Temporal Weighted Apportionment

[jimrtex]

Under a Temporal Weighted Apportionment scheme, the apportionment varies over time. Instead of a fixed number (over a decade) of representatives, with a weighted vote proportional to the population they represent, the number of representative varies, but they each have one vote.

So consider a state entitled to 8.4 representatives.

Under the conventional scheme used in the 20th century and before, the state would be given 8 representatives for an entire decade, and be cheated out of its rightful representation.

Under a typical weighted voting system, the state might have 8 representatives each with a weighted vote of 8.4/8 = 1.05.

Under a temporal weighted voting scheme, the state would have 8 representatives, in three of the five congresses over a decade, and two representatives for the other two congresses. Over the decade, the state would have its rightful share of representation over the course of the decade.

I have set the total number of representatives to 676, based on the cube root rule and the 2010 census. The District of Columbia is treated as part of Maryland. For purposes of drawing districts, it will be treated as a county.

Since I was apportioning to the nearest one-fifth of a representative, I apportioned 3380 units (676 x 5 = 3380). The apportionment was done using Webster's Method, which ensures the minimum deviation from a states exact apportionment. Each state was guaranteed five units, but this was not needed since Wyoming was entitled to six units.

All five congresses will have 676 representatives. The congresses in which a state will have additional representatives will be arranged so as to more than 676 representatives total. The arrangement will also attempt to balance regional representation will vary as little as possible.

States will be apportioned into multi-member districts, again with a mixed fraction number of representatives.

Ideally, a district would have between three and five representatives. Smaller states (NH (2.8), RI (2.4), MT (2.2), DE (2.0), SD (1.8), AK (1.6), ND (1.4), VT (1.4), and WY (1.2) will necessarily have a single district with fewer than three representatives.

If necessary to avoid dividing a state, UCC, or county, more than 5, up to and including 6, representatives may be apportioned to a district. Utah and Nevada will each have a single 6.0 member district.

The caps of three, five, and six will be calculated relative to a state's quota, prior to rounding to the nearest fifth.

[jimrtex]

This is the district map for Pennsylvania. It needs some work on the labeling.



Pennsylvania has 27.8 representatives. Assuming 4 representatives per district, the target number of districts is 7, though 6 and 8 are possible.

The Philadelphia UCC is entitled to about 8.8 representatives requiring two districts. Philadelphia alone has about 3.3 representatives, but this would put the suburban district at around 5.5, above the preferred limit. A few decades back, this would probably been the split.

This leaves a choice of putting Philadelphia with Bucks or Delaware. The former keeps Delaware and Chester together along with Montgomery, but the Philadelphia-Bucks combo is not particularly compact. So I chose Philadelphia-Delaware.

The Pittsburgh UCC is just over 5.0, but uses the exception for districts up to 6.0 to keep the UCC whole. Greene is added in, which is minor pack exception.

My original map created 3 districts in the remainder of the state, and would have placed Harrisburg with the southeastern counties, but the districts were pressing the maximum of 5.0. It also would have a western district wrapping around the Pittsburgh district, and stretching from Maryland to Ohio and New York.

In my mind, the Lehigh Valley fits with the Susquehanna (Scranton and Wilkes-Barre), and Berks with Lancaster. A four-district plan provides more compact districts and representation closer to the target of four.

4201 - Phiiladelphia-Delaware or Philadelphia Central of Philadelphia Inner - 4.6 representatives.

4202 - Philadelphia Metro or Philadelphia Outer or Philadelphia Suburban or Montgomery-Bucks-Chester or Montco-Bucks-Chester - 4.2 representatives.

4203 - Pittsburgh Metro or Pittsburgh - 5.0 representatives.

4204 - Pennsylvania Northeast - 3.8 representatives.

4205 - Pennsylvania Southeast - 3.6 representatives.

4206 - Pennsylvania Northwest - 3.2 representatives.

4207 - Pennsylvania Southern or Pennsylvania Central or Pennsylvania South Central - 3.4
representatives.

Delaware has a single district with 2.0 representatives.

1000 - Delaware - 2.0 representatives.

[jimrtex]

New Jersey is entitled to 19.2 representatives, which results in a target of 5 districts.



12 counties are in the New York UCC, with enough population for 14 representatives, or 3 or 4 districts. 4 counties are in Philadelphia UCC for about 2.8 representatives, but not enough for a district. There are 5 additional counties, Warren, Mercer, and the three southern counties of Atlantic, Cumberland, and Cape May.

Placing the three southern counties with the Philadelphia UCC makes a district with about 4.0 representatives.

In the New York UCC, starting from the south with Ocean and Monmouth, adding Middlesex and Mercer is too much. Dropping Mercer leaves a district with 4.4 representatives.

Working northward along the Delaware, puts the two non-NY-UCC counties in the same district, along with two counties to the east, adds to 3.4 representatives.

Of the 5 counties remaining in the northeast, Union and Essex; and Passaic and Bergen probably fit together. Placing Hudson with Essex and Union seems a bit more compact. Population balance would be a bit better with Hudson going north.

3401 - Essex-Hudson-Union or Newark-Jersey City or Central New York Metro or Northeastern New Jersey - 4.4 representatives.

3402 - Southern New Jersey - 4.0 representatives.

3403 - Middlesex-Monmouth-Ocean or Southern New York Metro or Eastern New Jersey - 4.4 representatives.

3404 - Northwestern New Jersey or Delaware River - 3.4 representatives.

3405 - Bergen-Passaic or Northern New York Metro or Northern New Jersey or Northeastern New Jersey - 3.0 representatives.

[jimrtex]

Georgia is entitled to 21.2 representatives, with a target of 5 or possibly 6 districts.



The Atlanta UCC has a population for 10.7 representatives, requiring 3 districts, leaving the remainder of the state with about 10.4 representatives, also requiring 3 districts.

The northern region wraps around the top of the Atlanta area to include Athens. A northern region north of the fall line, could wrap around south of Atlanta, but that would be non-compact. In addition, the fall line runs through Augusta, Macon, and Columbus, which have to be in the two southern regions. So the boundary is to the north of the fall line. The southeastern region is based on Savannah and the coast, and Augusta and the Savannah river, extending westward to pick up enough population for a district.

The boundaries could be adjusted some, but the cities likely need to remain in their regions:

Northern: Athens, Gainesville, Chattanooga, Dalton, Rome.
Southeastern: Augusta, Savannah, Brunswick, Hinesville.
Southwestern: Columbus, Macon, Warner-Robbins, Albany, Valdosta.

Valdosta could switch, but it seems to be a better match for Albany and Macon, than Savannah.

The split of the Atlanta UCC is a bit hard because of the shape of Fulton County, but is reasonable.

1301 - Atlanta Metro East - 3.8 representatives.

1302 - Atlanta Metro West - 3.2 representatives.

1303 - Atlanta and Metro South - 3.6 representatives.

1304 - Northern Georgia - 3.6 representatives.

1305 - Southeastern Georgia or Southern Georgia or Eastern Georgia - 3.4 representatives.

1306 - Southwestern Georgia or Western Georgia - 3.6 representatives.

[jimrtex]

Connecticut is entitled to 7.8 representatives, in two districts. Massachusetts is entitled to 14.4 representatives in 4 (or 3) districts.



The Hartford UCC included Middlesex and Tolland counties, cutting off the eastern two counties. To get enough population, Fairfield and New Haven have to be placed together. Litchfield is added for better areal balance, and recognize the population concentration along its southern border. Population balance would be slightly better with Litchfield placed in the east.

Most of Massachusetts is in the Boston UCC. The area from Worcester to the west has enough for a district. The area to the south (Bristol, Barnstable, Dukes, and Nantucket) is way short, and itself is not really contiguous unless you count New Bedford (in Bristol) to the Elizabeth Islands (part of Dukes).

So the southern remnant is added to the Boston UCC, which requires 3 districts. Adding Plymouth to the southern counties provides contiguity, but is not quite to 3 representatives, so Norfolk was added (Brookline is considered to be functionally contiguous).

Since Middlesex has enough for one of the two remaining districts, it is put in one district, with Essex and Suffolk in the other.

901 Western Connecticut - 4.2 representatives.

902 Eastern Connecticut - 3.6 representatives.

2501 Western Massachusetts or Worcester, Connecticut Valley, and the Berkshires - 3.6 representatives.

2502 Eastern Massachusetts or Northeastern Massachusetts or Boston and Cape Anne - 3.2 representatives.

2503 Middlesex or Central Massachusetts - 3.4 representatives.

2504 Southern Massachusetts or Southeastern Massachusetts - 4.2 representatives.

[muon2]

I think you are saying that a district that gets 3.2 representatives has 3 representatives in each Congress for that decade and 1 representative for one of the Congresses that decade. Who decides in which Congress that happens? You mention regional balance. Are the regions predefined?

[jimrtex]

I think you are saying that a district that gets 3.2 representatives has 3 representatives in each Congress for that decade and 1 representative for one of the Congresses that decade. Who decides in which Congress that happens? You mention regional balance. Are the regions predefined?

The mention of "regions" was a glossing over of detail.

Ideally, you would take the residual fraction and find adjacent states that add up to 1.0. In some cases, you may need to sum to higher integers 2.0, 3.0. If a pair add to 1.0, they are either 0.6+0.4 or 0.8+0.2. This corresponds to 3 terms + 2 terms, and 4 terms + 1 term. The two states (or districts) can thus share the extra representative, so that over the decade one representative-position floats between the two districts.

We can arrange 2 terms so that they are never consecutive (in a circular sense). There are five such patterns - they are just the five rotations. The complementary pattern is for three terms, two terms must be consecutive, but they are separate from the third term.

We can do the same for 1 term - it is simply one of the five terms, and its complement of 4 terms, which is all terms but one.



So let's say that North Dakota (1.4) and Minnesota (11.6) are paired. We simply roll our five-sided die to determine which pattern is to be used. This will determine which two terms a second representative from North Dakota will be elected, and which three terms Minnesota will have a 12th representative.

Minnesota will have three districts, two in the Twin Cities UCC, and one in the outstate region, and their fractions will add either to 0.6 or 1.6. If they add to 0.6 there are two possible combinations.

0.2, 0.2, 0.2; or
0.4, 0.2, 0.0;

In the first case, each district will take on Minnesota's three extra terms (we roll a six-sided dice to determine the pattern, or perhaps we will add a constraint so that the two Twin City terms are not in consecutive terms.

In the second case, the district with the 0.4 fraction will take a pair of non-consecutive terms from 3-term Minnesota pattern. We flip a two-sided coin.

If the Minnesota fractions add to 1.6 they are one of the following:

0.8, 0.8, 0.0;
0.8, 0.6, 0.2;
0.8, 0.4, 0.4; or
0.6, 0.6, 0.4;

There is only one way to match the two 4-term patterns with the 3-term Minnesota pattern, so we flip a coin to determine which district gets which 4-terms.

In the second case, we could simply give the 0.6 district, the Minnesota term, and float another representative between the other two districts. Or we might try to assign the outstate district to match as much of the Minnesota term as possible (this then limits the representative-position to floating back and forth across the Red River).

In the 3rd case, we likely try to include the Minnesota terms, within the four-terms of the 0.8 district.

In the 4th case, one of the 0.6 districts would get the Minnesota terms, with a preference to the outstate district.

So perhaps (and these are preliminary)

AK-WA-ID-MT (2) (or maybe AK-ID, WA-MT)
CA-OR
WY-SD
NM-KS-OK (TX)
ND-MN
IA-WI
MO-AR-MS
AL-FL-GA-SC
TN-KY-IN-NC-VA (3)
MI-OH-PA-NJ-NY-CT (3)
NH-VT-MA-RI (2)

So you will have a minimum of 17 seats floating among adjacent states (about 3% of the total). The seats in the northeast don't fit together in small patterns, but we can chain the states together, so for example, we won't have a representative-position floating between Connecticut and Michigan.

Let's take a look at the NH-VT-MA-RI region (ME has a single 3.0 district, so it is isolated).

NH: 2.8
VT: 1.4
WMA: 3.6
M'sex: 3.4
NEMA: 3.2
SEMA: 4.2
RI: 2.4

Ideally, we would like to pair NH and VT, but that doesn't work out. But we can ensure that there is only one term where both get an extra representative.

With this in mind, we get the following 3 groups.

VT(2)-WMA(3)
NH(4)-NEMA(1)
M'Sex(2)-SEMA(1)-RI(2)

Massachusetts districts are involved in three cross-border groups. We want to ensure that Massachusetts (11.4 representatives) has either 11 or 12 representatives in every term, and more specifically 12 representatives in two terms, and 11 representatives in three terms. In addition, the two terms with 12 representatives should be non-consecutive.

Because of symmetry, we can fix the two terms with two floating representatives in Massachusetts as the as the 1st and 3rd, while the 2nd, 4th, and 5th have only one floating representative. Once we have established the overall pattern for these 3 floating representatives, we will roll a 5-sided die to determine how much to rotate the complete pattern.

Since there are 5 patterns for 3-terms, there are 25 combinations between two groups of 3 terms (ie WMA, and {M'sex/SEMA}). Most of the 25 combinations would result in two representatives in the 2nd, 4th, or 5th terms are discarded, leaving 6 combination. We then as a 1-term pattern for NEMA that satisfies the requirement that the 1st and 3rd terms have two representatives.

The 6 patterns are shown in the following chart.



In each of the six patterns, the 1st and 3rd columns have two colored squares, while the 2nd, 4th, and 5th have one. As we would expect, there are mirror images involving the two 3-term groups: 1st and 5th patterns; 2nd and 3rd; and 4th and 6th.

We can add a constraint that NH (2.8) + VT (1.4) = total (4.2) will always have 4 or 5 representatives collectively. But if WMA and NEMA both have an extra representative, then this won't true, since this would give NH+VT only 3 representatives. So we eliminate the 3rd and 5th patterns.

We need to divide the M'sex/SEMA 3-term pattern in a way to ensure M'sex two terms are not consecutive. In addition we take the opportunity that WMA+M'sex is always 7. This leaves patterns 1 and 2.



I flipped a coin to pick the first pattern, and then a 3 on a five-sided dice (0,...,4) to rotate the pattern 3 terms to the right.





Maine (3.0) added for completeness. Each district matches the distribution requirement for its fraction.
The green, red, and blue color bands indicate the districts that share a floating representative position.

Green: NH (2.8) + NEMA (3.2)
Red: VT (1.4) + WMA (3.6)
Blue: RI (2.4) + M'Sex (3.4) + SEMA (4.2)

The secondary constraint that Massachusetts have 14 or 15 representatives for every term is shown in purple (15, 14, 14, 15, 14)

The above constraints are mandatory.

The tertiary constraint that New Hampshire+Vermont have 4 or 5 representatives is indicated in gold (4, 4, 5, 4, 4), and that WMA + M'sex have 7 representatives is in lime. These were added to strengthen the separation between Massachusetts and Northern New England. A group within Massachusetts would usually be preferred, but is not possible without a more distant grouping such as RI-VT-SEMA.

[muon2]

How does this translate to actual people serving in Congress? Suppose there is a district assigned 3.4 seats.

Do three people get the potential to serve for the full decade while one other might have to serve, retire for a term or two then come back?

Does the gap rotate with the seats? eg. seat A serves in terms 1,2,3, 4 and 5; seat B in 1,2,3 and 4; seat C in terms 1,2,4 and 5; seat D in 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Are the seats all filled by the best three or four at each cycle or by proportional vote each cycle, so there is no tie of people to seats?

In a complex body like Congress there's a tremendous advantage to have served more than a couple of terms. It takes time to learn the people and operations. Members with experience will tend to be more effective for their constituents.

[jimrtex]

How does this translate to actual people serving in Congress? Suppose there is a district assigned 3.4 seats.

Do three people get the potential to serve for the full decade while one other might have to serve, retire for a term or two then come back?

Does the gap rotate with the seats? eg. seat A serves in terms 1,2,3, 4 and 5; seat B in 1,2,3 and 4; seat C in terms 1,2,4 and 5; seat D in 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Are the seats all filled by the best three or four at each cycle or by proportional vote each cycle, so there is no tie of people to seats?

In a complex body like Congress there's a tremendous advantage to have served more than a couple of terms. It takes time to learn the people and operations. Members with experience will tend to be more effective for their constituents.

Just like at present, representatives would be elected for a two-year term. Representatives are not required to live in their district.

It is possible that some consideration would be given to maintaining districts between decades, that are within the 3 to 5 range, or covered by one of the exceptions. I might even consider permitting a district to grow past 5.0. There would probably be instances when a district drops below 3.0, that the district could be maintained by shifting counties from neighboring districts.

Elections could be by some multi-member method, such as PAV or SAV. These are based on approval voting, but also provide proportionality. Voters simply vote for as many candidates as they like.

If the fraction is 0.2, it is more likely that the extra representative may be a short-time representative. But it could also facilitate a transition.

For example with a 3.2 district.

ABC => ABCD => BCD

Representative D is elected as the 4th representative, and then representative A either retires or is defeated at the next election.

If the fraction is 0.8, one representative may step down for a term (or be defeated), and then returns  in two years, and sometimes happens now in a competitive seat where there is rematch (eg TX-23).

For 0.4 and 0.6 behavior might be similar, since the extra term, or reduced term are separated. Representatives might not think in 10-year periods.

I'm thinking about providing political data. Is R/D percentage of 2-way vote for the 2012 presidential election the most suitable?

It is likely that district offices would be organized on a collective basis, with office space and clerical staff shared. Political staff could be attached to an individual representative who works from Washington or a district office near the candidate's home. Washington staff might be organized more on a collective basis such as by state party caucus.

There would be about 457,000 persons per representative, but they would typically represent 1.5 to 2.5 million persons. So office expenses per representative would be trimmed, forcing a more collective approach.

[jimrtex]

Maryland, including the District of Columbia is entitled to 14.0 representatives, in 3 or 4 districts.



The Washington UCC has about 6.1 representatives, and will be split into two districts. The Baltimore UCC has about 5.8 representatives and can be kept whole. But the rest of the state only has enough for about 2.1 representatives, and so will be attached to the the Washington and Baltimore districts.

The western three countries are added to the Washington UCC (Frederick is in the Washington UCC). This forces the District of Columbia to be placed with Prince George's and Charles to get both districts over 3 representatives.

The Eastern Shore plus Calvert and Saint Mary's.are way below 3 representatives. So we come across the bridge to Anne Arundel, providing connectivity to Calvert and Saint Mary's, and also add Harford to get above 3 representatives.

2401 Prince George's-District of Columbia-Charles or Washington Metro South - 3.6 representatives

2402 Montgomery and Western Maryland or Washington Metro North and Western Maryland - 3.2 representatives

2403 Baltimore Metro or Baltimore - 4.0 representatives

2404 Chesapeake - 3.2 representatives

[jimrtex]

South Carolina is entitled to 10.2 representatives, in 3 districts.



The three districts should represent the Upcountry, (Greenville and Spartanburg), the Midlands (Columbia) and Low Country (Charleston).

It seems reasonable to put the Charlotte suburbs with the Upcountry, so I started with a tier of counties from Cherokee to York. I also had a string of counties along the coast, and one across the state along the Fall Line through Columbia. I expanded the coastal district inland until I had enough population, dipping slightly inland around Florence. The gap was added to the Midlands district. I then started adding counties to the Upcountry district to get enough population, while ensuring that the counties adjacent to Richland and Lexington counties were in the Midlands district.

There is a little bit of wiggle room in the boundaries, but not a whole lot. The districts are reasonable compact considering they are three parallel strips.

4501 Low Country - 3.2 representatives.

4502 Midlands - 3.2 representatives.

4503 Upcountry - 3.8 representatives.

[jimrtex]

Virginia is entitled to 17.6 representatives, in either 4 or 5 districts.



The Washington UCC is entitled to about 5.5 representatives, the Hampton Roads UCC to 3.4, and the Richmond UCC to 2.3. This leaves about 6.4 for the remainder of the state, which would make two districts. But after expanding the Richmond district, there would only be 5.7 representatives left, and not enough left for two districts. This is just as well, since one of the districts would have to wrap around Richmond.

The Washington UCC will be one district. The western district stretches from Tennessee up through the Shenadoah Valley, and then down the east side of the Blue Ridge, and a bit further east to include Lynchburg and Danville. This is perhaps a bit expansive for a more rural district, but it really doesn't fit with Richmond.

The Richmond district got its population from the Southside. The Hampton Roads added rural counties along the Chesapeake and its estuaries. This area could be included with Richmond, but this gives the district a bit more of a historical flavor.

5101 Chesapeake or Hampton Roads & Chesapeake - 4.0 representatives.

5102 Richmond & Southside - 3.4 representatives.

5103 Northern Virginia or Washington Metro South - 5.4 representatives.

5104 Blue Ridge or Western Virginia - 4.8 representatives.

[jimrtex]

New York is entitled to 42.4 representatives, with about 28.5 in the New York UCC, and 13.9 in the remainder of the state.



Upstate could be divided into 3 or 4 districts. I decided to use 4 districts, based around Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse-Utica, and Albany. 3 districts would means two of these would be paired, and it might an awkward pairing. If Buffalo and Rochester were in different districts, then Buffalo would likely have to extend eastward along the Southern Tier, while Rochester and Syracuse would be placed in the same district.

Starting from the west, the Buffalo district had to extend up to the Monroe line to get enough population. In my original version the boundaries were more in a pure north-south configuration. But the districts are more compact if the Rochester and Syracuse districts are also offset, with Rochester also including most of the Southern Tier, including Ithaca and Binghampton, and Syracuse including the North Country. The districts then are more an agglomeration of nearby regions, rather than simply a geometric exercise.



The size of the counties limit options in the New York city area. Westchester must be included in the northern part of the UCC, unless a district extends outside the UCC. Manhattan is the best population match for Staten Island, since Brooklyn + Staten Island would be over 6 seats.

Nassau is slightly below 3.0, while Nassau + Suffolk is slightly over 6.0. A portion of Suffolk could be added to Nassau, but this would also require a town split. Or the two could be placed in the same district, with an exception for being over 6.0 representatives (a 7th representative for one term). Another possibility would be to add a portion of Queens (say Rockaway) to Nassau.

I ended up just putting Nassau and Suffolk as separate districts, with Nassau being close enough to round to 3.0. This was partially to avoid figuring out how to draw the maps.

3601 - Suffolk - 3.2 representatives.

3602 - Nassau - 3.0 representatives.

3603 - Queens - 4.8 representatives.

3604 - Brooklyn - 5.6 representatives.

3605 - Manhattan & Staten Island - 4.6 representatives.

3606 - The Bronx - 3.00 representatives.

3607 - New York Metro North - 4.40 representatives.

3608 - Albany, Hudson Valley, & Catskills - 3.4 representatives.

3609 - Syracuse, Mohawk Valley, & North Country - 3.2 representatives.

3610 - Rochester, Finger Lakes, & Southern Tier - 4.0 representatives.

3611 - Buffalo & Niagara Frontier - 3.2 representatives.

[jimrtex]

North Carolina is entitled to 20.8 representatives, in 5 or 6 districts.



Three districts based on Charlotte; Greensboro-Winston-Salem; and Raleigh-Durham seem obvious. This would leave one district to the west, and one to the east. My initial eastern district had more than enough for six representatives. Nibbling away to reduce the representation below 5.0 would make the district less compact, so instead the district was split.

3701 - Eastern North Carolina or Pamlico Sound - 3.0 representatives.

3702 - Southern North Carolina Southeastern North Carolina or Fayetteville & Wilmington - 3.2 representatives.

3703 - Raleigh & Durham - 3.8 representatives.

3704 - Greensboro & Winston-Salem or Piedmont Triad - 3.6 representatives.

3705 - Charlotte - 4.0 representatives.

3706 - Western North Carolina or Appalachian - 3.2 representatives.

[jimrtex]

Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont are entitled to 3.0, 2.8, 2.4, and 1.4 representatives respectively. All will have a single district.

[jimrtex]

I figured out how to split a county with QGIS. In this case, I adjusted the boundary between the Nassau and Suffolk county districts.



Nassau County is just below the 3.0 minimum district size, while Nassau+Suffolk is just above the 6.0 maximum district size. Adding Babylon or Huntington towns, the two westernmost towns in Suffolk County would flip the situation.

Fortunately, the census bureau defines most CDP's as abutting villages, so that the adjustment could be made with a combination of census places. I used: Amityville village, as well as Copigue, East Farmingale, and North Amityville CDP's which are on the western edge of Babylon Town, Suffolk County, along the county line. The total population is 56K, which just barely gets the Nassau district (3602) above the 3.0 minimum, while the Suffolk district (3601) still rounds to 3.2.

I split Suffolk County into two parts, the four places above, and the remainder of the county. I dissolved the four places into a single polygon, then removed the area from Suffolk County to keep remnant. I was working with the cartographic shapefile for the counties, which removes external waters (oceans and Great Lakes) and simplifies boundaries, which is better for a national map, while the shapefile for the towns was at the native resolution. This presents a slight mismatch along the western edge - county line. It also shows up where the places and Suffolk County don't precisely line up.

This is the map of the NYC area with the adjustment to the Nassau-Suffolk line.

[jimrtex]

Kentucky is entitled to 9.6 representatives in 2 or 3 districts. Tennessee is entitled to 13.8 representatives in 3 or 4 districts.



Kentucky

With 9.6 representatives, Kentucky could have 3 districts near the lower threshold (3.2 average vs 3 minimum), or 2 districts near the upper threshold (4.8 average vs 5 maximum).

Beginning in the western tip, it was clear that Louisville would be in the western district of a two-district plan, but on the eastern end (a Louisville-Lexington-Cincinnati district might be possible, but the other district would then stretch the entire length of the state).

So I then drew a map from Louisville to Covington, and added a second tier to get to enough population. This meant that the western district had to go a little further east. The third district is then the eastern part of the state including Lexington. I decided to simply balance the population between districts, rather than try to use community of interest to adjust the population.

2101 - Western Kentucky - 3.2 representatives.

2102 - Northern Kentucky or Louisville & Cincinnati Metro - 3.2 representatives.

2103 - Eastern Kentucky - 3.2 representatives.


Tennessee

Conceivably, the Grand Divisions could be used for the 3 districts, but the Middle Division has too much population for a district (5.4), and the Eastern Division is near the limit (4.9). This would require the Western Division to add territory to the east. This would probably be a reasonable map.

I instead tried a 4-district alternative. Since the Middle Division is overpopulated, I decided to try to create a Nashville district. The Nashville UCC is just short of the population for a district, so I added in the remaining two neighbors of Davidson County that are not in the UCC.

This left the remainder of the Middle Division short of 3 representatives, so I shifted Chattanooga from the Eastern Division. This plan splits the 4 largest cities in Tennessee among 4 districts.

4701 - Western Tennessee - 3.4 representatives.

4702 - Middle Tennessee - 3.0 representatives.

4703 - Eastern Tennessee - 4.2 representatives.

4704 - Nashville - 3.2 representatives.

[jimrtex]

Kentucky is entitled to 9.6 representatives in 2 or 3 districts. Tennessee is entitled to 13.8 representatives in 3 or 4 districts.



Kentucky

With 9.6 representatives, Kentucky could have 3 districts near the lower threshold (3.2 average vs 3 minimum), or 2 districts near the upper threshold (4.8 average vs 5 maximum).

Beginning in the western tip, it was clear that Louisville would be in the western district of a two-district plan, but on the eastern end (a Louisville-Lexington-Cincinnati district might be possible, but the other district would then stretch the entire length of the state).

So I then drew a map from Louisville to Covington, and added a second tier to get to enough population. This meant that the western district had to go a little further east. The third district is then the eastern part of the state including Lexington. I decided to simply balance the population between districts, rather than try to use community of interest to adjust the population.

2101 - Western Kentucky - 3.2 representatives.

2102 - Northern Kentucky or Louisville & Cincinnati Metro - 3.2 representatives.

2103 - Eastern Kentucky - 3.2 representatives.


Tennessee

Conceivably, the Grand Divisions could be used for the 3 districts, but the Middle Division has too much population for a district (5.4), and the Eastern Division is near the limit (4.9). This would require the Western Division to add territory to the east. This would probably be a reasonable map.

I instead tried a 4-district alternative. Since the Middle Division is overpopulated, I decided to try to create a Nashville district. The Nashville UCC is just short of the population for a district, so I added in the remaining two neighbors of Davidson County that are not in the UCC.

This left the remainder of the Middle Division short of 3 representatives, so I shifted Chattanooga from the Eastern Division. This plan splits the 4 largest cities in Tennessee among 4 districts.

4701 - Western Tennessee - 3.4 representatives.

4702 - Middle Tennessee - 3.0 representatives.

4703 - Eastern Tennessee - 4.2 representatives.

4704 - Nashville - 3.2 representatives.


This shows the three district alternative for Tennessee.



Tennessee 3-district Plan

This map is based on the Grand Divisions of Tennessee. In its literal form, the middle district would be entitled to 5.4 representatives, above the maximum.

To get the middle district below the 5.0 limit, two tiers of counties were shifted to the western district. The largest county by far is Montgomery (Clarksville) which is northwest of Nashville, in the corner of the district. It Montgomery were not shifted, then the western district would have to come south of Nashville.

4701 - Western Tennessee - 4.2 representatives.

4702 - Middle Tennessee - 4.6 representatives.

4703 - Eastern Tennessee - 5.0 representatives.

[jimrtex]

Ohio is entitled to 25.2 representatives, in 6 or 7, or possibly 8 districts.



Ohio has 6 major cities on which districts may be based: Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati; and Akron, Toledo, and Dayton. The first three have enough population in their UCC, the latter three need some help. This leaves the area along the Ohio River, which may have enough for a district. If not then the Cincinnati, Columbus, and Akron districts will need to expand into that area.

After placing the Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland UCC, the Dayton district was constructed taking Springfield and extending northward. The original version included Madison and Union on the western edge of the Columbus metro area. The Toledo district took in Lima and extended east towards Cleveland and southeast towards Columbus.

By including Canton and Youngstown, the Akron district had enough. The rest of the state along the Ohio River was barely enough for the 7th district.

The Columbus district looked a bit chopped off, so I added in Madison and Union, and the Dayton district had to then take Allen (Lima). This forced the Toledo district to take Ashland and Richland, which are a bit afield for an Ohio River district.

The Cleveland district was oddly shaped since it includes Lake County, but not Geauga. I extended it along Lake Erie to the Pennsylvania border. The Cleveland/Akron separation is somewhat of a lakefront/inland separation.

3901 - Cincinnati - 3.4 - representatives

3902 - Dayton & Western Ohio - 3.0 representatives.

3903 - Toledo & Northern Ohio - 3.2 representatives.

3904 - Columbus - 4.0 representatives.

3905 - Cleveland - 4.8 representatives.

3906 - Akron-Canton-Youngstown - 3.6 representatives.

3907 - Ohio River - 3.2 representatives.

[jimrtex]

Louisiana is entitled to 10.0 representatives in 3 districts.



There could be two districts, each with 5.0 representatives, but that would require that each would have exactly 5.0 representatives, and not merely round to 5.0 (eg 5.09 and 4.91).

Three districts require 3.0 representatives each, with the extra 1.0 distributed among the three, so that the limits are fairly tight.

New Orleans needs a few counties outside its UCC to get to 3.0, while keeping out of the Baton Rouge UCC and major inroads into Acadiana.

Baton Rouge and Acadiana are placed in a single district, since neither has enough population for its own district. Placing Acadiana in a district that stretches up to Shreveport is not a good fit.

The northern district needs the Lake Charles area to get up to sufficient population.

2201 - New Orleans - 3.00 representatives.

2202 - Baton Rouge & Acadiana - 3.80 representatives.

2203 - Northern Louisiana - 3.20 representatives.

[jimrtex]

Indiana is entitled to 14.2 representatives, in 3 or 4 districts.



A district will have to based in Indianapolis. In a 3-district plan, the southern district would need to come way north, possibly wrapping around Indianapolis. A 4-district plan splits the north between Gary-South Bend and Fort Wayne-Elkhart and the smaller cities such as Muncie to the south. The southern district gets Evansville, Terre Haute, Bloomington, and the Louisville suburbs. The Indianapolis district includes the three counties in the ring around Marion that are not in the UCC.

1801 - Northwestern Indiana - 3.40 representatives.

1802 - Northeastern Indiana - 3.20 representatives.

1803 - Indianapolis - 4.00 representatives.

1804 - Southern Indiana - 3.60 representatives.

[jimrtex]

Mississippi is entitled to 6.4 representatives in two districts.



The two districts will be just above 3 representatives each. The Jackson UCC has enough population for 1.0 representative, so at least 2.0 representatives-worth of population will come from the remainder of the district.

The area south of Jackson has enough population for 2.0 representatives, while from the north an area with 2.0 representatives does not reach to Jackson. Therefore Jackson is placed in the southern district.

2801 - Northern Mississippi - 3.0 representatives.

2802 - Southern Mississippi - 3.4 representatives.

[jimrtex]

Illinois is entitled to 28 representatives, with between six and 9 districts.





The Chicago UCC has enough for 18.66 districts, with 9.34 for the remainder of the state. The remainder of the state can be divided into two or three districts. The three districts would be quite near the minimum, while two districts would be near the maximum.

Starting from Rockford and picking up the Quad Cities area, it was clear that Peoria would be needed to get to the 3.00 minimum. Coming up from the south included the Carbondale and St.Louis suburbs.
This left a third district with Springfield, Decatur, Champaign-Urbana, Bloomington, and the southern exurbs of Chicago.

The initial version had the middle district extending to the Mississippi. The final version has more of an eastern Illinois flavor, with a bump out to include Springfield, while the northern (or western) district and southern districts include all of the Mississippi.

Cook County is entitled to 11.34 representatives. This splits into a Chicago and a non-Chicago (Cook County) district that takes advantage of the 6.0 limit to keep states, UCCs, counties, etc. within a single district. Their are not many options splitting the suburban counties, since the Cook panhandle cuts DuPage off from the north. Kendall was placed in the northern district based on a perception of a stronger connection to Kane than Will counties. If Kendall has a stronger connection to Will, and indirectly to DuPage, it could be switched.

1701 - Chicago - 6.0 representatives.

1702 - Cook County - 5.4 representatives.

1703 - DuPage-Will - 3.6 representatives.

1704 - Chicagoland North-West - 3.8 representatives.

1705 - Northern Illinois or Western Illinois - 3.2 representatives.

1706 - Eastern Illinois or Central Illinois - 3.0 representatives.

1707 - Southern Illinois - 3.0 representatives.

[jimrtex]

Alabama is entitled to 10.4 representatives in three districts.



One district was built southward from the Tennessee Valley to just north of Birmingham and included Gadsden and Anniston. Another district was built northward from Mobile. If it did not encompass the Black Belt, including the Montgomery UCC, it had insufficient population. But including this area required it to be the largest district, which is what was done.

The original central district was a strip of counties from Mississippi to Georgia that included Birmingham. The fundamental characteristic was that it was leftover from the other two districts. I shifted it more into a Birmingham-Tuscaloosa district plus rural counties to the west. The Northern district now includes the Tennessee Valley and the Appalachians (outside of Birmingham).

101 Northern Alabama or Tennessee Valley & Appalachians - 3.2 representatives.

102 Birmingham & Western Alabama - 3.2 representatives.

103 Southern Alabama - 4.0 representatives.

[muon2]

Illinois is entitled to 28 representatives, with between six and 9 districts.





The Chicago UCC has enough for 18.66 districts, with 9.34 for the remainder of the state. The remainder of the state can be divided into two or three districts. The three districts would be quite near the minimum, while two districts would be near the maximum.

Starting from Rockford and picking up the Quad Cities area, it was clear that Peoria would be needed to get to the 3.00 minimum. Coming up from the south included the Carbondale and St.Louis suburbs.
This left a third district with Springfield, Decatur, Champaign-Urbana, Bloomington, and the southern exurbs of Chicago.

The initial version had the middle district extending to the Mississippi. The final version has more of an eastern Illinois flavor, with a bump out to include Springfield, while the northern (or western) district and southern districts include all of the Mississippi.

Cook County is entitled to 11.34 representatives. This splits into a Chicago and a non-Chicago (Cook County) district that takes advantage of the 6.0 limit to keep states, UCCs, counties, etc. within a single district. Their are not many options splitting the suburban counties, since the Cook panhandle cuts DuPage off from the north. Kendall was placed in the northern district based on a perception of a stronger connection to Kane than Will counties. If Kendall has a stronger connection to Will, and indirectly to DuPage, it could be switched.

1701 - Chicago - 6.0 representatives.

1702 - Cook County - 5.4 representatives.

1703 - DuPage-Will - 3.6 representatives.

1704 - Chicagoland North-West - 3.8 representatives.

1705 - Northern Illinois or Western Illinois - 3.2 representatives.

1706 - Eastern Illinois or Central Illinois - 3.0 representatives.

1707 - Southern Illinois - 3.0 representatives.

Kendall and DeKalb are together in the same judicial circuit, and until recently they were both in the same circuit as Kane. The Metro West municipal council of governments includes Kane, Kendall and DeKalb. I think your arrangement for the collars is fine.

Since judges are elected in IL the judicial system might be a reasonable way to divide the downstate area. In this split the southern region (1.321 M) exactly matches the 5th Appellate Court and its included circuit courts. The central region (1.463 M) includes all of the 4th Appellate Court plus the 21st Circuit Court (Iroquois and Kankakee). The northern region (1.510 M) includes all the remaining parts of the 2nd and 3rd Appellate Court not in the Chicago UCC or the 21st Circuit.

I'm not sure how low in population you can go including rounding. So if the southern region is too low you could shift Macoupin and Jersey, splitting the 7th Circuit Court, but equalizing the population between those two regions.