Weighted Voting For Congress
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:23:33 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 20798 times)
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #125 on: July 29, 2014, 09:08:35 PM »
« edited: July 30, 2014, 06:59:20 AM by jimrtex »

Alternatives

I would let Jackson and Hillsdale switch districts.  While this does drop the population for Eastern Michigan and make the border more irregular, I think that there may be a Jackson-Battle Creek-Kalamazoo linkage.
Jackson is sometimes placed with SE MI and sometimes in a greater Lansing/Mid Michigan region, but I've never seen it thought of as part of an extended Battle Creek/Kzoo area. Hillsdale is less glued than Jackson, but seems more likely to stay with Jackson than not. Looking at Mid Michigan, it's clear that Gratiot and Isabella (with Central MI U) should shift to go with Lansing and the Tri-Cities.
The connection with  Battle Creek and Kalamazoo would be I-94 and similar sized cities.  But since Battle Creek is on the western edge of Calhoun there isn't much commuting.  It is much stronger into Ann Arbor.

What I meant by "letting Jackson and Hillsdale switch districts", is that it would not change the theme of the district, nor would it cause population problems.  They are on the periphery of the region.  I could see that people might prefer to be associated with the smaller cities of western Michigan.

There is not much of a commuting connection between Isabella and Midland, other than what you would expect to a somewhat close population center.  More people commute into Gratiot and Clare, than they do to Midland.  Gratiot commutes to the north.  Clinton doesn't have the jobs, and Lansing is to far.   I suspect that CMU would be considered the local university for the whole Huron-side of the northern lower peninsula.  Ferris State is in Big Rapids on the Lake Michigan side, and Northern Michigan University and Michigan Tech are in the UP.

I wouldn't characterize this as "should".  I wouldn't object to an initiated change.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #126 on: July 29, 2014, 11:16:14 PM »

Alternatives

I would let Jackson and Hillsdale switch districts.  While this does drop the population for Eastern Michigan and make the border more irregular, I think that there may be a Jackson-Battle Creek-Kalamazoo linkage.

Jackson is sometimes placed with SE MI and sometimes in a greater Lansing/Mid Michigan region, but I've never seen it thought of as part of an extended Battle Creek/Kzoo area. Hillsdale is less glued than Jackson, but seems more likely to stay with Jackson than not. Looking at Mid Michigan, it's clear that Gratiot and Isabella (with Central MI U) should shift to go with Lansing and the Tri-Cities.
The connection with  Battle Creek and Kalamazoo would be I-94 and similar sized cities.  But since Battle Creek is on the western edge of Calhoun there isn't much commuting.  It is much stronger into Ann Arbor.

What I meant by "letting Jackson and Hillsdale switch districts", is that it would not change the theme of the district, nor would it cause population problems.  They are on the periphery of the region.  I could see that people might prefer to be associated with the smaller cities of western Michigan.

There is not much of a commuting connection between Isabella and Midland, other than what you would expect to a somewhat close population center.  More people commute into Gratiot and Clare, than they do to Midland.  Gratiot commutes to the north.  Clinton doesn't have the jobs, and Lansing is to far.   I suspect that CMU would be considered the local university for the whole Huron-side of the northern lower peninsula.  Ferris State is in Big Rapids on the Lake Michigan side, and Northern Michigan University and Michigan Tech are in the UP.

I wouldn't characterize this as "should".  I wouldn't object to an initiated change.

I was moving beyond commuting patterns and looking at how groups like the business organizations, tourist bureaus and state agencies see those counties. I presume to some extent they are following local identification within regions.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #127 on: July 30, 2014, 01:36:17 AM »

Here's version 2 of my draft plan. In addition to the population I have included the PVI of each district in square brackets, with positive values for D PVIs and negative numbers for R PVIs.

MN (2)
   St Anthony (MN) 3063K [+4.6]
   Itasca (MN) 2241K [-2.4]

Alternative Names

Minnesota
North Star State
Land of 10,000 Lakes
10,000 Lakes

Twin Cities
Minneapolis-St.Paul

Alternatives

Sherburne and Wright may switch, given their peripheral location, and that Minnesota is slightly below the minimum threshold.

History

Minnesota gained its 2nd district in 1920, when it reach 17th ranked.   It has slowly slipped to 17th, as the presence of the Twin Cities have prevented it from dropping like other rural states.  The past 3 decades, Minnesota has been the 2nd smallest state with two districts.

Mississippi gained its 2nd district in 1860, and lost it in 1950.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #128 on: July 30, 2014, 06:57:29 AM »

Alternatives

I would let Jackson and Hillsdale switch districts.  While this does drop the population for Eastern Michigan and make the border more irregular, I think that there may be a Jackson-Battle Creek-Kalamazoo linkage.

Jackson is sometimes placed with SE MI and sometimes in a greater Lansing/Mid Michigan region, but I've never seen it thought of as part of an extended Battle Creek/Kzoo area. Hillsdale is less glued than Jackson, but seems more likely to stay with Jackson than not. Looking at Mid Michigan, it's clear that Gratiot and Isabella (with Central MI U) should shift to go with Lansing and the Tri-Cities.
The connection with  Battle Creek and Kalamazoo would be I-94 and similar sized cities.  But since Battle Creek is on the western edge of Calhoun there isn't much commuting.  It is much stronger into Ann Arbor.

What I meant by "letting Jackson and Hillsdale switch districts", is that it would not change the theme of the district, nor would it cause population problems.  They are on the periphery of the region.  I could see that people might prefer to be associated with the smaller cities of western Michigan.

There is not much of a commuting connection between Isabella and Midland, other than what you would expect to a somewhat close population center.  More people commute into Gratiot and Clare, than they do to Midland.  Gratiot commutes to the north.  Clinton doesn't have the jobs, and Lansing is to far.   I suspect that CMU would be considered the local university for the whole Huron-side of the northern lower peninsula.  Ferris State is in Big Rapids on the Lake Michigan side, and Northern Michigan University and Michigan Tech are in the UP.

I wouldn't characterize this as "should".  I wouldn't object to an initiated change.

I was moving beyond commuting patterns and looking at how groups like the business organizations, tourist bureaus and state agencies see those counties. I presume to some extent they are following local identification within regions.
The regional planning commission for Jackson, Hillsdale, (and Lenawee) is separate from those for southeast (Detroit metro), Lansing, and Kalamazoo-Battle Creek.  This indicates when they were setting up the councils that there was a feeling that Jackson either partially was tied to each of them.  In each case, they would also be peripheral to the other groups (ie Detroit metro plus Jackson; Lansing, also included Jackson; Kalamazoo and Battle Creek, and on down the road some, Jackson.)

In Michigan, they may have agglomerated areas.   The numbering and shapes suggests strongly that the western shoreline region split the from the western region.  Muskegon may not have wanted to be dominated by Grand Rapids.  The Flint region is odd in that it named based on the initial letter of the three counties, "GLS".  Perhaps the tri-cities did not want to be dominated by Flint.   The tip of thumb was too small for its region, and Saginaw Bay provides a unifying theme.

Note that as in Florida, the regions recognize the division of the northern lower peninsula between the two shorelines, with 3 Lake Michigan regions, and 2 Lake Huron regions.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #129 on: July 30, 2014, 12:30:10 PM »

Alternatives

I would let Jackson and Hillsdale switch districts.  While this does drop the population for Eastern Michigan and make the border more irregular, I think that there may be a Jackson-Battle Creek-Kalamazoo linkage.

Jackson is sometimes placed with SE MI and sometimes in a greater Lansing/Mid Michigan region, but I've never seen it thought of as part of an extended Battle Creek/Kzoo area. Hillsdale is less glued than Jackson, but seems more likely to stay with Jackson than not. Looking at Mid Michigan, it's clear that Gratiot and Isabella (with Central MI U) should shift to go with Lansing and the Tri-Cities.
The connection with  Battle Creek and Kalamazoo would be I-94 and similar sized cities.  But since Battle Creek is on the western edge of Calhoun there isn't much commuting.  It is much stronger into Ann Arbor.

What I meant by "letting Jackson and Hillsdale switch districts", is that it would not change the theme of the district, nor would it cause population problems.  They are on the periphery of the region.  I could see that people might prefer to be associated with the smaller cities of western Michigan.

There is not much of a commuting connection between Isabella and Midland, other than what you would expect to a somewhat close population center.  More people commute into Gratiot and Clare, than they do to Midland.  Gratiot commutes to the north.  Clinton doesn't have the jobs, and Lansing is to far.   I suspect that CMU would be considered the local university for the whole Huron-side of the northern lower peninsula.  Ferris State is in Big Rapids on the Lake Michigan side, and Northern Michigan University and Michigan Tech are in the UP.

I wouldn't characterize this as "should".  I wouldn't object to an initiated change.

I was moving beyond commuting patterns and looking at how groups like the business organizations, tourist bureaus and state agencies see those counties. I presume to some extent they are following local identification within regions.
The regional planning commission for Jackson, Hillsdale, (and Lenawee) is separate from those for southeast (Detroit metro), Lansing, and Kalamazoo-Battle Creek.  This indicates when they were setting up the councils that there was a feeling that Jackson either partially was tied to each of them.  In each case, they would also be peripheral to the other groups (ie Detroit metro plus Jackson; Lansing, also included Jackson; Kalamazoo and Battle Creek, and on down the road some, Jackson.)

In Michigan, they may have agglomerated areas.   The numbering and shapes suggests strongly that the western shoreline region split the from the western region.  Muskegon may not have wanted to be dominated by Grand Rapids.  The Flint region is odd in that it named based on the initial letter of the three counties, "GLS".  Perhaps the tri-cities did not want to be dominated by Flint.   The tip of thumb was too small for its region, and Saginaw Bay provides a unifying theme.

Note that as in Florida, the regions recognize the division of the northern lower peninsula between the two shorelines, with 3 Lake Michigan regions, and 2 Lake Huron regions.

I saw sources with smaller regions that had Jackson separate, but clearly it's too small to consider on its own. I looked at those entities that were using larger groups to see how the smallest regions might combine. At the same time, I want to balance that against the population requirements. I found fits of Jackson with either Lansing or Detroit, but not with Battle Creek. The Huron district is the least populated, so keeping Jackson with Lansing satisfies both observed groupings and better population balance. That same logic leads me to the Gratiot & Isabella shift, where both regional groupings and population equality are improved by the shift. I suppose that the individual border counties could vote themselves into another district as long as the population limits were not crossed.

My last two FL plans took that same approach. I went back to regions that were often too small for a district, then looked to assemble them into appropriate sized districts balancing the populations with larger regional groupings. In FL there is far less flexibility with county shifts on population. That in turn would make it harder for a region like SW FL to vote itself elsewhere, since that creates a domino effect, for example if all of SW goes to Tampa, Polk gets pushed out, but they might not want to vote for that change. Unlike MI, FL may have to be resigned to only statewide, up or down approval of a plan.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #130 on: July 31, 2014, 06:38:52 PM »

Here's version 2 of my draft plan. In addition to the population I have included the PVI of each district in square brackets, with positive values for D PVIs and negative numbers for R PVIs.

MO (2)
   Prairie (MO) 3725K [+1.1]
   Ozarks (MO) 2264K [-17.1]

Eastern Missouri 3269K
Western Missouri 2721K



I started with the St.Louis, etc. CSA and the Kansas City-St.Joseph CSA, and added the core of Little Dixie along with some secondary counties to provide solid connectivity to St.Louis.   I then added Springfield and Joplin statistical areas and others along the western border, and Hannibal, Cape Girardeau and others along the Mississippi.  I was a bit low on the west and adding a little more aggressively.

I ended up using the regional planning commissions, which moved Chariton and Saline from Little Dixie to the west.  I suspect they don't like using the Little Dixie name and use boring monikers like Mid-Missouri.

Alternative Names

Missoursoda
Missouripop

History

Missouri gained its 2nd district in 1850, and its 3rd in 1870, which it lost in 1950.  Missouri was ranked 5th from 1870 to 1900.  Since then it has dropped in the ranking every decade but one.  It is now 19th.

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, and New Hampshire have always had one district.  Nebraska was the largest state with only one district in 1900.  New Hampshire never improved in its ranking until 1970 when the outflow from Boston was felt.  In 1960, New Hampshire was 45th.  It jumped to 41st in 1970 and has slid back some since then.

Nevada was the least populous state in every census from 1870 to 1950.  In 1960 had fewer residents.  By 1970, Nevada had also passed Vermont and Wyoming.  At its low point in 1900, Nevada would have had 0.05 of the average vote of the other 90 representatives.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #131 on: August 08, 2014, 10:59:39 AM »



This illustrates two plans and how a final plan might be chosen. 

The first is based on Train's map, but since that left South Jersey below the national minimum, I shifted Ocean.  Since he indicated that this should not be done, I won't attribute it to him.  The light colors indicate counties that might be shifted to the adjoining region.  Mercer could be shifted from South Jersey to Central Jersey, and Hunterdon or Union could be shifted from Central Jersey to North Jersey.  The shifting of Union is dependent on Mercer being shifted.  Otherwise, Central Jersey would be too small.

Among the three counties, there are 8 combinations of changes, two of which are invalid because they would shift Union without shifting Mercer.

For each county that may be shifted we can determine its possible districts:

Hunterdon:

H1) 5 Central Jersey counties;
H2) 5 CJ + Mercer
H3) 5 CJ + Mercer - Union
H4) North Jersey + Hunterdon
H5) North Jersery + Hunterdon + Union

Union:

U1) 5 Central Jersey counties;
U2) 5 CJ - Hunterdon;
U3) 5 CJ + Mercer;
U4) 5 CJ + Mercer - Hunterdon;
U5) North Jersey + Union;
U6) North Jersey + Union + Hunterdon

Mercer:

M1) Mercer with South Jersey;
M2) 5 Central Jersey Counties + Mercer;
M3) 5 CJ + Mercer - Union;
M4) 5 CJ + Mercer - Hunterdon
M5) 5 CJ + Mercer - Hunterdon - Union.

A representative sample of the voters in each county would choose the map(s) that they approve.  In each county, they would only consider their potential districts.h

For the 6 valid combinations of shifts (upper case)/no shifts (lower case) the following plans  correspond:

MHU: M5 H5 U6
MHu: M4 H4 U4
MhU: M3 H3 U5
Mhu: M2 H2 U3
mHu: M1 H4 U2
mhu: M1 H1 U1

The plan that is (most) approved by all three counties would be the plan that goes forward.

The second plan is Muon's second plan.  I have added potential shifts of Warren and Union.  Warren might well have some mixed sensibilities, whether it is an exurb of New York, or a community along the Delaware River with ties to Allentown and Trenton.  Union is included more for illustrative purposes.

There are 4 combinations of shifts of the two counties.  While either may be made independently without population problems, the voters may have some sensitivity (eg Warren voters might find a northern district with Union too Hudson-centric)

After the two final plans were determined, representative samples of voters in all counties would choose which of their two potential districts they preferred.  The plan that has the overall approval of the state would be chosen.

It is conceivable that the process could be recursive, if an area did not like the plan that overall the state approved.  This might be more likely in a state with more districts.  The areas that approved the statewide plan would be locked in, with the other areas possibly being modified.

These numbers are based on Muon's 2nd plan.  I have used a corrected version of populations from the Census Bureau which accounts for the difference in the population for North Jersey.

North Jersey 4003K
Central Jersey 2340K
South Jersey 2449K

Alternative Names

Jersey Shore
West Jersey
Delaware River

History

New Jersey fell from 11th to 21st between 1790 and 1860, as its lack of land prevented a large farm population.  Industrialization brought population growth and a 2nd district in 1870.  By 1910, New Jersey was a 10th ranked and gained its 3rd district.  New Jersey was 8th or 9th from 1930 to 2000, as suburban growth from New York and Philadelphia maintained its population share (it passed Massachusetts in 1950, and was surpassed by Florida in 1980).  New Jersey lost to more places in 2010, being passed by Georgia and North Carolina.

New Mexico has always had one district.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #132 on: August 08, 2014, 12:17:53 PM »

Here's version 2 of my draft plan. In addition to the population I have included the PVI of each district in square brackets, with positive values for D PVIs and negative numbers for R PVIs.

NY (5)
   Long Island (NY) 2833K [+0.4]
   Brooklyn (NY) 4735K [+26.9]
   Manhattan (NY) 3440K [+29.5]
   Hudson (NY) 3579K [+4.3]
   Ontario (NY) 4791K [+1.4]

I don't match your populations for the two upstate districts.  I have 4523K and 3846K, which would have placed WNY just inside the national limit.  You also did not change population with the switch of Delaware.

In any event, I moved Jefferson and Lewis to Hudson Valley & North Country, and left Delaware in Western New York.  Jefferson and Lewis belong with the North Country.  Delaware is typically placed with the Southern Tier - though I could see placing it with the Catskills.  It's not Hudson Valley, but neither is Ulster.  Fulton, Montgomery, and Schoharie are often placed with the central New York, but it seems that is cutting quite close on Albany-Schenectady.

Western New York 4380K
Hudson Valley & North Country 3990K
Long Island 2833
Brooklyn 4735K
New York City 3440K

Alternative Names

Western & Central New York
Kings & Queens
Manhattan, Bronx, & Staten Island

History

New York was the 5th most populous state in 1790, behind Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina, just ahead of Maryland.  It had two districts.

By 1800 it was 3rd and added a 3rd district.  In 1810 it was 2nd and added 4th district.  It celebrated its 1st rank in 1820 by adding two districts to reach 6.  It added the 7th in 1830.

It almost secured an 8th in in 1870, fell off a bit and then added an 8th in 1910.  It reached its maximum of 9 districts in 1940, but lost that in 1950.

It dropped to 2nd behind California in 1970,  and dropped to 7 districts in 1980, and 6 districts in 1990.  It fell behind Texas in 2000, and dropped to 5 districts in 2010.  It will likely fall to 4th behind Florida in 2020.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #133 on: August 11, 2014, 04:46:36 AM »

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%



My numbers are slightly different, likely due to my use of the corrected numbers.  I could see moving counties like Franklin and Granville to Piedmont.  Franklin has more workers in Wake, than stay in Franklin.  Granville has commuting to both Durham and Wake.

Coastal  2642K
Piedmont   3525K
Appalachians 3369K

Alternative Names

West Carolina
Central Carolina
East Carolina, Pamlico Sound

History

North Carolina was the 4th largest state in 1790, and had 3 districts.  It was 4th as late as 1820.  It then began to drop, losing its 3rd seat in 1840, and dropping to 10th in 1850.  By 1890 and 1910 it was 16th.  It then begin to creep upward with the development of mills and other manufacturing.  It has been somewhat up and down, as it reached 10th in 1950, and 1980, and 1990, and 2010.  It is poised to move to 9th in 2020.

It regained its 3rd seat that it had lost in 1840 in 2000.   It is likely that there was an east/west split, with the division between Greensboro and Durham, so the current map would reflect creation of the 3rd district from the more central parts of the old districts.

North Dakota has always had one district.  It has had been between 600,000 and 700,000 from 1920 to 2010.  It reached its peak population in 1930, but has likely surpassed that with the Bakken boom.  The population dropped in the 1930s, 1940s, 1960s, and 1980s.  The period from 1990 to 2010 is the first two consecutive decades of growth since 1910-2030.

North Dakota was passed by Rhode Island and South Dakota in the 1920s, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah in the 1940s, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana in the 1950s, New Hampshire in the 1960s, Nevada in the 1970s, Delaware in the 1980s, and Alaska in the 2000s, dropping from 36th to 48th.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #134 on: August 13, 2014, 06:19:57 PM »

Here's version 2 of my draft plan. In addition to the population I have included the PVI of each district in square brackets, with positive values for D PVIs and negative numbers for R PVIs.

OH (3)
   Miami (OH) 4187K [-6.7]
   Scioto (OH) 3255K [-2.8]
   Erie (OH) 4095K [+6.4]
This is Muon's proposal



Cleveland-Northeast Ohio 4095K
Columbus-Central Ohio 3254K
Cincinnati-West Ohio 4187K

Alternative names:

Northeast Ohio
Central Ohio
Western Ohio

This is my alternative, which puts the Ohio River with Cincinnati, and puts Toledo and northwestern Ohio with Columbus.



Cleveland-Northeast Ohio 4222K
Columbus-Central Ohio 3816K
Cincinnati-Southern Ohio 3498K

Alternative names:

Northeast Ohio
Central-Northwest Ohio
Central Ohio
Southern Ohio
Ohio River

History

Ohio's first census as a State, 1810 saw it ranked 13th.  It increased by 150% in the next decade to reach 5th, and added a 2nd and 3rd district.  By 1840, Ohio was ranked 3rd behind New York and Pennsylvania, and added a 4th district.

Ohio intermittently had a 5th district in 1850, 1870, 1930, and lastly in 1960, but never quite held on.  Ohio dropped to 4th in 1890, when Illinois passed it, and 5th in 1950, when California passed, 6th in 1970 when Texas passed it, and 7th in 1990 when Florida moved ahead.

After its 4th episode of 5 districts in 1960, Ohio dropped to 4 districts in 1970, and back to 3 in 2000, for the first time since 1830.

Oklahoma entered the Union in 1907, and gained its 2nd district in 1910, it lost it in 1950, after two decades of decline in population.  Oklahoma would not surpass its 1930 peak until 1970.

Oregon, along with Nevada and Nebraska were premature additions to the Union, and by 1890 had drifted down to 38th (the new states of Washington and South Dakota had a greater population on entry, than Oregon had after 30 years).

Oregon has slowly crept upward since then:

1900: 35th (+SD, +VT, + NH)
1910: 35th (+RI, -OK)
1920: 34th (+ME)
1930: 34th
1940: 34th
1950: 32nd (+CO, +NE)
1960: 32nd
1970: 31st (+AR, +WV, -CO)
1980: 30th (+MS, +KS, -AZ)
1990: 29th (+IA)
2000: 38th (+CT)
2010: 27th (+OK)

KY and LA may be in reach in a decade or two, but UT and NV are coming up from behind.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #135 on: August 16, 2014, 05:07:51 PM »

This is Train's proposed plan:



Philadelphia 4009K
Northeastern Pennsylvania 2691K
Central Pennsylvania 2805K
Pittsburgh-Western Pennsylvania 3198K

Muon did not like the extension of the Central Pennsylvania district to New York, and offered this alternative.



Philadelphia 4009K
Northeastern Pennsylvania 2420K
Central Pennsylvania 2947K
Pittsburgh-Western Pennsylvania 3326K

Muon, you didn't update the populations on your second map.

I didn't like the long extension of the Northeastern Pennsylvania district to the southwest, which in part is required by putting the Lehigh Valley in Central Pennsylvania.



After moving the Lehigh Valley to the Northeast, I shifted the Western district to include Altoona, I then adjusted the boundaries of the districts to conform to the regional EMS districts (the council of government organizations in Pennsylvania are mostly single county, and are organizations of boroughs, municipalities, and towns, rather than counties).  The one divided EMS district includes Berks and Schuylkill to the west, and Lehigh, Northampton, Carbon, and Monroe to the east).  If Berks and Schuylkill were moved to the Northeast, that would underpopulate the Central region, forcing it north to include State College.

The population disparity is somewhat high.  One solution would be to pull Chester out of the Philadelphia region since it is the least connected, and perhaps retreating the Western region some.

Philadelphia 4009K
Northeastern Pennsylvania 2356K
Central Pennsylvania 2448K
Pittsburgh-Western Pennsylvania 3889K

History

Pennsylvania had 3 districts in 1790 as the 3rd largest state.  It passed Massachusetts in 1800 to rank 2nd and gained its 4th district.  It slipped to 3rd behind New York in 1810, but gained a 5th district in 1820.  In 1830, it passed Virginia to become the second most populous behind New York, a position it would hold until 1950.

It gained a 6th district in 1850, and generally kept pace with New York throughout the latter part of the 19th Century.  It added a 7th district in 1910, but lost it in 1930.  It fell to 3rd behind California in 1950, and lost its 6th district in 1960.

Pennsylvania stalled over the latter part of the 20th Century, particularly in the 1970s, and 1980s.  Between 1960 and 2010, Pennsylvania gained at an annual rate of 0.23%.

Texas passed Pennsylvania in 1980. as Pennsylvania fell to 4th, its lowest ranking ever.  In 1990, it fell to 5th behind Florida, the last state to ever rank so high at its lowest point, and also lost its 5th district.  In 2000, it fell to 6th behind Illinois.

Rhode Island has always been one of the least populous states, traditionally only being larger than Delaware.  It kept ahead some of the new western states to reach 13th smallest in 1940 and 1950.   Since then it has slid to 8th smallest.

South Carolina had two districts from 1790 until 1870, when as a consequence of the Civil War it had almost no growth and lost the 2nd district.  It regained the second district in 1880 and held lost it again 1910.  After sliding down somewhat, it has began to recover.  In 2010, it was the closest to regaining the 2nd district since 1920.

South Dakota was 35th in 1890, its first census after statehood.  That was its highest ranking ever.  Between 1930 and 1990, South Dakota gained a total of 3,155 persons.
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,051
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #136 on: August 16, 2014, 07:08:03 PM »

This is Train's proposed plan:



Philadelphia 4009K
Northeastern Pennsylvania 2691K
Central Pennsylvania 2805K
Pittsburgh-Western Pennsylvania 3198K

Muon did not like the extension of the Central Pennsylvania district to New York, and offered this alternative.



Philadelphia 4009K
Northeastern Pennsylvania 2420K
Central Pennsylvania 2947K
Pittsburgh-Western Pennsylvania 3326K

Muon, you didn't update the populations on your second map.

I didn't like the long extension of the Northeastern Pennsylvania district to the southwest, which in part is required by putting the Lehigh Valley in Central Pennsylvania.



After moving the Lehigh Valley to the Northeast, I shifted the Western district to include Altoona, I then adjusted the boundaries of the districts to conform to the regional EMS districts (the council of government organizations in Pennsylvania are mostly single county, and are organizations of boroughs, municipalities, and towns, rather than counties).  The one divided EMS district includes Berks and Schuylkill to the west, and Lehigh, Northampton, Carbon, and Monroe to the east).  If Berks and Schuylkill were moved to the Northeast, that would underpopulate the Central region, forcing it north to include State College.

The population disparity is somewhat high.  One solution would be to pull Chester out of the Philadelphia region since it is the least connected, and perhaps retreating the Western region some.

Philadelphia 4009K
Northeastern Pennsylvania 2356K
Central Pennsylvania 2448K
Pittsburgh-Western Pennsylvania 3889K

History

Pennsylvania had 3 districts in 1790 as the 3rd largest state.  It passed Massachusetts in 1800 to rank 2nd and gained its 4th district.  It slipped to 3rd behind New York in 1810, but gained a 5th district in 1820.  In 1830, it passed Virginia to become the second most populous behind New York, a position it would hold until 1950.

It gained a 6th district in 1850, and generally kept pace with New York throughout the latter part of the 19th Century.  It added a 7th district in 1910, but lost it in 1930.  It fell to 3rd behind California in 1950, and lost its 6th district in 1960.

Pennsylvania stalled over the latter part of the 20th Century, particularly in the 1970s, and 1980s.  Between 1960 and 2010, Pennsylvania gained at an annual rate of 0.23%.

Texas passed Pennsylvania in 1980. as Pennsylvania fell to 4th, its lowest ranking ever.  In 1990, it fell to 5th behind Florida, the last state to ever rank so high at its lowest point, and also lost its 5th district.  In 2000, it fell to 6th behind Illinois.

Rhode Island has always been one of the least populous states, traditionally only being larger than Delaware.  It kept ahead some of the new western states to reach 13th smallest in 1940 and 1950.   Since then it has slid to 8th smallest.

South Carolina had two districts from 1790 until 1870, when as a consequence of the Civil War it had almost no growth and lost the 2nd district.  It regained the second district in 1880 and held lost it again 1910.  After sliding down somewhat, it has began to recover.  In 2010, it was the closest to regaining the 2nd district since 1920.

South Dakota was 35th in 1890, its first census after statehood.  That was its highest ranking ever.  Between 1930 and 1990, South Dakota gained a total of 3,155 persons.

I suspect Schuylkill would want to be in your yellow district.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #137 on: August 17, 2014, 01:23:22 AM »



After moving the Lehigh Valley to the Northeast, I shifted the Western district to include Altoona, I then adjusted the boundaries of the districts to conform to the regional EMS districts (the council of government organizations in Pennsylvania are mostly single county, and are organizations of boroughs, municipalities, and towns, rather than counties).  The one divided EMS district includes Berks and Schuylkill to the west, and Lehigh, Northampton, Carbon, and Monroe to the east).  If Berks and Schuylkill were moved to the Northeast, that would underpopulate the Central region, forcing it north to include State College.

The population disparity is somewhat high.  One solution would be to pull Chester out of the Philadelphia region since it is the least connected, and perhaps retreating the Western region some.

Philadelphia 4009K
Northeastern Pennsylvania 2356K
Central Pennsylvania 2448K
Pittsburgh-Western Pennsylvania 3889K

I suspect Schuylkill would want to be in your yellow district.
It was a close decision, with the final decision made because it was slightly better population balance between the two smallest districts.

Berks being in the central district is essential to my plan. 

Wilkes-Barre has been declining for close to a century, and was crushed by the flood in 1972.  Commuting from Schuylkill to Berks (4.8K) is greater than to Luzerne (4.0K); Dauphin (2.5K) more than Lehigh (2.1K); and Lebanon (1.6K) than Carbon (1.4K).  On the other hand, this is small compared to the stay-in-the county employment of 43.3K.

There is also little reciprocal commuting, with the largest source being Carbon County.  Pottsville is quite isolated, and may see itself as being beyond the mountains, but that is also true of northern Dauphin and Perry counties.

I'd let individual counties switch in each of the three plans, then vote among the refined version of the three plans.

Berks and Schuylkill might be considered essential to Northeast Pennsylvania in Train's plan, which might force Centre and Blair as being in the central district, to avoid shedding too much population.  If the Lehigh Valley is essential to Muon's central district, then there are limits to how much population may be be shed from his northeast district.

It is conceivable that there would be alternatives that divide the 5-county Philadelphia area that give a lot more flexibility in other parts of the state.  From a minimalist, dropping of Chester; to an extremely limited Philadelphia consisting of the city and Montco.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #138 on: August 17, 2014, 06:38:55 AM »

Here's version 2 of my draft plan. In addition to the population I have included the PVI of each district in square brackets, with positive values for D PVIs and negative numbers for R PVIs.

TN (2)
   Great Valley (TN) 2342K [-20.6]
   Cumberland and Mississippi (TN) 4004K [-11.8]

Tennessee statutes define the Grand Divisions.  Sequatchie is in the Middle Grand Division.

East Tennessee 2328K
Middle&West Tennessee 4019K

History

Tennessee gained its 2nd district in 1810, and has had two ever since.  After reaching 5th in 1840 and 1850, Tennessee dropped to 10th in 1860, and as low as 19th in 1920.  Since then it has been in the lower teens.

Kentucky and Tennessee were for a long time quite parallel in population.  After Tennessee caught up with Kentucky in 1830, they were within 10% of each other every census through 1940.  In 1930, Tennessee had 2000 more persons.   In 2010, it now has 2 million more people, as over the last 80 years, Tennessee has added 3.7 million, while Kentucky has added 1.7 million.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #139 on: August 17, 2014, 08:11:32 AM »

Here's version 2 of my draft plan. In addition to the population I have included the PVI of each district in square brackets, with positive values for D PVIs and negative numbers for R PVIs.

TN (2)
   Great Valley (TN) 2342K [-20.6]
   Cumberland and Mississippi (TN) 4004K [-11.8]

Tennessee statutes define the Grand Divisions.  Sequatchie is in the Middle Grand Division.

East Tennessee 2328K
Middle&West Tennessee 4019K

History

Tennessee gained its 2nd district in 1810, and has had two ever since.  After reaching 5th in 1840 and 1850, Tennessee dropped to 10th in 1860, and as low as 19th in 1920.  Since then it has been in the lower teens.

Kentucky and Tennessee were for a long time quite parallel in population.  After Tennessee caught up with Kentucky in 1830, they were within 10% of each other every census through 1940.  In 1930, Tennessee had 2000 more persons.   In 2010, it now has 2 million more people, as over the last 80 years, Tennessee has added 3.7 million, while Kentucky has added 1.7 million.

The divisions in statute you reference are for the judicial divisions. Even there Sequatchie has shifted over time. I put it in the east consistent with the geographic definition that includes counties in the drainage of the upper reach of the Tennessee, separated from the Cumberland Valley.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #140 on: August 20, 2014, 09:10:10 PM »

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?



This is Muon's proposal.



Central Texas 3875K
Rio Grande 3468K
West Texas 2901K
Fort Worth 3080K
Dallas 3616K
East Texas 4114K
Houston 4092K

Alternative Names

San Antonio-Austin
Borders

I wanted Rio Grande to retreat back towards Corpus Christi, and to trim a bit off the Dallas and Fort Worth districts.  But that would likely have pushed the East Texas district over the maximum limit, plus sprawling from Texarkana to Victoria.  So instead I created a district comprised of Dallas and Tarrant counties, equivalent to the Harris County district, and then created a Northeast and Southeast districts, that include the DFW and Houston suburbs as well as satellite cites.



Southeast Texas 3326K
Houston 4092K
Dallas-Fort Worth 4177K
Northeast Texas 3196K
Central Texas 3859K
West Texas 3354K
Rio Grande 3140K

History

Texas was 25th in its first census in 1850.  By 1870 it was 20th and gained a 2nd district.  It surged to 7th in 1890 and gained a 3rd district.  It reached 5th in 1910, and gained its 4th district in 1920.   It dropped back to 6th in 1940, but still gained a 5h district in 1960.  It advanced to 3rd in 1980, and added its 6th district in 1990.  It moved to 2nd in 2000, and added a 7th district in 2010.

Utah entered the Union in 40th place, it was still 40th in 1940, and has since crept upward to 34th.

Vermont entered the Union in 13th place, and dropped every census through 1930 when it was 45th.  In managed to hold onto 45th in 1940 and 1950, then began to drop again until it was 48th in in 1970.  It kept that until 2000, when Alaska passed it.  Thus Vermont has never gained a position, and has only held a position for few decades at a time.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #141 on: August 24, 2014, 05:13:54 AM »
« Edited: August 27, 2014, 02:50:02 AM by jimrtex »

Edit: Left Portsmouth out of Tidewater in Plan 3, Winchester city out of Southern Virginia Plan 2 and 3.

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.
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.
The internal deviation of Train's plan is fine, but the population of his Southern Virginia exceeds the national limit.  So I added the Charlottesville media marker to NoVa, and started adding counties to the south, trying to keep out of the Lynchburg and Richmond areas.  If you do that, you use smaller counties (because they are remote from those cities, and you eat up a lot of rural territory.  So instead, I added the area between the Potomac and the York.  This area is large enough that it might get some attention as a rural COI.



Northern Virginia 3492K
Southern Virginia 4509K

The problem in Virginia is finding an area to go with the Washington suburbs, which are atypical of a southern state, yet provide an increasing share of the population.  In the first map, rural areas were added to the Washington suburbs to barely get the remainder of the state under the maximum.  It can be thought of as a minimalist Nova.

The next plan adds the Richmond-Petersburg area, while releasing the Shenandoah Valley.  It keeps the Charlottesville area, which provides a more compact district.



Northern Virginia 4196K
Southern Virginia 3806K

The population of the two districts is more balanced, and Richmond provides somewhat of a counterbalance to the Washington area.

The 3rd map replaces the Richmond and Charlottesville areas with the Hampton Roads area.  The Northern Virginia region might better be called Tidewater or Chesapeake-Potomac, and the other region, Western Virginia or Piedmont-Mountains.



Northern Virginia 4413K
Southern Virginia 3588K

History

In 1790, Virginia included present day West Virginia and Kentucky, and was the most populous state by far.  Its population relative to the 2nd largest, Massachusetts (including Maine), 175% was the greatest ever relative size of the 1st and 2nd largest states.  California relative to New York in 1990 was the next largest at 162%.   Since Texas took over as the 2nd largest, the gap has been closing.

1790 Virginia had 5 districts.  Perhaps one included everything west of the Blue Ridge.  When Kentucky became a state, its area would have been removed from the district, which would have continued with a reduced weight throughout the rest of the decade.

In 1820, New York surpassed Virginia to became the largest state.  In 1830, Virginia dropped behind Pennsylvania and lost its 5th district.  In 1840, fell behind Ohio, and in 1850 dropped to 3 districts.  Virginia still included West Virginia, so it is likely that there would still be a western district.  In 1860, Illinois pushed Virginia to 5th place.

The loss of West Virginia during the Civil War dropped Virginia to 10th place, and two districts.  By now, Virginia was a a quite ordinary largely rural southern state, and by 1910 had dropped to 20th place behind Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Alabama, with Mississippi closing.

It maintained its 20th place ranking through 1930, when it slowly began to climb aided by the development of Norfolk as a major port and the expansion of the Washington suburbs.  Virginia has ranked 12th the past 3 censuses.

In 1870, Virginia had 277% times the population of West Virginia.  By 1940, this had been reduced to 141%, and it would not have been totally out of the question to speculate that a coal-based industrializing West Virginia would someday surpass its bucolic rural parent.

But the collapse of underground coal has dispatched that illusion.  West Virginia in 2010 has fewer people than 1940, and Virginia has 432% its population.
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #142 on: August 28, 2014, 09:51:59 PM »

Edit: Left Portsmouth out of Tidewater in Plan 3, Winchester city out of Southern Virginia Plan 2 and 3.

I think the first of your three Virginias is clearly the best- it seems to me like Richmond and Tidewater probably ought to stay together.

I generally approve of your compromise PA as well; perhaps a few rural counties (such as Clearfield, Elk, and the like) could also be shifted from the West to the Northeast to lower deviations if necessary.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #143 on: August 29, 2014, 03:43:45 PM »

Edit: Left Portsmouth out of Tidewater in Plan 3, Winchester city out of Southern Virginia Plan 2 and 3.

I think the first of your three Virginias is clearly the best- it seems to me like Richmond and Tidewater probably ought to stay together.

I generally approve of your compromise PA as well; perhaps a few rural counties (such as Clearfield, Elk, and the like) could also be shifted from the West to the Northeast to lower deviations if necessary.
Two more.

The first is Muon's Washington to southwest.



Northern Virginia 4045K
Southern Virginia 3956K

I then shifted Charlottesville, Lynchburg, and Danville into the area to give the southwest more weight.  It puts both sides of the Blue Ridge into the district.  The downside is I had to pull the Fredericksburg area, including Stafford out of the district to get it under the national maximum.



Northern Virginia 4423K
Southern Virginia 3578K
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #144 on: August 29, 2014, 05:41:52 PM »

The original guidelines implied that shape was not as important as CoI, and that equality wasn't so important as long as the limits were enforced. That made a lot of sense given the goal of testing weighted voting, which should feature some population disparities to create a strong test. Yet, it seems that many of the revised plans are looking more and more like they are driven by shape, even at the expense of extra UCC splits. That seems to belie the importance of CoI, and it makes me wonder if the exercise becomes more about the districts and how they would be created, and less about generating data for a test of weighted voting.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #145 on: August 30, 2014, 01:06:03 AM »

The original guidelines implied that shape was not as important as CoI, and that equality wasn't so important as long as the limits were enforced.
You may have inferred as such.

I had certain instances in mind with regard to connectivity and contiguity (eg Washington and Massachusetts). 

In the case of Washington, going over the northern Cascades might well provide a better shape.  Placing Whatcom with Walla Walla and Vancouver might well represent a stronger CoI from certain viewpoints (Seattle vs rest of state).  Given that Snohomish, King, and Pierce have a majority of the population, it does not necessarily make sense to extend outward to include the entire northwestern part of the state.

I had originally stated the population rule to be based on each state.  But for the purposes of the test, we want national parity, and it is important to keep it within a 2:1 range, with some possible exceptions.  You seem to treat the smaller states as extending the range, while I see them as exceptional. 

In reality, a national legislature would be larger, and a state legislature would have multi-county districts.   I also have a constraint of the program that I am using to calculating voting power.

A state would quite likely have a county entitled to just over 1-1/3 members.  The problem then is whether to make it one of the largest districts; or have two districts but coerced equality to keep both within the statewide range.   The local exception that would provide for a slight increase in internal equality; and permits a hard apportionment rule, rather getting in disputes over whether the county should have two districts or one district based on how well the county could be divided.  But this makes districting national, rather than local (which is one of the advantages of weighted voting), and likely would be a political issue.

Imagine if an argument were made to add a 3rd district to Virginia for COI reasons.  Would the entire legislature be expanded, or would a rearrangement be made in some other state?

That made a lot of sense given the goal of testing weighted voting, which should feature some population disparities to create a strong test. Yet, it seems that many of the revised plans are looking more and more like they are driven by shape, even at the expense of extra UCC splits. That seems to belie the importance of CoI, and it makes me wonder if the exercise becomes more about the districts and how they would be created, and less about generating data for a test of weighted voting.
An important aspect of weighted voting would be its impact on districting.  There is no justification for doing it other than for making the districting process better.  Hudson uses weighted voting so as to not to have to redistrict.  Columbia and other counties in New York use it to avoid splitting or combining towns.  I see utility in weighted voting in permitting voters to participate in the districting process in an effective and meaningful way.  Holding hearings and then writing a report that explains why hyper-strict equality rules require so and so, and to justify top-down political district does not.

My rules said that a plan might be be subject to plebiscite, so justification would be presented to the electorate, rather than a court or commission.

Drawing maps helps me understand them better, and it is useful me to have the districts in a spreadsheet with county populations, which facilitates further exploration.

You would have to be more specific about which states you are thinking about.  There is no hard and fast definition for CoI.

A geologist might draw your Pennsylvania map, would a demographer, or would the public?

Your Missouri map was an interesting exercise to see if the two major cities on opposite edges of the state could be placed in the same district.  Would the public vote for it, or an east-west split?

I don't understand any reason to put the east and west coasts of Florida together.  That is one case where I think you are wrong, rather simply a case of two different viewpoints.

You didn't comment on my Texas plan.  I don't see a reason to come from the border up nearly to Houston, and having the Houston suburban counties then stretching up to Texarkana, while cutting out Sherman, Greenville, and Corsicana.  So I split DFW into 3 districts rather than two.  But the two eastern districts have comparable definitions: suburbs plus groups of smaller cities which in some sense are satellites of DFW and Houston.

Virginia is a challenge.  The Washington suburbs don't have enough population, so any plan is going to be an agglomeration of the interests.  So I proposed several alternatives:

(1) Washington suburbs plus enough areas to get the population of the other districts below the maximum, trying to avoid Richmond and Roanoke.

(2) Washington suburbs and Richmond, the nearest population center.

(3) Washington suburbs and Hampton Roads.  There is somewhat of a CoI, but you can't claim that the district was shapely.

(4) Washington suburbs, Valley of Virginia, and the southwest.  Other than being able to drive on the interstate I don't see a single CoI.

(5) Extending the district eastward to include a mountain CoI.  Remember, the Waltons lived east of the Blue Ridge.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #146 on: August 30, 2014, 05:00:11 PM »

This is more illustrative of process, than a preferred district.



The core area of Seattle-Tacoma is formed by the three counties of Snohomish, King, and Pierce.  Kitsap would also be included were it not isolated by Puget Sound (Vashon Island and the Olympic Peninsula portion of Pierce are included to avoid splitting counties).

Puget Sound 3440K
Washington 3285K

This split is the most population-balanced, and really isn't that much different than the divisions of Arizona, Colorado, and Minneapolis, all states that gain a 2nd district largely on the basis of a large dominant metropolitan area.

Adjacent to the three-county core there are 4 peripheral areas, which can be treated somewhat independently.

Northern: Skagit, Whatcom, Island, and San Juan.
Kitsap: Bremerton's county.
Thurston: Olympia's county.
Olympic Peninsula: Mason, Jefferson, Clallam.

Along with the core area, they can be formed into 16 combinations of additions.  Four of these would be eliminated, because they would include the Olympic Peninsula, but not Kitsap, leaving Kitsap isolated.  Inclusion of the Olympic Peninsula is thus dependent on inclusion of Kitsap.

Inclusion of all four areas would put put the remainder of the state under the minimum, so it is also eliminated.

Population splits:

Core Only: 3440/3285.
Core+T: 3692K/3032K
Core+K: 3691K/3034K
Core+KO: 3853K/ 2871K
Core+KT: 3943K/2781K
Core+KTO: 4105K/2619K
Core+N: 3852K/2872K
Core+NT: 4104K/2620K
Core+NK: 4103K/2621K  Muon's plan.
Core+NKO: 4265K/2459K
Core+NKT: 4356K/2969K
Core+NKTO: 4517K/2207K  Out of range.

Alternative Names

Puget Sound, Seattle-Tacoma, Seattle
Washington, Evergreen State, Columbia

I kind of like "district of Columbia (WA)"

History

When Washington entered the Union it was more populous than 8 states, plus two that would enter soon after: RI, VT, OR, DE, NV, SD, ND, MT, (ID, WY), the latter two entered after the 1890 census date.  Entering at 34th, Washington was still 30th in 1940.

During and after WWII, Washington began to boom, jumping to 24th in 1950, and to 23rd in 1960 when the second district was added.  It has steadily advanced since then reaching 13th in 2010.  Washington has never lost a place in the ranking, and has gained at least one place every census since 1940.

Washington is one of three states that have never lost a place in the rankings, Alaska and California being the other two.  Washington and Arizona's current streaks of consecutive ranking gains (7, from 1940 to 2010), are tied for 2nd best ever with California (1880-1950).  If Washington or Arizona gain a place in the rankings by 2020, they would tie the record streak of Florida (1910-1990).

There are several other current streaks: Colorado, 6 since 1950; Oregon 5 since 1960; Georgia 4, since 1970; and Alaska 3, since 1980.  Nevada only gained at a 35% rate during the 2000-2010 decade and had its streak snapped at 4.

Only two states have ever passed Washington in the rankings between censuses, Florida is one of them.  The other is quite surprising.

In 1790, West Virgina was part of Virginia, and along with present-day Kentucky formed part of Virginia's 5 districts.  West Virginia and Kentucky had about half the population of Connecticut, the smallest single-district state.  After Kentucky's separation, West Virginia would continue to form part of a district within Virginia.

Virginia had 5 districts until 1820.  During this period, West Virginia had roughly the population of an average Virginia district, and would likely been in a district west of the Blue Ridge.

1790: 34% of average Virginia district (37% after separation of Kentucky).
1800: 44% of average district.
1810: 54% of average district.
1820: 64% of average district.

Virginia lost its 5th district in 1830, but due to the increasing share of the population in West Virginia, the district would have been lost in the east.  During the 1830's the remainder of the state lost population, but I suspect Western Virginia would have just become the largest district.

1830: 58% of average district.
1840: 72% of average district.

Virginia lost its 4th district in 1850, but again the lost would have occurred in the east:

1850: 64% of average district.
1860: 71% of average district.

During the Civil War, the representative from Western Virginia continued to sit in Congress, and even after West Virginia statehood, would have continued to vote for his eastern constituents as the eastern boundary of the state was not settled.

After separation West Virginia had its own district.  Development of the coal industry brought growth to the state.  Between 1860 and 1930, the population increased by 4.5 times (2.2% annual rate of growth).  It would not have been totally rash to speculate when (not if) West Virginia would surpass the parent state in population.  West Virginia was only about 300,000 behind the smallest 2-district state of Mississippi.

But then population growth stalled and then reversed.  West Virginia reached its peak population in 1950, and in 2010 had fewer persons than 1940.  By 1970 it had less than half the population of the smallest 2-district state of Alabama, and in 2010 is closing in on having 1/3 the population of the smallest such state (Colorado).
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #147 on: August 30, 2014, 06:58:25 PM »
« Edited: August 31, 2014, 12:33:18 AM by muon2 »

In principle, the best test for weighted voting comes when there is a reasonable dispersion of populations. We have seen examples when the number of voters is small and a large dispersion creates some undesirable results with either one voter holding too much power or one with essentially no power on close votes. A Congress-sized test should eliminate the problem of too few voters, so keeping a healthy dispersion makes the test reasonably strong. If a test at this level shows too many anomalous patterns, then it will perhaps point at useful restrictions on the districts.

With that in mind, I was particularly open to splits that might result in districts of disparate sizes. I thought sticking to the rules we worked out on UCCs was a valid starting point for CoI, but I can see that you are not as enamored of that as I am. Since the exercise is hypothetical, I was open to combinations that might work within a state, even if they don't necessarily make sense from normal districting standards. My hope was to get a set of voting values that would be largely free from biases of equal population, so that the test would be as strong as was reasonable given the time to develop the input data. Much like your example for WA, I divided the state into like-minded subregions then consolidated them to form districts.

MO was perhaps the best example of my thinking. Rather than take a conventional approach by allowing St Louis and KC to each dominate a district, I took a cue from the frequent threads about the southernness or lack thereof in MO. I made the assumption that MO would divide along a Midwest-Southern split rather than the expected StL-KC split. That put the UCCs of StL and KC in the northern district since both are very Midwestern cities. Based on my travels across the state, I allowed Little Dixie to "vote" themselves with the southern district and thus reached the map I presented.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #148 on: August 30, 2014, 11:28:39 PM »

WI (2)
   Winebago (WI) 3221K [-0.4]
   Dells (WI) 2466K [+6.2]



Lake Michigan 2466K
Wisconsin 3221K

I could see trimming off the 5 rural counties north of Green Bay.  They don't really fit with the urban counties on the shoreline, or in the Lake Winnebago-Fox River valley.  Also possibly, Walworth and Jefferson, which have only recently seen a jump in population.

The obvious alternative is a north-south split.



Northern Wisconsin   2654K
Southern Wisconsin   3123K

Sheboygan could possibly moved south, while some of the western counties could move north.

Alternative Names

Badger State, Dairyland, Western Wisconsin, Eastern Wisconsin

History

Wisconsin entered the Union at 24th in 1850.  It reached 15th in its second census in 1850, at which time it received a 2nd district.

In 1960 it was also ranked 15th.   In between it ranged from 16th in 1880 to 13th from 1900 to 1940.

In 1970 it dropped to 17th, which was its 2nd lowest ranking ever, and has subsequently dropped to 20th.  So for the last 40 years, Wisconsin has had its 2nd lowest ranking ever.

From 1850 to 2010, Wisconsin has been comfortably in the middle of states with two districts.

Wyoming has never been ranked above 3rd from the bottom.  It was 2nd from last from 1900 to 1950 ahead of Nevada.  In 1960, the entry of Alaska moved it to 3rd from the bottom, but it dropped behind Nevada in 1970, and Alaska in 1990 to become the smallest state.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #149 on: September 09, 2014, 04:40:14 PM »
« Edited: September 09, 2014, 04:55:49 PM by memphis »

Tennessee is so cringeworthy in this thread. I recognize that population sizes and the constraints of even these more flexible guidelines leave little alternative, but as a community, it is West Tennessee that is distinct, not East Tennessee. West Tennessee, and really not even all of West Tennessee, is part of the historical Lower South. Cotton, slaves, the whole Gone With the Wind narrative. The rest of the state is, historically, to paraphrase Chris Rock "a bunch of broke a$$ white people, living in the trailer, listening to John Cougar Melloncamp records. I realize if we are to split Tennessee in half, for the purposes of hypothetical apportionment, we can't have just a dozen counties for one half of the state, so I would suggest drawing the line, just east of Metro Nashville. That at least puts the Cumberland Plateau in its logical place in the eastern half of the state, and further allows for one Western half that is more urban and one Eastern half that is less urban in accordance with the major difference with how people live today.
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 0.203 seconds with 13 queries.