MI maps - muon2 scoring

[muon2]

So at this point there are 13 plans, so let's see if we can find a relationship between chop and erosity scores. To get the relationship I need to extract the Pareto optimal plans.

If I use the original raw CHOP and EROSITY there are three plans that rise to the top.
muon2 B: C 8, E 116
Torie C: C 12, E 95
Torie B: C 13, E 94

If I include the UCC cover penalty then the same three plans make the grade. However, if the cover and pack penalties are both applied the list changes slightly.
train D: C 9, E 124 (technically a connection-violating plan)
muon2 B: C 10, E 116
Torie E: C 13, E 115
Torie C: C 14, E 95
Torie B: C 15, E 94
Adding the single county UCC penalty causes train D to drop off, overtaken by muon2B.

If I use the longer list to find the chop-erosity relationship through linear regression, I get that the marginal value of a chop point is 4.7 erosity points. However the standard error on that 4.7 is 1.3 and the R-squared is only 0.808 (out of 1).

The other factor to consider is the inequality. Since additional chops should in principle reduce inequality and the table for inequality scores is calibrated to match the marginal changes, I can add the INEQUALITY to the CHOP and compare that to the EROSITY. Using the original scoring with range and the raw chops the following plans are Pareto optimal:
muon2 B: I+C 18, E 116
Torie A: I+C 22, E 106
Torie C: I+C 24, E 95
Torie B: I+C 25, E 94
A regression fit to these four plans gives 3.3 for the marginal value of a I+C point in erosity with a standard error of 0.4 and an R-squared of 0.968. This is a much better fit than chop alone.

One last test was to use the deviation-based inequality and apply the UCC cover and pack penalties (without single county UCC penalties). Six plans make the list.
train D: I+C 20, E 124
muon2 B: I+C 21, E 116
Torie A: I+C 23, E 106
Torie D: I+C 25, E 99
Torie C: I+C 26, E 95
Torie B: I+C 27, E 94
The regression gives a marginal value for I+C of 4.3 in erosity with a standard error of 0.4 and an R-squared of 0.969. It's consistent with the results for the simpler I+C calculation. Interestingly the theoretical marginal value of erosity in terms of chops controlled for inequality is 3.6 (square root of one less than the number of districts), so these results are consistent with theory as well.

[jimrtex]

So at this point there are 13 plans, so let's see if we can find a relationship between chop and erosity scores. To get the relationship I need to extract the Pareto optimal plans.

If I use the original raw CHOP and EROSITY there are three plans that rise to the top.
muon2 B: C 8, E 116
Torie C: C 12, E 95
Torie B: C 13, E 94

Could you show a chart?

[jimrtex]

So at this point there are 13 plans, so let's see if we can find a relationship between chop and erosity scores. To get the relationship I need to extract the Pareto optimal plans.

Are the 13 plans:

Torie 2015 (A, B, C, D, E, F)
Train 2015 (A2, A3, B, C, D)
Muon2 2015 (A2, B)?

[muon2]

So at this point there are 13 plans, so let's see if we can find a relationship between chop and erosity scores. To get the relationship I need to extract the Pareto optimal plans.

Are the 13 plans:

Torie 2015 (A, B, C, D, E, F)
Train 2015 (A2, A3, B, C, D)
Muon2 2015 (A2, B)?

Not train A2 (it was subsumed into A3), but I did score your joint submission with Torie as jimrtex A.

[muon2]

So at this point there are 13 plans, so let's see if we can find a relationship between chop and erosity scores. To get the relationship I need to extract the Pareto optimal plans.

If I use the original raw CHOP and EROSITY there are three plans that rise to the top.
muon2 B: C 8, E 116
Torie C: C 12, E 95
Torie B: C 13, E 94

Could you show a chart?

For the first comparison in the above quote I used the following table.

Plan	range INEQUALITY	raw CHOP	EROSITY
train A3	10	11		136
train B	10	10		126
train C	10	9		125
train D	10	9		124
Torie A	10	12		106
Torie B	12	13		94
Torie C	12	12		95
Torie D	12	12		99
Torie E	11	12		115
Torie F	11	12		122
jimrtex A	11	12		112
muon2 A	11	9		119
muon2 B	10	8		116

The highlighted rows were Pareto optimal in that there was no plan that could improve on either CHOP or EROSITY without diminishing the other. For example muon2 B improves on both scores cmpared to muon2 A, so I eliminated muon2 A. Torie C improves on EROSITY for the same CHOP as Torie A so it is eliminated. Note this is with the raw CHOP without UCC penalties. INEQUALITY didn't figure into this selection.

I'll can build equivalent tables for the other selections. (I used a note card and a pen to transcribe from this thread, so I have to set up each separately.)

The same table above was used to get the following list. The difference is that the sum of INEQUALITY and CHOP was used instead of CHOP alone. Since this was a better fit, I continued along the direction of the sum.

The other factor to consider is the inequality. Since additional chops should in principle reduce inequality and the table for inequality scores is calibrated to match the marginal changes, I can add the INEQUALITY to the CHOP and compare that to the EROSITY. Using the original scoring with range and the raw chops the following plans are Pareto optimal:
muon2 B: I+C 18, E 116
Torie A: I+C 22, E 106
Torie C: I+C 24, E 95
Torie B: I+C 25, E 94
A regression fit to these four plans gives 3.3 for the marginal value of a I+C point in erosity with a standard error of 0.4 and an R-squared of 0.968. This is a much better fit than chop alone.

[muon2]

If I include the UCC cover penalty then the same three plans make the grade. However, if the cover and pack penalties are both applied the list changes slightly.
train D: C 9, E 124 (technically a connection-violating plan)
muon2 B: C 10, E 116
Torie E: C 13, E 115
Torie C: C 14, E 95
Torie B: C 15, E 94
Adding the single county UCC penalty causes train D to drop off, overtaken by muon2B.

If I use the longer list to find the chop-erosity relationship through linear regression, I get that the marginal value of a chop point is 4.7 erosity points. However the standard error on that 4.7 is 1.3 and the R-squared is only 0.808 (out of 1).

Here is the table for that next comparison with cover and pack penalties.

Plan	range INEQUALITY	CHOP (UP)	EROSITY
train A3	10	12		136
train B	10	11		126
train C	10	10		125
train D	10	9		124
Torie A	10	14		106
Torie B	12	15		94
Torie C	12	14		95
Torie D	12	14		99
Torie E	11	13		115
Torie F	11	12		122
jimrtex A	11	16		112
muon2 A	11	12		119
muon2 B	10	10		116

The highlighted rows were Pareto optimal in that there was no plan that could improve on either CHOP or EROSITY without diminishing the other.

[muon2]

One last test was to use the deviation-based inequality and apply the UCC cover and pack penalties (without single county UCC penalties). Six plans make the list.
train D: I+C 20, E 124
muon2 B: I+C 21, E 116
Torie A: I+C 23, E 106
Torie D: I+C 25, E 99
Torie C: I+C 26, E 95
Torie B: I+C 27, E 94
The regression gives a marginal value for I+C of 4.3 in erosity with a standard error of 0.4 and an R-squared of 0.969. It's consistent with the results for the simpler I+C calculation. Interestingly the theoretical marginal value of erosity in terms of chops controlled for inequality is 3.6 (square root of one less than the number of districts), so these results are consistent with theory as well.

For this data I used the following table. The older range basis for inequality is replaced by the average deviation method. Pareto optimality is found by comparing the sum of INEQUALITY and CHOP to the EROSITY.

Plan	ave dev INEQUALITY	CHOP (UP)	I+C	EROSITY
train A3	9	12	21	136
train B	11	11	22	126
train C	11	10	21	125
train D	11	9	20	124
Torie A	9	14	23	106
Torie B	12	15	27	94
Torie C	12	14	26	95
Torie D	11	14	25	99
Torie E	11	13	24	115
Torie F	10	12	22	122
jimrtex A	9	16	25	112
muon2 A	13	12	25	119
muon2 B	11	10	21	116

Is this a reasonable selection from the initial set of plans? In principle these would be the plans that would go to a vote by a legislature, commission or other body. train D would be eliminated since it violates a basic rule for connections. Inequality has a cap on the maximum deviation.

Should there be upper limits for chops or erosity or just let Pareto play out? For example, without UCC penalties or subunit chops no plan should need more than 13 chops (one less than the number of districts), and that could be a rule.

The minimum number of chops any plan in MI could theoretically have is 5: 1 Macomb, 1 Oakland, 2 Wayne, and 1 Detroit. In practice there has to be at least one additional chop or UCC pack penalty in GR and a chop or UCC penalty around Detroit. The nominal ideal average deviation for the minimal chop plan in MI is about 1200 or a score of 9. Together they add to 14, and based on the regression for erosity, a I+C score of 9 would be expected to have erosity of 146. Does that suggest a maximum erosity cap on a plan?

Finally there is the VRA issue. Many of the plans in the list allowed one or both VRA districts to drop below 50% BVAP. If a plan had a Pub skew, I would expect it to be challenged if it used the 47% standard instead of 50%. OTOH a Dem-skewed plan might survive, at least based on challenges in the most recent rounds of redistricting. Should that be a scoring factor, or just up to the commission on final review?

[muon2]

After all that technical analysis here's a little amuse-bouche. I took my Detroit UCC splintering muon2 A and gave it a reworking. I decided to see how far I could push down the combined inequality and chop scores and bite the bullet on erosity. I also wanted to keep both 50%+ BVAP districts. I used train's pack of GR to eliminate any penalty there but I left in place the excess cover and one excess pack in Detroit at a cost of 3 points there. Here's what came out.

MI muon2 2015C



SKEW 2 (R) (3D, 2d, 5e, 3r, 1R)
POLARIZATION 13
INEQUALITY 7 (ave dev 788, range 4217)
CHOP 12 (9 raw, 2 cover, 1 pack)
EROSITY 135

There are a number of interesting features here from a public policy perspective.
1. CDs 2 and 3 could have been maintained as whole counties with a pack penalty traded for the chop count. A whole county version would have reduced erosity, but average deviation was lower the way it's shown here.
2. The chop in Washtenaw is just enough to keep Milan in one CD. In the OH competition that would have been rewarded with no chop counted in that county.
3. The number of highly competitive districts (PVI=0 or 1) is up to 5 and the polarization is down to 13. In AZ increasing the number of competitive districts is a specific goal, though here it is only a consideration after the main scoring.
4. The shape of CD 14 is particularly erose, but linking the Grosse Pointes to Grosse Ile is a riverfront district and could be construed as a community of interest. There were districts in CA that seemed to use this type of logic.

[jimrtex]

So at this point there are 13 plans, so let's see if we can find a relationship between chop and erosity scores. To get the relationship I need to extract the Pareto optimal plans.

Are the 13 plans:

Torie 2015 (A, B, C, D, E, F)
Train 2015 (A2, A3, B, C, D)
Muon2 2015 (A2, B)?

Not train A2 (it was subsumed into A3), but I did score your joint submission with Torie as jimrtex A.

That's good, since I scored A2.

[traininthedistance]

Alright, I've got an alternate chop-minimzer which doesn't have any traveling chops and, as a bonus, isn't so obviously ludicrous in the rural areas north of GR.  The downside is that inequality has to go up.

MI train 2015E






The Detroit area is *almost* the same; Sylvan Lake just SW of Pontiac was switched from 11 to 9.

The Jackson chop is, alas, a macrochop.  Tuscola and Washtenaw are not, though.  I have not rigorously tested if chopping Owosso instead would lower erosity.  Being non-macro chops, I imagine it oughtn't make much difference?

[jimrtex]

So at this point there are 13 plans, so let's see if we can find a relationship between chop and erosity scores. To get the relationship I need to extract the Pareto optimal plans.

If I use the original raw CHOP and EROSITY there are three plans that rise to the top.
muon2 B: C 8, E 116
Torie C: C 12, E 95
Torie B: C 13, E 94

Could you show a chart?

For the first comparison in the above quote I used the following table.

Plan	range INEQUALITY	raw CHOP	EROSITY
train A3	10	11		136
train B	10	10		126
train C	10	9		125
train D	10	9		124
Torie A	10	12		106
Torie B	12	13		94
Torie C	12	12		95
Torie D	12	12		99
Torie E	11	12		115
Torie F	11	12		122
jimrtex A	11	12		112
muon2 A	11	9		119
muon2 B	10	8		116

The highlighted rows were Pareto optimal in that there was no plan that could improve on either CHOP or EROSITY without diminishing the other. For example muon2 B improves on both scores cmpared to muon2 A, so I eliminated muon2 A. Torie C improves on EROSITY for the same CHOP as Torie A so it is eliminated. Note this is with the raw CHOP without UCC penalties. INEQUALITY didn't figure into this selection.

Does Pareto optimization require a discrete domain, or can it be continuous.  I suppose you would have to figure out a way that could compare plans that improved one variable, while not significantly degrading another.   That was the impetus between my question about hyperbolic curve fitting, as a way of defining the direction of improvement.

[muon2]

Does Pareto optimization require a discrete domain, or can it be continuous.  I suppose you would have to figure out a way that could compare plans that improved one variable, while not significantly degrading another.   That was the impetus between my question about hyperbolic curve fitting, as a way of defining the direction of improvement.

Pareto works fine with continuous variables as well. The rule is that if one plan improves one or more variables compared to another plan, but makes no variable worse, then it is Pareto preferred. I assume that your two variables are the population shift and the perimeter for the regions. Do you have additional variables to score the districts in regions larger than one?



train - I'll look at the score for your new offering when I get a chance. I'm curious if you can put up a better version that keeps both VRA CDs over 50% than my latest. With my three UCC penalty points in Detroit that should provide some room to work.

[jimrtex]

Does Pareto optimization require a discrete domain, or can it be continuous.  I suppose you would have to figure out a way that could compare plans that improved one variable, while not significantly degrading another.   That was the impetus between my question about hyperbolic curve fitting, as a way of defining the direction of improvement.

Pareto works fine with continuous variables as well. The rule is that if one plan improves one or more variables compared to another plan, but makes no variable worse, then it is Pareto preferred. I assume that your two variables are the population shift and the perimeter for the regions. Do you have additional variables to score the districts in regions larger than one?

What if it improves one variable, while making another variable slightly worse (for mumbly values of slightly).

As currently conceived, the regional plan would be chosen before there was further refinement.  I am assuming that small changes to Detroit regions, such as adding population from Ingham rather than Sanilac, Lapeer, or Genesee will  make no material difference to the Detroit districts (we are only adding about 4% of a quota).

[muon2]

Does Pareto optimization require a discrete domain, or can it be continuous.  I suppose you would have to figure out a way that could compare plans that improved one variable, while not significantly degrading another.   That was the impetus between my question about hyperbolic curve fitting, as a way of defining the direction of improvement.

Pareto works fine with continuous variables as well. The rule is that if one plan improves one or more variables compared to another plan, but makes no variable worse, then it is Pareto preferred. I assume that your two variables are the population shift and the perimeter for the regions. Do you have additional variables to score the districts in regions larger than one?

What if it improves one variable, while making another variable slightly worse (for mumbly values of slightly).

Then the plans are considered Pareto equivalent, even if it is a big improvement in one but a slight decline in the other.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand that a regional plan might be chosen first, but there still has to be a way to score the subregional plans once the regional plan is selected. There are lots of ways to carve up the Detroit districts and where the extra population is attached will affect the districts, especially if the additional population is greater than the allowable deviation.

[traininthedistance]

train - I'll look at the score for your new offering when I get a chance. I'm curious if you can put up a better version that keeps both VRA CDs over 50% than my latest. With my three UCC penalty points in Detroit that should provide some room to work.

Yeah, you can shift things in Detroit to give the latest map two 50%+ districts, at the cost of one cut.

I also noticed that there was a stray precinct somewhere up north which would have pushed inequality to the absolute limit, so I took the opportunity to rejigger lines in districts 1-5.  I *think* this saves two erosity points anyway... so they can be easily grafted onto the other Detroit.

What this map sadly does not do is care much about inequality.  That number remains high and, with this arrangement, is staying high unless you add another chop, to give the northern five districts another 11K people or so.  So if inequality is a fully-equal leg on the Pareto stool, that would mean it's unlikely to knock many other plans out.  I've been thinking about trying to make an inequality-minimizing map (within reason), but would certainly go to a different template for that.  (Note that switching Sylvan Lake from 11 to 9 would help average inequality, but it hurts erosity and does nothing for the in extremis inequality measure currently in place.)

MI train 2015F

[jimrtex]

As currently conceived, the regional plan would be chosen before there was further refinement.  I am assuming that small changes to Detroit regions, such as adding population from Ingham rather than Sanilac, Lapeer, or Genesee will  make no material difference to the Detroit districts (we are only adding about 4% of a quota).

I understand that a regional plan might be chosen first, but there still has to be a way to score the subregional plans once the regional plan is selected. There are lots of ways to carve up the Detroit districts and where the extra population is attached will affect the districts, especially if the additional population is greater than the allowable deviation.

Let's say you have a map that puts two districts in Wayne, and another across the Wayne/Oakland border.   That puts another district in Livingston+Oakland, with 0.563 left over.
Place one district in Macomb, which leaves 0.191.   Add in St.Clair.  If the extra 0.40 comes from Lapeer it gets added in as well.

But let's say that 0.25 comes from Ingham.  That will give you 0.25 more left over in Oakland.  So you are moving the border in northern Oakland a little bit.   And you can still come across the Macomb-Wayne line to grab the Grosse Point's which shifts the boundary in Oakland County a litte further east.

[muon2]

What this map sadly does not do is care much about inequality.  That number remains high and, with this arrangement, is staying high unless you add another chop, to give the northern five districts another 11K people or so.  So if inequality is a fully-equal leg on the Pareto stool, that would mean it's unlikely to knock many other plans out.  I've been thinking about trying to make an inequality-minimizing map (within reason), but would certainly go to a different template for that.  (Note that switching Sylvan Lake from 11 to 9 would help average inequality, but it hurts erosity and does nothing for the in extremis inequality measure currently in place.)

In my tabular analysis of the first 13 plans I found that using the sum of chops + UCC penalty + average inequality was a good variable to contrast with erosity. I'm willing to use it until a reason surfaces to not use it. In my plan that dropped INEQUALITY to 7 the average deviation was used.

BTW I really like your Detroit UCC plan. I have to think about how to avoid the ensuing macrochop of Jackson.

Thought: The inequality problem is that if one takes the Detroit and Lansing UCC and all the counties to their south the population is 9207 over 8 CDs. You can spread that around those CDs and if all have a positive deviation the average is only 1151. However, the remaining 6 CDs have a deficit of that same 9207, but the compact CD 6 has excess of 2424, so the remaining 5 CDs have to split a deficit of 11631 which is an average of -2326. That dooms any attempt at a low INEQUALITY. The only response is to chop into either one of the UCCs for 9K and take the point penalty. My guess is that the total I+C would justify that.

[muon2]

I took my suggestions for train's map (train F) and used them to drive down the average inequality. I kept the Detroit VRA districts with the swap of Wyandotte for Allen Park to better equalize population. I got rid of the macrochop in Jackson and moved the chop of Washtenaw to Monroe.

train, since it is based on your plan, feel free to tweak it towards lower average inequality or erosity. Obviously, we could swap the 47% BVAP threshold version from train E and reduce the chop count.

The chop of Clinton is annoying since it incurs both the chop and UCC cover penalty. As I noted in my previous comments something has to chop into either Detroit or Lansing to get low inequality based on the SE MI regions. Seeing the effect of the chop of Clinton, I'm inclined to think that anything short of a macrochop of a UCC shouldn't get a cover penalty. This would only affect multi-county single-district UCCs, and put them on an even basis with single county UCCs. That is to say the chop of Clinton/Lansing UCC should score the same as the chop of Monroe or Jackson in this map.

MI muon2 2015D

[traininthedistance]

The chop of Clinton is annoying since it incurs both the chop and UCC cover penalty. As I noted in my previous comments something has to chop into either Detroit or Lansing to get low inequality based on the SE MI regions. Seeing the effect of the chop of Clinton, I'm inclined to think that anything short of a macrochop of a UCC shouldn't get a cover penalty. This would only affect multi-county single-district UCCs, and put them on an even basis with single county UCCs.

I'm doubt I'd be on board with that change, as currently suggested.  I'd be more likely to either support adding cover penalties to single-county UCCs, or allowing non-macro chops in multi-county multi-district UCCs as well.  I don't think that we should be saying that inequality-reducing chops should have to go into Lansing rather than Detroit, but that's what your proposed rule seems to do. Or just live with the status quo– if that chop gives you enough of a inequality boost, it shouldn't be the end of the world that it counts twice.  

...

This is not likely to be a winning anything: it chops the Lansing UCC (something I had been avoiding for the longest time, and still would not particularly like to see rewarded... also not a huge fan of the Thumb split), for what's really only a marginal improvement in inequality (does not beat your latest map).  I'll continue to fiddle.

But, it continues to keep raw county cuts pretty minimized, so perhaps worth showing for that purpose. And Jackson is no longer a macrochop.

[traininthedistance]

This should be a (temporary) winner on CHOP + INEQUALITY.  It's not what I'd call an ideal map– severing Saginaw from Bay City/Midland still strikes me as far from ideal, and 3 is erose.  I'm sure this map will do nothing to challenge Torie's efforts to drive down the other pole.  But it gets things pretty low without incurring any UCC penalties (which should allay muon's concern wrt Clinton above), and with really not too many chops.  You'll note that one township in St. Joseph's County that was moved from 6 to 7... that can go right back to 6 and the map will still pass muster.  But making that microchop saves two inequality points, bringing average INEQUALITY down to 795, so it's worth it.

I suspect that more inequality-reducing chops will work on a one-to-one basis, so I'm not sure if you can push the frontier much further.  In particular, getting a UCC pack penalty by sending 10 into Lapeer rather than 11, and rearranging Detroit around that, gets us one point.  But I'll see if there's any other low-hanging fruit (like the 6 microchop) that I'm missing.









I will say that I'm not entirely sure that CHOP + INEQUALITY as a combo measure is my favorite way to get inequality into the scoring mix– though I'm also not sure what my preferred alternative would be, so happy to run with it as a hypothetical for now.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'm getting the impression that this is no place to discuss the partisan impact of these maps, no?

[traininthedistance]

I suspect that more inequality-reducing chops will work on a one-to-one basis, so I'm not sure if you can push the frontier much further.  In particular, getting a UCC pack penalty by sending 10 into Lapeer rather than 11, and rearranging Detroit around that, gets us one point.  But I'll see if there's any other low-hanging fruit (like the 6 microchop) that I'm missing.

I lied.  Microchopping into 4 (and chaining chops through 4->3->7->11) gets us another two-point boost on INEQUALITY. Average is down to 504.



(Detroit is the same except that 9 takes in Lake Angelus.)

We're really reaching the point of diminishing returns now.

I'm getting the impression that this is no place to discuss the partisan impact of these maps, no?

Muon's been scoring some of them on "skew" and "polarization", which he can explain better than I. While the whole point of this project is to try and create a set of rules that tries to take the partisan out of the redistricting, I for one think the "skew" measure is a very valuable and important check to make sure that these maps don't all turn out to be crypto-gerrymanders (which is certainly a potential danger with any "blind" rule-based system).  "Polarization" I'm less sanguine on, as it gives an incentive to create competitive districts and honestly some electorates are naturally polarized and I'm fine with a map which reflects that.

Obviously, with the current MI map being a Republican gerrymander, all of these proposals would be likely to help Dems to some extent.  But that's far from true for every state, and some of them don't help that much.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Non-partisan redistricting is an interesting concept, one I am open to.  It's interesting an attempt is being made here to do that.
That's of course in the event that a law was passed that required House seats to be drawn with presidential voting in mind.  That's my favorite alternative to the current system - which I am not sure about on whether I want it reformed or not.

[jimrtex]

Non-partisan redistricting is an interesting concept, one I am open to.  It's interesting an attempt is being made here to do that.
That's of course in the event that a law was passed that required House seats to be drawn with presidential voting in mind.  That's my favorite alternative to the current system - which I am not sure about on whether I want it reformed or not.

California and Florida do not permit use of political data, including locations of incumbents, except when used in conjunction with racial or ethnic minorities.  Arizona requires creation of competitive districts if possible.

[jimrtex]

Anyway, for scoring,  "your" map is below (as best I could draw it), avoiding subunit chops, assuming that they are penalized in the chop score (as they should be). I must admit "your" MI-04 achieves absolute perfection.


MI jimrtex 2015A

It wasn't really "my" map.  I found a map on the Internet, and was using it for example.  You've jumped ahead to the next step.  But your going back and forth about whether it is better to split Eaton or Ingham illustrates a weakness of a single comprehensive stage.  It become exceedingly complex when trying to consider where the boundary should be between Grand Rapids and Lansing, when it is somehow tied to the division of Hamtramck.   If your statewide map had been approved, then there could be a simple focused discussion on where to get 13,647 persons, where all the options might be considered.

The switch of Osceola (not Missaukee) was automatic.  When a single county on a boundary can be switched and improve the equality between the two districts, then it is shifted.  The algorithm is simple.   Determine counties in the more populous district that have less population than the difference.   Choose the one that reduces the difference the most, while not breaking contiguity.

I had noticed that the shift of Missaukee would produce a 3rd district within 0.5% bounds.  I'll submit it as a joint effort.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

INEQUALITY 11 (range), 9 (ave dev) (range 5977, ave dev 1257) [11/9 in Torie D]
CHOP 12 raw (UC 14, UP 16, US 17) [12/13/14/16 Torie D]
EROSITY 112 (changes 1/2:5[6], 1/4:5[5], 2/3:10[2], 2/4:5[5], 3/4:4[2], 3/5:1[0], 3/8:5[3], 4/5:4[4], 4/8:0[1], 5/8:0[1], 5/10:4[3], 5/11:4[3], 8/11:1[1], 10/11:11[10] net +13) [99 in Torie D]

Shifting the chop from Saginaw to Ingham doesn't affect the raw CHOP, but does increase the UCC cover count, though if single county UCCs are counted it's a wash. Note that Kent is now a macrochop so erosity increases there, plus the other shofts tend to hurt erosity as well.

Shifting the chop from Clinton to Eaton increases the ave dev INEQUALITY to 10 and leaves the CHOP the same. The EROSITY drops to 110.

Edit: The chop into Ingham decreases the Detroit UCC pack from 5 to 4 so the UP score goes up an additional 1 beyond the 1 for GR.

When you originally split the Lansing UCC, you went all the way to the Ingham-Eaton line.  There is clear distinction between that, and chopping 5% of the county's population.

I don't see any difference in a policy standpoint from having two districts extending outside the Detroit UCC, and just one.  Keeping whole districts within a county might make sense for the Ohio and Texas houses, where you have many house districts, per county.  And in Ohio, it was the only part of the constitution that they followed faithfully since it was an absolute standard.

The main difference between our scoring systems is that I'm focusing on trying to achieve whole county districts, and stranding the minimum number of people outside their counties.  I think we should compare to West Virginia rather than Iowa.  First and foremost, we want to have whole county districts.   If we can achieve this in multiple ways, we prefer less erose maps.  But if we can't achieve whole county districts, shouldn't we try to make the smallest adjustments, rather than try to drive down to Iowa equality standards, just because we can once we breach county boundaries?