Local vs regional road connections

[Torie]

1) Draw 49 legislative districts as now. The current regime just elects two representatives at large with a senate district?
(2) Draw 49 senate districts, then divide each into two representative districts.
(2a) Make an object decision on whether to actually split a senate district into the representative districts. Some senate districts would have at large elections for representatives, and others not, based on some "objective" criteria? Oh my.
(3) Draw 98 representative districts, then pair into senate districts. Isn't this the same as (2)? How does the order matter?
(3a) Make an objective decision on whether to dissolve the pair of representative districts into a single district. This seems to be the same as 2a.

In general, it seems pointless to me to have two representatives per district. I guess if the term lengths are different, there is some rationale for that. I can see that if you want universal nesting, you really need to draw the representative districts first, because it is easier to then just combine the two districts into Senate districts, where if you draw the senate districts first, their bifurcation might create a map mess, since there is no way to sensibly bifurcate, that does not make a mess.

[muon2]

If the folks in Washington were to ask whether this methodology could also be used for legislative districts, what would you tell them? What if any adaptations would be needed?

Washington has 49 legislative districts, which elect one senator and two representatives by position. The constitution requires nesting of representative districts within senate districts, so formally, senate and representative districts are coterminous.

It is constitutional to divide a senate district into two distinct representative districts. Such division need not be done on a statewide basis.

So consider several possibilities:

(1) Draw 49 legislative districts as now.
(2) Draw 49 senate districts, then divide each into two representative districts.
(2a) Make an object decision on whether to actually split a senate district into the representative districts.
(3) Draw 98 representative districts, then pair into senate districts.
(3a) Make an objective decision on whether to dissolve the pair of representative districts into a single district.

Illinois also has nested representative districts in senate districts, but must create two separate house districts in each senate district. When I applied my technique to IL legislative districts, it worked better to build the senate districts then make the division into house districts. When creating districts, I like grouping whole counties in a whole number of districts just like we did with FL. If I use the house districts, I'm tempted to use an odd number of house districts in a region, and that leads to more chops for the senate.

So, for WA I would lean towards your option 2a. Create the senate districts, then allow the state to determine if it wishes to divide the senate districts into pairs of representative districts.

[Torie]

When I applied my technique to IL legislative districts, it worked better to build the senate districts then make the division into house districts. I would have thought the opposite. When creating districts, I like grouping whole counties in a whole number of districts just like we did with FL. If I use the house districts, I'm tempted to use an odd number of house districts in a region, and that leads to more chops for the senate. You want more chops?

Maybe what is driving you, is that you want an even number of seats in the Senate, and an odd number in the House. More likely, I am just in a state of confusion.

[muon2]

3.Did the 7th circuit case involve CD's? Most states require absolute equality of population with CD's. If equality suddenly became important, we would suddenly be getting more chops over a few people. Not good.

The 7th circuit case involved CD's at a time when IL was not strict about absolute equality. It is still not codified to have absolute equality, nor are any other provision codified other than language related to minority districts. However, after that decision both parties have drawn maps with absolute equality to remove the possibility they would be beat in court by an inequality argument, since there are no other codified criteria.

In the WV case there were a number of whole county plans presented with lower deviation. The actual plan because it had the least deviation for the particular state goal which is to minimize the shifted population. The decision noted that if it were solely to avoid splitting counties they would have been required to use a whole county plan with less deviation. That's what they meant by as nearly practicable.

What I worked out for MI and could generalize is a table derived from actual data regressions that limits the ability to chop just to get to absolute equality. A simple example is to consider that absolute equality requires in most cases a number of county chops equal to one less than the number of districts. If the inequality table provides fewer points to gain than the number of districts (ie the number of chops required), then one can't win by chopping to exact equality.

[muon2]

When I applied my technique to IL legislative districts, it worked better to build the senate districts then make the division into house districts. I would have thought the opposite. When creating districts, I like grouping whole counties in a whole number of districts just like we did with FL. If I use the house districts, I'm tempted to use an odd number of house districts in a region, and that leads to more chops for the senate. You want more chops?

Maybe what is driving you, is that you want an even number of seats in the Senate, and an odd number in the House. More likely, I am just in a state of confusion.

Suppose I build house districts first and cluster them by regions of whole counties to minimize chops at that level. Some of those regions will have an odd number of HDs. When there is an odd number of HDs, then at least one of the SDs has to span out of the region to collect its second HD. That becomes an SD that is chopping a region and thus chopping a county. I found that I ended up with more county chops going house first, than I did by going senate first.

I should clarify that there is no problem if the house districts can be made of whole counties - that is single district regions. That isn't true in most of IL where chops are required, but where it is true that single house district can be shifted in the way that minimizes the number of odd house district groups.

[Torie]

Well, on the inequality thing, by manipulating the point count, you may have a proxy for a preference rule. But generating more chops of counties or subdivisions to minimize inequality is just silly in my view. Thus the preference needs to be a the bottom of the heap.

[muon2]

Well, you tossed a lot on the table there.

1. Before, you had a flat ban on chops of subunits not involving a macro-chop, and otherwise such ordinary chops had no penalty other than an erosity issue potentially. Now the flat ban is gone (good), and we have no incentive to avoid a chop, other than erosity considerations. Does that make any sense? I think we are back to a preference issue (outside of subunits of subunits, where I do want an unbridled one bite rule).

2. Your problem here is that the macro-chop penalty for the chop of a subunit was offset by a pack penalty (the latter of which you don't like much anyway). So to weaken the pack penalty, you want an additional incentive to not macro-chop. Absent the pack penalty, this issue you have illustrated would not be in play. So you grab onto the one bite rule, in a context about which I am not particularly concerned, to effect your preferences, as opposed to where I am concerned. Very clever! I guess I would need to see how much you have let the genie out of the bottle with your weakening of the pack penalty, and for that matter, the cover penalty. I do agree that outside of a chop of a subunit of a subunit, that a macro-chop is worse than an ordinary chop in theory. It certainly should be a preference item. Whether it should go beyond that, and weaken the pack and cover penalty regime, is another matter.

What I am saying is that the UCC rules which began as a preference were replaced by a score modifier. The initial regime from MI would require that no subunit could be chopped without penalty, and simple chops couldn't chop them at all. I'm proposing the conversion of the preference for smaller chops into a score modifier as well. I think that the price for an unneeded macrochop ought to be worth the price for a missed UCC pack or cover.

I also disagree with your characterization of school districts as arbitrary. They are no more arbitrary than townships in states that allow cities to annex portions away. The only difference I see is that DRA didn't load them and not every county is strict about following their lines for precincts (I found that Kitsap was quite strict in this regard.)

[muon2]

Well, on the inequality thing, by manipulating the point count, you may have a proxy for a preference rule. But generating more chops of counties or subdivisions to minimize inequality is just silly in my view. Thus the preference needs to be a the bottom of the heap.

On this I think you are in the minority. All of the other mappers on this site have given weight to inequality. jimrtex had a model to judge regions based on minimizing population shifts between them. I used a point score based on data regression. train wanted stronger rules to protect equality than we eventually used. Lewis was quite adept at seeking and finding combinations to minimize inequality. I don't see the case to put it at the bottom of the heap.

[Torie]

Well, on the inequality thing, by manipulating the point count, you may have a proxy for a preference rule. But generating more chops of counties or subdivisions to minimize inequality is just silly in my view. Thus the preference needs to be a the bottom of the heap.

On this I think you are in the minority. All of the other mappers on this site have given weight to inequality. jimrtex had a model to judge regions based on minimizing population shifts between them. I used a point score based on data regression. train wanted stronger rules to protect equality than we eventually used. Lewis was quite adept at seeking and finding combinations to minimize inequality. I don't see the case to put it at the bottom of the heap.

That's OK. In the end, the public square will decide these issues, rather than an electorate comprised of three people. I wonder if Train would still want extra chops to reduce inequality. Would he really want to place it above SKEW for example? I wonder if Jimrtex wants extra chops to reduce inequality. Has he voted yet on this one?

How far up the preference tree do you want to place inequality? Just curious.

[muon2]

Well, on the inequality thing, by manipulating the point count, you may have a proxy for a preference rule. But generating more chops of counties or subdivisions to minimize inequality is just silly in my view. Thus the preference needs to be a the bottom of the heap.

On this I think you are in the minority. All of the other mappers on this site have given weight to inequality. jimrtex had a model to judge regions based on minimizing population shifts between them. I used a point score based on data regression. train wanted stronger rules to protect equality than we eventually used. Lewis was quite adept at seeking and finding combinations to minimize inequality. I don't see the case to put it at the bottom of the heap.

That's OK. In the end, the public square will decide these issues, rather than an electorate comprised of three people. I wonder if Train would still want extra chops to reduce inequality. Would he really want to place it above SKEW for example? I wonder if Jimrtex wants extra chops to reduce inequality. Has he voted yet on this one?

How far up the preference tree do you want to place inequality? Just curious.

I put INEQUALITY equal to SKEW and POLARIZATION in preference. They all have fundamental scores in the rubric. The basic metric compares CHOPS to EROSITY. How a state would choose to use other scores is a local decision that can be controlled by modifying the basic metric scores with those other rubric scores. Modifying the basic scores serves to shift the Pareto curve in a way that puts more weight on other parts of the rubric, thus favoring local priorities.

My preference is to use just CHOP and EROSITY to judge a set of WA plans based on the current subunit design. They are sufficient to measure the scores. The scoring would list the other rubric elements as we did in MI. We can then see if the system is producing a good Pareto set, or if modifying the basic metric gives a better set.

[Torie]

I am not clear at all why you are jettisoning what you are jettisoning for Washington, other than it must doesn't matter in practice - maybe. And now you have a free chop regime, with no preference to avoid such, in order to weaken the pack and cover rules, but will also entail collateral damage. One can just do a gratuitous chop because one can. So this negotiation is not going very well, alas. But I bet I can get Train's vote on this inequality thing, given how things have evolved. Whatever. I am not sure what you are getting at with "local priorities." The more one has different rules for different states, the more one worries about unilateral disarmament concerns.

[muon2]

I am not clear at all why you are jettisoning what you are jettisoning for Washington, other than it must doesn't matter in practice - maybe. And now you have a free chop regime, with no preference to avoid such, in order to weaken the pack and cover rules, but will also entail collateral damage. One can just do a gratuitous chop because one can. So this negotiation is not going very well, alas. But I bet I can get Train's vote on this inequality thing, given how things have evolved. Whatever. I am not sure what you are getting at with "local priorities." The more one has different rules for different states, the more one worries about unilateral disarmament concerns.

What am I jettisoning? I propose doing exactly what we did in MI. We define the rules for chops and erosity by way of subunits. We score a bunch of plans based on those two values alone, and at the same time show the scores for the other rubric variables. If the plans in the Pareto set are lacking in some way we should see it and perhaps correlate it to one of the other variables. After that we can make appropriate adjustments to the variables. The final step has always been to hand a set of qualified maps to a decision making body along with the metrics that both were used for the selection as well as those that were not used. Where is there a difference today?

[Torie]

I am not clear at all why you are jettisoning what you are jettisoning for Washington, other than it must doesn't matter in practice - maybe. And now you have a free chop regime, with no preference to avoid such, in order to weaken the pack and cover rules, but will also entail collateral damage. One can just do a gratuitous chop because one can. So this negotiation is not going very well, alas. But I bet I can get Train's vote on this inequality thing, given how things have evolved. Whatever. I am not sure what you are getting at with "local priorities." The more one has different rules for different states, the more one worries about unilateral disarmament concerns.

What am I jettisoning? I propose doing exactly what we did in MI. We define the rules for chops and erosity by way of subunits. We score a bunch of plans based on those two values alone, and at the same time show the scores for the other rubric variables. If the plans in the Pareto set are lacking in some way we should see it and perhaps correlate it to one of the other variables. After that we can make appropriate adjustments to the variables. The final step has always been to hand a set of qualified maps to a decision making body along with the metrics that both were used for the selection as well as those that were not used. Where is there a difference today?

Is this a process comment, or a substance comment? By that I mean, is this a protocol, en route to fashioning the same rules for all states, and suggesting the order of the steps to get there, or a suggestion that states might end up with different rules in the end, as to what maps make the cut for consideration?

I think if at all possible the rules should be the same, which is one reason why I decided that creating artificial subunits to take in all real estate is appropriate, because some states have such subunits for all real estate, and some do not. And no states have such subunits by definition within townships and cities, and have never drawn maps based on that, which is why I think different rules are required there, for the reasons I elucidated.

[jimrtex]

1) Draw 49 legislative districts as now. The current regime just elects two representatives at large with a senate district?
(2) Draw 49 senate districts, then divide each into two representative districts.
(2a) Make an object decision on whether to actually split a senate district into the representative districts. Some senate districts would have at large elections for representatives, and others not, based on some "objective" criteria? Oh my.
(3) Draw 98 representative districts, then pair into senate districts. Isn't this the same as (2)? How does the order matter?
(3a) Make an objective decision on whether to dissolve the pair of representative districts into a single district. This seems to be the same as 2a.

In general, it seems pointless to me to have two representatives per district. I guess if the term lengths are different, there is some rationale for that. I can see that if you want universal nesting, you really need to draw the representative districts first, because it is easier to then just combine the two districts into Senate districts, where if you draw the senate districts first, their bifurcation might create a map mess, since there is no way to sensibly bifurcate, that does not make a mess.

The Washington constitution just says that representative districts can not cross senate district lines. Before the OMOV decisions of the 1960s, they would attempt to balance population growth in the Seattle area by moving representative districts. Senate districts in the rural areas might have one representative, while those in urban areas would have three.

After the OMOV rulings were applied, there were then two representatives per senate district. In more rural areas, two representative districts were drawn (this might have been a court-drawn map). But there continued to be a few split districts (until IIRC, 1990). There was one such pair of districts which had one district along the Columbia up to Longview, with the second along the Pacific Coast.

There have been bills that would require separate representative districts, none of which have gone anywhere because of among other reasons, incumbent protection. There was one case that one representative was said to be able to look down into the backyard of the other representative, and wondered how they could draw the boundary between those two incumbents.

Ohio requires that senate districts be comprised of three representative districts, which sometimes results in districts chained end to end. Illinois divides senate districts, and there are some senate districts stretching outward from Chicago, that are sliced lengthwise.

[jimrtex]

If the folks in Washington were to ask whether this methodology could also be used for legislative districts, what would you tell them? What if any adaptations would be needed?

Washington has 49 legislative districts, which elect one senator and two representatives by position. The constitution requires nesting of representative districts within senate districts, so formally, senate and representative districts are coterminous.

It is constitutional to divide a senate district into two distinct representative districts. Such division need not be done on a statewide basis.

So consider several possibilities:

(1) Draw 49 legislative districts as now.
(2) Draw 49 senate districts, then divide each into two representative districts.
(2a) Make an object decision on whether to actually split a senate district into the representative districts.
(3) Draw 98 representative districts, then pair into senate districts.
(3a) Make an objective decision on whether to dissolve the pair of representative districts into a single district.

Illinois also has nested representative districts in senate districts, but must create two separate house districts in each senate district. When I applied my technique to IL legislative districts, it worked better to build the senate districts then make the division into house districts. When creating districts, I like grouping whole counties in a whole number of districts just like we did with FL. If I use the house districts, I'm tempted to use an odd number of house districts in a region, and that leads to more chops for the senate.

So, for WA I would lean towards your option 2a. Create the senate districts, then allow the state to determine if it wishes to divide the senate districts into pairs of representative districts.

I was really aiming at drawing legislative districts, and noting the overall parameters that one could legally use in Washington.

But let's say that we chose 2a, and so drew 49 senate districts, with no concern for how well they would look when divided into house districts. We might that then have an independent process that would propose a split into house districts, with a final decision made on whether to actually make the split.

But the real question was whether the same methodology could be used for drawing 49 legislative district seats, as used when drawing 10 congressional districts (you can't go to 50 under the Washington constitution, so no congressional nesting unless you want to zap 12 legislators).

[jimrtex]

When I applied my technique to IL legislative districts, it worked better to build the senate districts then make the division into house districts. I would have thought the opposite. When creating districts, I like grouping whole counties in a whole number of districts just like we did with FL. If I use the house districts, I'm tempted to use an odd number of house districts in a region, and that leads to more chops for the senate. You want more chops?

Maybe what is driving you, is that you want an even number of seats in the Senate, and an odd number in the House. More likely, I am just in a state of confusion.

As a matter of fact, the system of fusion used in New York is a con. See the ballot for Hudson Ward 4 alderman as an example. It's not just you, there are millions more living in the same situation.

I think nesting is a bad idea. It seems like one approach - splitting, or joining should work. But the reality is that population concerns require some pretty ugly splits. If a house district has an ugly split, then joining it with another house district means that the senate district will also have the ugly split. If the reverse is done, an ugly senate split, will mean at least one of the house districts has an ugly split.

California has a modest requirement for nesting. I think it was expected that sometimes you might want to use a city boundary for a senate district, but that might not work so well for assembly districts. But what really caused the deviation was VRA requirements. For example, you can probably imagine where a minority-opportunity senate district, would divide nicely into a packed-assembly district, with the other assembly district being much whiter.

[muon2]

I am not clear at all why you are jettisoning what you are jettisoning for Washington, other than it must doesn't matter in practice - maybe. And now you have a free chop regime, with no preference to avoid such, in order to weaken the pack and cover rules, but will also entail collateral damage. One can just do a gratuitous chop because one can. So this negotiation is not going very well, alas. But I bet I can get Train's vote on this inequality thing, given how things have evolved. Whatever. I am not sure what you are getting at with "local priorities." The more one has different rules for different states, the more one worries about unilateral disarmament concerns.

What am I jettisoning? I propose doing exactly what we did in MI. We define the rules for chops and erosity by way of subunits. We score a bunch of plans based on those two values alone, and at the same time show the scores for the other rubric variables. If the plans in the Pareto set are lacking in some way we should see it and perhaps correlate it to one of the other variables. After that we can make appropriate adjustments to the variables. The final step has always been to hand a set of qualified maps to a decision making body along with the metrics that both were used for the selection as well as those that were not used. Where is there a difference today?

Is this a process comment, or a substance comment? By that I mean, is this a protocol, en route to fashioning the same rules for all states, and suggesting the order of the steps to get there, or a suggestion that states might end up with different rules in the end, as to what maps make the cut for consideration?

I think if at all possible the rules should be the same, which is one reason why I decided that creating artificial subunits to take in all real estate is appropriate, because some states have such subunits for all real estate, and some do not. And no states have such subunits by definition within townships and cities, and have never drawn maps based on that, which is why I think different rules are required there, for the reasons I elucidated.

My goal is to have rules for the five metrics that are independent of the states. The Pareto test to find a set of qualifying plans is based solely on the metrics.

The metrics require county subunits and they obviously will not be derived the same way for all states. I would like to have clear principles that will lead to relatively few variants for the creation of subunits. I think that's the substance part of what I'm doing so far with WA.

To test changes to the five metrics I'd like to have a number of plans from different mappers. Then I compare the baseline metric to the proposed alteration. We can assess those results numerically and see if the proposed change is having a positive effect. Since the idea is to put out a set of plans, a positive effect is usually assessed by noting that undesirable plans that gamed the system have been excluded. I think that creating alternatives to test and the testing itself, as we did for UCCs, is the process part.

[jimrtex]

3.Did the 7th circuit case involve CD's? Most states require absolute equality of population with CD's. If equality suddenly became important, we would suddenly be getting more chops over a few people. Not good.

The 7th circuit case involved CD's at a time when IL was not strict about absolute equality. It is still not codified to have absolute equality, nor are any other provision codified other than language related to minority districts. However, after that decision both parties have drawn maps with absolute equality to remove the possibility they would be beat in court by an inequality argument, since there are no other codified criteria.

In the WV case there were a number of whole county plans presented with lower deviation. The actual plan because it had the least deviation for the particular state goal which is to minimize the shifted population. The decision noted that if it were solely to avoid splitting counties they would have been required to use a whole county plan with less deviation. That's what they meant by as nearly practicable.

What I worked out for MI and could generalize is a table derived from actual data regressions that limits the ability to chop just to get to absolute equality. A simple example is to consider that absolute equality requires in most cases a number of county chops equal to one less than the number of districts. If the inequality table provides fewer points to gain than the number of districts (ie the number of chops required), then one can't win by chopping to exact equality.

I suspect that the 7th Circuit decision depends in part that it was a decision by a federal court.. The federal court is not a state court, and it is not a state legislature or Congress. A legislature can use its judgment, so long as it complies with the constitution. A court is stuck with trying to balance things.

The legislature in Florida would have been in much better shape if they actually managed to pass a congressional or senate map.

[muon2]

When I applied my technique to IL legislative districts, it worked better to build the senate districts then make the division into house districts. I would have thought the opposite. When creating districts, I like grouping whole counties in a whole number of districts just like we did with FL. If I use the house districts, I'm tempted to use an odd number of house districts in a region, and that leads to more chops for the senate. You want more chops?

Maybe what is driving you, is that you want an even number of seats in the Senate, and an odd number in the House. More likely, I am just in a state of confusion.

As a matter of fact, the system of fusion used in New York is a con. See the ballot for Hudson Ward 4 alderman as an example. It's not just you, there are millions more living in the same situation.

I think nesting is a bad idea. It seems like one approach - splitting, or joining should work. But the reality is that population concerns require some pretty ugly splits. If a house district has an ugly split, then joining it with another house district means that the senate district will also have the ugly split. If the reverse is done, an ugly senate split, will mean at least one of the house districts has an ugly split.

California has a modest requirement for nesting. I think it was expected that sometimes you might want to use a city boundary for a senate district, but that might not work so well for assembly districts. But what really caused the deviation was VRA requirements. For example, you can probably imagine where a minority-opportunity senate district, would divide nicely into a packed-assembly district, with the other assembly district being much whiter.

I agree with jimrtex on his observation about nesting. Dividing a compact district into two nested house districts generally results in less compactness. Joining two compact districts to form a senate district generally results in less compactness. The best compactness/lowest erosity comes when each chamber's plans are drawn independently of the other.

[Torie]

OK, process oriented, and it seems sensible. The devil is in the details, and so far, on some of the details, we differ, and the differences are not trivial. And I am more sensitive than I used to be about population accidents. Maybe everything will be OK just be accident as maps are drawn. I like to ponder what ifs.

When I use the word "arbitrary," I admit that it is a loaded word. What I mean by that, is that nobody has cared about them before in drawing lines. I admit that something is needed for erosity patrol, for unclaimed real estate, and that applies to all real estate. So we are past that. It's just that when something is novel, there had better be a darn good reason for it, that does not lead to bad results in some instances. Thus as I think matters through, and do the balancing test, I come out where I come out, thinking about policy and politics and judges. And that includes the preference concept, be it camouflaged in some formula or not. Some of this is about common sense as I see it. As I say, the coup here would be for a judge to embrace these sorts of metrics. Then they will get attention in a way they otherwise might not. The rules had better not get in the way of common sense.

[Torie]

When I applied my technique to IL legislative districts, it worked better to build the senate districts then make the division into house districts. I would have thought the opposite. When creating districts, I like grouping whole counties in a whole number of districts just like we did with FL. If I use the house districts, I'm tempted to use an odd number of house districts in a region, and that leads to more chops for the senate. You want more chops?

Maybe what is driving you, is that you want an even number of seats in the Senate, and an odd number in the House. More likely, I am just in a state of confusion.

As a matter of fact, the system of fusion used in New York is a con. See the ballot for Hudson Ward 4 alderman as an example. It's not just you, there are millions more living in the same situation.

I think nesting is a bad idea. It seems like one approach - splitting, or joining should work. But the reality is that population concerns require some pretty ugly splits. If a house district has an ugly split, then joining it with another house district means that the senate district will also have the ugly split. If the reverse is done, an ugly senate split, will mean at least one of the house districts has an ugly split.

California has a modest requirement for nesting. I think it was expected that sometimes you might want to use a city boundary for a senate district, but that might not work so well for assembly districts. But what really caused the deviation was VRA requirements. For example, you can probably imagine where a minority-opportunity senate district, would divide nicely into a packed-assembly district, with the other assembly district being much whiter.

I don't get the 4th ward reference in this context. Yes, obviously nesting has its costs. Nesting does not come for free, but is a constraint that can lead to ugly or undesirable, or VRA illegal, bifurcations. All things being equal, it is good, but obviously, things are not equal here.

[jimrtex]

More likely, I am just in a state of confusion.

As a matter of fact, the system of fusion used in New York is a con. See the ballot for Hudson Ward 4 alderman as an example. It's not just you, there are millions more living in the same situation.

I don't get the 4th ward reference in this context.

You said that you lived in a state of confusion. You live in a state that uses fusion voting, and it is a con.

The 4th ward ballot had three candidates and you could vote for two. One candidate was in her own column, but you could vote for her on the Democratic, Republican, or Independence line. The other two candidates were in the other column, running as the candidates of other parties.

If the two candidates had both been Democratic nominees, then they would have been in different columns.

Confusion, no?

[Torie]

More likely, I am just in a state of confusion.

As a matter of fact, the system of fusion used in New York is a con. See the ballot for Hudson Ward 4 alderman as an example. It's not just you, there are millions more living in the same situation.

I don't get the 4th ward reference in this context.

You said that you lived in a state of confusion. You live in a state that uses fusion voting, and it is a con.

The 4th ward ballot had three candidates and you could vote for two. One candidate was in her own column, but you could vote for her on the Democratic, Republican, or Independence line. The other two candidates were in the other column, running as the candidates of other parties.

If the two candidates had both been Democratic nominees, then they would have been in different columns.

Confusion, no?

Yes. Fortunately, the machine you stick you ballot into, will reject it, if you vote twice for the same candidate in different columns.

[jimrtex]

This shows a possible 3rd-level of units.



Methodology:

Do distinction was made among census places. Incorporated cities and towns and CDP's were treated the same. I will use the census terminology of place.

(0) The initial subunits were the school districts.

(1) The dominate school district for each place was determined based on population.
(a) If the dominant school district included more than 2/3 of the place of the population, then the entirety of the place was moved into the subunit based on the dominant school district.
(b) If less than 2/3 of the place was in the dominant school district, then a new subunit was created just containing the place.

In King County, Sammamish, Newcastle, Black Diamond, and Maple Heights CDP became part of subunits independent of a a school district.

As a result of step 1, all places are entirely within a 2nd-level subunit. Each 2nd-level subunit contains zero or more places, and may also contain territory outside any place (county remainder).

(2) 3rd level subunits were created:
(2a) In each 2nd level subunit that contained 2 or more places, each place became a 3rd level subunit. In addition, any territory outside a place, became a 3rd level subunit.
(2b) In each 2nd level subunit that contained 0 or no places, no subunits were defined. Alternatively, the 2nd-level and 3rd-level subunits are coincident.

4th level units may be defined to recognize neighborhoods within places. Larger cities might have two levels, if they have defined super neighborhoods.

Seattle, Vashon Island, Mercer Island, Tukwila, and Enumclaw subunits based on the school districts have no 3rd-level subunits; nor do the Sammamish, Newcastle, Black Diamond, and Maple Heights CDP subunits based on the places.

Seattle school district has areas outside the Seattle City limits, and parts of the city are in school districts other than the Seattle school district. But step moved all of the city into the subunit based on the school district. The areas outside the city, were in places which were predominately in other school districts (mainly Highline school district). Thus the subunit based on the Seattle school district is after adjustments, coterminous with the city limits.

In the map above, 3rd-level subunits are indicated with gray tones, with a colored partially-transparent overlay for the 2nd-level subunits.

Incidental Note: The Census Bureau regards Urban Growth Areas as legal entities, and census block are coded based on their UGA. In King County, cities in the west near Seattle and Puget Sound are coded with an UGA that is the same as the city. Unincorporated areas within the UGA in the western part of the county are coded as a "King County UGA".

Around inland cities such as Carnation, Enumclaw, Duvall, etc. the UGA is coded with the city, and would probably be a more suitable unit than the city proper.

[jimrtex]

This shows an alternative possible 3rd-level of units.  Places of less than 5000 population are treated as not being in a place.



Methodology:

No distinction was made among census places. Incorporated cities and towns and CDP's were treated the same. I will use the census terminology of place.

(0) The initial subunits were the school districts.

(1) The dominate school district for each place was determined based on population.
(a) If the dominant school district included more than 2/3 of the place of the population, then the entirety of the place was moved into the subunit based on the dominant school district.
(b) If less than 2/3 of the place was in the dominant school district, then a new subunit was created just containing the place.

In King County, Sammamish, Newcastle, Black Diamond, and Maple Heights CDP became part of subunits independent of a a school district.

As a result of step 1, all places are entirely within a 2nd-level subunit. Each 2nd-level subunit contains zero or more places, and may also contain territory outside any place (county remainder).

(2) 3rd level subunits were created:
(2a) In each 2nd level subunit that contained 2 or more places with a population of 5000 or more, each such place became a 3rd level subunit. In addition, any territory outside such a place, became a 3rd level subunit.
(2b) In each 2nd level subunit that contained one or zero such places, no subunits were defined. Alternatively, the 2nd-level and 3rd-level subunits are coincident.

4th level units may be defined to recognize neighborhoods within places. Larger cities might have two levels, if they have defined super neighborhoods.

Seattle, Vashon Island, Mercer Island, Tukwila, and Enumclaw subunits based on the school districts have no 3rd-level subunits. The threshold added Bellevue, Riverview, and Skykomish to the list. In addition the Sammamish, Newcastle, Black Diamond, and Maple Heights CDP subunits based on the places.

Seattle school district has areas outside the Seattle City limits, and parts of the city are in school districts other than the Seattle school district. But step moved all of the city into the subunit based on the school district. The areas outside the city, were in places which were predominately in other school districts (mainly Highline school district). Thus the subunit based on the Seattle school district is after adjustments, coterminous with the city limits.

In the map above, 3rd-level subunits are indicated with gray tones, with a colored partially-transparent overlay for the 2nd-level subunits.

Incidental Note: The Census Bureau regards Urban Growth Areas as legal entities, and census block are coded based on their UGA. In King County, cities in the west near Seattle and Puget Sound are coded with an UGA that is the same as the city. Unincorporated areas within the UGA in the western part of the county are coded as a "King County UGA".

Around inland cities such as Carnation, Enumclaw, Duvall, etc. the UGA is coded with the city, and would probably be a more suitable unit than the city proper.