat, which makes the normative population:

P_CA / sqrt(N_CA (N_CA + 1) )

= 37.34M / sqrt(110) = 3.56M.

States down to 3.56 / sqrt(2) = 2.52 would be small, but not exceptionally so.

NV is OK, while NM, WV, NE, ID, HI, ME, NH, RI, MT, DE, SD, AK, ND, VT, and WY are exceptionally small.

The US Constitution requires at least one representative for each state.  And weighted voting ensures that the standard of Wesberry v Sanders that "as nearly as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's." is complied with.

So I'm treating these states as special cases, similar to what is done in Canada for the far north, or the UK for the smaller islands.

Overall the divided states should have districts in the 2.5M to 5.0M range.  Go ahead and propose the western Massachusetts district, and let's wait to see if there are other comparable situations.

Were we dealing with a state legislature, where the counties are artificial legal subdivisions, rather than sovereign constituents, I would observe that the 28 states apportioned one representative have a population equivalent to 18.14 representatives, and seek to eliminate 10 small states, and apportion 10 more to the larger states:

CA+ = 11, MT-WY merged.
NY+ = 6, VT-NH merged (19 shared among smaller states).
FL+ = 6, ND-SD merged.
AL+ = 2, AK-HI merged (18 shared among smallest states)
TX+ = 8, DE attached to MD, combined continues with 2 districts.
OH+ = 4, CT-RI merged.
SC+ = 2, ME-(NH-VT) merged (17 shared among smallest states)
VA+ = 3, NE-(ND-SD) merged.
CA+ = 12, ID-(MT-WY) merged.

The next addition would be a division of CT-RI, but the next merger would be KY-WV, and the latter has a larger combined population than the former.

Our final combined state districts would be:

Far West (HI-AK)
Northern Rockies (ID-MT-WY)
Northern Plains (NE-SD-ND)
MD-DE (2) (with Delaware added to Maryland Chesapeake leaving Maryland Potomac unchanged).
Southern New England (CT-RI)
Northern New England (ME-NH-VT)

[muon2]

In that case I will proceed under the assumption that the 0.67 to 1.33 of a state's quota are soft limits. If there are good CoI reasons I can run from 0.18 to 1.62 of the national average so that no district is smaller than the smallest state, and no district is larger than the smallest state with two districts.

I still tend to think that equality is not so important, since this is an exercise for a system with weighted votes. Census groups and other factors should have more weight. For example, I don't like splitting the Newark metropolitan division within the New York metro in NJ. I would group Hudson, Bergen and Passaic together as a district and keep all of the Newark division in the central part of NJ. The resulting three districts would be NJ-Palisades (pop 2041K), NJ-Raritan (pop 4539K), and NJ-Pinelands (pop 2212K). They are not as equal in population as train's version, but do a better job of matching neutral definitions of CoI.

[traininthedistance]

New York, New York.  The deviations get pretty high here, for obvious reasons.



District 1: LONG ISLAND.  Population 2,832,868 (deviation -1,042,747).  Obama 53.2%, Dem 55.2%.  Nassau and Suffolk.  A natural pair.  Way underpopulated, and there is absolutely nothing you want to, or even can do, about it- Queens needs to be in one of the two NYC districts, and adding it would overcorrect things even worse, and there's no compelling COI reason to go noncontiguous (or cross the Sound, which is functionally going noncontiguous).  Tilt D.

District 2: BROOKLYN-QUEENS.  Population 4,735,422 (deviation +859,807).  Obama 77.4%, Dem 79.5%. Obviously very diverse, min-maj with no dominant group: 32W/25B/23H/16A (by VAP it's 33W/23B/21H/16A).

NYC is obviously getting split into two districts here that average out to being slightly overpopulated; Queens + Bronx might actually have lower deviations (and would be contiguous), but in terms of COI the two LI boroughs belong together, I think.  Piece of evidence #1: the other three boroughs are part of the New York Public Library system, but Brooklyn and Queens are separate.  Piece of evidence #2: isn't it obvious that we should have one district for the Knicks and another for the Nets?  Anyway, Safe D.

District 3: NEW YORK, NEW YORK. Population 3,439,726 (deviation -435,889).  Obama 81.4%, Dem 77.9%.  Again, min-maj, but more Hispanics and less blacks and Asians: 35W/19B/36H (39W/19B/33H by VAP).  The other three boroughs; perhaps it's not fair to Brooklyn that those people just get to be called New York, but "Manhattan-Bronx-Staten Island" is a mouthful.  It looks noncontiguous on the map, but I'm gonna say that the Staten Island Ferry counts as the requisite transportation link here.  Safe D.

District 4: NEW YORK HUDSON VALLEY AND NORTH.  Population 3,941,721 (deviation +66,106).  Obama 56.2%, Dem 57.5%.  Kind of a mishmash, hence the uninspiring name: northern NYC suburbs, Hudson Valley, the Capitol Region, and the North Country.  I went by media markets and metro areas, as usual; the biggest judgment call was putting the North Country and Watertown in here rather than the Binghamton area, but this configuration had modestly lower deviations.  Eh, could go either way on that.  Lean D.

District 5: NEW YORK CENTRAL AND WESTERN.  Population 4,4428,337 (deviation +552,722).  Obama 53.5%, Dem 52.7%.  Utica, Syracuse, Ithaca, Rochester, Buffalo.  Western NY is more of an identity than whatever got thrown in District 4, at least.  Tossup.

[traininthedistance]

In that case I will proceed under the assumption that the 0.67 to 1.33 of a state's quota are soft limits. If there are good CoI reasons I can run from 0.18 to 1.62 of the national average so that no district is smaller than the smallest state, and no district is larger than the smallest state with two districts.

I still tend to think that equality is not so important, since this is an exercise for a system with weighted votes. Census groups and other factors should have more weight. For example, I don't like splitting the Newark metropolitan division within the New York metro in NJ. I would group Hudson, Bergen and Passaic together as a district and keep all of the Newark division in the central part of NJ. The resulting three districts would be NJ-Palisades (pop 2041K), NJ-Raritan (pop 4539K), and NJ-Pinelands (pop 2212K). They are not as equal in population as train's version, but do a better job of matching neutral definitions of CoI.

Speaking as someone who grew up in the Newark division...no, just no.  The divisions in urban northern NJ are not quite meaningless, but they simply are not the relevant cleavage at this scale. I can guarantee you that anybody who grew up in NJ would rather put Essex, Morris, and Sussex in with Bergen/Passaic than with Middlesex/Monmouth.  Maybe use them if NJ had four districts rather than three, or make the central district maximally underpopulated instead, but not that.

[jimrtex]

This is a first cut based on equipopulous districts.  I think it may improve a bit as districts are split out.  With equal populations, you get a bit of problem with harmonics.  The weighting is based on population divided by 2,000, due to a limitation in the implementation of the algorithm that I am using.  I initially started with 10,000 as a divisor and worked my way downward.  I couldn't get it to work with 1,000.  Going from 10,000 to 2,000 the standard deviation declined from 1.90% to 1.53%, so some of the error is due the apportionment resolution.

With 100 districts, there are 2¹⁰⁰ = 1.268x10³⁰ voting combinations.  Since there are an average of 50 voters on the losing side, there are 6.338x10³¹ possible vote switches from No to Yes.  A total of 4.848x10³⁰ of these are critical and will flip the outcome.  Overall, 7.6% of vote switches are critical.


District         Vote    Swing    R.Pop.   R.Pow    Dev. 
California 1     1867  5.86E+28   1.208%   1.209%   0.07%
California 2     1867  5.86E+28   1.208%   1.209%   0.07%
California 3     1867  5.86E+28   1.208%   1.209%   0.07%
California 4     1867  5.86E+28   1.208%   1.209%   0.07%
California 5     1867  5.86E+28   1.208%   1.209%   0.07%
California 6     1867  5.86E+28   1.208%   1.209%   0.07%
California 7     1867  5.86E+28   1.208%   1.209%   0.07%
California 8     1867  5.86E+28   1.208%   1.209%   0.07%
California 9     1867  5.86E+28   1.208%   1.209%   0.07%
California 10    1867  5.86E+28   1.208%   1.209%   0.07%
Texas 1          1805  5.66E+28   1.168%   1.168%   0.05%
Texas 2          1805  5.66E+28   1.168%   1.168%   0.05%
Texas 3          1805  5.66E+28   1.168%   1.168%   0.05%
Texas 4          1805  5.66E+28   1.168%   1.168%   0.05%
Texas 5          1805  5.66E+28   1.168%   1.168%   0.05%
Texas 6          1805  5.66E+28   1.168%   1.168%   0.05%
Texas 7          1805  5.66E+28   1.168%   1.168%   0.05%
New York 1       1942  6.10E+28   1.256%   1.258%   0.10%
New York 2       1942  6.10E+28   1.256%   1.258%   0.10%
New York 3       1942  6.10E+28   1.256%   1.258%   0.10%
New York 4       1942  6.10E+28   1.256%   1.258%   0.10%
New York 5       1942  6.10E+28   1.256%   1.258%   0.10%
Florida 1        1890  5.93E+28   1.223%   1.224%   0.08%
Florida 2        1890  5.93E+28   1.223%   1.224%   0.08%
Florida 3        1890  5.93E+28   1.223%   1.224%   0.08%
Florida 4        1890  5.93E+28   1.223%   1.224%   0.08%
Florida 5        1890  5.93E+28   1.223%   1.224%   0.08%
Illinois 1       1608  5.04E+28   1.040%   1.040%  -0.05%
Illinois 2       1608  5.04E+28   1.040%   1.040%  -0.05%
Illinois 3       1608  5.04E+28   1.040%   1.040%  -0.05%
Illinois 4       1608  5.04E+28   1.040%   1.040%  -0.05%
Pennsylvania 1   1592  4.99E+28   1.030%   1.029%  -0.04%
Pennsylvania 2   1592  4.99E+28   1.030%   1.029%  -0.04%
Pennsylvania 3   1592  4.99E+28   1.030%   1.029%  -0.04%
Pennsylvania 4   1592  4.99E+28   1.030%   1.029%  -0.04%
Ohio 1           1928  6.05E+28   1.247%   1.248%   0.10%
Ohio 2           1928  6.05E+28   1.247%   1.248%   0.10%
Ohio 3           1928  6.05E+28   1.247%   1.248%   0.10%
Michigan 1       1652  5.18E+28   1.069%   1.068%  -0.02%
Michigan 2       1652  5.18E+28   1.069%   1.068%  -0.02%
Michigan 3       1652  5.18E+28   1.069%   1.068%  -0.02%
Georgia 1        1621  5.08E+28   1.049%   1.048%  -0.06%
Georgia 2        1621  5.08E+28   1.049%   1.048%  -0.06%
Georgia 3        1621  5.08E+28   1.049%   1.048%  -0.06%
North Carolina 1 1594  5.00E+28   1.031%   1.031%  -0.07%
North Carolina 2 1594  5.00E+28   1.031%   1.031%  -0.07%
North Carolina 3 1594  5.00E+28   1.031%   1.031%  -0.07%
New Jersey 1     1468  4.60E+28   0.950%   0.949%  -0.09%
New Jersey 2     1468  4.60E+28   0.950%   0.949%  -0.09%
New Jersey 3     1468  4.60E+28   0.950%   0.949%  -0.09%
Virginia 1       2009  6.31E+28   1.300%   1.301%   0.12%
Virginia 2       2009  6.31E+28   1.300%   1.301%   0.12%
Washington 1     1688  5.29E+28   1.092%   1.092%  -0.03%
Washington 2     1688  5.29E+28   1.092%   1.092%  -0.03%
Massachusetts 1  1640  5.14E+28   1.061%   1.061%  -0.03%
Massachusetts 2  1640  5.14E+28   1.061%   1.061%  -0.03%
Indiana 1        1625  5.09E+28   1.051%   1.051%  -0.06%
Indiana 2        1625  5.09E+28   1.051%   1.051%  -0.06%
Arizona 1        1603  5.03E+28   1.037%   1.036%  -0.06%
Arizona 2        1603  5.03E+28   1.037%   1.036%  -0.06%
Tennessee 1      1594  5.00E+28   1.031%   1.031%  -0.04%
Tennessee 2      1594  5.00E+28   1.031%   1.031%  -0.04%
Missouri 1       1503  4.71E+28   0.972%   0.971%  -0.08%
Missouri 2       1503  4.71E+28   0.972%   0.971%  -0.08%
Maryland 1       1447  4.53E+28   0.936%   0.935%  -0.14%
Maryland 2       1447  4.53E+28   0.936%   0.935%  -0.14%
Wisconsin 1      1425  4.46E+28   0.921%   0.921%  -0.09%
Wisconsin 2      1425  4.46E+28   0.921%   0.921%  -0.09%
Minnesota 1      1329  4.16E+28   0.860%   0.858%  -0.13%
Minnesota 2      1329  4.16E+28   0.860%   0.858%  -0.13%
Colorado 1       1261  3.95E+28   0.816%   0.814%  -0.19%
Colorado 2       1261  3.95E+28   0.816%   0.814%  -0.19%
Alabama          2401  7.56E+28   1.553%   1.559%   0.35%
South Carolina   2323  7.31E+28   1.503%   1.508%   0.32%
Louisiana        2277  7.16E+28   1.473%   1.477%   0.30%
Kentucky         2175  6.84E+28   1.407%   1.410%   0.22%
Oregon           1924  6.04E+28   1.245%   1.246%   0.08%
Oklahoma         1882  5.91E+28   1.218%   1.218%   0.06%
Connecticut      1791  5.62E+28   1.158%   1.159%   0.05%
Iowa             1527  4.79E+28   0.988%   0.987%  -0.07%
Mississippi      1489  4.67E+28   0.963%   0.962%  -0.10%
Arkansas         1463  4.58E+28   0.946%   0.945%  -0.11%
Kansas           1432  4.49E+28   0.926%   0.925%  -0.11%
Utah             1385  4.34E+28   0.896%   0.895%  -0.16%
Nevada           1355  4.24E+28   0.876%   0.875%  -0.12%
New Mexico       1034  3.24E+28   0.669%   0.667%  -0.20%
West Virginia     930  2.91E+28   0.602%   0.600%  -0.26%
Nebraska          916  2.87E+28   0.592%   0.591%  -0.26%
Idaho             787  2.46E+28   0.509%   0.508%  -0.26%
Hawaii            683  2.14E+28   0.442%   0.440%  -0.38%
Maine             667  2.09E+28   0.431%   0.430%  -0.25%
New Hampshire     661  2.07E+28   0.427%   0.426%  -0.28%
Rhode Island      528  1.65E+28   0.341%   0.340%  -0.27%
Montana           497  1.55E+28   0.322%   0.320%  -0.39%
Delaware          450  1.41E+28   0.291%   0.290%  -0.45%
South Dakota      410  1.28E+28   0.265%   0.264%  -0.32%
Alaska            361  1.13E+28   0.233%   0.233%  -0.29%
North Dakota      338  1.06E+28   0.219%   0.218%  -0.35%
Vermont           315  9.84E+27   0.204%   0.203%  -0.42%
Wyoming           284  8.87E+27   0.184%   0.183%  -0.42%

[muon2]

In that case I will proceed under the assumption that the 0.67 to 1.33 of a state's quota are soft limits. If there are good CoI reasons I can run from 0.18 to 1.62 of the national average so that no district is smaller than the smallest state, and no district is larger than the smallest state with two districts.

I still tend to think that equality is not so important, since this is an exercise for a system with weighted votes. Census groups and other factors should have more weight. For example, I don't like splitting the Newark metropolitan division within the New York metro in NJ. I would group Hudson, Bergen and Passaic together as a district and keep all of the Newark division in the central part of NJ. The resulting three districts would be NJ-Palisades (pop 2041K), NJ-Raritan (pop 4539K), and NJ-Pinelands (pop 2212K). They are not as equal in population as train's version, but do a better job of matching neutral definitions of CoI.

Speaking as someone who grew up in the Newark division...no, just no.  The divisions in urban northern NJ are not quite meaningless, but they simply are not the relevant cleavage at this scale. I can guarantee you that anybody who grew up in NJ would rather put Essex, Morris, and Sussex in with Bergen/Passaic than with Middlesex/Monmouth.  Maybe use them if NJ had four districts rather than three, or make the central district maximally underpopulated instead, but not that.

I guess what caught my eye is the split between Essex and Union which I cannot fathom. If my combination isn't to your taste I would suggest the solution is to move Middlesex/Monmouth/Ocean south and leave the Newark division all by itself. My best friend from Princeton would tell me that the Jersey Shore was more southern than northern, though that was back in the 70's and 80's.

Edit: On further thought why not move just the two shore counties south? They were a separate division in the previous decade. Just leave Middlesex with the Newark division.

BTW my plan for NY is almost the same as yours. I would leave Watertown (Jefferson and Lewis) with the west. The economic tie works better with Syracuse instead of the Hudson valley. As for names I used the largest borough for the two city pieces and so I get NY-Long Island (pop 2833K), NY-Brooklyn  (pop 4735K), NY-Manhattan (pop 3440K), NY-Hudson (pop 3579K), NY-Ontario (pop 4791K).

[traininthedistance]

In that case I will proceed under the assumption that the 0.67 to 1.33 of a state's quota are soft limits. If there are good CoI reasons I can run from 0.18 to 1.62 of the national average so that no district is smaller than the smallest state, and no district is larger than the smallest state with two districts.

I still tend to think that equality is not so important, since this is an exercise for a system with weighted votes. Census groups and other factors should have more weight. For example, I don't like splitting the Newark metropolitan division within the New York metro in NJ. I would group Hudson, Bergen and Passaic together as a district and keep all of the Newark division in the central part of NJ. The resulting three districts would be NJ-Palisades (pop 2041K), NJ-Raritan (pop 4539K), and NJ-Pinelands (pop 2212K). They are not as equal in population as train's version, but do a better job of matching neutral definitions of CoI.

Speaking as someone who grew up in the Newark division...no, just no.  The divisions in urban northern NJ are not quite meaningless, but they simply are not the relevant cleavage at this scale. I can guarantee you that anybody who grew up in NJ would rather put Essex, Morris, and Sussex in with Bergen/Passaic than with Middlesex/Monmouth.  Maybe use them if NJ had four districts rather than three, or make the central district maximally underpopulated instead, but not that.

I guess what caught my eye is the split between Essex and Union which I cannot fathom. If my combination isn't to your taste I would suggest the solution is to move Middlesex/Monmouth/Ocean south and leave the Newark division all by itself. My best friend from Princeton would tell me that the Jersey Shore was more southern than northern, though that was back in the 70's and 80's.

BTW my plan for NY is almost the same as yours. I would leave Watertown (Jefferson and Lewis) with the west. The economic tie works better with Syracuse instead of the Hudson valley. As for names I used the largest borough for the two city pieces and so I get NY-Long Island (pop 2833K), NY-Brooklyn  (pop 4735K), NY-Manhattan (pop 3440K), NY-Hudson (pop 3579K), NY-Ontario (pop 4791K).

Yeah, Essex-Union is probably the most questionable part of that plan; if that's considered to be a deal-breaker, I'd probably rather just put Union up in the North and live with the extra-high deviations. 

My primary rationale for keeping Watertown in 4 rather than 5 was that the Watertown media market includes St. Lawrence County, which I also obviously wanted to keep with the rest of the North Country.  So I just ended up treating Watertown-North Country as one big block.

[jimrtex]

New York, New York.  The deviations get pretty high here, for obvious reasons.



District 1: LONG ISLAND.  Population 2,832,868 (deviation -1,042,747).  Obama 53.2%, Dem 55.2%.  Nassau and Suffolk.  A natural pair.  Way underpopulated, and there is absolutely nothing you want to, or even can do, about it- Queens needs to be in one of the two NYC districts, and adding it would overcorrect things even worse, and there's no compelling COI reason to go noncontiguous (or cross the Sound, which is functionally going noncontiguous).  Tilt D.

I'm going to use the following nomenclature: Long Island (NY)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

An alternative would be Kings&Queens (NY) but Brooklyn-Queens (NY) is fine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

At one time (IIRC, around the 1820s), Richmond, Kings, and Rockland counties comprised a congressional district.   At that time, Westchester County extended south to the Harlem River (Westchester town was in the southern part of what is now the Bronx), and Queens County included present day Nassau County, so matching the 3 water connected counties was not seen as that extreme.

If we were dividing up NYC, we'd recreate Brooklyn and reasonably include Queens.  Staten Island could be separate.  And if we are extending Brooklyn east, we could extend "the Bronx" north as far as White Plains and restore the Westchester name.  The remnant of Westchester would have to come up with its own name or be merged with Putnam.

Is the proposed name: New York, New York (NY) or New York, (NY)?  I'm fine with New York City (NY) or Manhattan-Bronx (NY) as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hudson Valley and North Country (NY) ?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Central and Western New York (NY)

How much would people in Syracuse object to a shorter Western New York (NY)?

[muon2]

In that case I will proceed under the assumption that the 0.67 to 1.33 of a state's quota are soft limits. If there are good CoI reasons I can run from 0.18 to 1.62 of the national average so that no district is smaller than the smallest state, and no district is larger than the smallest state with two districts.

I still tend to think that equality is not so important, since this is an exercise for a system with weighted votes. Census groups and other factors should have more weight. For example, I don't like splitting the Newark metropolitan division within the New York metro in NJ. I would group Hudson, Bergen and Passaic together as a district and keep all of the Newark division in the central part of NJ. The resulting three districts would be NJ-Palisades (pop 2041K), NJ-Raritan (pop 4539K), and NJ-Pinelands (pop 2212K). They are not as equal in population as train's version, but do a better job of matching neutral definitions of CoI.

Speaking as someone who grew up in the Newark division...no, just no.  The divisions in urban northern NJ are not quite meaningless, but they simply are not the relevant cleavage at this scale. I can guarantee you that anybody who grew up in NJ would rather put Essex, Morris, and Sussex in with Bergen/Passaic than with Middlesex/Monmouth.  Maybe use them if NJ had four districts rather than three, or make the central district maximally underpopulated instead, but not that.

I guess what caught my eye is the split between Essex and Union which I cannot fathom. If my combination isn't to your taste I would suggest the solution is to move Middlesex/Monmouth/Ocean south and leave the Newark division all by itself. My best friend from Princeton would tell me that the Jersey Shore was more southern than northern, though that was back in the 70's and 80's.

BTW my plan for NY is almost the same as yours. I would leave Watertown (Jefferson and Lewis) with the west. The economic tie works better with Syracuse instead of the Hudson valley. As for names I used the largest borough for the two city pieces and so I get NY-Long Island (pop 2833K), NY-Brooklyn  (pop 4735K), NY-Manhattan (pop 3440K), NY-Hudson (pop 3579K), NY-Ontario (pop 4791K).

Yeah, Essex-Union is probably the most questionable part of that plan; if that's considered to be a deal-breaker, I'd probably rather just put Union up in the North and live with the extra-high deviations. 

My primary rationale for keeping Watertown in 4 rather than 5 was that the Watertown media market includes St. Lawrence County, which I also obviously wanted to keep with the rest of the North Country.  So I just ended up treating Watertown-North Country as one big block.

I was editing my post above while you were typing. It seems to me that if one starts with the Newark division as a district (Essex, Hunderdon, Morris, Somerset, Sussex, Union) with isolated Warren and maybe Middlesex you get a population of 3332K, and by placing Monmouth and Ocean in the Pinelands you get 3419K there. The remainder is my Palisades district with 2041K and all are within the 2/3 to 4/3 of the state quota. Newark wouldn't have to choose between Monmouth and Bergen, and if Middlesex is still an issue, move it south as well but with greater inequality.