Weighted Voting For Congress
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:50:02 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Weighted Voting For Congress
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
Author Topic: Weighted Voting For Congress  (Read 20806 times)
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: July 17, 2014, 09:22:13 PM »

If Ventura was given its choice of district:

(1) Silicon Valley-Central Coast;
(2) San Joaquin Valley;
(3) Orange County;
(4,5) One of the suburban LA districts;

which would they choose?

Suburban Los Angeles, absolutely. There's not even any question in that regard. Ventura County is suburban Los Angeles. Orange County would be awkward because of non-contiguity but not terrible. The San Joaquin Valley would make very little sense but it would still be better than a connection with San Jose.

Rank these:

[ ] San Gabriel&Antelope Valleys, includes Lancaster-Palmdale, Santa Clarita, San Gabriel valley including Pasadena, plus Glendale and Burbank.

[ ] City of Los Angeles, includes the city plus enclaves such as Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and the city of San Fernando, and the area of western LA County (Malibu on north to Ventura County).

[ ] Los Angeles South, includes suburbs to the south of LA and the San Gabriel valleys, on both sides of the city of LA's harbor extension (eg Inglewood, Torrance, Palos Verde, East Los Angeles, Whittier, Long Beach, Compton, Bellflower, etc.

[ ] Silicon Valley-Central Coast;

[ ] San Joaquin Valley;

[ ] Orange County;
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: July 17, 2014, 09:54:45 PM »

If Ventura was given its choice of district:

(1) Silicon Valley-Central Coast;
(2) San Joaquin Valley;
(3) Orange County;
(4,5) One of the suburban LA districts;

which would they choose?

Suburban Los Angeles, absolutely. There's not even any question in that regard. Ventura County is suburban Los Angeles. Orange County would be awkward because of non-contiguity but not terrible. The San Joaquin Valley would make very little sense but it would still be better than a connection with San Jose.

Which of these two options would make more sense to you for the LA area:

Option A (keep LA county whole)
1) SLO, SB, Ventura, Orange (about 1K over population but justifiable)
2) Antelope Valley, San Gabriel Valley, Agoura Hills, and communities included inside LA city
3) City of LA
4) Torrance pocket, Los Angeles Valley (East LA to Long Beach)

Option B (keep Orange separate)
1) SLO, SB, Ventura, Antelope Valley, Agoura Hills, Torrance pocket, and communities in LAC
2) San Gabriel Valley, Los Angeles Valley
3) City of LA
4) Orange

Option B is ideal.

Rank these:

[2] San Gabriel&Antelope Valleys, includes Lancaster-Palmdale, Santa Clarita, San Gabriel valley including Pasadena, plus Glendale and Burbank.

[1] City of Los Angeles, includes the city plus enclaves such as Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and the city of San Fernando, and the area of western LA County (Malibu on north to Ventura County).

[3] Los Angeles South, includes suburbs to the south of LA and the San Gabriel valleys, on both sides of the city of LA's harbor extension (eg Inglewood, Torrance, Palos Verde, East Los Angeles, Whittier, Long Beach, Compton, Bellflower, etc.

[6] Silicon Valley-Central Coast;

[5] San Joaquin Valley;

[4] Orange County;

The first three aren't exactly interchangeable, but I'd certainly accept a different ordering. The latter three, on the other hand, are fairly clear.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: July 17, 2014, 10:34:31 PM »
« Edited: July 17, 2014, 10:57:56 PM by muon2 »

Here's a TX plan based on jimrtex's suggestion. Everything fits the range. Is a district from El Paso to Corpus going to survive a plebiscite?



Alamo, 3875K, O'08 52.1%
Rio Grande, 3468K, O'08 57.7%
Permian Basin, 2901K, O'08 30.5%
Fort Worth, 3080K, O'08 38.8%
Dallas, 3616K, O'08 48.7%
Piney Woods, 4114K, O'08 34.3%
Houston,  4092K, O'08 50.8%
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: July 18, 2014, 06:35:59 AM »


That then leaves the question as to how the Atlanta metro should split. The metro split you suggest is not based on any CoI, so I'm think some effort should go to see where there might be a CoI that keeps the pieces within the 2/3 - 4/3 quota range.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The north-south boundary in GA is pretty well accepted and runs along the fall line that separates the Piedmont from the Coastal Plain. The mountains of the north form a much smaller division. The fall line runs from Columbus through Macon to Augusta. I used the metro areas of the fall line as the northern edge of the south, which also kept the Black Belt intact in the southern district.

The remainder becomes the northern two districts. Merriwether. Pike and Lamar are on the southern edge of the Atlanta metro as much as Pickens and Dawson are on the northern edge. They are all semi-rural counties in the metro with commuting populations. If the population split were acceptable, I would have put Rome, Dalton, Athens, and everything else north and east of the Atlanta metro in one district and the metro in another, but I can't.
In 1950 Atlanta metro consisted of Fulton (473K) and DeKalb (136K), and barely Cobb (61K, but up from 38K in 1940).

By 1970 it was still the same Fulton (607K), DeKalb (483K), and Cobb (196K).  From 1960 to 1990, Fulton kind of stagnated as available land for single family filled up, and family sizes declined as result of end of baby boom, and maturation of baby boom families.   Since then it has experienced considerable growth, which must be from higher density development, and singles preferring to live nearer their job and rent, than commuting from nearly Rome or Macon.

In 1980, Gwinnett and Clayton reached past 100K:

Fulton 589K (a small drop); DeKalb 483K; Cobb 297K; Gwinnett 166K; and Clayton 150K.  Gwinnett is about 3 times the size of Clayton, so Clayton might reasonably be considered the 4th county.

By 1990 there were no new counties over 100K.  Fulton 648K, DeKalb 545K, Cobb 447K, Gwinnet 352K, and Clayton 259K.

By 2010, there were 10 new counties of over 100K, with populations doubling, tripling, even quadrupling (Forsyth).

Meanwhile, the core counties had barely managed to increase by 50%: Fulton 920K, DeKalb 692K, Cobb 688K, and Clayton 259K.   Gwinnett with plenty of space now has 805K.  The connection of Gwinnett is also somewhat accidental due to Fulton's odd shape after its annexation  of a rural county in the 1930s.

So the basis of my district is the core 4 counties of the Atlanta metro, along with counties that fit between them: Douglas, Fayette, and Henry.  Even if there is some local knowledge of where the Fall Line is, a large city like Atlanta overwhelms that, as siting of cities does not depend on waterwheels.  I think to the other counties to the south, that the areas to the north are seen as quite remote.

I would let any county other than Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett to vote on their district.

Incidentally, there is a fairly serious effort to reconstitute Milton County, which is the northern area including Alpharetta and Sandy Springs.  It faces a limit of 159 counties in the Georgia Constitution.  As a sweetener, they would permit a merged Atlanta-Fulton government, similar to Columbus-Muscogee and Athens-Clarke.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Does race form a geographic COI?


This was the question I posed a couple of weeks ago to train. He was using media markets while I was using census-based metro areas. Atlanta metro is large so the question of internal CoI comes up when looking for a split. Areas of a high proportion of a demographic group are very much what the states have used and the courts supported for CoI. Race is one of those demographic groups that has meaning in Atlanta. I used a rational basis that could get public support, and why not name it after the most prominent resident recognized with a national holiday.
[/quote]
The Gingles test requires racially-polarized voting.  If there is an extreme political difference, can the two groups be considered to form a single community?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: July 18, 2014, 07:28:24 AM »

WA Columbia is underpopulated.  Moving northward to include Lewis and the coast could put it into range, as would an alternative of a very Seattle-centric district (4 counties).
A split of the three county Sea-Tac UCC is quite even (3440K to 3288K), but I don't see the need to force the northern Puget Sound with eastern WA. The shift of Thurston and the Olympic Peninsula (except Kitsap) is within range. It seems like it would make more sense to keep Thurston with Mason and Lewis, but perhaps a native from the area can provide a more expert view.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I think this is a case where a small deviation outside of range is justified. MN has a population that is only 1.562 of the quota, so both districts will be undersized. We spent a lot of time on the UCC definition and splitting it when the Itasca district is at 0.660 of the quota seems against the spirit of the guidelines.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
The counties that border KS north of Joplin are more Plains than Ozarks, but Vernon could go either way. Moving Vernon brings Ozarks to 2263.8K or 0.667, just inside the quota. I wouldn't shift Bates which is much more in KC's CoI.

There is a rivalry between KC and St Louis with the state capital and Mizzou forming the neutral zone. The Ozarks would go with St Louis in a two-way split (they are Cards fans), but that results in a KC piece that is too small. The cultural split is really between the south and the north as seen in the periodic threads that argue about whether MO is southern or midwestern. The existence of a Little Dixie region north of Columbia is another clue that the south-north split better captures the state's divisions.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: July 18, 2014, 07:48:41 AM »


That then leaves the question as to how the Atlanta metro should split. The metro split you suggest is not based on any CoI, so I'm think some effort should go to see where there might be a CoI that keeps the pieces within the 2/3 - 4/3 quota range.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The north-south boundary in GA is pretty well accepted and runs along the fall line that separates the Piedmont from the Coastal Plain. The mountains of the north form a much smaller division. The fall line runs from Columbus through Macon to Augusta. I used the metro areas of the fall line as the northern edge of the south, which also kept the Black Belt intact in the southern district.

The remainder becomes the northern two districts. Merriwether. Pike and Lamar are on the southern edge of the Atlanta metro as much as Pickens and Dawson are on the northern edge. They are all semi-rural counties in the metro with commuting populations. If the population split were acceptable, I would have put Rome, Dalton, Athens, and everything else north and east of the Atlanta metro in one district and the metro in another, but I can't.
In 1950 Atlanta metro consisted of Fulton (473K) and DeKalb (136K), and barely Cobb (61K, but up from 38K in 1940).

By 1970 it was still the same Fulton (607K), DeKalb (483K), and Cobb (196K).  From 1960 to 1990, Fulton kind of stagnated as available land for single family filled up, and family sizes declined as result of end of baby boom, and maturation of baby boom families.   Since then it has experienced considerable growth, which must be from higher density development, and singles preferring to live nearer their job and rent, than commuting from nearly Rome or Macon.

In 1980, Gwinnett and Clayton reached past 100K:

Fulton 589K (a small drop); DeKalb 483K; Cobb 297K; Gwinnett 166K; and Clayton 150K.  Gwinnett is about 3 times the size of Clayton, so Clayton might reasonably be considered the 4th county.

By 1990 there were no new counties over 100K.  Fulton 648K, DeKalb 545K, Cobb 447K, Gwinnet 352K, and Clayton 259K.

By 2010, there were 10 new counties of over 100K, with populations doubling, tripling, even quadrupling (Forsyth).

Meanwhile, the core counties had barely managed to increase by 50%: Fulton 920K, DeKalb 692K, Cobb 688K, and Clayton 259K.   Gwinnett with plenty of space now has 805K.  The connection of Gwinnett is also somewhat accidental due to Fulton's odd shape after its annexation  of a rural county in the 1930s.

So the basis of my district is the core 4 counties of the Atlanta metro, along with counties that fit between them: Douglas, Fayette, and Henry.  Even if there is some local knowledge of where the Fall Line is, a large city like Atlanta overwhelms that, as siting of cities does not depend on waterwheels.  I think to the other counties to the south, that the areas to the north are seen as quite remote.

I would let any county other than Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett to vote on their district.

Incidentally, there is a fairly serious effort to reconstitute Milton County, which is the northern area including Alpharetta and Sandy Springs.  It faces a limit of 159 counties in the Georgia Constitution.  As a sweetener, they would permit a merged Atlanta-Fulton government, similar to Columbus-Muscogee and Athens-Clarke.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Does race form a geographic COI?


This was the question I posed a couple of weeks ago to train. He was using media markets while I was using census-based metro areas. Atlanta metro is large so the question of internal CoI comes up when looking for a split. Areas of a high proportion of a demographic group are very much what the states have used and the courts supported for CoI. Race is one of those demographic groups that has meaning in Atlanta. I used a rational basis that could get public support, and why not name it after the most prominent resident recognized with a national holiday.
The Gingles test requires racially-polarized voting.  If there is an extreme political difference, can the two groups be considered to form a single community?
[/quote]

There are plenty of counties where there are disparate and sometimes antagonistic political groups within. There are counties that are divided by media markets or commuting patterns, but still we try to seek a pattern that describes a dominant feature. Where a single race or ethnic group dominates a geographic area, most geographers would say that they form a community of interest. I wasn't trying to identify an area that would require VRA treatment, but instead identify a natural and large constituency within the Atlanta UCC to form a split. Also, from the political standpoint, guideline 5 would suggest that if there is a reasonable split that provides a Dem district and two GOP districts, that should be preferred over a split with three GOP districts.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: July 18, 2014, 08:47:08 AM »

WA Columbia is underpopulated.  Moving northward to include Lewis and the coast could put it into range, as would an alternative of a very Seattle-centric district (4 counties).
A split of the three county Sea-Tac UCC is quite even (3440K to 3288K), but I don't see the need to force the northern Puget Sound with eastern WA. The shift of Thurston and the Olympic Peninsula (except Kitsap) is within range. It seems like it would make more sense to keep Thurston with Mason and Lewis, but perhaps a native from the area can provide a more expert view.
I was kind of hoping that Thurston and Mason could be kept in a Puget Sound district.   I would put Bremerton with Sea-Tac.  Its exclusion from the UCC is due to largely to the urbanized area not being able to jump across large bodies of water, and the UA from Tacoma just barely reaching into Kitsap County.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
The counties that border KS north of Joplin are more Plains than Ozarks, but Vernon could go either way. Moving Vernon brings Ozarks to 2263.8K or 0.667, just inside the quota. I wouldn't shift Bates which is much more in KC's CoI.

There is a rivalry between KC and St Louis with the state capital and Mizzou forming the neutral zone. The Ozarks would go with St Louis in a two-way split (they are Cards fans), but that results in a KC piece that is too small. The cultural split is really between the south and the north as seen in the periodic threads that argue about whether MO is southern or midwestern. The existence of a Little Dixie region north of Columbia is another clue that the south-north split better captures the state's divisions.
[/quote]
Cards fans are everywhere.  St.Louis had a very extensive farm system, and the A's didn't move to KC until the 1950s and left after little more than a decade.  The Browns were laughable, so Cards were the closest major league club for 2/3 or more of the country.

I thought Little Dixie was more along the Mississippi - like in Hannibal?, and that part of its decline in significance was due to capture of counties like St.Charles and Lincoln by St.Louis?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: July 18, 2014, 09:56:57 AM »

WA Columbia is underpopulated.  Moving northward to include Lewis and the coast could put it into range, as would an alternative of a very Seattle-centric district (4 counties).
A split of the three county Sea-Tac UCC is quite even (3440K to 3288K), but I don't see the need to force the northern Puget Sound with eastern WA. The shift of Thurston and the Olympic Peninsula (except Kitsap) is within range. It seems like it would make more sense to keep Thurston with Mason and Lewis, but perhaps a native from the area can provide a more expert view.
I was kind of hoping that Thurston and Mason could be kept in a Puget Sound district.   I would put Bremerton with Sea-Tac.  Its exclusion from the UCC is due to largely to the urbanized area not being able to jump across large bodies of water, and the UA from Tacoma just barely reaching into Kitsap County.
Technically you could do what you say to just squeak over the lower bound, but that then begs the question about CoI since Lewis, like Mason and Thurston, is part of the Sea-Tac CSA. If Lewis moves, then how would one logically argue that Mason shouldn't. And once both Lewis and Mason move it is logical that their natural central city Olympia should move with them as well. From a CoI  view I would suggest that either those three counties stay together, either with an exception so they can stay with the CSA or as a group with the rest of the Olympic Peninsula.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
The counties that border KS north of Joplin are more Plains than Ozarks, but Vernon could go either way. Moving Vernon brings Ozarks to 2263.8K or 0.667, just inside the quota. I wouldn't shift Bates which is much more in KC's CoI.

There is a rivalry between KC and St Louis with the state capital and Mizzou forming the neutral zone. The Ozarks would go with St Louis in a two-way split (they are Cards fans), but that results in a KC piece that is too small. The cultural split is really between the south and the north as seen in the periodic threads that argue about whether MO is southern or midwestern. The existence of a Little Dixie region north of Columbia is another clue that the south-north split better captures the state's divisions.
[/quote]
Cards fans are everywhere.  St.Louis had a very extensive farm system, and the A's didn't move to KC until the 1950s and left after little more than a decade.  The Browns were laughable, so Cards were the closest major league club for 2/3 or more of the country.

I thought Little Dixie was more along the Mississippi - like in Hannibal?, and that part of its decline in significance was due to capture of counties like St.Charles and Lincoln by St.Louis?
[/quote]


Here's a good map of historical Little Dixie according to its web site. Hannibal sits just past the northern edge. Over the years the whole region has become more Midwestern, especially losing ground on the west to KC. There are still remnants of the culture in a half a dozen central counties north of the Missouri river.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: July 18, 2014, 02:31:20 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another way to address the population is to keep Miami-Dade and Broward together. The whole UCC including Palm Beach is too large, so it has to be split. Miami-Dade and Broward are the two main counties and one can park Monroe there, too, if one likes. The best shift to the south is to move the whole Bradenton-Saratota-Port Charlotte area, and at the same time bring the rural inland counties along with the others adjacent to Lake Okeechobee. That permits Polk to stay with Tampa Bay which is better fit than with Orlando.

The result is the following districts:
Appalachicola, 3326K, O'08 41.8%
Tampa Bay, 3527K, O'08 51.2%
Cape Canaveral, 3831K, O'08 50.6%
Okeechobee, 3800K, O'08 51.3%
Everglades, 4318K, O'08 62.1%
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: July 18, 2014, 05:09:48 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This works better than trying to keep the three major urban centers separate, which results in either Charlotte or Greensboro stretching to Fayette-Wilmington and the other joining with Asheville. It's easier to start with the coastal areas as a unit. This is the plan I came up with.

Catawba 3369K; 2008 pres: D 45.8%, R 53.1%, O 1.1%
Piedmont 3522K; 2008 pres: D 52.7%, R 46.4%, O 0.9%
Pamlico 2644K; 2008 pres: D 50.4%, R 48.9%, O 0.7%

Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: July 18, 2014, 11:30:49 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Philly UCC with 5 counties is within the range for a district and forms a cohesive CoI. The Harrisburg-Reading district is barely over the minimum, but can pick up the Allentown UCC. If the western district is defined by counties primarily west of the continental divide, the remaining part is slightly too small, but is above the minimum if Cambria-Somerset is shifted east. That results in the map below.



Allegheny 3326K; 2008 pres: D 50.4%, R 48.5%, O 1.1%
Upper Susquehanna 2420K; 2008 pres: D 47.2%, R 51.5%, O 1.3%
Lower Susquehanna 2947K; 2008 pres: D 47.6%, R 51.2%, O 1.1%
Schyulkill 4009K; 2008 pres: D 66.5%, R 32.7%, O 0.8%
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: July 19, 2014, 07:05:13 AM »
« Edited: July 19, 2014, 07:14:25 AM by muon2 »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Moving all counties except for the 5 that make up the Boston UCC leaves a Cape to Berkshires district that exceeds the minimum.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Brooklyn is a well-justified exception. Shifting Delaware puts the Catskills together and gets Ontario just inside the range.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I still don't like the split of Union from Essex in train's map, but I think there's a solution I like in another comment he made.

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.

The Edison division can become the Jersey Shore district and is within range. To fix the southern district I note that Warren county isn't part of the NY UCC, but is part of the Allentown UCC and like South Jersey is oriented towards PA. Shifting that would be enough, but looking at population, I can move Hunterdon as well which is only loosely connected to the Newark division. If one wanted to further smooth the populations, they could shift Sussex as well. Here's the NJ map I come up with.



Palisades 4003K; 2008 pres: D 60.7%, R 38.5%, O 0.8%
Jersey Shore 2340K; 2008 pres: D 50.2%, R 48.6%, O 1.1%
Delaware (NJ) 2449K; 2008 pres: D 58.7%, R 40.0%, O 1.2%
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: July 21, 2014, 06:11:41 PM »

The Edison division can become the Jersey Shore district and is within range. To fix the southern district I note that Warren county isn't part of the NY UCC, but is part of the Allentown UCC and like South Jersey is oriented towards PA. Shifting that would be enough, but looking at population, I can move Hunterdon as well which is only loosely connected to the Newark division. If one wanted to further smooth the populations, they could shift Sussex as well. Here's the NJ map I come up with.



Palisades 4003K; 2008 pres: D 60.7%, R 38.5%, O 0.8%
Jersey Shore 2340K; 2008 pres: D 50.2%, R 48.6%, O 1.1%
Delaware (NJ) 2449K; 2008 pres: D 58.7%, R 40.0%, O 1.2%

I quite like this map, FWIW.  The biggest question is of course whether Hunterdon and Warren would like it.  And putting Sussex in the Delaware district, while a little weird by current CoI standards, would do a good job of reconstituting the old West Jersey:

 

Though, while Warren is part of the Allentown metro and thus is nominally oriented toward PA, it's not like the county is entirely separate from the NYC orbit: the eastern portion is more NYC exurbs and the Allentown connection comes in mainly through Phillipsburg; and Allentown is part of the New York CSA after all.
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: July 21, 2014, 06:48:05 PM »

Since I abhor dull names for this exercise, I prefer geographic names that would be identifiable by residents of the state even if they are not inclusive of the entire area. Naming the district after a famous person from the district would beat a dull name here. Directional names should only be used when they are part of a specific geographic feature, and city or county names should be reserved for districts that comprise only the city or county in question. My revised GA plan based on the above CoI would be as follows.



Kennesaw Mt: 4253K, Obama 34.7%, McCain 64.4%
King: 2393K, 46.1% BVAP, Obama 68.6%, McCain 30.8%
Ocmulgee: 3041K, Obama 45.6%, McCain 53.8%

I certainly think this would be an acceptable Georgia; and quite possibly preferred if we're taking the VRA into account.

Regarding what I was going to say earlier: I noticed that the Philly, Detroit, and Atlanta metros all were somewhat similar in size- 7th, 11th, and 12th in current rankings, and if you remove the New Jersey portion of Philly they're very close indeed.  All are in between one and two districts at this size, ideally.  And, in addition, all of the three have large black populations that support between 1 and 3 VRA districts at our current 435-district size.

So it would seem to make sense to treat them somewhat similarly on these maps, and either draw them all with expansive borders, or all with close-in borders.  But there are differences as well: Philly's one black-majority district is the result of a much smaller AA population than Georgia's three districts; and there is of course the accident of very different historical political boundaries:

*Philly has the most expansive city boundaries, being a combined city-county; Atlanta is very penned-in and takes up about 10 percent of the metro area; Detroit is in the middle...
*In terms of central county sizes, Wayne is the most expansive, and Fulton again is the smallest, both relatively and absolutely.

There's also the larger philosophical question of how much animosity there is between the (largely AA) central cities, and the (largely white) suburbs, and whether we want to be encouraging the suburbs to identify as a separate unit from the central cities, or as one unified metro area.  Obviously my bias is toward a rapprochement between city and suburb and a recognition that urban areas don't always end at the exact town lines (and that the suburbs need the central city just as much as the city needs the suburbs), which I hope explains my horror at cordoning off Philly in particular- at least, whatever can't be simply explained by the fact that Philadelphia County is really underpopulated, beyond jimrtex's original guidelines.

I guess, when looking at those three areas, I'd say that it's somewhat tricky to figure out how to draw the lines when the metros are obviously too large for one and too small for two districts, so at the end of the day while I'd like to try and be consistent in my principles you have to look at the differences between them, both in terms of their internal composition and their neighbors.  The PA portion of the Philly district is not too overpopulated, and is surrounded by other metros, (especially if you slice off Berks, which is legitimately separate), so I'd go with maximum inclusivity.  I'm more willing to draw tightly around Wayne County, though, because it's a tougher judgment call as to which suburban counties to include, and also in recognition of the sad fact that the city/suburb animosity is particularly keen there. 

As for Georgia, my original map went for a bit of a middle ground (which also happened to minimize deviations) since Fulton/DeKalb/Clayton would be too small and the entire metro would be too large.  Though, Atlanta is also the metro with the highest AA population and thus the one case where the VRA could plausibly be triggered (the Detroit and Philly black populations just aren't quite large enough I think), so upon further reflection your most recent map, with its black-plurality Atlanta & south core, is also a solid option.  At this population size there are very few genuine opportunities for minority districts, so it makes sense to take the opportunity here.  (Where else even is there?  I guess NYC, Chicago, LA, South Texas, and Miami?  And none of those are quite comparable, excepting possibly Miami-Dade.)

Bah, this is all quite a meandering hash.  Hope I made a little bit of sense at least.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: July 21, 2014, 07:19:53 PM »

The Edison division can become the Jersey Shore district and is within range. To fix the southern district I note that Warren county isn't part of the NY UCC, but is part of the Allentown UCC and like South Jersey is oriented towards PA. Shifting that would be enough, but looking at population, I can move Hunterdon as well which is only loosely connected to the Newark division. If one wanted to further smooth the populations, they could shift Sussex as well. Here's the NJ map I come up with.



Palisades 4003K; 2008 pres: D 60.7%, R 38.5%, O 0.8%
Jersey Shore 2340K; 2008 pres: D 50.2%, R 48.6%, O 1.1%
Delaware (NJ) 2449K; 2008 pres: D 58.7%, R 40.0%, O 1.2%

I quite like this map, FWIW.  The biggest question is of course whether Hunterdon and Warren would like it.  And putting Sussex in the Delaware district, while a little weird by current CoI standards, would do a good job of reconstituting the old West Jersey:

 

Though, while Warren is part of the Allentown metro and thus is nominally oriented toward PA, it's not like the county is entirely separate from the NYC orbit: the eastern portion is more NYC exurbs and the Allentown connection comes in mainly through Phillipsburg; and Allentown is part of the New York CSA after all.

Thanks for the comments, since you can see I really do try to integrate good ideas. I went back and forth on Sussex, since my memories from 30 years ago had virtually no NYC exurban area out there. If you think that there's still a good case to keep the Delaware Water Gap with the rest of the new West Jersey (Morris is obviously too much in the Newark metro) I can move it. The fact that the NYC metro is so large and has to be split, along with the fact that the NYC CSA extends into PA, makes it easier to split the western counties from Newark.

As you can see I came to agree with you on Philly. What do you think of the rest of my PA solution? Allentown may not be an ideal fit for the Lower Susquehanna, but I liked it better there since it allowed me to keep the mountain counties together.

I'm in the process of creating another full US map, this time with PVIs for all the districts, so I appreciate the input.

Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: July 21, 2014, 07:59:01 PM »

Thanks for the comments, since you can see I really do try to integrate good ideas. I went back and forth on Sussex, since my memories from 30 years ago had virtually no NYC exurban area out there. If you think that there's still a good case to keep the Delaware Water Gap with the rest of the new West Jersey (Morris is obviously too much in the Newark metro) I can move it. The fact that the NYC metro is so large and has to be split, along with the fact that the NYC CSA extends into PA, makes it easier to split the western counties from Newark.

As you can see I came to agree with you on Philly. What do you think of the rest of my PA solution? Allentown may not be an ideal fit for the Lower Susquehanna, but I liked it better there since it allowed me to keep the mountain counties together.

I'm in the process of creating another full US map, this time with PVIs for all the districts, so I appreciate the input.

Thanks.

I think I still prefer putting Allentown with Scranton-Wilkes-Barre and the rural Northeast; and south-central PA with the rural Appalachians... but that bothers me a lot less than the Philly split did.  I guess my main pieces of evidence for splitting PA that way would be that Allentown's metro does cross Blue Mountain and include Carbon County, while both Allentown and the Poconos have some extra-peripheral NYC ties; whereas south-central PA and the Alleghenies are (mostly) linked in opposition to those other areas by being Steelers country.  It's not an airtight case, I'll admit; the Steelers connection breaks down in eastern Lancaster and Berks is a plausible connection between Dutch Country and the Lehigh Valley. 

I feel like that's something that would make a good plebiscite; hold SEPA and the West constant, and have people vote on which way to split the other two districts. 
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: July 21, 2014, 08:01:42 PM »


Regarding what I was going to say earlier: I noticed that the Philly, Detroit, and Atlanta metros all were somewhat similar in size- 7th, 11th, and 12th in current rankings, and if you remove the New Jersey portion of Philly they're very close indeed.  All are in between one and two districts at this size, ideally.  And, in addition, all of the three have large black populations that support between 1 and 3 VRA districts at our current 435-district size.

So it would seem to make sense to treat them somewhat similarly on these maps, and either draw them all with expansive borders, or all with close-in borders.  But there are differences as well: Philly's one black-majority district is the result of a much smaller AA population than Georgia's three districts; and there is of course the accident of very different historical political boundaries:

*Philly has the most expansive city boundaries, being a combined city-county; Atlanta is very penned-in and takes up about 10 percent of the metro area; Detroit is in the middle...
*In terms of central county sizes, Wayne is the most expansive, and Fulton again is the smallest, both relatively and absolutely.

There's also the larger philosophical question of how much animosity there is between the (largely AA) central cities, and the (largely white) suburbs, and whether we want to be encouraging the suburbs to identify as a separate unit from the central cities, or as one unified metro area.  Obviously my bias is toward a rapprochement between city and suburb and a recognition that urban areas don't always end at the exact town lines (and that the suburbs need the central city just as much as the city needs the suburbs), which I hope explains my horror at cordoning off Philly in particular- at least, whatever can't be simply explained by the fact that Philadelphia County is really underpopulated, beyond jimrtex's original guidelines.

I guess, when looking at those three areas, I'd say that it's somewhat tricky to figure out how to draw the lines when the metros are obviously too large for one and too small for two districts, so at the end of the day while I'd like to try and be consistent in my principles you have to look at the differences between them, both in terms of their internal composition and their neighbors.  The PA portion of the Philly district is not too overpopulated, and is surrounded by other metros, (especially if you slice off Berks, which is legitimately separate), so I'd go with maximum inclusivity.  I'm more willing to draw tightly around Wayne County, though, because it's a tougher judgment call as to which suburban counties to include, and also in recognition of the sad fact that the city/suburb animosity is particularly keen there. 

As for Georgia, my original map went for a bit of a middle ground (which also happened to minimize deviations) since Fulton/DeKalb/Clayton would be too small and the entire metro would be too large.  Though, Atlanta is also the metro with the highest AA population and thus the one case where the VRA could plausibly be triggered (the Detroit and Philly black populations just aren't quite large enough I think), so upon further reflection your most recent map, with its black-plurality Atlanta & south core, is also a solid option.  At this population size there are very few genuine opportunities for minority districts, so it makes sense to take the opportunity here.  (Where else even is there?  I guess NYC, Chicago, LA, South Texas, and Miami?  And none of those are quite comparable, excepting possibly Miami-Dade.)

Bah, this is all quite a meandering hash.  Hope I made a little bit of sense at least.

Unlike GA where there were core counties with 40%+ and 50%+ BVAPs, Wayne county MI only reaches 39.2% BVAP and I can't justify keeping it apart with its small population. I also can't see adding only one of the adjacent counties from a CoI view since if either Oakland or Macomb is added, so should the other. With that in mind, I took jimrtex's suggestion of shifting the Lansing UCC to the east to get this map.



Mackinac 3400K
Huron 2620K
St Clair 3864K
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: July 21, 2014, 08:04:20 PM »

Unlike GA where there were core counties with 40%+ and 50%+ BVAPs, Wayne county MI only reaches 39.2% BVAP and I can't justify keeping it apart with its small population. I also can't see adding only one of the adjacent counties from a CoI view since if either Oakland or Macomb is added, so should the other. With that in mind, I took jimrtex's suggestion of shifting the Lansing UCC to the east to get this map.



Mackinac 3400K
Huron 2620K
St Clair 3864K

Yeah, in the end that's probably the best way to do the Detroit area.  I had forgotten just how small Wayne actually was; remembering that I think this more expansive three-county district would be preferred.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: July 22, 2014, 03:34:08 PM »

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



IN (2)
   IN-Lake Michigan 2628K
   IN-Hoosier 3856K

What is your thinking on Indiana?  The size and location of Indianapolis make it likely that an asymmetric plan would be required with Indianapolis being placed with the less populous end.  Indianapolis doesn't have enough size to make a good hole for a doughnut, and the north and south don't fit together that well.

So I came up with the following three-region plan.



From the north, you take Gary, Michigan City, South Bend, Elkhart, and Fort Wayne, and start moving south through rural areas.

From the south, you have Evansville, Tell City, and the Louisville and Cincinnati suburbs.

To Indianapolis, you add Anderson and New Castle, which are in the CSA.  And since you're going east, take Muncie and Richmond.

The south is short of population, even for 2/3 of 1/3 of the state population, so it takes in Columbus and Bloomington, even though they could be considered satellites of Indianapolis.  Bartholomew (Columbus) is part of the CSA; Monroe (Bloomington) likely would be except for the university providing jobs (ie the sorts of jobs found in Columbus, can be found in Indianapolis if you can't find one of them in Columbus).  And since the south is still short, you take Terre Haute.  Since Indiana developed north to south from the Ohio River, it makes sense to come up the Wabash.

The northern district is short a little bit for a 2-district plan, so it takes Lafayette and Kokomo, which could also be considered distant satellites of Indianapolis (and might have been placed in the central district in a 3-district plan.

Merging the southern and central districts gives:

Northern Indiana 2686K
Indianapolis and Southern Indiana 3798

History

Indiana gained its 2nd district in 1840, and its 3rd in 1860, as it reached 6th place from 1860 to 1880.   Indiana lost the 3rd district in 1910.  In the midwestern industrial boom after WWII, it made some progress towards gaining the 3rd district back but has since faineded.

Iowa gained its 2nd district in 1870, as it reached its apex of 10th place from 1880 to 1900, slow growth, or even loss of population caused Iowa to lose the 2nd seat in 1960.

Kansas gained its 2nd seat in 1880, which it held until 1930.

Kentucky was part of Virginia, and would have been part of one of Virginia's five districts, perhaps a district that included Kentucky, present-day West Virginia, and Virginia west of the Blue Ridge.  Upon statehood, Kentucky gained its own district.  In 1810, it gained a 2nd district, and by 1830, narrowly missed a 3rd.  It maintained two districts until 1990.

Louisiana gained a 2nd district in 1860, only to lose it in 1870.  It regained a 2nd seat in 1900, which it held until 2010.

Maine was part of Massachusetts until 1820, and constituted one of Massachusetts' three districts.  In 1790, it was just below 2/3 of the average population of districts in multi-district states, but an exception was made because of its physical separation from Massachusetts.

Upon statehood, it received its own district, and Massachusetts dropped to two districts.  Maine achieved its second district in 1830, which it held until 1850.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: July 22, 2014, 08:32:24 PM »


What is your thinking on Indiana?  The size and location of Indianapolis make it likely that an asymmetric plan would be required with Indianapolis being placed with the less populous end.  Indianapolis doesn't have enough size to make a good hole for a doughnut, and the north and south don't fit together that well.

IN has a clear sociological and linguistic division between the north and the rest of the state. I cited an article noting that the northerners even tend to avoid referring to themselves as Hoosiers. I added Terre Haute with a lot of ties to IL. OTOH I put the area just north of Kokomo in the south, based on a loose affiliation with Kokomo and Marion (particularly for Peru).

The linguistic line runs south of Ft Wayne, north of Kokomo, and through Lafayette. It matches the sociology pretty well, too. If I use that for the division, there's just enough population in the Lake Michigan district. You could add rural Warren and Jay based on media coverage, but going further south except along the IL boundary pretty much cuts into the core on central IN.



Lake Michigan (IN) 2450K; 2008 pres: D 51.8%, R 47.2%, O 1.0%
Hoosier (IN) 4034K; 2008 pres: D 48.9%, R 50.0%, O 1.1%
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: July 22, 2014, 10:53:29 PM »

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

MD (2)
   MD-Potomac 2566K
   MD-Chesapeake 3217K

Your map shows Calvert and St. Mary's as part of Potomac, but your numbers appear to include St.Mary's in Chesapeake.   I would place Calvert in Chesapeake, and St.Mary's in Potomac.

The District of Columbia has been included as part of Maryland (and Virginia until 1845).  Initially, the population was quite small, and there was the feeling that those who lived in Georgetown and Alexandria should not lose the right to vote for representatives in Congress, and it did not interfere with Congress's exclusive jurisdiction.  After the 13th Amendment was passed, granting weighted voting rights to delegates from territories, it became quite natural to continue representation, with the understanding that the District was not on the path to statehood as the other territories were.

The population reached its peak share of the combined population in 1940 (26.6%).  Even though the district gained 20.9% to reach its maximum population in 1950, its share had begun to decline as Montgomery and Prince George's doubled during the 1940s, and again during the 1950s.   The district now contains 9.4% of the combined population.

Potomac 3175K
Chesapeake 3201K

History

Maryland (plus DC) has always had two districts.  During long periods of the 19th and early 20th century, it was the district population that kept Maryland from dropping to a single district.  This was another factor in maintaining its inclusion in representation.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: July 22, 2014, 11:17:13 PM »

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

MD (2)
   MD-Potomac 2566K
   MD-Chesapeake 3217K

Your map shows Calvert and St. Mary's as part of Potomac, but your numbers appear to include St.Mary's in Chesapeake.   I would place Calvert in Chesapeake, and St.Mary's in Potomac.

The District of Columbia has been included as part of Maryland (and Virginia until 1845).  Initially, the population was quite small, and there was the feeling that those who lived in Georgetown and Alexandria should not lose the right to vote for representatives in Congress, and it did not interfere with Congress's exclusive jurisdiction.  After the 13th Amendment was passed, granting weighted voting rights to delegates from territories, it became quite natural to continue representation, with the understanding that the District was not on the path to statehood as the other territories were.

The population reached its peak share of the combined population in 1940 (26.6%).  Even though the district gained 20.9% to reach its maximum population in 1950, its share had begun to decline as Montgomery and Prince George's doubled during the 1940s, and again during the 1950s.   The district now contains 9.4% of the combined population.

Potomac 3175K
Chesapeake 3201K

History

Maryland (plus DC) has always had two districts.  During long periods of the 19th and early 20th century, it was the district population that kept Maryland from dropping to a single district.  This was another factor in maintaining its inclusion in representation.

My map was correct and I caught the numeric error after my post. I corrected them for my upcoming v2, along with the addition of DC to Potomac.

Potomac 3263K
Chesapeake 3112K

Calvert is part of the DC metro even if it's too rural to be in the UCC. I see no good reason to shift it to Balto.

Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: July 23, 2014, 07:21:57 AM »

Your map shows Calvert and St. Mary's as part of Potomac, but your numbers appear to include St.Mary's in Chesapeake.   I would place Calvert in Chesapeake, and St.Mary's in Potomac.

Potomac 3175K
Chesapeake 3201K


My map was correct and I caught the numeric error after my post. I corrected them for my upcoming v2, along with the addition of DC to Potomac.

Potomac 3263K
Chesapeake 3112K

Calvert is part of the DC metro even if it's too rural to be in the UCC. I see no good reason to shift it to Balto.
Are they Baltimore and Washington, or Chesapeake and Potomac?

Every other county in the western district includes the Potomac River.   Every other county that Borders Chesapeake Bay is part of the eastern district.

If we were using commuting patterns Ann Arundel and Howard would be part of the Washington MSA.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: July 23, 2014, 11:47:48 AM »
« Edited: July 23, 2014, 12:40:59 PM by muon2 »

Your map shows Calvert and St. Mary's as part of Potomac, but your numbers appear to include St.Mary's in Chesapeake.   I would place Calvert in Chesapeake, and St.Mary's in Potomac.

Potomac 3175K
Chesapeake 3201K


My map was correct and I caught the numeric error after my post. I corrected them for my upcoming v2, along with the addition of DC to Potomac.

Potomac 3263K
Chesapeake 3112K

Calvert is part of the DC metro even if it's too rural to be in the UCC. I see no good reason to shift it to Balto.
Are they Baltimore and Washington, or Chesapeake and Potomac?

Every other county in the western district includes the Potomac River.   Every other county that Borders Chesapeake Bay is part of the eastern district.

If we were using commuting patterns Ann Arundel and Howard would be part of the Washington MSA.

I relied on the Census assignments which puts those two counties in the Baltimore MSA (Feb 2013). That in turn puts the two counties in the Baltimore UCC.

A name that is representative of a district need not apply explicitly to every county in a district. It is meant to be suggestive of the district as a whole and in comparison to other districts in the state.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: July 23, 2014, 04:52:24 PM »

Your map shows Calvert and St. Mary's as part of Potomac, but your numbers appear to include St.Mary's in Chesapeake.   I would place Calvert in Chesapeake, and St.Mary's in Potomac.

Potomac 3175K
Chesapeake 3201K


My map was correct and I caught the numeric error after my post. I corrected them for my upcoming v2, along with the addition of DC to Potomac.

Potomac 3263K
Chesapeake 3112K

Calvert is part of the DC metro even if it's too rural to be in the UCC. I see no good reason to shift it to Balto.
Are they Baltimore and Washington, or Chesapeake and Potomac?

Every other county in the western district includes the Potomac River.   Every other county that Borders Chesapeake Bay is part of the eastern district.

If we were using commuting patterns Ann Arundel and Howard would be part of the Washington MSA.

I relied on the Census assignments which puts those two counties in the Baltimore MSA (Feb 2013). That in turn puts the two counties in the Baltimore UCC.

A name that is representative of a district need not apply explicitly to every county in a district. It is meant to be suggestive of the district as a whole and in comparison to other districts in the state.
Howard and Ann Arundel are central counties of the Baltimore MSA.  Because they were in the Baltimore MSA in 1990, they were included in the Baltimore urbanized area, and the census bureau simply found a convenient location near the county line to chop the urbanized areas.  It is a circular definition.  Howard is in the Baltimore MSA because Howard in in the Baltimore MSA.

Calvert County is oriented toward the Chesapeake, with the largest town Chesapeake Beach.  It has the oldest state marine research facility on the east coast.  Chesapeake Bay is the defining feature of Maryland.  Baltimore is a large city because it is located at the head of Chesapeake Bay.  It it a not so large city, since the Susquehanna goes north.

Washington was deliberately located on the Potomac because it was the state line, and close to the home of George Washington.  The Potomac river is an important secondary feature of Maryland, and the concentration of population is tied to it.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.101 seconds with 13 queries.