Weighted Voting For Congress

[traininthedistance]

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.

Well, I don't think that one should necessarily start with the Newark division as a district; it really doesn't have any meaningful identity to New Jerseyans in the way that "North Jersey" or "Central Jersey" does.  

It's completely insane to me, BTW, that the Newark district still exists, but the Edison, NJ division  (which consisted of Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, and Somerset, and mapped quite well onto the core of what people recognize as Central Jersey) was mostly folded into the "main" NYC district, which it shares with nearby places such as White Plains, and whose only connection with the rest of the district is the Outerbridge Crossing.  Not that there necessarily shouldn't be a Newark district, but I'd get rid of it way before I got rid of the Edison district.

Assuming that the Newark division is automatically more important and meaningful than what used to be the Edison division, and building a plan around that rather than local sentiment, is basically just GIGO to me.

[muon2]

My bias in this exercise is to create a robust set of data for jimrtex' exercise. To get that data I want to resist preconceptions that I might bring to the process, so I'm starting with neutral divisions as determined outside the exercise. The Census groupings of metro areas adjusted by jimrtex' work on UCCs form a big part of that.

There are other neutral starting points one could use. For example, here's the official travel zones of NJ. They form definable CoIs, though perhaps not the normal ones. One could treat those as unbreakable unless they are sufficiently oversized.



On the subject of UCCs, any reduction of the Atlanta metro below the UCC seems arbitrary. The UCC by itself is about the same population as the metro Boston population I described earlier, so it falls within the consideration that it is smaller than any state that gets two districts. The test of population weighting works better if districts aren't pushed too hard to be equal.

[traininthedistance]

My bias in this exercise is to create a robust set of data for jimrtex' exercise. To get that data I want to resist preconceptions that I might bring to the process, so I'm starting with neutral divisions as determined outside the exercise. The Census groupings of metro areas adjusted by jimrtex' work on UCCs form a big part of that.

...

On the subject of UCCs, any reduction of the Atlanta metro below the UCC seems arbitrary. The UCC by itself is about the same population as the metro Boston population I described earlier, so it falls within the consideration that it is smaller than any state that gets two districts. The test of population weighting works better if districts aren't pushed too hard to be equal.

Well, these plans are supposed to be subject to local plebiscite, and what I'm saying is that local plebiscite will prefer, I can guarantee you, a larger North Jersey than your "Palisades" group.  I'm a fan of neutral criteria as well but I do want to make sure there's a fail-safe if they spit out something that's inappropriate to local sentiment, and not just take a 100% algorithmic approach.

Obviously there are other neutral criteria we can look at- for instance I'm leaning heavily on media markets for states outside of New Jersey (and within NJ as well, it's part of the reason I consider South Jersey set in stone).  Another piece of evidence we could use is area codes, which don't line up exactly with counties but can be illustrative all the same:



Some of the larger county cuts (I'm mostly thinking of how the southern tip of Ocean is in a Southern area code but the bulk is in a Central code) do pass the smell test.  Worth noting that this would actually be evidence for putting Warren in Central Jersey.

I'm gonna say that if we actively want larger deviations to test things, the Central district should just be the old Edison division (Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Somerset) and North should be the overpopulated one.  That would be fine by me and probably fine for most Jerseyans.

As for Atlanta I have no objecting to drawing a larger metro district, but I suspect that the residents of those exurban counties would object.  Another option for Atlanta, actually, would be to draw the inner core district even tighter, getting rid of Cobb and Gwinnett, maybe adding a couple counties to the south, and turn it into a full-on VRA district.

[muon2]

Since I left the East in the late 80's I never quite understood how the Edison division was dissolved with part going to Newark and part to generic NYC. I could see that making the Edison division a separate district works better than any other split of the Newark division.

In big metros like Atlanta I tend to either split out only the county with the central city as a district or keep the UCC together. Fulton's too small to separate from the rest of north GA. I do separate Philly, PA and Wayne, MI because they are big enough to leave a reasonably sized piece behind.

[muon2]

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.

When I was growing up in the Twin Cities it would have been unthinkable to put Sherburne in the metro region. However, during our analysis of UCC's it was pretty clear that my historical view doesn't match today's reality. There's more exurban Mpls population there now then there is in part of St Cloud. I would use it as we did with the UCC.

I suspect many of the outstaters would prefer some other moniker for their district. I like a more poetic pair of names based on Minnesota's tie to water both in its name and motto. Two of the most historically significant water features are St Anthony Falls, which defined the early growth of the Twin Cities, and Lake Itasca, the headwaters of the Mississippi River which drove so much of the early exploration. So I have MN-St Anthony 3063K and MN-Itasca 2241K.

[traininthedistance]

Anyway, one more proposed map for now and then I'm taking a break: Pennsylvania.



District 1: GREATER PHILADELPHIA.  Population 4,009,011 (deviation +833,416).  Obama 66.5%; roughly 21% black.  You could also call it "Southeastern Pennsylvania" or "Delaware Valley", I prefer to use city names for major metro cores.  Anyway, putting the five counties together is a no-brainer here.  Safe D.

District 2: NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA.  Population 2,690,334 (deviation -485,261).  Obama 51.9%.  As always, I'm going along media markets for most of these lines; the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre market (which includes Williamsport, the Poconos, and coal country) is the core of this district.  Reading and the Lehigh Valley are included, as well as Tioga and Pike, which get their broadcasts from out-of-state (Elmira and NYC).  Tossup.

District 3: CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.  Population 2,805,334 (deviation -370,261).  Obama 43.0%.  The spine of the "T", Pennsyltucky, whatever you want to call it.  The Harrisburg and Johnstown markets, as well as two small Northern Tier counties that are closer to Buffalo.  Really the only close judgment call I waffled on was whether to put them- McKean and Potter- here or in District 2; I chose this so as to not stretch the definition of "Northeastern".  (Tioga could go here too, I guess, but that might be a bit erose.)  Safe R.

District 4: WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA.  Population 3,197,700 (deviation +22,105).  Obama 50.7%.  Pittsburgh, Erie, and points in between (including one county that's part of the Youngstown, OH area).  Tilt R.

[muon2]

Anyway, one more proposed map for now and then I'm taking a break: Pennsylvania.



District 1: GREATER PHILADELPHIA.  Population 4,009,011 (deviation +833,416).  Obama 66.5%; roughly 21% black.  You could also call it "Southeastern Pennsylvania" or "Delaware Valley", I prefer to use city names for major metro cores.  Anyway, putting the five counties together is a no-brainer here.  Safe D.

District 2: NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA.  Population 2,690,334 (deviation -485,261).  Obama 51.9%.  As always, I'm going along media markets for most of these lines; the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre market (which includes Williamsport, the Poconos, and coal country) is the core of this district.  Reading and the Lehigh Valley are included, as well as Tioga and Pike, which get their broadcasts from out-of-state (Elmira and NYC).  Tossup.

District 3: CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.  Population 2,805,334 (deviation -370,261).  Obama 43.0%.  The spine of the "T", Pennsyltucky, whatever you want to call it.  The Harrisburg and Johnstown markets, as well as two small Northern Tier counties that are closer to Buffalo.  Really the only close judgment call I waffled on was whether to put them- McKean and Potter- here or in District 2; I chose this so as to not stretch the definition of "Northeastern".  (Tioga could go here too, I guess, but that might be a bit erose.)  Safe R.

District 4: WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA.  Population 3,197,700 (deviation +22,105).  Obama 50.7%.  Pittsburgh, Erie, and points in between (including one county that's part of the Youngstown, OH area).  Tilt R.

That's ok, but I'm not wild about linking the lower Susquehanna to parts across the mountains to the west. I put everything from State College west with Pittsburgh and despite the higher population it's only a little over the 4/3 recommendation and less than the population of the largest state with only one district.

Since the lower Susquehanna region is smaller than the city of Philly, I went with that as a stand-alone county-city. That left me linking the whole Susquehanna valley together and adding the Scranton region as well. The economic connections (eg. I-81) make more sense to me and figure into a lot of my choices. That leaves the Philly and Allentown metros (minus Philly) as the remaining piece. As you may note, I don't like directional designations for the districts, so here I went with major river valleys: PA-Allegheny 4455K, PA-Susquehanna 3299K, PA-Delaware 3423K, and PA-Philadelphia 1526K.

And yes, I'm planning a map of all 22 states with divisions when I'm done.

[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.

When I was growing up in the Twin Cities it would have been unthinkable to put Sherburne in the metro region. However, during our analysis of UCC's it was pretty clear that my historical view doesn't match today's reality. There's more exurban Mpls population there now then there is in part of St Cloud. I would use it as we did with the UCC.

Elk River certainly isn't meaningless, I'll give you that.  It's just such an awkward county, as are Stearns and Benton.  (Well, more like it's just that St. Cloud is messy...)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I could definitely get behind Minnesota—Itasca; that's a name to be proud of.  I get Minnesota—St. Anthony, but I wonder whether people really connect with St. Anthony Falls these days more than Minnehaha?  I know it's not exactly of the most historical relevance, but it's darn cute   Perhaps Minnesota—Hiawatha if we want a combination of history and poetry (er, literally)?  Minnesota—Nicollet?  I don't know, St. Anthony just rubs me the wrong way for euphonic reasons.

[Del Tachi]

Here's my take on Tennessee:



District 2:  West Tennessee.  Population 3,260,832 (+87,780).  64W/27B/6H.  VAP 67W/25B/5H.  49.8% McCain, 51.1% DEM.  Tossup - Tilt D.

District 2:  East Tennessee.  Population 3,085,273 (-87,779). 88W/6B/3H.  VAP 90W/5B/3H.  64.8% McCain, 59.3% GOP.  Safe R.

Never thought I could make a 90% White district containing more than 3 million people in the South.

Tennessee's a dificult state to do because of its elongated shape and relatively even distribution of its surprisingly urban population.  A Nashville/Memphis district and a Mountain district probably highlights the political cleavages in the state the most (which, ATST, shows a strong adherence to the community of interest standard).

I could have gone for a Nashville + far-flung exurbs district, but results in the other district being a very strange U-Shape that is visullay unappealing and puts Memphis and Chattanooga in the same district :/

This map also probably represents the best Democrats can hope to get in Tennessee; a Blue Dog-type would easily win Tennessee West while Tennessee East could elect a true fire-breather if they wanted to.

[traininthedistance]

That's ok, but I'm not wild about linking the lower Susquehanna to parts across the mountains to the west. I put everything from State College west with Pittsburgh and despite the higher population it's only a little over the 4/3 recommendation and less than the population of the largest state with only one district.

Since the lower Susquehanna region is smaller than the city of Philly, I went with that as a stand-alone county-city. That left me linking the whole Susquehanna valley together and adding the Scranton region as well. The economic connections (eg. I-81) make more sense to me and figure into a lot of my choices. That leaves the Philly and Allentown metros (minus Philly) as the remaining piece. As you may note, I don't like directional designations for the districts, so here I went with major river valleys: PA-Allegheny 4455K, PA-Susquehanna 3299K, PA-Delaware 3423K, and PA-Philadelphia 1526K.

And yes, I'm planning a map of all 22 states with divisions when I'm done.

I'm... deeply not okay with severing Philly from its region at this level of coarseness (and, yes, I know Reading is technically in the metro, but everyone thinks of it as the five counties with Reading being a Trenton-esque satellite, and countless organizations both public and private treat SEPA as just the five counties).  I guess I also don't really see the issue with south-central PA going west; perhaps Johnstown would prefer to be in the Pittsburgh district but I'm skeptical that combining Harrisburg-Lancaster-York with the Scranton region is actually any better.  They are Steelers fans in Harrisburg, after all.

[traininthedistance]

Here's my take on Tennessee:



District 2:  West Tennessee.  Population 3,260,832 (+87,780).  64W/27B/6H.  VAP 67W/25B/5H.  49.8% McCain, 51.1% DEM.  Tossup - Tilt D.

District 2:  East Tennessee.  Population 3,085,273 (-87,779). 88W/6B/3H.  VAP 90W/5B/3H.  64.8% McCain, 59.3% GOP.  Safe R.

Never thought I could make a 90% White district containing more than 3 million people in the South.

Tennessee's a dificult state to do because of its elongated shape and relatively even distribution of its surprisingly urban population.  A Nashville/Memphis district and a Mountain district probably highlights the political cleavages in the state the most (which, ATST, shows a strong adherence to the community of interest standard).

I could have gone for a Nashville + far-flung exurbs district, but results in the other district being a very strange U-Shape that is visullay unappealing and puts Memphis and Chattanooga in the same district :/

This map also probably represents the best Democrats can hope to get in Tennessee; a Blue Dog-type would easily win Tennessee West while Tennessee East could elect a true fire-breather if they wanted to.

I've mostly been drawing districts with deviations too low for muon2, but Tennessee is a state where I might actually be inclined to push that envelope: I feel like you want to stick to the canonical Grand Divisions if you can, and so I might just put East TN (the most populous division) by itself, and live with an oversized West+Central.  And, yes, I know that doing such a thing would be an R gerrymander... I don't care.

ETA: Not really "gerrymander", actually, Tennessee is Republican enough that if it has two districts they should probably just both be solid R. 

[muon2]

Here's my take on Tennessee:



District 2:  West Tennessee.  Population 3,260,832 (+87,780).  64W/27B/6H.  VAP 67W/25B/5H.  49.8% McCain, 51.1% DEM.  Tossup - Tilt D.

District 2:  East Tennessee.  Population 3,085,273 (-87,779). 88W/6B/3H.  VAP 90W/5B/3H.  64.8% McCain, 59.3% GOP.  Safe R.

Never thought I could make a 90% White district containing more than 3 million people in the South.

Tennessee's a dificult state to do because of its elongated shape and relatively even distribution of its surprisingly urban population.  A Nashville/Memphis district and a Mountain district probably highlights the political cleavages in the state the most (which, ATST, shows a strong adherence to the community of interest standard).

I could have gone for a Nashville + far-flung exurbs district, but results in the other district being a very strange U-Shape that is visullay unappealing and puts Memphis and Chattanooga in the same district :/

This map also probably represents the best Democrats can hope to get in Tennessee; a Blue Dog-type would easily win Tennessee West while Tennessee East could elect a true fire-breather if they wanted to.

I've mostly been drawing districts with deviations too low for muon2, but Tennessee is a state where I might actually be inclined to push that envelope: I feel like you want to stick to the canonical Grand Divisions if you can, and so I might just put East TN (the most populous division) by itself, and live with an oversized West+Central.  And, yes, I know that doing such a thing would be an R gerrymander... I don't care.

See we can agree on some things.

Even better is the fact that the Grand Division split represents roughly 3/4 and 5/4 of the state quota so it's even within the initial guidelines of 2/3 to 4/3.

[muon2]

Another thought to consider is dividing MO along Midwest vs Southern regions (instead of E-W), given the recurring polls on the subject. KC and StLouis end up in the same district with a bridge across the northern counties. It would keep the entire "Southern" part of the state together which is about 3/8 of the state's population.

[muon2]

Here's my draft of the plan for all 100 districts.



And the districts with their populations:

Pacific (16)
AK (1) 2916K
CA (10)
   CA-Shasta 3368K
   CA-San Pablo Bay 3845K
   CA-Santa Cruz 4308K
   CA-San Joaquin Valley 4129K
   CA-San Emigdio 2538K (including LAC areas north and west of LA including pockets within LA)
   CA-San Gabriel 4735K (the area east and south of LA including the Torrance pocket)
   CA-Los Angeles 3793K (just the city)
   CA-Santa Ana 3010K
   CA-San Bernardino 4258K
   CA-Palomar 3270K
HI (1) 1360K
OR (1) 3831K
WA (2) There are three fragments, and the largest can be a single district.
   WA-Puget Sound 4687K
   WA-Columbia 2038K

Rocky Mountains (7)
CO (2)
   CO-Red Rocks 2490K
   CO-Front Range 2540K
ID (1) 1568K
MT (1) 989K
NV (1) 2701K
UT (1) 2764K
WY (1) 564K

Southwest (10)
AZ (2)
   AZ-Gila and Rim 2575K
   AZ-Maricopa 3817K
NM (1) 2059K
TX (7) (It's TX so I picked major oil field names, including Ft Worth)
   TX-Eagle Ford 3572K
   TX-Western Gulf 2106K
   TX-Permian Basin 4601K
   TX-Fort Worth 3045K
   TX-Dallas 3616K
   TX-East Texas 4114K
   TX-Harris 4092K

Great Plains (10)
IA (1) 3046K
KS (1) 2853K
MN (2)
   MN-St Anthony 3063K
   MN-Itasca 2241K
MO (2) (the division separates the "southern" area from the rest of the state)
   MO-Plains 3746K
   MO-Ozarks 2243K
NE (1) 1826K
ND (1) 673K
OK (1) 3751K
SD (1) 814K

Great Lakes (14)
IL (4)
   IL-Chicago 2696K
   IL-Cook 2499K (all of the county except the city)
   IL-Fox and Kankakee 3505K
   IL-Great Rivers 4131K
IN (2)
   IN-Lake Michigan 2628K
   IN-Hoosier 3856K
MI (3)
   MI-Mackinac 4141K
   MI-Huron 3922K
   MI-Wayne 1821K
OH (3)
   OH-Miami 4187K
   OH-Scioto 3255K
   OH-Erie 4095K
WI (2)
   WI-Winnebago 3221K
   WI-Dells 2466K

Delta South (7)
AL (1) 4780K
AR (1) 2916K
KY (1) 4339K
LA (1) 4533K
MS (1) 2967K
TN (2)
   TN-Great Valley 2342K
   TN-Cumberland and Mississippi 4004K

Atlantic South (14)
FL (5)
   FL-Apalachicola 3326K
   FL-Tampa Bay 3634K
   FL-Cape Canaveral 4747K
   FL-Miami-Dade 2496K
   FL-Everglades 4598K
GA (3)
   GA-Blue Ridge 1688K
   GA-Kennesaw 4901K
   GA-Okefenoke 3099K
NC (3)
   NC-Blue Ridge 1302K
   NC-Piedmont 3842K
   NC-Pamlico Sound 4391K
SC (1) 4625K
VA (2)
   VA-Shenandoah 4045K
   VA-James 3956K

Mid Atlantic (16)
DE (1) 898K
MD (2)
   MD-Potomac 2566K
   MD-Chesapeake 3217K
NJ (3)
   NJ-Palisades 4240K
   NJ-Jersey Shore 2340K
   NJ-Pinelands 2212K
NY (5)
   NY-Long Island 2833K
   NY-Brooklyn 4735K
   NY-Manhattan 3440K
   NY-Hudson 3579K
   NY-Ontario 4791K
PA (4)
   PA-Allegheny 4455K
   PA-Susquehanna 3299K
   PA-Philadelphia 1526K
   PA-Delaware 3423K
WV (1) 1853K

New England (7)
CT (1) 3574K
ME (1) 1328K
MA (2)
   MA-Bay 4925K
   MA-Berkshire 1623K
NH (1) 1316K
RI (1) 1053K
VT (1) 626K

[traininthedistance]

Most of these are pretty good.  The nitpicks/questions I can think of just off the top of my head:

*Obviously I'm still very much not a fan of your PA, and also prefer a tighter Atlanta (if only for VRA purposes more than anything else).
* Indiana's a little jagged; I wonder if the north district could push south a little bit without disturbing COIs horribly?
* Putting NoVA and the far Southwest seems pretty bad to me; I can see how it's somewhat of a chain where NoVA bleeds into the northern edge of the Shenandoahs and the southern edge of same bleeds into the Southwest, but the final result is kind of a mess.  I'd guess I'd probably prefer giving the SW to the southern district, and giving NoVA the Northern Neck instead.
* In NC, we've got three major metros (Triangle, Triad, and Charlotte), and I'd prefer they each get their own district (which is why the giant Eastern NC doesn't actually bother me).  Probably put the Triad in with Blue Ridge rather than in with Charlotte?  
* I'm more or less fine with Wisconsin, but I also wonder about putting Madison in with Milwaukee rather than Sheboygan/Fox River/Green Bay.  I guess that's more of a judgment call along the lines of what you articulated with Missouri, where either E/W or N/S are reasonable.

I can't think of anything else that really bothers me; obviously one could quibble over a county or two here or there but the basic shapes seem good.

[muon2]

Most of these are pretty good.  The nitpicks/questions I can think of just off the top of my head:

*Obviously I'm still very much not a fan of your PA, and also prefer a tighter Atlanta (if only for VRA purposes more than anything else).
* Indiana's a little jagged; I wonder if the north district could push south a little bit without disturbing COIs horribly?
* Putting NoVA and the far Southwest seems pretty bad to me; I can see how it's somewhat of a chain where NoVA bleeds into the northern edge of the Shenandoahs and the southern edge of same bleeds into the Southwest, but the final result is kind of a mess.  I'd guess I'd probably prefer giving the SW to the southern district, and giving NoVA the Northern Neck instead.
* In NC, we've got three major metros (Triangle, Triad, and Charlotte), and I'd prefer they each get their own district (which is why the giant Eastern NC doesn't actually bother me).  Probably put the Triad in with Blue Ridge rather than in with Charlotte?  
* I'm more or less fine with Wisconsin, but I also wonder about putting Madison in with Milwaukee rather than Sheboygan/Fox River/Green Bay.  I guess that's more of a judgment call along the lines of what you articulated with Missouri, where either E/W or N/S are reasonable.

I can't think of anything else that really bothers me; obviously one could quibble over a county or two here or there but the basic shapes seem good.

Thanks.

Your first dot point raises an interesting question. I didn't use race as a CoI, but one certainly could. If I did, it would make a more compact Atlanta district by picking out those counties with significant black population (eg Fulton, Douglas, DeKalb, Clayton, Rockdale, Newton) within the metro. Would that do better at gaining a plebiscite? If so, perhaps something like the Minority County Cluster should be applied.

That same point also raises your concerns with PA. Yet if VRA concerns come into play, it would seem that the best result for minority candidates would be a district with Philly by itself where blacks make up a plurality of the population.

For IN I looked at those areas that were tied to Chicago as much as Indianapolis. Certainly the NW corner, South Bend and the western edge fit. Purdue seems to look as much to either center, so I kept it with the north. Ft Wayne is a border line case but feels more like a northern IN city from my experience. The guidelines seemed to make it clear that shape didn't matter that much for this exercise.

I agree that VA was a challenge and it would have been much easier with three districts since then NoVa could sit by itself, but population needs require more. The SW is the least like the rest of central and southern VA, and has the natural connection along I-81 to the Shenandoah Valley.

NC is often described in terms of the mountains, piedmont, and coastal plain. I found it hard to go against that. If you think a plebiscite would fail if the Triad was in with Charlotte, then I could rethink it, but I'm also thinking that Asheville would rather just be with the mountain counties.

I've spent a lot of time in WI and have family there to boot. People often see the political angle, but economically the cities along Lake Michigan are generally older industrial ones you can find all along the Great Lakes. Once you get inland the cities bear more resemblance to small town Midwestern communities with agricultural roots, though Madison has grown quite large due to the Capitol and university.

[traininthedistance]

Thanks.

Your first dot point raises an interesting question. I didn't use race as a CoI, but one certainly could. If I did, it would make a more compact Atlanta district by picking out those counties with significant black population (eg Fulton, Gwinnett, DeKalb, Clayton, Rockdale, Newton) within the metro. Would that do better at gaining a plebiscite? If so, perhaps something like the Minority County Cluster should be applied.

That same point also raises your concerns with PA. Yet if VRA concerns come into play, it would seem that the best result for minority candidates would be a district with Philly by itself where blacks make up a plurality of the population.

For IN I looked at those areas that were tied to Chicago as much as Indianapolis. Certainly the NW corner, South Bend and the western edge fit. Purdue seems to look as much to either center, so I kept it with the north. Ft Wayne is a border line case but feels more like a northern IN city from my experience. The guidelines seemed to make it clear that shape didn't matter that much for this exercise.

I agree that VA was a challenge and it would have been much easier with three districts since then NoVa could sit by itself, but population needs require more. The SW is the least like the rest of central and southern VA, and has the natural connection along I-81 to the Shenandoah Valley.

NC is often described in terms of the mountains, piedmont, and coastal plain. I found it hard to go against that. If you think a plebiscite would fail if the Triad was in with Charlotte, then I could rethink it, but I'm also thinking that Asheville would rather just be with the mountain counties.

I've spent a lot of time in WI and have family there to boot. People often see the political angle, but economically the cities along Lake Michigan are generally older industrial ones you can find all along the Great Lakes. Once you get inland the cities bear more resemblance to small town Midwestern communities with agricultural roots, though Madison has grown quite large due to the Capitol and university.

Yeah... PA, GA, and MI all have similar issues of how tightly to draw the core, but I don't think I have the time to really sort through my thoughts on that tonight.  Hold that thought, I'll get back to it soon.

Your explanation of WI sounds convincing and I'l happy to go along with it.

As for Virginia, that's pretty much the explanation I was expecting, and I guess my rejoinder would be that, for all the SW is somewhat dissimilar to the rest of south and central VA, it's far more dissimilar to NoVA.  I'll also refer again to media markets, which I've been leaning on for some of the maps here, and which seem to indicate that perhaps Roanoke and Lynchburg shouldn't be separated:



Taking those regions (and their concordance with metro areas, UCCs, etc.) as building blocks, it seems easiest to sort them roughly as thus:



Deviations 865,177.  One could possibly put the Charlottesville area in the north, which would lower the deviations.

On a similar note, the North Carolina media markets do cross the Piedmont/mountains a couple times, and might actually suggest putting Charlotte in with Asheville and having a tiny Triad district instead... which might be too tiny in fact, haven't plugged it in yet.  Eh, I dunno.

[jimrtex]

AZ (2)
   AZ-Gila and Rim 2575K
   AZ-Maricopa 3817K

I would consider letting Pinal County switch.

I would propose the following names:

Arizona
Grand Canyon
Grand Canyon State

Phoenix
Valley of the Sun

With so few counties, and their large area, there could be hearings in each county seat, as well as the Navajo, Hopi, Tohono O'odham, Fort Apache, and San Carlos Indian reservations.   Perhaps also, Mesa, Scottsdale, Sun City, Goodyear, and Colorado City.

[muon2]

AZ (2)
   AZ-Gila and Rim 2575K
   AZ-Maricopa 3817K

I would consider letting Pinal County switch.

I would propose the following names:

Arizona
Grand Canyon
Grand Canyon State

Phoenix
Valley of the Sun

With so few counties, and their large area, there could be hearings in each county seat, as well as the Navajo, Hopi, Tohono O'odham, Fort Apache, and San Carlos Indian reservations.   Perhaps also, Mesa, Scottsdale, Sun City, Goodyear, and Colorado City.

Another arrangement I considered is using Pima, Santa Cruz, Cochise, Yuma, and La Paz as district. There's no connection between Pima and Yuma but the guidelines said contiguity was enough. The remainder is just below the upper limit set by the population of CO. Then you could name them Grand Canyon and Sonora.

[muon2]

I looked at the GA VRA issue. Without splitting Fulton, I can't get over 50% BVAP in the Atlanta metro. However, a district with Fulton, Clayton, Dekalb, Douglas, Henry, Newton and Rockdale is 2390K with 46.1% BVAP and 39.7% WVAP. It voted 68-31 for Obama in 2008.

That leaves the rest of N GA with 4256K and S GA stays the same at 3041K.

It is a better population balance and it splits the metro for a clear CoI. Would it be better in a plebiscite?

[jimrtex]

And the districts with their populations:

CA (10)
   CA-Shasta 3368K
   CA-San Pablo Bay 3845K
   CA-Santa Cruz 4308K
   CA-San Joaquin Valley 4129K
   CA-San Emigdio 2538K (including LAC areas north and west of LA including pockets within LA)
   CA-San Gabriel 4735K (the area east and south of LA including the Torrance pocket)
   CA-Los Angeles 3793K (just the city)
   CA-Santa Ana 3010K
   CA-San Bernardino 4258K
   CA-Palomar 3270K

Does San Emigdio swing around to include Claremont and Pomona?

How far north does the Torrance pocket go?  Inglewood?  Culver City?

[muon2]

And the districts with their populations:

CA (10)
   CA-Shasta 3368K
   CA-San Pablo Bay 3845K
   CA-Santa Cruz 4308K
   CA-San Joaquin Valley 4129K
   CA-San Emigdio 2538K (including LAC areas north and west of LA including pockets within LA)
   CA-San Gabriel 4735K (the area east and south of LA including the Torrance pocket)
   CA-Los Angeles 3793K (just the city)
   CA-Santa Ana 3010K
   CA-San Bernardino 4258K
   CA-Palomar 3270K

Does San Emigdio swing around to include Claremont and Pomona?

How far north does the Torrance pocket go?  Inglewood?  Culver City?

I used the Census CCDs in LAC to define the districts. San Emigdio has the following CCDs less the city of LA:
North Antelope Valley
South Antelope Valley
Newhall
San Fernando Valley
Agoura Hills-Malibu
Los Angeles (which includes Culver City among other communities)
Santa Monica

San Gabriel is the following CCDs:
Pasadena
Upper San Gabriel Valley
East San Gabriel Valley
Southwest San Gabriel Valley
South Gate-East Los Angeles
Whittier
Downey-Norwalk
Long Beach-Lakewood
Compton
Inglewood
South Bay Cities
Torrance
Palos Verdes

[jimrtex]

And the districts with their populations:

CA (10)
   CA-Shasta 3368K
   CA-San Pablo Bay 3845K
   CA-Santa Cruz 4308K
   CA-San Joaquin Valley 4129K
   CA-San Emigdio 2538K (including LAC areas north and west of LA including pockets within LA)
   CA-San Gabriel 4735K (the area east and south of LA including the Torrance pocket)
   CA-Los Angeles 3793K (just the city)
   CA-Santa Ana 3010K
   CA-San Bernardino 4258K
   CA-Palomar 3270K

Does San Emigdio swing around to include Claremont and Pomona?

How far north does the Torrance pocket go?  Inglewood?  Culver City?

I used the Census CCDs in LAC to define the districts. San Emigdio has the following CCDs less the city of LA:
North Antelope Valley
South Antelope Valley
Newhall
San Fernando Valley
Agoura Hills-Malibu
Los Angeles (which includes Culver City among other communities)
Santa Monica

San Gabriel is the following CCDs:
Pasadena
Upper San Gabriel Valley
East San Gabriel Valley
Southwest San Gabriel Valley
South Gate-East Los Angeles
Whittier
Downey-Norwalk
Long Beach-Lakewood
Compton
Inglewood
South Bay Cities
Torrance
Palos Verdes

San Ferndando Valley CCD includes Burbank and Glendale.  That is the population I couldn't find.

I tried to do a two-way split of Los Angeles County in order to get a 2nd district in Northern California.   But that ended up having to include Marin and San Joaquin in the northern districts.  There just aren't enough people for two districts.   The "Northern Coast" has to take in everything in the Central Valley north of Sacramento, leaving the other district as Greater Sacramento (Sacramento, Stockton, and Davis).

I think my alternative will be 3 districts wholly in Los Angeles County.

[ilikeverin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What?  No.  No Hoosier would accept a district named Hoosier for only part of the state.  "Wabash" is an obvious replacement.

[muon2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What?  No.  No Hoosier would accept a district named Hoosier for only part of the state.  "Wabash" is an obvious replacement.

My experience is that few people from Gary to South Bend refer to themselves Hoosiers. They are in the orbit of Chicago. Northern IN is more likely to root for Purdue or Notre Dame than for the IU Hoosiers. This quote is 20 years old, but I find it still is relevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.