Chops and Erosity - Great Lakes Style

[Torie]

Moderators note. This thread has been pulled from threads on MI and WI since the focus is on scoring rules for chops and erosity. An earlier discussion of MI using rules followed after the definition of UCCs.

 I wonder how the map below would score under the new Muon2 scoring system. No township or city chops other than Detroit (although the avoidance of a chop between MI-10 and MI-11 was at the cost I suspect of more state or US highway chops, so not sure if the avoidance of a chop helps or hurts the score; ditto for the line between MI-10 and MI-09), no chops of major metro areas other than Grand Rapids and Detroit which are unavoidable, all CD's within a 1% deviation, and if competitiveness is a less than 5 PVI, everything is  competitive other than the two black CD's and MI-05 and MI-07 (well MI-02 has a Pub PVI of 5.02% per the 2008 numbers). I don't remember what the cut off was for an uber competitive CD. Was that 1.5 PVI or less? If so, MI-04 and MI-06 are uber competitive.


 

[Torie]

Don't see how you can do that, without creating another macro chop or an extra county chop. But that doesn't mean it can't be done. I just don't see it.

If you reduce the chop in Kent, there will be an offsetting macro-chop into the Grand Rapids metro area elsewhere, plus maybe another county chop.

[Torie]

Don't see how you can do that, without creating another macro chop or an extra county chop. But that doesn't mean it can't be done. I just don't see it.

If you reduce the chop in Kent, there will be an offsetting macro-chop into the Grand Rapids metro area elsewhere, plus maybe another county chop.

I found a number of choices that kept the raw chop count the same. By raw chop count, I meant not counting UCC chops. That count is somewhat relevant, since there is still the outstanding question as to how to count chops in single-county UCCs. Is a chop into the rural part of Clinton county (Lansing UCC) worse than a chop into Jackson (Jackson UCC)?

I am not too excited about single county UCC's myself - at least ones hosting cities that are really not that sizable. LA County is another matter assuming it were a single county UCC.   Anyway, I didn't realize Jackson was a UCC. Too many UCC's, particularly single county ones, and it really limits flexibility.

[Torie]

Your suggestion about UCC chops seems reasonable. When I looked it up, Lapeer was in the Detroit UCC by the way. That is why the chop was there - to make a good faith attempt to have but one chop into the Detroit UCC. Which suggests that while having one chop in a multi county UCC area should count as but one chop, having two chops into it perhaps should be penalized, and count for three chops. 

[Torie]

My metric was to keep the BVAP about the same for both majority minority CD's.  That might not fit the scoring system, but comports with the intent of the VRA. Something to think about with your scoring system. This is about the the internal lines within the city of Detroit right?

[Torie]

Thought Holly was a city. Didn't realize I chopped Lennox. Why is Lennox a microchop, and Holly isn't? Your rules as written are hard to understand. I wish they could be more clearly stated.

[Torie]

Well, based on all of the above chit chat, and assuming no double chop penalty for a macro-chop into a multi-county UCC (and thus being able to chop Clinton County), I came up with the below, with the only intra-county macro-chop being one in Detroit that I don't think can be avoided.

One potential problem with this point count structure, is that it rewards doing an otherwise unnecessary micro county chop in order to get the population of a CD adjusted enough to effect an intra-county micro chop in lieu of a macro one. Not good. Or does a micro chop of a county count the same as a macro-chop? If not, does a micro chop of a county count the same as a macro chop of a city or township? I would rather have a macro chop of a city or township than a county micro-chop. The point count rules needs to work through all of this carefully and clearly to avoid playing these undesirable types of games. I am not sure the rules are adequate with respect to these considerations.

"Definition: The initial map for counties chops consists of UCCs and counties not in UCCs. The CHOP score is determined by counting the chops excluding microchops. In units with a macrochop, the CHOP score is increased by the chops of its subunits. If any of the subunits have a macrochop, its subunits are considered for the purposes of the CHOP score."

I don't see any penalty for doing a double macro chop into a multi county UCC, which I think should be considered. It also seems that there is no penalty for a county micro-chop, and there should be in my view, although less than the penalty for a macro-chop - perhaps a half point. Sure it is more complicated, but we already are complicated, and the idea is to generate the best results, is it not?


Is there a state and US highway cut count for with respect to CD lines that bisect counties by the way?

And is it impossible to do a maco-chop of a county with less than 1% of the ideal population size of a CD? If so, that too seems undesirable, since there would then be an incentive to chop mini counties. I suggest that the rule be, if it is not already, that a micro chop is where one portion of a county chop is less than the micro chop quota, and the other portion is more than the micro-chop quota, as opposed to both portions being less.

[Torie]

Does the below make the macro-chop for Clinton magically disappear by exploiting the 0.5% leeway in CD populations? If so, we have a problem, and such a result would never survive public square derision at this “anomaly.” Maybe having a 5% rule plus whatever play there is in adjacent CD’s given the 0.5% rule would resolve that. And if Jackson is a macro-shop, maybe a double one if a single county UCC generates a double penalty, does the second map “solve” that problem?  Don’t like that either, but I suppose that if single county UCC’s don’t matter, that is OK, and this version is more likely to have highway cuts, and a higher erosity score, which is good, so the prior map would have a higher score.

Can you avoid a macro-chop into a UCC by having two smaller chops into a multi county UCC, so instead of avoiding a second chop into a UCC, and searching for a chop elsewhere, you actually arrange the second chop to be into the UCC to get down below 25K plus per chop? If so, that rewards two smaller chops into a UCC. Don't like that one either. It should either be neutral, or penalized. I prefer just one chop into a multi county UCC myself.

This uber complicated system needs to be entirely scrubbed to avoid all of this game playing potential that I am exploring in this series of posts I am making, and needs to be taken seriously in my opinion.

I posed some other questions above which were not responded to btw. Cheers.

 

[Torie]

Nicely done. Much clearer.

 "Maybe having a 5% rule plus whatever play there is in adjacent CD’s given the 0.5% rule would resolve that."

I am not sure why you don't accept theaddendum revising the definition of a macrochop, so we don't have to do the nub, which is just plain silly to me, since you end up at once with both the nub, and more population deviations in the CD's from the ideal population number.

Your system seems to favor as many microchops as possible in order to avoid a non microchop. That strikes me as problematical. We really have a 1% play here if I understand this, since first you are allowed a .5% population deviation in CD's with no chops, and then  another .5% bite for microchops, with microchops having no scoring penalty at all apparently. I think there should be some penalty for microchops. To me having two fewer microchops should be scored the same as one macrochop (although with a macrochop it makes sense to worry about internal county subunits - in fact even with a non micro, non macro chop (an "intermediate chop"), it makes sense to worry about internal county subdivsions.

 Perhaps we will just have to disagree on this one. I don't think a zero penalty regime for microchops will sell in the public square. I favor the distinction between macrochops, intermediate chops and microchops, but microchops  should not be a get out of jail free regime in my opinion.

In reading your system again, there seems to be no penalty for a macro chop versus an intermediate chop as long as you have no chops of internal county subdivisions, as opposed to incurring another chop penalty, which surprises me. Am I misinterpreting your text?  If so, playing the nub game appears to be unnecessary if the macrochop entails no concomitant internal county chops.

Have I stated the policy choice fairly here, or am I still getting it wrong, or missing something, as to the effect of your system, and the policy choices made?

I still don't have an answer to my intra county chop erosity question. In your metric, do you count intra-county highway cuts?

And oh yes, this issue is still hanging out there unanswered:

"And is it impossible to a maco-chop [incur a chop penalty] of a county with less than 1% of the ideal population size of a CD? If so, that too seems undesirable, since there would then be an incentive to chop mini counties. I suggest that the rule be, if it is not already, that a micro chop is where one portion of a county chop is less than the micro chop quota, and the other portion is more than the micro-chop quota, as opposed to both portions being less."

Don't you care about the evisceration of mini counties?   In fact, why can't you microchop every connty in the state just for spite, or to collect some CD population adjustments bit by bit over many counties, so in the end all you have are a zillion microchops and nothing else, because you can without penalty?

[Torie]

Let me address the microchop concerns you raise. One thing you may be missing is that CHOP is not the only measure used to judge a plan. Microchops don't increase the chop count, but they do impact erosity, and generally microchops will increase erosity.

If a plan added a lot of gratuitous microchops, it is highly likely that the erosity increases. Suppose there are two plans, but one adds a bunch of microchops. If they keep the same chop count, then by the Pareto rule the morearose plan is excluded. Thus the gratuitous microchop plan is eliminated.

If one plan adds a bunch of microchops, increasing erosity but reducing chops, then both can go forward as they are pareto equivalent. Rarely a microchop reduces erosity, but it does in your Lenox township example, but if you look at the shape that makes sense. The indent for CD 9 was reduced by the microchop. I tend to doubt there are enough state highways around (that is your proxy still for erosity right?), to be a panacea for microchop city. You might ponder this one some more.

That said, a modification that adds one chop when the sum of all microchops in a unit exceeds 0.5% of the quota may make sense.  That would help to fix the issue.

On your concern about the 1% effect, that is valid on its face. However, there is also a measure of inequality used as a ties breaker if the chops and erosity are the same. A plan that stretches to 1% with microchops would be competingagainst plans that use microchops to decrease inequality, and could be eliminated by them.  Is that in the text somewhere?  I am not sure just being a tie breaker is good enough, if a bunch of microchops are used to avoid a non microchop somewhere. I think this comment of mine should be taken seriously. It just won't be accepted in the public square.

Still waiting for responses to my other questions which you keep ignoring.

[Torie]

Speaking of my dislike for two chops into a UCC, I also dislike any county that is not a UCC taking a two chop hit, and try to avoid that myself. It seems unfair to the county being cut up. Thus, it might be considered to levy an extra chop penalty when one does double chop a county or UCC. Find some other county to chop. And within a UCC, can one chop counties galore without penalty, as if one county, absent there being a macrochop into the UCC?  That really gives an incentive to do multiple microchops into a UCC, or at least intermediate chops. And the Detroit UCC has no chops into it at all, just a chop out into Lapeer County. So does that mean anything goes chop wise with the UCC, other than worrying about erosity?  If so, that is not good. Why was I spanked for not respecting Detroit hoods, if there is no penalty attached.

[Torie]

I thought I did clean up the Detroit lines, but my issue here, is that I don't see in the text of your rules anything about intra county chops where there is no macrochop into the county or UCC, so internal units don't matter. And I interpret your text as treating a UCC as one county, so not only intra county subdivisions, but counties themselves within the UCC, don't matter. As to chop count you can draw the lines anyway you want, and only have to worry about erosity. Perhaps I am misinterpreting your text. Remember that I am a lawyer, so I am a text driven kind of guy!

I am still concerned about multiple chops into one county not being penalized. It seems unfair to the county or UCC taking the hit.

My focus here on this exercise of course, is not playing the game here on Atlas, but fashioning something with more universal application that will withstand all the nit picking. I have no doubt that is why you are spending so much time on this as well, no?

[Torie]

Thanks for the comment and review. I suspect however that failure to penalize county chops within a UCC, equally applies to VA. That is a policy decision, but to ignore intra UCC county lines will be problematic, and controversial, in the public square. If ignored in MI, the array in the Detroit UCC would be different in all probability, particularly the lines of MI-09 and CD-10 and CD-11 where they intersect.

How can Macomb and Oakland be deemed "macro-chopped" if the Detroit UCC is treated as but one county for chop purposes?

[Torie]

The Detroit UCC was macrochopped by going out into Lapeer?  Is it clear in the text that chops out, are the same as chops in, for penalty purposes, when it comes to UCC's? If below the 105% threshold, than is it open season to chop within the UCC without penalty per the text?

[Torie]

The above text is almost impenetrable. What exactly happens that causes a penalty with lines within a UCC when a macrochop is in play, that would not happen absent a macrochop?  Exactly how is the penalty free leash shortened?  Where in the text are you penalized for chopping counties within a UCC?

Perhaps the text in your second paragraph is a badly needed fix for multi county UCC's. Sensitivity to county chops within a UCC and subunits of counties should always be in play, whether or not the 105% threshold is breached. If not, then you draw within UCC's solely based on erosity and the VRA, and in that case maybe the highest scoring map would have one of the black UCC's picking up blacks in both Macomb and Oakland, and not going to Pontiac (assuming that Detroit UCC was within the 105% test). And microchops should count, so you can't do multiple microchops. The map below does two chops, one in Troy and the other in West Bloomfield (a microchop), in order to lose a highway cut (a state highway ends, so it pays to get the CD to take it in all to the end). One should not be rewarded for the West Bloomfield microchop. It's just ludicrous. And with more microchops elsewhere, the Troy chop could be made micro as well.

[Torie]

Well we can quibble about the highway cuts. Rochester Road seems to quit being a state highway at the south end (the color changes), but maybe not, and I don't see a highway cut with my microchop into West Bloomfield.

I don't get the bit about one or more chops to create a microchop (we are talking about looking at internal chops give a microchop, versus not doing so), but putting that aside, what I was saying, was that with no macrochop, I don't see language about worrying about intra UCC chops, because you don't get to that level of "granularity" as you put it absent a microchop. What can you get away with absent a macrochop, that you can't if there is one? What exactly turns on the categorization, in practical terms?

"State highways are not particularly relevant at the township level, since there aren't enough to establish connectivity. If there is one it might be the preferred connection, but it isn't a guarantee. A state highway on the border of a unit counts in both units for establishing a path for a connection. In your example, I see no reward for the microchop, it looks to me like it increases erosity by one. On your other point I'm still assessing my suggestion that the sum of microchops in a unit be considered as a potential chop, which would address the case you raise when turning Troy into a microchop."

The above is also opaque. I thought highway cuts between CD's were relevant. I assumed highways along borders are not deemed cut. Yes, there are not tons of highways within individual townships But in cities, there seem to be in Oakland County), which is why you are free up to a point to chop away at some townships. How is this relevant to anything we are talking about?  The issue is chop count versus erosity, and whether it is desirable to encourage penalty free chops to reduce highway cuts.

We are not communicating well today.

[Torie]

One thing led to another, and I ended up drawing this "contest" map for WI, as an exercise to show the Pub gerrymander did not accomplish much, other than make WI-01 lean Pub rather than a tossup from a PVI perspective.

However, it raises an issue. The second map below is an alternative, that does shift about 1.5 PVI points between WI-07, making WI-07 tilt Dem, and WI-03 competitive (lean Dem) per 2008 numbers. (With the trends, WI-07 might be tossup with this map, and WI-03 tilt Dem.)

The chop into Dunn County (like the name ), is necessary, and notice that it gets rid of a highway chop, so this map has one more necessary county chop than the contest map, but one less highway chop. I guess that is OK, but where two maps are tied this way, some might prefer that one county chop racks up more penalty points than one highway chop (and I still think township and city chops should count for something, just less penalized than county chops).

What is even more problematical however, is doing the second "unnecessary" county chop, to lose a highway chop (a "gratuitous" county chop as it were, that need not be done to get within the 0.5% deviation limit in population from the CD quota). In the second map that was done with Sauk County. A map without a gratuitous chop should be favored I think over the map with such a chop. A gratuitous county chop should not be allowed to reduce the highway cut count I guess is my suggestion.

The 0.5% population play does make for an interesting redistricting game I must admit - much more interesting than without it. And there are a lot of games that can be played with it - a lot.



 

[Torie]

For cut counts, you only count state highways connecting county seats unless there is a macro-chop, and then you count all state highways involved with the "macro-chopped" county (btw, Dunn is intermediate chopped rather than macro-chopped isn't it, or has that distinction been lost even though a UCC is involved (somehow I am under the impression that macrochoops only pop up with UCC's)? That is a new one for me. It strikes me as way too complicated. If one wants to draw a distinction between macro [intermediate] and micro chops (that too is problematical for me given you have the 0.5% population variance leeway), simpler is just to count micro-chops at one half point each (maybe .5 points for county microchops and .25 points for town and city microchops, and ban gratuitous ones to game reducing the highway cuts. By the time you are done Mike constructing this labyrinth, only a physicist will understand your metric. At this juncture, I doubt anyone on the Forum really does.

Do you ban traveling chops by the way?  That was an issue vis a vis whether WI-05 could go into Ozaukee County or not via chopping through Washington County (doing a microchop of both Washington County and Germantown). Alternatively, WI-04 could take in all of Ozaukee, WI-05 micro-chopping into Washington County, with no chop of Erin Township, but with an  intermediate chop of the City of Milwaukee. Which of these maps chop wise scores highest in your universe, my original map, the traveling chop map, or the City of Milwaukee chopped map?

[Torie]

I see what you are doing now, and how a chop (other than a micro one?), creates a quasi county that then has independent highways connecting it to adjacent county seats. And apparently state highways to don't go to the county seat of an adjacent county, or quasi county, don't count. Not sure that is good policy, to exclude some state highways that way, and it adds complexity, but at least now I understand the highway cut issue.

Nelsville is the county seat of Clark County in Wisconsin, not Greenwood, but either way apparently Hwy 29 through northern Clark is not a highway cut  because it does not connect from the Clark county seat to an adjacent county, county seat. That is an example as to why, beyond complexity, picking and choosing state highways to count as cut is problematical, because the WI-03 Clark County jut is an erose feature, and thus the cut of Hwy 29 is a good proxy to pick that erose feature up. Your highway cut metric seems more focused on connectivity between county seats, rather than connectivity in general (hwy 29 does connect to county seats in adjacent counties, so the population around it is connected to those counties, even though Clark's county seat is not in play), and trying to get the best possible proxy for erose shapes. This would be particularly a problem with the county seat is not the largest town or city in a county.

I guess I am thinking now discriminating between different types of state highways is a big mistake. they all should count, although I do kind of like your idea that each portion of  a chopped county counts as a separate county for highway chop purposes. Whether that should obtain if the chop is a microchop is however an issue to ponder.

I have a headache!

[Torie]

I see what you are doing now, and how a chop (other than a micro one?), creates a quasi county that then has independent highways connecting it to adjacent county seats. And apparently state highways to don't go to the county seat of an adjacent county, or quasi county, don't count. Not sure that is good policy, to exclude some state highways that way, and it adds complexity, but at least now I understand the highway cut issue.

Microchops also create quasi-counties. They are chops in all respects, except that they don't add to the chop count (unless the total of all microchops in a county exceeds the 0.5% threshold).

The regional connection rule is that one must be able to trace a path from one node to another on numbered state or federal highways without crossing into a third county. Highways on a border count in both counties. For counties, I used the address of the seat of county government and the point on a state highway nearest it as the node. A case can be made to use the seat of government of the largest city in a county, if that is not the county seat.

So Hwy 29 counts as two cuts, because it goes from one node to another, just not to nodes in adjacent counties? I still think I prefer counting all highway cuts, but in the end it comes down to what is the best proxy for erosity.

We will just have to disagree on whether microchops are penalized. I won't support that. It creates an incentive to have one microchop per county (or more up to 0.5% as you say), so that there are no bigger chops, making a mess of a map. The public square won't stand for it.

[Torie]

WI was one of the original states for which I posted a regional county connection map back in 2012. All of the links are based on state highways between county seats.



The first Torie map in the previous post cuts 11 links on the boundary between CD 3 and CD 7.

The second map cuts 9 links not counting the chop in Dunn. The chop in Dunn has a link between the two parts which is also cut, bringing the total to 10 that is how it would be judged on the one interpretation (used in the AL discussion). If viewed this way it has one more chop and one less erosity and is Pareto equivalent to the first map.

However, depending on how one counts the links, a secondary path between Dunn and Chippewa follows WI-64. If that link becomes active after the chop then the number of cut links rises to 11, the same as in the first. IIRC this interpretation was used in a discussion of MD plans way back when, in part because there was no concept of macrochops. If this view is used, then the second map loses to the first one. It's worth exploring the relative merits of the two interpretations.

I've been putting together a detailed example for MI which I hope will illustrate the counting in a chopped county as well as provide some justification for the crossover to macrochops for large chops.

You seem to have highways in Clark that I just don't see at all. I guess any paved road will do to get to the adjacent county, even if not a state highway, is that right?  In a microchop area with no state highways, do you just use any paved road for the quasi county? (I do see now that highway 73 does apparently wind through Clark, just not a yellow line or labeled.)

[Torie]

Nelsville is the county seat of Clark County in Wisconsin, not Greenwood, but either way apparently Hwy 29 through northern Clark is not a highway cut  because it does not connect from the Clark county seat to an adjacent county, county seat. That is an example as to why, beyond complexity, picking and choosing state highways to count as cut is problematical, because the WI-03 Clark County jut is an erose feature, and thus the cut of Hwy 29 is a good proxy to pick that erose feature up. Your highway cut metric seems more focused on connectivity between county seats, rather than connectivity in general (hwy 29 does connect to county seats in adjacent counties, so the population around it is connected to those counties, even though Clark's county seat is not in play), and trying to get the best possible proxy for erose shapes. This would be particularly a problem with the county seat is not the largest town or city in a county.

I'm not sure I follow your concern here. My map of WI has hwy-29 connected to US-10 by way of hwy-73 which is entirely in Clark for that stretch. Both Greenwood and Neillsville are on hwy-73 so any path that connects to one of them connects to the other. You can't use hwy-29 to connect Chippewa to Taylor since that would go through Clark, but hwy-64 provides a direct path so hwy-29 is not an issue.

Oh, I see, highway 73 is not an orange line, but still a state highway. Assuming Hwy 29 has nothing to do with the county seat, is cutting it still a chop because it connects the county seats of Marathon and Chippewa, two non adjacent counties?

[Torie]

Maybe move all the posts on this topic to a new thread. It's just using WI and MI as examples. You are constructing a hideously complex system, and the issue is balancing all of this against simplicity. In the end, a much clearer statement of how it all works needs to be set forth, but I am concerned about the gaming. It's kind of a mess really. Just like the weighted voting thing - another nightmare.

[Torie]

"My proposal is the zoom is triggered when the sum of chops in a county exceeds 5% of the quota."

What does that mean? What is the quota? How does one calculate the numerator and denominator?  And when you "zoom," what additional highways are brought into play?  Every highway connector the "center" of each subunit?

[Torie]

Oh, I was mixing up cuts and chops. And you treat a multi-county UCC as one county for this purpose, right?  Anyway, as I think I mentioned before, within UCC's smaller unit chops should count, whether or not you have a macro chop into a UCC. So I was focused on erosity measures within a UCC, which I thought was what we were discussing. And outside UCC's, I am still not persuaded why some state highways should count, and not others, and what to do if there are no state highways between adjacent counties. Is that deemed a chop when two counties with no state highway between them are in the same CD? Or do payed county highways count to avoid a chop?  None of this may obtain to WI or MI perhaps (although some state highways are poorly labeled and hard to find on Dave's matting utility.