Mid-2014 county population estimates out tomorrow, March 26

[muon2]

Counties in the MSAs are divided by the Census into central and outlying counties. The MSAs had too many rural outlying counties that made it in solely due to relative numbers of commuters in and out, not based on the density of populated areas. Some outlying counties had population centers that were deservedly in the metro, so using central counties only was unsatisfactory. We spent weeks haggling over the UCC definitions to balance those two points and come to a consensus agreement. I'm not going to abandon them to aid one map over another

Torie, what do you have for your projected VA CD now?

[Torie]

Counties in the MSAs are divided by the Census into central and outlying counties. The MSAs had too many rural outlying counties that made it in solely due to relative numbers of commuters in and out, not based on the density of populated areas. Some outlying counties had population centers that were deservedly in the metro, so using central counties only was unsatisfactory. We spent weeks haggling over the UCC definitions to balance those two points and come to a consensus agreement. I'm not going to abandon them to aid one map over another

Torie, what do you have for your projected VA CD now?

732,463.1096 per CD.

I am well aware of Jimtex's rationale. It even makes some sense in theory. But this exercise was not about maxing the Muon2 score, but rather what seemed like the best map that would fly politically, and keep both sides reasonably happy, while still being a good map. (This is more than a theoretical exercise if Gov. McAuliffe gets reelected, as seems more likely than not.) Your map runs the risk of jettisoning two black congressmen, including one existing one, and also violates the bridge or full time ferry rule (seasonal ferries do not count, and I checked that issue myself, before just abandoning the rule (not the law in VA obviously), due to other considerations, just as you did). Anyway, even under your rules, putting aside our mutual cheat on the ferry issue, I think I win on the erosity front, so it is not as if I am knocked out of the box from a pareto optimality standpoint. The bottom line is that your map will never, ever, be enacted into law, as I am sure that you probably agree.  Mine might.

[muon2]

Counties in the MSAs are divided by the Census into central and outlying counties. The MSAs had too many rural outlying counties that made it in solely due to relative numbers of commuters in and out, not based on the density of populated areas. Some outlying counties had population centers that were deservedly in the metro, so using central counties only was unsatisfactory. We spent weeks haggling over the UCC definitions to balance those two points and come to a consensus agreement. I'm not going to abandon them to aid one map over another

Torie, what do you have for your projected VA CD now?

732,463.1096 per CD.

I am well aware of Jimtex's rationale. It even makes some sense in theory. But this exercise was not about maxing the Muon2 score, but rather what seemed like the best map that would fly politically, and keep both sides reasonably happy, while still being a good map. (This is more than a theoretical exercise if Gov. McAuliffe gets reelected, as seems more likely than not.) Your map runs the risk of jettisoning two black congressmen, including one existing one, and also violates the bridge or full time ferry rule (seasonal ferries do not count, and I checked that issue myself, before just abandoning the rule (not the law in VA obviously), due to other considerations, just as you did). Anyway, even under your rules, putting aside our mutual cheat on the ferry issue, I think I win on the erosity front, so it is not as if I am knocked out of the box from a pareto optimality standpoint. The bottom line is that your map will never, ever, be enacted into law, as I am sure that you probably agree.  Mine might.

Hmm. We are still off by quite a bit. I get 734,390 for a CD. If we can compare here are three counties in my 2020 projection: Appomattox 15,703; Arlington 255,785; Augusta 74,014.

I appreciate that you are trying to thread a political needle of sorts in VA. It seems to me that neutral criteria either recognize that a state has section 2 obligations or that it doesn't. If it does then the path is clear. But here, I am prone to agree with you that it does not have a section 2 obligation. How then does one construct a neutral map that still provides an opportunity for minorities to elect a candidate of choice? You don't seem to like my idea of MCCs as a CoI to balance UCCs - contiguous sets of counties (or subdivisions for chopped counties) that exceed a certain minority fraction (40% BVAP in this case).

VA at one point discussed going to a commission system. I remain convinced that commissions should have firm rules to guide their mapmaking. It is on a commission basis that I'm looking at the 2020 projections.

[Torie]

I will deal with the number crunching later in due course. What on God's Green Earth causes you to believe a commission under tight Muon2 metrics will be drawing the map in VA after the next census?

Absent that most miraculous development, the thing is, the Pubs keep their seats but one with my map, assuming Forbes survives the redraw until then, which is a big assumption, and the blacks get another seat, while the new seat is tilt Dem, but doing that makes the 4th Nova CD safe Pub, while at the moment, absent the talented incumbent Pub, it's under risk. That is the kind of map the politicians like and understand, presents not much risk, keeps the incumbents happy, and for the new seat, it is close to a fair fight. That is what in my world is called a saleable compromise map. If the Court follows the Muon2 map, you suddenly have a host of marginal CD's, inconveniencing and terrifying a host of politicians, and I doubt either party will be pleased with that. They would rather divide the spoils in a more predictable manner.

[muon2]

All the maps I've posted for 2020 in this thread have assumed work by a neutral commission. That doesn't mean I expect any of the states to adopt said commissions by then. It was a point of interest in some states going into 2010 to see what their states might look like if drawn neutrally. I assume that interest will be there for the next cycle as well.

In the case of VA, Gov McDonnell went so far as to create a Bipartisan Redistricting Commission in 2011, though it had no real authority. That suggests to me that VA would be interested to see how neutral criteria would affect their state.

I still think this is an important question for neutral mapping efforts using defined criteria:

It seems to me that neutral criteria either recognize that a state has section 2 obligations or that it doesn't. If it does then the path is clear. But here, I am prone to agree with you that it does not have a section 2 obligation. How then does one construct a neutral map that still provides an opportunity for minorities to elect a candidate of choice?

[jimrtex]

I will deal with the number crunching later in due course. What on God's Green Earth causes you to believe a commission under tight Muon2 metrics will be drawing the map in VA after the next census?

Absent that most miraculous development, the thing is, the Pubs keep their seats but one with my map, assuming Forbes survives the redraw until then, which is a big assumption, and the blacks get another seat, while the new seat is tilt Dem, but doing that makes the 4th Nova CD safe Pub, while at the moment, absent the talented incumbent Pub, it's under risk. That is the kind of map the politicians like and understand, presents not much risk, keeps the incumbents happy, and for the new seat, it is close to a fair fight. That is what in my world is called a saleable compromise map. If the Court follows the Muon2 map, you suddenly have a host of marginal CD's, inconveniencing and terrifying a host of politicians, and I doubt either party will be pleased with that. They would rather divide the spoils in a more predictable manner.

Incidentally, the district court has ordered the parties to hold a conference call to talk about appointing a special master, and suggesting possible experts. Maybe Mike will be made the expert.

It is an odd situation with the parties. The Commonwealth as represented by McAuliffe and a Democratic AG probably want a whole new map. I think McAuliffe may have engineered the senate's adjournment. The Republican's congressmen are intervenors - but it is to been how much deference a court will give to their interests. Do they have a 4th Amendment right to their seats?

BTW, the federal court in Alabama has ordered the plaintiffs to prepare a map that complies with the standards used by the legislature, in particular the 1% maximum deviation.

[Torie]

I don't like the erosity of your grey CD, but then we do have different philosophies about that. I am willing to chop when the erosity gets to be too much, absent a darn good reason to do otherwise. But then you already know all of this all too well about me!

Anyway, these maps are more about how legislatures interested in good government maps due to political power splits, or courts, will draw the lines, as opposed to following your unique rules (and up to a point mine). (In regard, the Jimtex definition of metro areas is totally unique, and I don't think most folks would view Stafford and Spotsylvania as part of the DC metro area.) Among other things, I suspect courts are more interested in "art" than you are.

Your art has always differed from mine. For example I find that your NW peninsula out of CD 5 and jut and chops around Richmond to add far more erosity than the clean L-shape of my CD 7. I do hope you are not abandoning the idea of measurable metrics to judge maps.

edit: The Census agrees with jimrtex that Fredricksburg and the two adjacent counties are part of the DC metro.

edit2: I think I found the math discrepancy. First the April to July shift is 0.25 of a year. Then the formula to get the annual rate is (estimate/census)^(1/4.25) - 1. The projection is census*(rate + 1)^10. I also had to correct for the fact that Bedford city was separate from the county in 2010, but they are together for the county estimate.

Right you are. The census excel list does not have Bedford City listed. So with that correction, my numbers for the VA total and per CD are 8,806,268.366 and 733,855.6972, respectively. So we are still off from each other.

Anyway, now my perfect population quadrant of CD's, is now 1,504 short, and VA-10 has 1,127 too many. Ah the pain of differential growth rates when doing the exponential power thing. My spreadsheet does not balance to the master one for some reason (it's off by about 75 people), but whatever. I have to do special pastes for the lines with county cuts, and apparently I missed something somewhere.

[muon2]

I don't like the erosity of your grey CD, but then we do have different philosophies about that. I am willing to chop when the erosity gets to be too much, absent a darn good reason to do otherwise. But then you already know all of this all too well about me!

Anyway, these maps are more about how legislatures interested in good government maps due to political power splits, or courts, will draw the lines, as opposed to following your unique rules (and up to a point mine). (In regard, the Jimtex definition of metro areas is totally unique, and I don't think most folks would view Stafford and Spotsylvania as part of the DC metro area.) Among other things, I suspect courts are more interested in "art" than you are.

Your art has always differed from mine. For example I find that your NW peninsula out of CD 5 and jut and chops around Richmond to add far more erosity than the clean L-shape of my CD 7. I do hope you are not abandoning the idea of measurable metrics to judge maps.

edit: The Census agrees with jimrtex that Fredricksburg and the two adjacent counties are part of the DC metro.

edit2: I think I found the math discrepancy. First the April to July shift is 0.25 of a year. Then the formula to get the annual rate is (estimate/census)^(1/4.25) - 1. The projection is census*(rate + 1)^10. I also had to correct for the fact that Bedford city was separate from the county in 2010, but they are together for the county estimate.

Right you are. The census excel list does not have Bedford City listed. So with that correction, my numbers for the VA total and per CD are 8,806,268.366 and 733,855.6972, respectively. So we are still off from each other.

If you have the numbers that go into the three counties I listed, I can perhaps reverse engineer our discrepancy.

[Torie]

I don't like the erosity of your grey CD, but then we do have different philosophies about that. I am willing to chop when the erosity gets to be too much, absent a darn good reason to do otherwise. But then you already know all of this all too well about me!

Anyway, these maps are more about how legislatures interested in good government maps due to political power splits, or courts, will draw the lines, as opposed to following your unique rules (and up to a point mine). (In regard, the Jimtex definition of metro areas is totally unique, and I don't think most folks would view Stafford and Spotsylvania as part of the DC metro area.) Among other things, I suspect courts are more interested in "art" than you are.

Your art has always differed from mine. For example I find that your NW peninsula out of CD 5 and jut and chops around Richmond to add far more erosity than the clean L-shape of my CD 7. I do hope you are not abandoning the idea of measurable metrics to judge maps.

edit: The Census agrees with jimrtex that Fredricksburg and the two adjacent counties are part of the DC metro.

edit2: I think I found the math discrepancy. First the April to July shift is 0.25 of a year. Then the formula to get the annual rate is (estimate/census)^(1/4.25) - 1. The projection is census*(rate + 1)^10. I also had to correct for the fact that Bedford city was separate from the county in 2010, but they are together for the county estimate.

Right you are. The census excel list does not have Bedford City listed. So with that correction, my numbers for the VA total and per CD are 8,806,268.366 and 733,855.6972, respectively. So we are still off from each other.

If you have the numbers that go into the three counties I listed, I can perhaps reverse engineer our discrepancy.

Btw, I notice your Hampton Roads metro area incurs a pack penalty by virtue of VA-02 taking in Northampton. So that offsets my pack penalty for the Richmond metro area, assuming your map avoids that, which I assume it does given that erose grey CD of yours.

By the way, given your strict hewing to the Muon2 metrics, what is your thinking regarding jettisoning the year round ferry or bridge rule?  Isn't that a cheat? It seems that is about the same thing as doing a traveling chop to make a map work. If your exercise is to slavishly follow your rules to see what kind of maps it generates, then as you say, one needs to be consistent. Anyway, it only seems fair that if you do that, than I get to jettison the Jimtex metro area definitions, which while having a justification, are esoteric, when I find it convenient to do so. Or maybe doing it either way is OK for cover and pack penalties.

I am not trying to twist the knife here, but given all the hard work you are doing, it strikes me as an issue that you might think about, if only as a discipline, so that your portfolio of maps all play by the same rules. Also you seem to let the chop metric dominate over the erosity metric, when generating your portfolio. In that regard, putting aside your grey CD, a lot of erosity points are involved with respect to the macro chop of Fairfax by either VA-10 or VA-08. It may be that picking one CD or the other to make the macro-chop might save a sufficient number of erosity points, that it makes it a good bargain  to incur the concomitant cover and pack penalty points (if VA-08 is the superior choice from an erosity standpoint).  Maybe you might think about drawing two maps for each state, one erosity sensitive, and one chop sensitive (within reason of course). That might help folks get an idea of how your rules play out when balancing off and mix and matching the two competing metrics. Just some thoughts by me.

[muon2]

It looks like you are not using the 7/1/14 Census estimates for VA. Are you using ACS numbers instead?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You may have detected me cringing when I wrote about the use of the ferry in my VA map. I only relented in an apples to apples comparison with your work and jimrtex's comments. I'll be happy to return to the stricter rules for connectivity.

I appreciate your suggestion about two maps emphasizing different features. As I noted at the beginning of this series, the best is probably to reduce chops and erosity by allowing inequality to rise to to a few percent. There's a cumulative error of a about a half percent per year due to changing patterns of migration, births and deaths. So 2014 data used for 2020 CDs should probably allow a 3% variance to the quota. I've run studies to show that a map of IA drawn with minimal deviation and one drawn with 0.5% maximum deviation will have statistically similar deviations after 2 1/2 years, equal to the time between the census and the first general election.

[jimrtex]

You may have detected me cringing when I wrote about the use of the ferry in my VA map. I only relented in an apples to apples comparison with your work and jimrtex's comments. I'll be happy to return to the stricter rules for connectivity.

It would be reasonable to apportion districts among larger UCC's, and smaller UCC's and non-UCC's, and not require contiguity, but merely proximity.

[Torie]

Would you post a link to where the correct numbers are please?  I am not sure I understand Jimtex's comment. What does proximity versus contiguity mean? How is proximity defined if you can spread outside the UCC within a proximate zone with penalty, if that is the drift here?

I gave some thought to the issue of minority influence or minority CD's that are not required by Section 2, and came up with the following overall scheme. Tell me what the holes or downsides are.



1. Upon there being sufficient data from the decennial census, a computer (I assume a computer can do all of this) generates the Eligible Pareto Optimal Maps (EPO Maps) within a reasonable period, say 90 days.

2. EPO Maps is defined as all maps otherwise legal maps under Federal Law that have up to four chops over the minimum number of possible chops while being pareto optimal. (My thinking is that there are five such maps, one with the least erosity for each chop level, although it could possibly be less if adding a chop actually increases erosity.)  If however there is more than one such map with a given level of chops that has the same erosity score, then all such maps are EPO Maps.)  If the total number of EPO Maps is an even number, then another map shall be added that either has one additional  chop over the balance of the EPO Maps with the least erosity,  or another map with the same number of chops as one of the existing EPO Maps, if adding another chop actually increases erosity more than the second best erosity scoring map that has one fewer chops.

3. At any time prior to the Deadline Date defined below, the Legislature, provided a majority of the members thereof of both of the two largest parties in such Legislature so vote, can adopt an EPO Map as the the map that shall become law (Final Map).

4. If by July 1 of the year following when the census is taken, the Legislature has failed to adopt a Final Map, then by lot one of EPO Maps shall be discarded. If the Legislature within 10 days thereafter  fails to adopt a Final Map, a second EPO Map shall be discarded by lot, and if within an additional 10 days period thereafter, the Legislature still fails to adopt a Final Map, a third EPO Map shall be discarded, and so forth, until just one EPO Map remains. The last EPO Map so remaining  shall become the Final Map, unless the Legislature adopts a Final Map by the end of the year following the year that the census was taken (the Deadline Date).

5. At any time prior to the Deadline Date, the Legislature may adopt a Final Map that would otherwise be an EPO Map, except that in order to increase the minority VAP percentage in one or more CD's to a figure that is within 30% VAP to 50% VAP, the otherwise EPO Map is modified to effect such a VAP percentage, but otherwise constitutes an EPO Map (i.e., such a map has either the minimum number of chops necessary, or if there are more chops, has a lower erosity score than a map with fewer chops). Such a map shall be deemed an EPO Map.


That's it. By the Deadline Date, the Legislature with a majority of both parties agreeing, adopts an EPO Map or a MEPO Map (see below), and if they fail to do so, you end up with last map left standing by lot that is an EPO MAP as the Final Map.

The idea is a machine generates the maps, and the Legislature bargains for one of the EPO Maps, but running the risk that if they fail to select a map, a map by chance will be selected for them, and they don't know which one, although as each 10 day elimination period goes by, they get a better and better idea of what the fall back option will be if they fail to cut a deal on one of the EPO Maps, including  a map adjusted to increase minority percentages as described above (MEPO Map). If a MEPO Map pleases both the Pubs and the relevant minority group or groups, and a majority of the Dems agree to accommodate the minority, a MEPO Map will be passed, but not otherwise. It might pass but only because both parties like that map better than what will be the default Final Map if they fail to agree, so the lot elimination process may need to play out to some extent or totally, before it's possible to reach an agreement.

The process encourages deal making within tight parameters, it's all objective, and there is a end game if all else fails, where a Final Map will become law, that scores quite well, if not necessarily the highest scoring map, in the sense that it may have a lot more chops for not that much less erosity, or a lot more erosity in exchange for not that many fewer chops, but it still is good enough for government work.  And it gives space for a minority friendly map, if the Pubs like it (they usually do), and the Dems are willing to go along, because their minority base demands it.

I would also urge that population deviations with 0.5% shall be deemed legal, so the minimum theoretical number of chops will be reduced, but that is a codicil. It seems obvious to me to reduce the size of chops short of macro chops that cause the erosity score to collapse, but maybe not to others.

What do you think of this design?

[jimrtex]

     I am not sure I understand Jimtex's comment. What does proximity versus contiguity mean? How is proximity defined if you can spread outside the UCC within a proximate zone with penalty, if that is the drift here?

Based on 2010 numbers the:

NOVA UCC is equivalent to 3.53 districts.
Hampton Roads UCC 2.14
Richmond 1.46
remainder of state 3.86

So we draw 4 districts outside the UCC. Two districts in Hampton Roads, 3 in NOVA, 1 in Richmond, and a district have in NOVA and half in Richmond.  If we want a bit better population equality we trim
a small part off Hampton Roads and add it to the remainder of the state.

The Delmarva Peninsula is not contiguous with the rest of the state, so we use proximity to jump across Chesapeake Bay.

[muon2]

The link to the correct numbers was in my earlier post.

My idea since the OH competition has been similar to what you have. I like the bargaining idea which I hadn't considered. I have to think about the Survivor aspect of the proposal, which is certainly novel. However, I don't think a computer as map maker works.

Redistricting is an example of a NP-complete problem known to computer science. It basically says you can't guarantee that any algorithm will converge to an optimal solution or set of optimal solutions in polynomial time - that means the time grows exponentially as the state becomes more complex and counties require chops. It also means you can't readily defend in court that the computer will beat a neutral mapper.

I favor making the computer the judge of what is EPO, a task well suited to NP-complete problems. Anyone, including someone using a computer algorithm, can submit a plan to be judged. A human commission would support the judging algorithm to guard against hacks and to make sure all legal niceties are followed including the VRA.

[Torie]

The link to the correct numbers was in my earlier post.

My idea since the OH competition has been similar to what you have. I like the bargaining idea which I hadn't considered. I have to think about the Survivor aspect of the proposal, which is certainly novel. However, I don't think a computer as map maker works.

Redistricting is an example of a NP-complete problem known to computer science. It basically says you can't guarantee that any algorithm will converge to an optimal solution or set of optimal solutions in polynomial time - that means the time grows exponentially as the state becomes more complex and counties require chops. It also means you can't readily defend in court that the computer will beat a neutral mapper.

I favor making the computer the judge of what is EPO, a task well suited to NP-complete problems. Anyone, including someone using a computer algorithm, can submit a plan to be judged. A human commission would support the judging algorithm to guard against hacks and to make sure all legal niceties are followed including the VRA.

After the black box generates the maps, there could be a ninety day period for anyone to submit a map that beats the black box. Would that work?

[muon2]

I'm still concerned as to how a computer draws a VRA-compliant map for IL, NY, or CA. In IL at the legislative level it would be extremely difficult to code that. Notwithstanding any of that, why not open up the process to the public in parallel with any computer algorithm that runs. It seems to me that would work in favor of the negotiation aspect in your proposal.

[Torie]

I'm still concerned as to how a computer draws a VRA-compliant map for IL, NY, or CA. In IL at the legislative level it would be extremely difficult to code that. Notwithstanding any of that, why not open up the process to the public in parallel with any computer algorithm that runs. It seems to me that would work in favor of the negotiation aspect in your proposal.

Sure. If the black box generates a bunch of maps that are inferior to existing submissions, its work can be tossed. In fact, if submissions can be made in a form that can just be dumped into the black box, submissions could go directly into the black box.

And there are the knotty issues of if a 50% VAP CD can be drawn of a contiguous minority population, do you have to meet that (if a lower percentage will elect a candidate of the minority's choice, and if a lower percentage just what is it (which alas will vary depending on the voting habits of those who are not of the minority to be accommodated within any proposed Section 2 CD), and what is the process adopted to set up that percentage that is subject to variance depending on the precise location of the CD), and what to do about the Central Valley of CA, where it is not clear to me that any Section 2 Hispanic CD's are required, or if required whether you need to go over 50% CHVAP.  In Illinois, the  same issue exists as to whether one needs to go over 50% CHVAP, but at least last time, it was clear one needed two black CD's and one Hispanic one, and if one decides on the VAP percentages, I would think one could code that into a computer that constraint easily enough given where the minorities live, which is quite compact. It would be nice to get Federal Courts to decide these matters in advance in declaratory relief actions, but I digress. A slew of such cases should hash out the gaps in the law that remain in a hurry, or at least a lot of them. We also don't have consistency about CVAP versus VAP between Circuits.

The whole system will collapse if there are not clear constraint parameters on this set up in advance.
I would suggest that whomever is hired to code the black box not be the firm that coded the Obamacare insurance software.

[Torie]

As part of my new found religion of jidading against VRA induced chops, here is my revised map for NYC, which probably looks remarkably similarly to Muon2's (the 26 CD map for the 2020 census). I think I may be more militant than he now against such chops - ships passing in the night. NY-05 is on the cusp of whether or not it is required by the VRA, assuming the test is 50% BCVAP, with only citizens counted. I think that needs to be hit before the CD is required to be drawn, even though when drawn it can go below that trigger number if it will still elect the candidate of the minority's choice. My CD is 46.4% BVAP, which should be enough to elect a black if that percentage holds in 2020). In political reality of course, the CD will be drawn anyway, whether legally required or not.

NY law now has a bipartisan gerrymandering regime. If a deal cannot be cut, the courts draw the lines, it appears to me. There is no "default map" mechanism, but then how could there be, if the map requires bipartisan approval (basically a two thirds vote of both the Senate and Assembly). So it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Will the Pubs insist on a second Pub seat in Brooklyn?  If they don't get it, will the court give it to them? The lost CD seat, assuming the state loses a seat, will be a Pub seat upstate, which will tend to make a bit safer the remaining Pub seats. From the Dem perspective, will they end up having the lines drawn by the courts to end the Pub control of the State Senate is the question that comes to my mind. The Dems would give up some Dem Assembly seats (but would still have about 60% or so of the seats), in exchange for taking control of the State Senate. A bipartisan deal will certainly not draw the Long Island CD's as drawn, where Peter King has the most Dem seat (3.5% Dem PVI, maybe more like 4% now if not more), and both NY-03 and NY-04 have no Dem PVI at all. Both seats are just about dead even circa 2008.

[muon2]

They do look quite similar. I estimated CVAP numbers from the 2013 3-year ACS data for my plan last April. Based on my estimates your 46.4% BVAP should be 50.1% BCVAP.

CD 05: BVAP 46.3%, BCVAP 50.0%
CD 08: BVAP 52.9%, BCVAP 52.4%
CD 09: BVAP 52.8%, BCVAP 50.9%

CD 07: HVAP 54.9%, HCVAP 52.3%
CD 14: HVAP 58.1%, HCVAP 59.3%
CD 15: HVAP 56.5%, HCVAP 57.8%

It is interesting to see the HCVAPs bigger than the HVAPs. The immigrant population in the Bronx is more from non-Hispanic countries.

[Torie]

Well the map below (the screen shot is skewed because the map drawing utility froze on me) I think playing by Muon2’s rules (and putting aside the exact line of NY-04 in Queens to hew to neighborhood lines which might have some impact on the exact line but really not the partisan balance) I suspect is hard to beat. Broome and Herkimer are micro-chopped, along with Harrison in Westchester, and Catskill in Greene, and I think I played the road cut erosity measure game correctly.  That is what drove the location of my chops in Catskill in Greene County and Cortlandt Town next to Peekskill in Westchester.



Given the court default map if the Court gets close to the Muon2 line drawing regime, it really does seem like the parties will do a bi-partisan gerrymander if NY loses a seat in the next census, unless the Dems really are willing to inconvenience 3 Democratic Congressional incumbents, in exchange for taking over the State Senate (assuming, which is a big assumption, that they have not already taken it over after the 2020 elections).  Per the chart below, by doing a bipartisan gerrymander, the Dems can make the 3 Dem incumbents safe rather than sitting in toss up seats.  So the King seat becomes a Pub pack, and we have a Rochester to Syracuse Dem pack seat upstate, just like Louise Slaughter always wanted (but Syracuse in lieu of Ithaca). That seat can be named in her honor.  ☺  If that looks too grotesque for even NY gerrymanders, something more marginal can be done, to get NY-24 closer to tossup status at least. Alternatively, just leave the good government map as is, except have NY-05 chop deeply into Nassau to pick most of  the areas with some black population, thereby forcing NY-04 more deeply into Queens, thereby making it safe Dem, while NY-03 moves to lean Pub. NY-17 and NY-18's lines could be played with, to make one seat lean Pub, and the other lean Dem, as another option (maybe by NY-18 taking Orange County, and losing much of its Westchester salient). The thing is, is that while good government types love a host of marginal seats, the politicians of both parties tend to hate them. And in NY, that means only one thing: good government loses, almost always.
 

In this chart, I score the partisan effect by assuming each party loses half a seat out of the box with the elimination of the NY-19 Gibson toss up seat.  So the net Pub gain from it all is less than the net Dem loss.

[Torie]

MN was a state on the bubble to lose a seat in 2010, but they dodged a bullet and kept 8. The forecast for 2020 is that MN will lose a seat, though they are still on the bubble. I'll assume they drop to 7 as I use the 2014 data to project county totals in 2020.

The Twin Cities UCC will have about 4 1/4 seats in a seven seat map. This plan preserves the cover count of that UCC and keeps deviations within 5%. The Minneapolis area (orange) has 2 districts.

How close to the cusp vis a vis the population projections is the map below in play as between the blue and teal CD's, which has less erosity I wonder. In both maps, MN-01 moves discernibly more Pub, but it moves more in that direction in the map below.



Is this about the right split of Hennepin based on the population projections? I notice that Minneapolis is one of those inner cities that is now growing faster than not only the state as a whole, but also the suburban areas, just like NYC, which is interesting. Philly is also growing faster than its host state now. Folks are moving back to the city in some places it seems.

[muon2]

MN was a state on the bubble to lose a seat in 2010, but they dodged a bullet and kept 8. The forecast for 2020 is that MN will lose a seat, though they are still on the bubble. I'll assume they drop to 7 as I use the 2014 data to project county totals in 2020.

The Twin Cities UCC will have about 4 1/4 seats in a seven seat map. This plan preserves the cover count of that UCC and keeps deviations within 5%. The Minneapolis area (orange) has 2 districts.

How close to the cusp vis a vis the population projections is the map below in play as between the blue and teal CD's, which has less erosity I wonder. In both maps, MN-01 moves discernibly more Pub, but it moves more in that direction in the map below.

Your line is definitely better on the erosity measure by 2 (6 vs 8 on the CD1-CD6 line). I drew it that way to better spread the inequality. My projections for CD1+CD6 are that they are about 20K short of the quota. My split left CD1 under by 7K and CD6 under by 13K. Your split puts CD1 over by 9K and CD6 under by 30K. However CD3+5 is over by 33K so you could just chop into Anoka or Hennepin to reduce inequality. Similarly CD4 is 21K to high and CD2 is 24K too low, so a chop into Washington would be required.

[Torie]

Thanks. It looks like the map has a cover and pack problem for the Twin Cities metro area however.

Maybe this iteration pencils out.

[muon2]

When I did my MN map I recognized how far out the estimates were from 2020, so I made two approximations. One is that I allowed the inequality to rise above 0.5%, up to as much as 5%. Second was that I focused on cover but not pack rules. Metro areas and urban densities will likely be revised by the next Census, so the definition of the UCC will possibly change. Erosity tradeoffs for pack and inequality are dependent on population estimates within 0.5% of the actual value, so I punted on pack and strict inequality here. I also didn't have muni projections when I made the map. I can look at it again as if my projections were within the 0.5% tolerance and UCCs are unchanged over this decade.

[muon2]

Here's my take on the 2020 projection assuming the 2014 estimates give the exact answer. That means that all CDs now must be within 0.5% of the quota. I apply the same chop rules as at the end of the MI exercise. Each county chop counts 1, each muni chop in a county counts 1, each CD above the minimium for UCC pack or chop counts 1, each chopped county that is over 5% of a CD is a macrochop and requires erosity to consider the local connections of munis within the county.

I started with my raw map, and worked on the Twin Cities area first. I built a chop into Washington that kept all munis whole. It's not a macrochop so the only extra erosity is due to there being two fragments and additionally one fragment is regionally connected to Ramsey. That's a net increase of 2 erosity over the pure county line, and 1 more erosity than Torie's version which appears to trade a chop of Cottage Grove for the reduced erosity. CD 4 ends up -1412 (-0.17%) under quota.

The next task was constructing CD5 with Minneapolis and south Hennepin. Staying within quota and avoiding chops led me to the more erose arrangement using Brooklyn Center instead of Golden Valley plus Robbinsdale which add about 4200 in population. As drawn CD 5 ends up +2734 (+0.34%) over quota.

Removing CD 5 from Hennepin plus Anoka left a population that was just over 30K above the quota for a CD. Hennepin is macrochopped perforce, so an additional chop into it will use munis for erosity. The erosity of the Hennepin-Wright border due to the Hennepin macrochop is 3 with connecting highways at Independence, Rockford, and Rogers (nb in 2012 Rogers annexed all of Hassan twp). The chop in Tories plan has an erosity of 8 between the munis in western Hennepin. A chop into Anoka at Ramsey is not a macrochop and also follows the only highway link between Sherburne and Anoka, so there is no erosity hit, just the chop. CD 3 ends up +1797 (0.22%) over quota.



Working outward there is the issue of the pack count that I violate by pushing CD 2 into Rice and LeSueur. That choice is a trade of a pack point for an extra chop such as Wright in Torie's version. I gain some erosity by adding those two counties, but not as much as I would with the tri-chop of Hennepin. My CD2 is -1282 (-0.16) under quota.

CD 1 is whole county and to bring it within quota I took Torie's original line and shifted Yellow Medicine. That puts it at +15 (+0.00%) over quota.

CD 7 is also whole county and I had to swap Mille Lacs and Becker to get it within quota. It ends up -1151 (-0.14%) under quota. The remainder is CD 6 and it's at -702 (-0.09%) under quota.