Chops and Erosity - Mid Atlantic Madness

[muon2]

Train's map is very similar to one I posted a couple of years when train and Torie were both looking at MD. Note that this was before UCCs and with microchops, but some of the same problems show up with the MSAs here.

As I noted at the outset, the real issue comes to the existence of chops. One reason I start with apportionment regions is to identify where I can conserve on chops. In this case I looked at the regions with an eye towards MSA preservation, but I will suggest that there must be at least one CD and one region that spans the MSAs. The Washington MSA counties down the western shore but without Frederick are just barely above 3 CDs and with one microchop can be divided nicely within the 0.5% population limit. By putting all of Glen Burnie into the Baltimore city CD I was able to avoid any other chops for that CD or the Anne Arundel-Howard CD. Eliminating those two chops also has the effect of reducing the erosity by 1 point. I can probably clean up the line between CD 4 and 5 with some work, but the precincts aren't the best unit to match city lines. Edited to reflect a better line through PG that avoids city splits and keeps both CDs within 0.5%.



For the record the BVAPs for CD 4, 5, and 7 are 41.2% (plurality), 54.9% and 53.1%. The partisan distribution is 5D, 1e (D+0.1%), 2R for a polarization of 14 and a skew of 0 after accounting for the expected Dem lean.

On the same thread I also put up this plan that improves the UCC chop for Balto, but it would be disallowed since the ferry from Point Lookout is seasonal.

If the Smith Island ferry crossing counts as a connection, then it is possible to eliminate the microchop so that there are just the five main chops This substantially reduces the population inequality. In the plan below the range drops from 7066 to 3820 which corresponds to an inequality score change from 13 to 8. The increased erosity created by the split of the ES is compensated by reductions elsewhere so that the erosity is the same as for my previous plan adjusting for the ferry.

There is also a noticeable increase in competitiveness with the seats going 3D, 2d (D+1.9, D+5.2), 2e (D+0.1, R+1.2), 1R. That's a 4 point improvement though it does create a 1 point skew for the Dems.

[Torie]

Well I might get infracted for necro-posting, but I am not sure where to dump my latest map effort. This CD draw is based on the latest county population estimates that just came out. Having become more enamored with the Muon2 penchant to take a chop hit or two in order to avoid a macro-chop, I ended up doing something that would get me tarred and featured perhaps in my own back yard. I carved out Hudson and the town of Greenport which surrounds it from the balance of Columbia County. Ouch! The upside is that if the NYC metro area grows just a tad more slowly (a good chance since the growth is slowing down), then that chop (involving about 10,000 people) should go away. The slowing of the NYC metro area growth has been dramatic enough, that the NYC metro orbit needed to take in about 30,000 more people upstate, then it did last year. 

[Tintrlvr]

Is it possible to extend the Syracuse district south instead of west (so as to not go into Wayne County, which is clearly in the Rochester orbit, and instead go into Cortland County, which more neutral)?

Also looks like you have some stray bits in Herkimer County from the North Country district.

[KingSweden]

Well I might get infracted for necro-posting, but I am not sure where to dump my latest map effort. This CD draw is based on the latest county population estimates that just came out. Having become more enamored with the Muon2 penchant to take a chop hit or two in order to avoid a macro-chop, I ended up doing something that would get me tarred and featured perhaps in my own back yard. I carved out Hudson and the town of Greenport which surrounds it from the balance of Columbia County. Ouch! The upside is that if the NYC metro area grows just a tad more slowly (a good chance since the growth is slowing down), then that chop (involving about 10,000 people) should go away. The slowing of the NYC metro area growth has been dramatic enough, that the NYC metro orbit needed to take in about 30,000 more people upstate, then it did last year. 

This map assumes NY loses a CD, yes? Looks like Tenney's district getting broken up?

[Torie]

Is it possible to extend the Syracuse district south instead of west (so as to not go into Wayne County, which is clearly in the Rochester orbit, and instead go into Cortland County, which more neutral)?

Also looks like you have some stray bits in Herkimer County from the North Country district.

Yeah, but the stray bits don't matter since the lines were drawn from a spreadsheet, and the whole counties just filled in, so it doesn't matter. The CD that was chopped up was mine, NY-19. Rensselaer and Schoharie and a bit of Montgomery go to the Albany CD, Columbia (except Hudson and Greenport) and northern Dutchess go to the current NY-18 to the south, part of Sullivan goes to NY-17, and the balance of the CD goes to the current NY-22 (except for a tiny bit of Broome that goes to the current NY-23). NY-22 loses Broome to the current NY-23.

Wayne is not defined by the Jimrtex/Muon2 metrics as being in the Rochester urban cluster. If it were, then there would be an incentive to put Wayne and Ontario counties in the same CD, to avoid a cover penalty.

[jimrtex]

Here is my take. We start by marking the UCCs, which should ideally match a whole number of districts, either chopping a little bit off or adding a little bit.



NYC   17.871
Albany   1.117
Rochester   1.120
Buffalo   1.472

We need to add a bit to NYC, and trim Albany and Rochester.

Buffalo is half-way, but Erie alone is 1.200 and will have to be divided, so we will define a two-district region in the west.

[jimrtex]

This is after adjusting UCC's.



NYC: We can add Sullivan, Ulster, or Columbia. Adding Sullivan gets us closest to 18 districts.

17.967 (18 districts) -0.2%

Buffalo: We first add Orleans, Genesee, and Wyoming. If we continued eastward we would be well past Rochester. We add Chautauqua and Cattaraugus. The choice of Livingston over Allegany is based on population.

1.998 (2 districts) -0.1%

Rochester: We drop Ontario. There is no county that can be added to Monroe that will make the district closer to the quota.

0.976 (1 district) -2.4%

Albany: Eliminating any of the four counties reduces the total to well below the quota. So we need to make a subtraction and an addition. Cutting Schenectady cuts in too much. Saratoga and Rensselaer are more peripheral. Rensselaer is removed because it has less population, leaving more of the UCC in  the district. Schoharie and Montgomery are added to get back up to the quota.

1.011 (1 district) +1.1%

The remainder of the state has a population equivalent to

4.048 (4 districts) +1.2%

[Torie]

Honey, just bear in mind I did not want to macro-chop Westchester a second time, nor Rockland. Nor did I want to macro-chop Saratoga. And I paid the price, in exchange for a boatload of avoided erosity penalty points. I did basically the same thing you did, by spreadsheet, moving CD quota percentages around between CD's, and looking for macro-chop situations to either suck up or avoid.

Yeah, maybe you have found a way to avoid a chop involving the Albany CD (I have a small clean chop of Saratoga). But it looks like you got 1.1% to divide up, sluffing off 0.6% (requiring two CD's to stuff off onto), maxing out inequality, and then you have the issue of whether you will be chopping towns to get a perfect split.

[jimrtex]

Here is the final upstate map.



1. Buffalo
2. Niagara Frontier

1.998 (-0.1%)

3. Rochester

0.976 (-2.4%)

4. Finger Lakes - Southern Tier

1.018 (+1.8%)

5. Syracuse - Utica

0.995 (-0.5%)

6. North Country

1.011 (+1.1%)

7. Albany - Saratoga - Schenectady

1.011 (+1.1%)

8. Binghamton - Troy - Catskills

1.024 (+2.4%)

[jimrtex]

Honey, just bear in mind I did not want to macro-chop Westchester a second time, nor Rockland. Nor did I want to macro-chop Saratoga. And I paid the price, in exchange for a boatload of avoided erosity penalty points. I did basically the same thing you did, by spreadsheet, moving CD quota percentages around between CD's, and looking for macro-chop situations to either suck up or avoid.

Yeah, maybe you have found a way to avoid a chop involving the Albany CD (I have a small clean chop of Saratoga). But it looks like you got 1.1% to divide up, sluffing off 0.6% (requiring two CD's to stuff off onto), maxing out inequality, and then you have the issue of whether you will be chopping towns to get a perfect split.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can you seriously believe that under my plan that the people of upstate New York will not choose their representatives?

[jimrtex]

This is a roughed out version of the NYC area.



Metro North:  2.829

The area will need to go into the Bronx for about 0.157 quotas (120K persons)

The west bank of the Hudson (Rockland, Orange, Sullivan) is just above a quota (1.032). Around one of the bridges (near Newburgh, Peekskill, Nyack) about 28K persons will be added to an east bank district.

Dutchess, Putnam, the 28K from the west bank and about 345K of northern Westchester will form another district.

Around 648K from Westchester and the 120K from the Bronx will form the third district.

Bronx and Manhattan 4.138 - 0.157 = 3.981

Roughly two districts will be placed in each borough, but about 150K from extreme northern Manhattan will be added to the Bronx. I would try for a north-south split of Manhattan, and an east-west split of the Bronx.

Long Island and Staten Island have a population for 11 districts (10.999).

This can be be broken down into:

Brooklyn + Staten Island 4.148

Staten Island + about 288K from Brooklyn
3 districts in Brooklyn
114K added to Queens.

Queens and Nassau 4.909

3 districts in Queens + 114K from Brooklyn
212K added to Nassau

2 districts in Nassau + 212K from Queens
44K added to Suffolk

Suffolk 1.942

2 districts in Suffolk + 44K from Nassau

One district will cross each of the county lines:

Suffolk-Nassau
Nassau-Queens
Queens-Kings
Kings-Richmond
New York-Bronx
Bronx-Westchester
Putnam-Westchester

Orange or Rockland-Putnam or Westchester

[Torie]

Below is the Jimrtex map for upstate, with the details filled in. It has one less chop point as compared to mine (by avoiding a pack penalty for the NYC urban cluster), but it is at the cost of a macro-chop in Rockland, sending the erosity score through the roof (it also has to chop Orangetown), and creating a rather unfortunate looking CD that happens to be the one in which I reside.  But it does make the pareto optimal frontier.

Below that map, is mine again, plus the CD's for the NYC area. My NY-07 raises interesting VRA issues. Its HVAP is 50.8%, and it could get up up a couple of more points (no more than that really), by cross-chopping Queens and Kings, so that NY-07 can pick up more Hispanic precincts in Kings, and lose some light Hispanic precincts in Queens near the East River. The problem was created, because the slower NYC growth rate, has caused the silk stocking CD to no longer have to cross over into Queens, and the available spill over precincts for NY-07 in Kings to be fewer. The CD's in the Bronx and Manhattan are all quite beautifully shaped now. I tend to doubt the VRA would require the cross chop, creating more erosity as well, but who knows. The erosity that I created I think would be required, because the Hispanic area, erose as it is, is all contiguous. Of course by 2020, the ethnic data as compared to 2010, may make all of this legal angst moot.

[muon2]

I would think that LATFOR has the minority data from the ACS mapped to the census block group level for NYC as well as the rest of the state.

[Torie]

I would think that LATFOR has the minority data from the ACS mapped to the census block group level for NYC as well as the rest of the state.

Why would one think otherwise?  I am not sure why you are mentioning this.  Did you notice my question about how subdivision chops are treated, and how it varies between ordinary chops and macro-chops?

[muon2]

I would think that LATFOR has the minority data from the ACS mapped to the census block group level for NYC as well as the rest of the state.

Why would one think otherwise?  I am not sure why you are mentioning this.  Did you notice my question about how subdivision chops are treated, and how it varies between ordinary chops and macro-chops?

I was only mentioning it in the context of knowing more about how to draw your NY-07.

[Torie]

For NYC neighborhood mapping, should one use the NYC map, or the “official” neighborhood tabulation map. The latter has smaller hoods, and election result data (which is very convenient).  Are smaller hoods better or larger ones better, that is the question.  Some of the NYC hoods in the first map like Bensonhurst, have very large populations, and others wander around quite a bit, making things unwieldy.

[muon2]

For NYC neighborhood mapping, should one use the NYC map, or the “official” neighborhood tabulation map. The latter has smaller hoods, and election result data (which is very convenient).  Are smaller hoods better or larger ones better, that is the question.  Some of the NYC hoods in the first map like Bensonhurst, have very large populations, and others wander around quite a bit, making things unwieldy.

One way to think about the ideal size of neighborhoods is to think about the point at which they can't be macrochopped by a single chop. If the threshold for a CD macrochop is 5% of the quota, then a unit which is 10% of the quota can't be macrochopped by one chop since one piece will always be under 5%. For NY in 2010 that number is 71,771. So subunits with populations around that size will generally work well. The second map is a better fit by that measure.

[Torie]

For NYC neighborhood mapping, should one use the NYC map, or the “official” neighborhood tabulation map. The latter has smaller hoods, and election result data (which is very convenient).  Are smaller hoods better or larger ones better, that is the question.  Some of the NYC hoods in the first map like Bensonhurst, have very large populations, and others wander around quite a bit, making things unwieldy.

One way to think about the ideal size of neighborhoods is to think about the point at which they can't be macrochopped by a single chop. If the threshold for a CD macrochop is 5% of the quota, then a unit which is 10% of the quota can't be macrochopped by one chop since one piece will always be under 5%. For NY in 2010 that number is 71,771. So subunits with populations around that size will generally work well. The second map is a better fit by that measure.

There are 59 community districts (the first map), and 188 official tabulation districts (the second map). So in 2010, that was an average of 138,814 residents for the 59 districts, and 43,564 for the 138 districts. I assume one goes smaller until perhaps the size gets down to less than half of the 5% quota perhaps (unless the other option is more than twice the quota perhaps? What is the metric for choosing, taking into account how erose or wandering the shape of the districts are presumably?

[muon2]

For NYC neighborhood mapping, should one use the NYC map, or the “official” neighborhood tabulation map. The latter has smaller hoods, and election result data (which is very convenient).  Are smaller hoods better or larger ones better, that is the question.  Some of the NYC hoods in the first map like Bensonhurst, have very large populations, and others wander around quite a bit, making things unwieldy.

One way to think about the ideal size of neighborhoods is to think about the point at which they can't be macrochopped by a single chop. If the threshold for a CD macrochop is 5% of the quota, then a unit which is 10% of the quota can't be macrochopped by one chop since one piece will always be under 5%. For NY in 2010 that number is 71,771. So subunits with populations around that size will generally work well. The second map is a better fit by that measure.

There are 59 community districts (the first map), and 188 official tabulation districts (the second map). So in 2010, that was an average of 138,814 residents for the 59 districts, and 43,564 for the 138 districts. I assume one goes smaller until perhaps the size gets down to less than half of the 5% quota perhaps (unless the other option is more than twice the quota perhaps? What is the metric for choosing, taking into account how erose or wandering the shape of the districts are presumably?

At twice the macrochop threshold or less, a single chop cannot create a macrochop. That number was 72K in 2010. The community districts are almost double that, so as one created VRA districts in NYC there would likely be a number of macrochops. That would mean identifying the subunits of the community districts in order to determine erosity. The NTAs are on average well under 72K, so there would be little concern about chopping them and creating a macrochop.

[jimrtex]

Below is the Jimrtex map for upstate, with the details filled in. It has one less chop point as compared to mine (by avoiding a pack penalty for the NYC urban cluster), but it is at the cost of a macro-chop in Rockland, sending the erosity score through the roof (it also has to chop Orangetown), and creating a rather unfortunate looking CD that happens to be the one in which I reside.  But it does make the pareto optimal frontier.

The division of Ontario, Oswego, and Schoharie counties are not needed.

You could put Newburgh with Dutchess, Putnam, and northern Westchester.

[jimrtex]

I would think that LATFOR has the minority data from the ACS mapped to the census block group level for NYC as well as the rest of the state.

I doubt that LATFOR has done anything with ACS data.

For an area as small as a block group (around 1000 persons) you have to use 5-year data (2011-2015).

[Torie]

Below is the Jimrtex map for upstate, with the details filled in. It has one less chop point as compared to mine (by avoiding a pack penalty for the NYC urban cluster), but it is at the cost of a macro-chop in Rockland, sending the erosity score through the roof (it also has to chop Orangetown), and creating a rather unfortunate looking CD that happens to be the one in which I reside.  But it does make the pareto optimal frontier.

The division of Ontario, Oswego, and Schoharie counties are not needed.

You could put Newburgh with Dutchess, Putnam, and northern Westchester.

"The division of Ontario, Oswego, and Schoharie counties are not needed."

My spreadsheet says that they are.

'You could put Newburgh with Dutchess, Putnam, and northern Westchester."

You mean divide the macro-chop into two pieces, so that there is no longer a macro-chop? That generates another chop, and you are tossed off the pareto optimal frontier (if my spreadsheet numbers are right). It also generates a bridge chop, which is penalized in some fashion, and which I think should be avoided. Allowing them without substantial punishment allows games such as the one you suggest, to be played.

[jimrtex]

Below is the Jimrtex map for upstate, with the details filled in. It has one less chop point as compared to mine (by avoiding a pack penalty for the NYC urban cluster), but it is at the cost of a macro-chop in Rockland, sending the erosity score through the roof (it also has to chop Orangetown), and creating a rather unfortunate looking CD that happens to be the one in which I reside.  But it does make the pareto optimal frontier.

The division of Ontario, Oswego, and Schoharie counties are not needed.

You could put Newburgh with Dutchess, Putnam, and northern Westchester.

"The division of Ontario, Oswego, and Schoharie counties are not needed."

My spreadsheet says that they are.

'You could put Newburgh with Dutchess, Putnam, and northern Westchester."

You mean divide the macro-chop into two pieces, so that there is no longer a macro-chop? That generates another chop, and you are tossed off the pareto optimal frontier (if my spreadsheet numbers are right). It also generates a bridge chop, which is penalized in some fashion, and which I think should be avoided. Allowing them without substantial punishment allows games such as the one you suggest, to be played.

Read 'Tennant v Jefferson County Commission' carefully. New York has a legitimate state interest in basing congressional district boundaries on counties. Historically, until the OMOV decisions of the 1960s, only the largest counties were divided. But because Kings County must be divided does not mean that Hamilton must also be divided.

Rather than a single region covering the NYC UCC, we can subdivide it into 5 regions.

The only chopped counties are Nassau, Queens, Kings, New York, Bronx, Westchester, and Erie, all of which are entitled to more than one district. Suffolk will have two whole districts.

[muon2]

I have read Tennant and I don't find anything there that suggests a state can have a range substantially beyond the "minor" variation of 0.79% without something more compelling than the whole counties and minimal population shift in WV. That 0.79% refers back to a number discussed in Karcher v Daggett. As the case notes,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unlike WV, NY does not have a long history of completely preserving counties and they could not use that argument from Tennant (The court found that WV had never in its history chopped a county). A case could be made that preserving towns and cities while chopping some minimal set of counties would better balance those interests. I don't see the case that NY could make to have a range in excess of 1%.

That said, we are only looking at projected estimates for 2020. A larger range makes sense in that context. But it should be understood that as the estimates get closer to Census day and the accuracy of the projection increases, the range should drop accordingly.

[Torie]

A larger range makes the whole exercise problematical. The "game" here is about what ifs. Sure with changes in population trends over time, maps can change. For example, in my map, with a very slight change down in the Albany cluster's growth rate, with the NE corner CD growth rate the same, the chop of Saratoga could be lost, with the Albany CD taking in Hamilton County instead. With a larger variance in populations allowed, maps would look very different, and many chops would disappear. I don't think that exercise is very useful myself.

Another issue which bothers me, that particularly applies to NY, would be to systematically short change or "over change" CD's in the NYC urban cluster, and with that magnified by 16 or 17 CD's, one could say make the chop into Columbia County disappear. That would be wrong. There should be a limit as to how much regions in a state involving multiple CD's could vary in population per CD from other regions of the state. I suspect that in the end, one will find that the Muon2 rules need more details than they have now, and I am further not satisfied that one can do away with preference rules entirely. We shall see. The proof is in the pudding.

Oh, I find that using the smaller hoods in NYC works quite nicely, unlike using the larger hoods. The lines between NY-11 and NY-10, and NY-3 and NY-3 and NY-6 fit the hoods perfectly (a few precincts cross hood lines, but that is it), and the same for the line between NY-6 and NY-3,, and NY-5, with just three or four precincts involved in a hood chop. Indeed, with the exception of what NY-7 needs to do under the VRA, I suspect that the same will be true of the balance of the CD's in NYC (they can follow hood lines and hew to the VRA at the same time).  I have not fitted the balance of the CD's into the hoods because it is too much work, and my lines look so clean as they are, and I have no motivation to "desecrate" my most beautiful "art work!"  

I was particularly tickled that I was able to have the CD line for the silk stocking district follow the famous dividing line of 96th street, which divides the upper east side from East Harlem. Of course, that dividing line means somewhat less now as East Harlem gentrifies at warp speed.  Lawyers are getting rich representing tenants in East Harlem, as landlords are desperate to get them out, so they can fix up and "condoize" whole buildings. Under NYC rent control laws, tenants can rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars if they play the game right.