Weighted Voting For Congress

[muon2]

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

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

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

[muon2]

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

[muon2]

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

[muon2]

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

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

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

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

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

[muon2]

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

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

[muon2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[muon2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[muon2]

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

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



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

[muon2]

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

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

[muon2]

Minnesota is almost pathetically simple:

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

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

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

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

What would the unwashed bumpkins from the hinterland prefer?

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

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

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

[muon2]

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[muon2]

Here's my take on Tennessee:



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See we can agree on some things.

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

[muon2]

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

[muon2]

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



And the districts with their populations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[muon2]

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[muon2]

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

I would consider letting Pinal County switch.

I would propose the following names:

Arizona
Grand Canyon
Grand Canyon State

Phoenix
Valley of the Sun

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

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

[muon2]

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

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

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

[muon2]

And the districts with their populations:

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

Does San Emigdio swing around to include Claremont and Pomona?

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

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

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

[muon2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[muon2]

And the districts with their populations:

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

Does San Emigdio swing around to include Claremont and Pomona?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I didn't want to pull Shasta into the Bay Area through Napa and Sonoma, and that left me with too much for Santa Cruz. Certainly one can make that shift if the priority is to keep LAC from combining with anything adjacent. It does make balancing a bit harder since LAC minus the city leaves two districts of about 0.8 of the quota, and Orange is about the same. CA already has an above average district size.

To get to 3 districts in LAC I would shift Napa, Sonoma, and Solano to Shasta (4401K). The complete SF UCC would be one district by shifting SF and San Mateo to San Pablo Bay (4336K). Then Santa Cruz can extend down to Santa Barbara and Ventura (4031K). I think that does the least damage to the CoIs.

[muon2]

Having a district that connects San Francisco with San Luis Obispo County and not Alameda County or Marin County so obviously flies in the face of actual settlement patterns that it defeats the purpose of the whole assignment.

As I noted in the post above, the Bay Area is a challenge since the extended area is too large for one district, but when combined with SV and the Central Coast its big enough for two. There are basically two splits that balance population within the required range. One keeps the wine counties with the Bay Area, but that forces the SF peninsula to go with SV and the Central Coast, which you note concerns about. The other puts the wine counties with Sacto and northern CA and keeps the traditional Bay Area together, but then links SV with the Coast, potentially down to Ventura so that LAC can be a stand alone entity. A district with just SV and the Central Coast is only about 2784K, and while it would be permitted, it is quite small in population. Would the rest of the state be ok with that?

[muon2]

When you say SV, do you mean Santa Clara County? If so, it's an inseparable part of the Bay Area; despite the Census Bureau's definition of the San Francisco metropolitan area as separate from the San Jose metropolitan area, there is no definition of the Bay Area that excludes Santa Clara County.

If shoehorning San Jose into a non-Bay Area district is off-limits (as it should be) there are then only three potential options:

1) Draw a district consisting only of the Central Coast
2) Connect the Central Coast to the San Joaquin Valley
3) Split the Central Coast between the north and the south, connecting the northern part to the Bay Area and the southern part to greater Los Angeles

The first solution is obviously unfeasible from a population standpoint. The second solution might keep the Bay Area and the Los Angeles area intact, but it connects two areas that are not connected either culturally or by major roads. That leaves the third option, which involves connecting the parts of the Central Coast that are in Northern California (Monterey County and points northward) with the Bay Area, while connecting the parts that are in Southern California (San Luis Obispo County and points southward) with greater Los Angeles. This line is basically non-negotiable; lumping in Salinas with a Southern California district is straightforwardly wrong, as is grouping San Luis Obispo with a Northern California district.

I haven't looked to see whether the numbers work by splitting the Central Coast like this. If they do not, then the only conclusion is that California simply does not work with this number of districts and this level of acceptable deviation.

A ten-second look makes it pretty clear that, to comply with your Option 3, all muon would need to do is shift San Luis Obispo south- and such a move would actually decrease variance anyway.  

EDIT: I misread where San Francisco itself was, which complicates matters.  But presumably removing San Luis Obispo would render that split of the Bay Area less objectionable?

(Yes, muon, I still owe you my thoughts on Philly/Atlanta/Detroit.  Comin' soon.)

If the numbers check out, then moving San Luis Obispo out would work, yes. Having Marin in the same district as Alameda County but not San Francisco is not ideal, but it's acceptable.

Moving SLO south shouldn't be a problem. The underlying issue in the south is Ventura which for large areas must be in the south, but even with SB and SLO is too small to stand on its own and connecting Ventura to Kern doesn't make any more sense than connecting it to SV. That's the main reason I opted to have one LAC district spread west along the coast. The CoI needs were more important than maintaining LAC with districts unique to it.

Edit - Part of my reason for my original split vs Xahar's comments is that the LA orbit keeps shifting north. When I was in college in the 70's my SoCal friends said that Santa Barbara was more Central Coast than LA. By the 90's colleagues from the area said that the natural division was at Point Conception. When I did some of my maps on the forum a few years ago, I was told that it was better to split SB from SLO, than SLO from Monterey. Now it seems like the line has shifted again.

[muon2]

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

CO (2)
   CO-Red Rocks 2490K
   CO-Front Range 2540K

Your map doesn't include Broomfield, but you put in the Denver district.  Your names are not clearly associated with either district.

Very few people live in the Front Range, but they live along the Front Range.  It is conventionally applied from Wyoming to Colorado Springs, though the Front Range does not extend that far south (Pikes Peak is an outlier).  It sounds better than I-25 corridor.  Most of the people in the area live in the Denver district.

A particular instance of the Fountain Formation is near Denver, the most significant instance is near Colorado Springs.

Alternative names:

Denver; Mile High;

Colorado; Centennial State; Mountains&Plains.

History:

For CO I felt that names should reflect mountain features. I own property in CO, and in my experience most people in the state would recognize Red Rocks as the jewel of the Denver Mountain Park system with its world famous amphitheater. Though the Front Range extends into WY it is most associated with CO. It's visible from the eastern plains, the home to most of the population even without the Denver metro, and dominates transportation from the western part of the state to the population centers.

[muon2]

There seems to be a bit of a shift on the criteria for the districts. The initial rules said nothing about shape and provided for very loose conditions for connectivity. Discontiguous districts were even suggested if justified. OTOH, community of interest was made a strong requirement. Population equality is expected to take a back seat to CoI as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The GA plan may be a compromise, but it doesn't particularly follow the rules. If the split between the Atlanta UCC and the rest of north GA is too unequal, then there should be a CoI justification. I would suggest using minority representation based on BVAP. This map shows counties shaded for 25-33.3%, 33.3-40%, 40-50%, and 50%+.



If one selects the Atlanta UCC counties that exceed 33.3% BVAP, those seven counties have a population of 2393K. That is 0.74 of the quota size for GA so it exceeds the 2/3 rule. The remainder in the north is 4253K and is 1.32 of the GA quota which is less than 4/3. This is a compromise in the spirit of the rules.

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%

[muon2]

There seems to be a bit of a shift on the criteria for the districts. The initial rules said nothing about shape and provided for very loose conditions for connectivity. Discontiguous districts were even suggested if justified. OTOH, community of interest was made a strong requirement. Population equality is expected to take a back seat to CoI as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The example of a discontiguous district was when another (central) district spanned the state cutting another district into parts.  Think Massachusetts and Boston.   A disconnected district might link Whatcom and Skagit with Okanogan, if the other district was very Seattle-Tacomia centric.

Conventional sensibility would be try to make the districts quite similar in population; but then you risk a situation like in Cortland County.  I was trying to discourage that.

If the districts are within a range of 2/3 to 1-1/3 of the quota, it ensures that the largest district is not more than twice the size that of the smallest district.  That would be at the extreme end of "coarse equality", particularly since it is somewhat unlikely that you would be at both extremes.

This is also consistent with the overall apportionment which used the harmonic mean as the divisor, rather than the geometric or arithmetic mean.  If I were implementing this scheme for a state legislature, I would expect that districts would be limited to the range of 2/3 to 1-1/3 of the statewide quota, with districts for the most part being unchanged so long as they remained within those limits.

I don't want to say never ever go outside those limits, but I don't think that Georgia provides a compelling enough case.

My confusion was with the text is your guidelines that I have bolded. My initial split had all the Atlanta UCC in one district, but that went beyond 4/3. Even though it seems to me that a whole UCC would fall within the meaning of a CoI and I set a hard upper limit of the population of the smallest state that was apportioned two seats, I can accept that the 4/3 of the quota is a much harder limit than I read it. If you can give an example of where you would accept a district in excess of 4/3 the quota it would help.

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.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does race form a geographic COI?

[/quote]

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.