Based on 2012 results only, which state gerrymander flipped the most seats?

[Torie]

A good comparison to calculate flip count would be a map made following Muon2 map metrics, but given that only he fully understands the metrics, one can be forgiven for departing from that.

I put this up in part, because I think a good case can be made that the most effective map was the one done by the "non-partisan" commission's AZ map. The Mathismander flipped 3 seats. That might be a hard number to surpass. For example, depending on whether a "fair" map in Illinois with a 58.8% Obama IL-10 CD is viewed as a toss up seat (the Dems drew it at 63% Obama), Illinois might tie AZ with 6 tossup seats, suggesting the Pubs should get 3 seats out of the 6, when in fact they got but one out of the six, from a relative Pub vote sink for the Roskam CD, so the Dem gerrymander secured them 2 more seats per the 2012 election.

I should have added Michigan to the list by the way, but I think that one is a one to two seat flip myself (MI-11 and maybe MI-08, but not with Rodgers around really).

[Gass3268]

Ohio or Pennsylvania, went with Ohio. However a true fair map like Arizona shouldn't be on this list.

[Torie]

Kept from flipping as compared to a non partisan map following Muon2 metrics. For PA, it seems to me that the Dems would only pick up PA-06, and the Lehigh Valley CD would be a tossup, but Dent would hold it. So I only see a one seat pickup there myself. In Ohio, the Akron based seat flips, and the Cincinnati and Lorain County CD's are tossups, so I mark that as a two seat Pub pickup.

[muon2]

My metric is actually much easier to compute than some of the ones proffered to judges in hopes of finding a justiciable standard.

What you want is my computation of SKEW.
1. Find the PVI for the state as a fraction (or divide the percent by 100) and multiply that by 4 times the number of districts. This is the expected excess in the delegation for the party in a neutral map. Count Republicans as a negative number.
2. Find the PVI's of the actual districts. Count 0 for each highly competitive district (PVI 0 or 1), +1 for all other Democratic districts, and -1 for all other Republican districts. The total is the expected excess in the delegation under the actual map.
3. Take the number from step 2 and subtract the number from step 1. Express a negative number as a positive number in favor of the Republicans. The resulting positive number is the SKEW score, and lower numbers are closer to the ideal partisan fairness.
2A. You can substitute the actual delegation for the hypothetical delegation based on PVIs.

AZ is R+7. 4 times that percentage is -28%, and times 9 seats is -2.52 (rounded to -3), which is the neutral expectation. The map has 1 highly competitive CD (AZ-9), 2 Dem CDs (AZ-3,7) and 6 Pub CDs for a partisan expectation of -4. The SKEW is -1 or R+1. Over the decade it should slightly favor the Pubs.

The actual delegation is 4D, 5R or an actual excess of -1. Compared to -3 that gives a current SKEW of D+2, which gets howls from the Pubs. But unless the district PVI's are way off then either the Dems are overperforming or the Pubs are underperforming the map.

edit: Based on 2012 results only the delegation is 5D 4R so the skew is D+4.

[Torie]

Well following your metrics, sometimes a skew is built in, given the geographic concentrations. One might consider skew as the best measure of "fairness," but per your system, "fairness" in that sense is just a tie breaker, no? Also, your AZ analysis does not take into account the McCain favorite son factor, although given Romney's performance, perhaps it was less than assumed. Anyway, I would consider AZ-09 lean Dem, AZ-02 tilt Dem, AZ-01 and tilt Pub. I think we both drew AZ maps that gave the Dems two seats, with the rest safe Pub. That happens when you have a CD that does not split Tucson, and has the VRA mandated Hispanic CD in Phoenix.

[muon2]

Here are some more SKEWs from the poll list. Keep in mind that each seat that flips shifts the SKEW by 2 since one party loses and the other gains.

FL (R+2; 10D, 17R). The neutral expectation is -2, the map expectation is 2e, 8D-17R = -9 for a SKEW of R+7. The actual delegation is a R+5 skew.

IL (D+8, 10D, 8R). The neutral expectation is +6, the map expectation is 2e, 11D-5R = +6 for a SKEW of 0. The actual delegation is a R+4 skew. The PVIs are likely distorted here because of the Obama favorite-son effect. With a pre-Obama D+5 for the state, the map has a D+2 skew and the delegation is R+2 skew.

MD (D+10, 7D, 1R). The neutral expectation is +3, the map expectation is 7D-1R = +6 for a SKEW of D+3 and the delegation matches the map.

NC (R+3, 3D, 10R). The neutral expectation is -2, the map expectation is 3D-10R = -7 for a SKEW of R+5 and the delegation matches the map.

OH (R+1, 4D, 12R). The neutral expectation is -1, the map expectation is 4D-12R = -8 for a SKEW of R+7 and the delegation matches the map.

PA (D+1, 5D, 13R). The neutral expectation is +1, the map expectation is 1e, 5D-12R = -7 for a SKEW of R+8. The actual delegation is a R+9 skew.

TX (R+10, 11D, 25R). The neutral delegation is -14, the map expectation is 11D-25R = -14 for a SKEW of 0 and the delegation matches the map.

VA (Even, 3D, 8R). The neutral delegation is 0, the map expectation is 3D-8R = -5 for a SKEW of R+5 and the delegation matches the map.

[muon2]

Well following your metrics, sometimes a skew is built in, given the geographic concentrations. One might consider skew as the best measure of "fairness," but per your system, "fairness" in that sense is just a tie breaker, no? Also, your AZ analysis does not take into account the McCain favorite son factor, although given Romney's performance, perhaps it was less than assumed. Anyway, I would consider AZ-09 lean Dem, AZ-02 tilt Dem, AZ-01 and tilt Pub. I think we both drew AZ maps that gave the Dems two seats, with the rest safe Pub. That happens when you have a CD that does not split Tucson, and has the VRA mandated Hispanic CD in Phoenix.

Yes. My metric does not account for geographic concentrations or the VRA, which is why I looked at it as an advisory tie breaker. In principle one could account for the VRA by drawing the mandated districts, then assessing the SKEW on the remainder of the state. Of course that leads to the debate as to which districts are actually mandated, and from VA that is probably a smaller number than one might have previously thought.

[Nyvin]

Arizona is only a "gerrymander" as it was drawn intentionally to produce competitive seats.   All three of the competitive seats still have a Republican lean, so it's extremely hard to call it a big win for the Democrats.   The Dems just had a good set of candidates to run there.

I would say either Ohio or Pennsylvania would be the biggest gain for map drawing,  although in the case of PA the Dems are really geographically concentrated, so probably Ohio.  

In Michigan you can draw three more Dem seats,  two more in the Detroit area and a third based out of Lansing and Jackson.   Which shouldn't be surprising considering even in 2014 the Dems won a majority of the House vote.

[Torie]

Arizona is only a "gerrymander" as it was drawn intentionally to produce competitive seats.   All three of the competitive seats still have a Republican lean, so it's extremely hard to call it a big win for the Democrats.   The Dems just had a good set of candidates to run there.

I would say either Ohio or Pennsylvania would be the biggest gain for map drawing,  although in the case of PA the Dems are really geographically concentrated, so probably Ohio.  

In Michigan you can draw three more Dem seats,  two more in the Detroit area and a third based out of Lansing and Jackson.   Which shouldn't be surprising considering even in 2014 the Dems won a majority of the House vote.

I won't argue with you about Michigan (I just disagree, per the VRA in particular, what a Muon2 metric map would do), but as to AZ, I would note that the law in AZ was that competitive seats were a sub factor subordinate to everything else, acting as a tie breaker. Mathis put it to the top of the list, in violation of the law, and then I think made them in two cases on the Dem side of the ledger to boot, but I won't argue that one with you either.

Addendum. I revisited Michigan, and drew a new map, following Muon2 metrics. What we find is that two seats flip to the Dems, MI-07 and 08, and based on the 2008 partisan numbers, three CD's move to tossups vis a vis the Pub gerrymandered map, MI-11, MI-02 and the red CD (MI-04 - I can't move the CD numbers for the moment, so the "4" number is in the wrong place). So on paper, that is a flip of 3.5 seats, and thus the national "winner," but in reality, all three tossup CD's would have been held by the Pubs (assuming Rodgers moved to MI-11 to run for re-election). That is particularly the case since all three toss up CD's trended pretty heavily Pub in 2012. In addition, not that it counts for anything for purposes of this exercise, but MI-09 gets rather marginal for the Dems, with a Dem PVI of 2.7%, which probably dropped down to maybe 2% in 2012.

So AZ to me is still the winner, since it did in fact flip three seats.

It's quite gratifying to see how many seats become tossup seats in Illinois, Ohio and Michigan, with good government, Muon2 metric, maps. That is yet another reason to push for their implementation across the Fruited Plain. May the Mainstream Partnership, and the Dem equivalent, multiply and thrive.

[traininthedistance]

If you're including Arizona in this list, it's only fair to include the de facto Republican gerrymander in New Jersey, as well.

[Torie]

If you're including Arizona in this list, it's only fair to include the de facto Republican gerrymander in New Jersey, as well.

That is perhaps true (I have not drawn NJ myself), but does it involve more than one seat, and surely it does not flip more than two seats does it?

[traininthedistance]

If you're including Arizona in this list, it's only fair to include the de facto Republican gerrymander in New Jersey, as well.

That is perhaps true (I have not drawn NJ myself), but does it involve more than one seat, and surely it does not flip more than two seats does it?

A fair map would definitely flip NJ-3, and probably something else in the north (probably by combining 7 and 12 into a compact Middlesex/Somerset district and reconstituting Pascrell's old NJ-8).  It would also increase competitiveness by making NJ-2 and NJ-6 worse for LoBiondo and Pascrell.  So, anywhere between one and three seats.

This is super old and I'd probably tweak some things but you get the basic idea:

[Torie]

If you're including Arizona in this list, it's only fair to include the de facto Republican gerrymander in New Jersey, as well.

That is perhaps true (I have not drawn NJ myself), but does it involve more than one seat, and surely it does not flip more than two seats does it?

A fair map would definitely flip NJ-3, and probably something else in the north (probably by combining 7 and 12 into a compact Middlesex/Somerset district and reconstituting Pascrell's old NJ-8).  It would also increase competitiveness by making NJ-2 and NJ-6 worse for LoBiondo and Pascrell.  So, anywhere between one and three seats.

This is super old and I'd probably tweak some things but you get the basic idea:

Well here is my effort, and on paper it is a two seat flip. NJ-02 moves from toss up to Dem, NJ-11 moves from Pub to tossup, and NJ-07 does a massive flip to the Dems (a 10 point swing to them). So that is about two seats. However, Garrett might well lose NJ-11 as a toss up seat given his lackluster electoral performances.  Labiondo's seat moves a couple of points to the Dems to their side of the ledger, but that is probably not enough to take him down, so he would probably win that seat. NJ-05 becomes a Pub bastion. So it is a one to two seat flip, but more likely two seats in 2012, and possibly even three, in my opinion. But call it two seats as the ledger entry.



And here is an alternative that gets very close to moving  NJ-02 into the tossup category from the Dem side of the ledger, with the Dem PVI dropping a point to 1.56%.  Which map scores higher I have no idea. The population equality between NJ-02, 03 and 01 is better than the other map, but under the Muon2 system, you just take the extremes of the CD's from population equality, so no bonus points for that. The extremes lie elsewhere to avoid county chops or locality chops.  

[Nyvin]

Arizona is only a "gerrymander" as it was drawn intentionally to produce competitive seats.   All three of the competitive seats still have a Republican lean, so it's extremely hard to call it a big win for the Democrats.   The Dems just had a good set of candidates to run there.

I would say either Ohio or Pennsylvania would be the biggest gain for map drawing,  although in the case of PA the Dems are really geographically concentrated, so probably Ohio.  

In Michigan you can draw three more Dem seats,  two more in the Detroit area and a third based out of Lansing and Jackson.   Which shouldn't be surprising considering even in 2014 the Dems won a majority of the House vote.

I won't argue with you about Michigan (I just disagree, per the VRA in particular, what a Muon2 metric map would do), but as to AZ, I would note that the law in AZ was that competitive seats were a sub factor subordinate to everything else, acting as a tie breaker. Mathis put it to the top of the list, in violation of the law, and then I think made them in two cases on the Dem side of the ledger to boot, but I won't argue that one with you either.

Addendum. I revisited Michigan, and drew a new map, following Muon2 metrics. What we find is that two seats flip to the Dems, MI-07 and 08, and based on the 2008 partisan numbers, three CD's move to tossups vis a vis the Pub gerrymandered map, MI-11, MI-02 and the red CD (MI-04 - I can't move the CD numbers for the moment, so the "4" number is in the wrong place). So on paper, that is a flip of 3.5 seats, and thus the national "winner," but in reality, all three tossup CD's would have been held by the Pubs (assuming Rodgers moved to MI-11 to run for re-election). That is particularly the case since all three toss up CD's trended pretty heavily Pub in 2012. In addition, not that it counts for anything for purposes of this exercise, but MI-09 gets rather marginal for the Dems, with a Dem PVI of 2.7%, which probably dropped down to maybe 2% in 2012.

So AZ to me is still the winner, since it did in fact flip three seats.

It's quite gratifying to see how many seats become tossup seats in Illinois, Ohio and Michigan, with good government, Muon2 metric, maps. That is yet another reason to push for their implementation across the Fruited Plain. May the Mainstream Partnership, and the Dem equivalent, multiply and thrive.

I guess this is more what I would think of





The majority of the "chops" outside of the Northern Detroit area are just tiny smidges to equal out population,  most of them don't affect PVI at all.  

The concept overall is pretty simple:   A Lansing based seat, a Kalamazzo-Battle Creek seat,  Grand Rapids seat, Flint-Saginaw seat, Ann Arbor seat,  about 5 Detroit seats, a "Thumb" seat, and 2 in Northern Michigan.   Then MI-6 is whatever is left, lol.

Here's the PVI for those maps:

1:  49.6% Obama
2:  53.7% Obama (was kinda surprised by this, wasn't intentional)
3:  49.4% Obama
4:  57.5% Obama
5:  62.3% Obama
6:  43.9% Obama
7:  53.7% Obama
8:  57.9% Obama
9:  55.7% Obama
10:  46% Obama
11:  56.7% Obama
12:  62.3% Obama
13:  74.3% Obama  (50.6% BVAP)
14:  75.6%  Obama  (51% BVAP)

If I'm counting right that's 8 seats that lean Dem, and another 2 that are probably swing seats (MI-7 and MI-2).   That would be AT LEAST three seats picked up from the current map, and possibly two more.

This map doesn't even make any weird turns or county chops either.    If you really want to go crazy you could make MI-2 lean Dem by adding the inner city part of Grand Rapids to it.   (In other words, make it the current MI-2, just add different parts of Kent County and take out parts of Ottawa).

Looking at the current MI map, it's pretty clear the GOP knew exactly what they were doing by splitting the Lansing area between districts 4, 7, and 8, putting Battle Creek with the Grand Rapids suburbs, and Ann Arbor in with MI-12...

[muon2]

You say PVI, but you really mean the Dem share of the vote. For PVI purposes the Dem share is the percentage found by dividing the Dem vote by the total Dem+Pub (eliminating all other votes). I'm not sure if your numbers are adjusted to the two-party share.

Since Obama got 53.7% of the two-party vote in 2008, an approximate PVI is found by comparing each of those percentages to 53.7%. Perhaps you did that in your analysis, but not in the table.

Here's the PVI for those maps:

1:  49.6% Obama
2:  53.7% Obama (was kinda surprised by this, wasn't intentional)
3:  49.4% Obama
4:  57.5% Obama
5:  62.3% Obama
6:  43.9% Obama
7:  53.7% Obama
8:  57.9% Obama
9:  55.7% Obama
10:  46% Obama
11:  56.7% Obama
12:  62.3% Obama
13:  74.3% Obama  (50.6% BVAP)
14:  75.6%  Obama  (51% BVAP)

If I'm counting right that's 8 seats that lean Dem, and another 2 that are probably swing seats (MI-7 and MI-2).   That would be AT LEAST three seats picked up from the current map, and possibly two more.

[Nyvin]

You say PVI, but you really mean the Dem share of the vote. For PVI purposes the Dem share is the percentage found by dividing the Dem vote by the total Dem+Pub (eliminating all other votes). I'm not sure if your numbers are adjusted to the two-party share.

Since Obama got 53.7% of the two-party vote in 2008, an approximate PVI is found by comparing each of those percentages to 53.7%. Perhaps you did that in your analysis, but not in the table.

Here's the PVI for those maps:

1:  49.6% Obama
2:  53.7% Obama (was kinda surprised by this, wasn't intentional)
3:  49.4% Obama
4:  57.5% Obama
5:  62.3% Obama
6:  43.9% Obama
7:  53.7% Obama
8:  57.9% Obama
9:  55.7% Obama
10:  46% Obama
11:  56.7% Obama
12:  62.3% Obama
13:  74.3% Obama  (50.6% BVAP)
14:  75.6%  Obama  (51% BVAP)

If I'm counting right that's 8 seats that lean Dem, and another 2 that are probably swing seats (MI-7 and MI-2).   That would be AT LEAST three seats picked up from the current map, and possibly two more.

Yeah...I thought that would be obvious,   you subtract 52.9% from each Obama number to get the actual PVI.   Putting the percentage is just a little less work for me, lol.

[Torie]

You say PVI, but you really mean the Dem share of the vote. For PVI purposes the Dem share is the percentage found by dividing the Dem vote by the total Dem+Pub (eliminating all other votes). I'm not sure if your numbers are adjusted to the two-party share.

Since Obama got 53.7% of the two-party vote in 2008, an approximate PVI is found by comparing each of those percentages to 53.7%. Perhaps you did that in your analysis, but not in the table.

Here's the PVI for those maps:

1:  49.6% Obama
2:  53.7% Obama (was kinda surprised by this, wasn't intentional)
3:  49.4% Obama
4:  57.5% Obama
5:  62.3% Obama
6:  43.9% Obama
7:  53.7% Obama
8:  57.9% Obama
9:  55.7% Obama
10:  46% Obama
11:  56.7% Obama
12:  62.3% Obama
13:  74.3% Obama  (50.6% BVAP)
14:  75.6%  Obama  (51% BVAP)

If I'm counting right that's 8 seats that lean Dem, and another 2 that are probably swing seats (MI-7 and MI-2).   That would be AT LEAST three seats picked up from the current map, and possibly two more.

Yeah...I thought that would be obvious,   you subtract 52.9% from each Obama number to get the actual PVI.   Putting the percentage is just a little less work for me, lol.

The method most of us use is to just take the two party vote, and ignore the third party vote. Obama won 53.7% of the two party vote in 2008.  So if a CD is 53.8% Obama, 45% McCain, that sums up to 98.8%. You then divide 53.8% by 98.8%, which gives you 54.5%, which less 53.7%, is a Dem PVI of 0.8%. If there is no third party vote, then it's easy to just subtract 53.7% from the Obama percentage to get the PVI, but with the third party vote, you need to take the extra step.

Sure, one can just take the Obama national percentage of the total vote as a baseline, but that will introduce an error factor, since the percentage of the third party vote varies from place to place. In Florida I think there was no third party vote at all, so if you took the Obama percentage of the whole vote as the baseline, that would systematically overstate the Dem PVI in Florida, and be basically erroneously assuming that absent third parties being on the ballot, Obama would have received all of that third party vote. Hope this makes sense.

[Sol]

Torie, you are ignoring the VRA in your maps.

[Torie]

I have a question about the Muon2 scoring system. Assuming that you have a macro-chop into a county, what is the penalty, if any, for one locality chop that is neither a macro-chop nor a micro-chop, as opposed to none, in that county? Each locality, whether chopped or not, generates road cuts between it and adjacent localities in another CD, so what is the extra penalty for the chop itself within one locality? Does it matter if the locality chop is a micro-chop or not? Irrespective of whether a county macro-chop is in play, do micro-chops that exist (having already used up the 0.5% population variance wiggle room), generate a road cut, be it in a locality, or a county chop?

The question has some importance with respect to choosing between my two NJ maps. Assuming the best Dem skew is 2 rather than 3 for NJ, than pushing NJ-02 into the toss-up category gets a better skew, but it also seems to require a locality chop in a macro-chopped county. Thus the question as to whether there is an additional penalty for doing that. If not, and the two maps otherwise score the same, than the skew score will act as the tie breaker.

[Torie]

Torie, you are ignoring the VRA in your maps.

There is no Section 2 CD in NJ. It's not possible to draw a 50% VAP, or CVAP CD, of a reasonably contiguous minority area, or in the case of NJ, probably even a non-contiguous one, that potentially mandates varying the the CD lines from that would otherwise be appropriate.  Even if there were, say with respect the NJ-10, it has a BVAP of about 40%, and with a 20% Hispanic HVAP (low voter turnout), and with about half the whites voting Pub, a majority of the voters in the Dem primary will be black, so 40% is sufficient to satisfy the Section 2 requirements. The black voters there will be able to elect a candidate of their choice, without even having to introduce evidence that some whites or Hispanics will vote for a black candidate in a Dem primary. I hope that helps.

[traininthedistance]

Well here is my effort, and on paper it is a two seat flip. NJ-02 moves from toss up to Dem, NJ-11 moves from Pub to tossup, and NJ-07 does a massive flip to the Dems (a 10 point swing to them). So that is about two seats. However, Garrett might well lose NJ-11 as a toss up seat given his lackluster electoral performances.  Labiondo's seat moves a couple of points to the Dems to their side of the ledger, but that is probably not enough to take him down, so he would probably win that seat. NJ-05 becomes a Pub bastion. So it is a one to two seat flip, but more likely two seats in 2012, and possibly even three, in my opinion. But call it two seats as the ledger entry.



And here is an alternative that gets very close to moving  NJ-02 into the tossup category from the Dem side of the ledger, with the Dem PVI dropping a point to 1.56%.  Which map scores higher I have no idea. The population equality between NJ-02, 03 and 01 is better than the other map, but under the Muon2 system, you just take the extremes of the CD's from population equality, so no bonus points for that. The extremes lie elsewhere to avoid county chops or locality chops.  

So I made this obviously very similar map before seeing your post:



If you're willing to stretch out to the 1% plus minus population variance, and if you jettison the VRA, you can score quite well on chops.  I'm not thrilled about the Passaic-Sussex district, which is competitive on paper but in a sort of hyper-polarized artificial manner that I'm not sure actually would be great public policy.  But, hey, the rest of the state works out quite well.  

Of course that leaves the open question as to whether we can jettison the VRA.  10 is still black-plurality by VAP, and 8 is barely Hispanic-plurality by total population (not VAP though), which I probably agree with you ought to be enough.  Suspect the courts wouldn't, though.

Also, your maps appear to split Princeton.  If you want to chop into Mercer to keep the variance down, you'll get better results taking out Robbinsville.

[Torie]

Princeton is not split. There is a Princeton borough, and a Princeton township. Oh, you're right, Princetown township actually encircles the borough. Well, I need 11,000 people out of Mercer, and all the available subdivisions have twice that in population. And the chop has to be in Mercer to avoid a cover penalty, so one just has to suck up the locality chop. Well, the other available neutral county for chopping purposes is Atlantic, but alas the adjacent township there in which NJ-04 could cut into, forcing NJ-02 deeper into Burlington (assuming that could be done without itself causing a locality chop), and eliminating the chop in Mercer, is also too large. So we are stuck.

It is clear that the VRA does not apply. If you can't draw a district of a contiguous area that is 50% VAP of a minority, that is the end of the inquiry. I did manage actually to draw a hideous looking CD for NJ-10 that was 50% BVAP, but it crossed over areas in other counties that were only lightly black, to get to blacker nodes in various places. The odds are low such a white bridge crossing mess triggers Section 2. Anyway, it's moot. NJ-10 will elect a candidate of the minorities choice, and there certainly isn't any 50% HCVAP district in play at all. It should be very easy to prove that a majority of voters in the NJ-10 that I drew in a Dem primary will be black. If so, that's as far as the inquiry goes.

Isn't it just grand that public policy doesn't matter for this exercise (we thought about public policy when making the rules, and now that we have the rules, we need to consistently apply them everywhere), so that we have nothing to argue about except the VRA? The only question to ask, is what's the score baby? We are mere automatons.

[traininthedistance]

Princeton is not split. There is a Princeton borough, and a Princeton township. Oh, you're right, Princetown township actually encircles the borough. Well, I need 11,000 people out of Mercer, and all the available subdivisions have twice that in population. And the chop has to be in Mercer to avoid a cover penalty, so one just has to suck up the locality chop.

It is clear that the VRA does not apply. If you can't draw a district of a contiguous area that is 50% VAP of a minority, that is the end of the inquiry. I did manage actually to draw a hideous looking CD for NJ-10 that was 50% BVAP, but it crossed over areas in other counties that were only lightly black, to get to blacker nodes in various places. The odds are low such a white bridge crossing mess triggers Section 2. Anyway, it's moot. NJ-10 will elect a candidate of the minorities choice, and there certainly isn't any 50% HCVAP district in play at all. It should be very easy to prove that a majority of voters in the NJ-10 that I drew in a Dem primary will be black. If so, that's as far as the inquiry goes.

Isn't it just grand that public policy doesn't matter for this exercise (we thought about public policy when making the rules, and now that we have the rules, we need to consistently apply them everywhere), so that we have nothing to argue about except the VRA? The only question to ask, is what's the score baby? We are mere automatons.

It's not in DRA, but Princeton boro and township voted to merge recently.  It's all just one Princeton now. 

[Torie]

Princeton is not split. There is a Princeton borough, and a Princeton township. Oh, you're right, Princetown township actually encircles the borough. Well, I need 11,000 people out of Mercer, and all the available subdivisions have twice that in population. And the chop has to be in Mercer to avoid a cover penalty, so one just has to suck up the locality chop.

It is clear that the VRA does not apply. If you can't draw a district of a contiguous area that is 50% VAP of a minority, that is the end of the inquiry. I did manage actually to draw a hideous looking CD for NJ-10 that was 50% BVAP, but it crossed over areas in other counties that were only lightly black, to get to blacker nodes in various places. The odds are low such a white bridge crossing mess triggers Section 2. Anyway, it's moot. NJ-10 will elect a candidate of the minorities choice, and there certainly isn't any 50% HCVAP district in play at all. It should be very easy to prove that a majority of voters in the NJ-10 that I drew in a Dem primary will be black. If so, that's as far as the inquiry goes.

Isn't it just grand that public policy doesn't matter for this exercise (we thought about public policy when making the rules, and now that we have the rules, we need to consistently apply them everywhere), so that we have nothing to argue about except the VRA? The only question to ask, is what's the score baby? We are mere automatons.

It's not in DRA, but Princeton boro and township voted to merge recently.  It's all just one Princeton now. 

Per my post above, it doesn't matter. Even before the merger, Princeton township was too large.

[Sol]

You could argue that a black CD is not needed, but I'd say that it's pretty easy to draw a fairly compact Latino-influence CD that's over 50% vap.You will of course have to split all sorts of munis and counties, but it's clear that the courts prioritize VRA stuff over such things.