Temporal Weighted Apportionment
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:41:17 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Temporal Weighted Apportionment
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Temporal Weighted Apportionment  (Read 4287 times)
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 30, 2016, 03:33:44 PM »
« edited: March 05, 2016, 06:34:45 PM by jimrtex »

Edit: Even though Missouri is entitled to 13.2 representatives, I gave it 13.4. The corrected apportionment drops the St. Louis district from 4.8 to 4.6 representatives.

Missouri is entitled to 13.2 representatives in three or four districts.



My initial inclination was to draw a four-district plan, with a Kansas City and St.Louis district, a southern district based around Springfield, and a northern district that would likely include Columbia and Jefferson City and other areas along the Missouri River. But the St. Louis UCC is large enough, that there is not enough population for three districts in the remainder of the state.

This means that the northern district is eliminated, since it has the smallest potential core population. The southern district was drawn up to the southern limits of the Kansas City and St.Louis UCCs, and just south of the Missouri River.

The Kansas City district went north to the Iowa line, and then tiers of counties were added to the east. When I got to near the center of the state, I found that I could add the central part of the state around Columbia and Jefferson City, as well as the northeastern corner of the state. The northeastern part of the state can be considered to be in the same district as Columbia and Jefferson City, rather than a western district based in Kansas City.

The Columbia and Jefferson City areas could have been placed in the southern district, but the northeast would still have been in the Kansas City district. The St. Louis district could not have taken the central part of the state. It could have extended north or south along the Mississippi, but these would have been fairly spindly fingers, and the other two districts would still extend almost to the Mississippi.

The areas immediately to the west of the St.Louis area were added to the St. Louis district. These could be areas that could be defined as "in no way are these areas in western or northern Missouri".

2901 - St. Louis - 4.80 representatives.

2902 - Kansas City & Northern Missouri - 4.60 representatives.

2903 - Southern Missouri  - 4.00 representatives.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 30, 2016, 11:24:15 PM »

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.


The minimum is a hard 3.0 of the state sub-apportionment. For Illinois, the quota is 458,237, or a minimum 1,374,211. I was concerned somewhat about mischievous plans that would target 2.901+ or 5.099-. In addition, these would not necessarily round to three and five, since the rounding is not independent.

An oddity in Illinois is that the raw apportionment for all seven districts was less than half way to the next unit. That is, in apportioning the 140 representative-terms (140 = 28.0x5), the fraction for all  seven districts was below 0.5:

0.413
0.398
0.393
0.307
0.268
0.154
0.066

Chicago (5.883 to 6.000) and DuPage-Will (3.480 to 3.600) both got favorable roundings, producing a slight bias towards the Chicago area.

The districts would be drawn by a federal redistricting commission. This is necessary in order that the apportionment of the extra terms be coordinated between states and districts.

Under the US Constitution, the Congress has the authority to apportion representatives on the basis of population:  "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers" (14th Amendment), and nothing precludes this apportionment varying biennially - so long as the variation is based on maintaining proportionality between censuses, and each State has at least one representative. Under Article I, Section 4, the Congress has authority to regulate the manner of election of representatives, which includes both the establishment of districts, and the election therefrom.

An alternate approach would be like was done in Ohio (under the 1851 Constitution), where the fraction determined the terms in which there was extra representation:

   0.2 Extra representative in 5th term.
   0.4 Extra representatives in 3rd and 4th terms.
   0.6 Extra representatives in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd terms.
   0.8 Extra representatives in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th term.

This resulted in variation of the size of the legislature, and there was a size-based bias. If applied to Congress, there would still be the need to allocate terms among the districts in the state.

The federal redistricting commission could still take into account local input, and might consider the use of courts that are organized on a regional basis. My inclination would be to keep the circuit courts whole, and so I would switch the 5th Circuit to the southern district.

Do circuit judges in Illinois still ride circuit?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 30, 2016, 11:53:12 PM »

I know some judges who ride, but probably not on their judicial circuit. Wink

BTW, how would the Chicago and Cook delegations be elected to conform with the VRA?
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 31, 2016, 12:17:11 AM »

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.





It is not that unreasonable. I think orienting the map at an angle may help since it removes some of the bias towards east-west and north-south lines.

It did change the rounding, as DuPage-Will lost a term.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 31, 2016, 02:58:01 AM »

I know some judges who ride, but probably not on their judicial circuit. Wink
In Texas, district courts in smaller counties are generally arranged so that there is one dominant county where the judge can sit most of the time, and then smaller counties that don't have enough cases for a full time judge are attached. The district judge might hear cases in those counties for a week once a month, or once every two months.

I thought that might be the case in Illinois - where the circuits are designed more to match case loads than regions of interest. I was probably thinking of Abraham Lincoln, who used to ride circuit as well, traveling from Springfield for various trials.

Texas does not have district courts with multiple judges, but instead has overlapping districts. Harris County has 60+ district courts. One court is designated the administrative court, and cases are assigned randomly, though there are specialties - civil, criminal, juvenile).

In less populated areas, the districts are not necessarily coterminous. A larger county such as Tom Green or Taylor might be assigned

Texas District Courts (PDF)

BTW, how would the Chicago and Cook delegations be elected to conform with the VRA?

Proportional Approval Voting (YouTube)

For Chicago: WNHCVAP 40%, BCVAP 35%, HCVAP 19%, ACVAP 5%.
For Cook County (excluding Chicago): WNHCVAP 64%, BCVAP 17%, HCVAP 12%, ACVAP 6%

The HCVAP/HVAP ratio is about 60% in both districts, but the native HVAP to naturalized HVAP is higher in Chicago, presumably to a higher share of Puerto Ricans in Chicago, compared to Cook County, particularly Cicero.

I think that Gutierrez could be elected in Chicago, along with Danny Davis and Bobby Rush, and a white Republican and a white Democrat, leaving one position open. Robin Kelly would presumably run for one of the Cook County seats.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 31, 2016, 05:49:04 PM »

Arkansas is entitled to 6.4 representatives in two districts.



The two districts will be just above the minimum of 3.0 and fairly equal in population. Since the northwest is the most populous area outside of Little Rock, it was made the base of one district, and Little Rock the center of the other, spreading out to the south and west.

I would add some counties to one district and then some to the other keeping the population in balance. The final map is based roughly on the terrain, with the exceptions of Texarkana being placed in the western district, and Little Rock in the eastern district. You will notice a slight notch into the western district around Little Rock. The population of the two districts was equalized.

501 - Western Arkansas or Ozarks or Northwestern Arkansas - 3.2 representatives.

502 - Eastern Arkansas - 3.2 representatives.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 01, 2016, 03:13:28 AM »

Michigan is entitled to 21.6 representatives in five to seven districts.



The Detroit UCC has enough population for 9.2 representatives, which are placed in two districts, one for Wayne County, and the other for the northern four counties.

The remaining 12.4 representatives is just barely enough for four districts. Starting with the Upper Peninsula and coming down the Lower Peninsula, the first encountered major source of population is the Saginaw-Midland-Bay City area. Taking the Tri-Cities into the northern district, puts Flint and Lansing in a district. This in turn places a district across the southern part of the state, leaving the Lake Michigan shore line plus from Grand Rapids-Muskegon southward for the fourth district.

It is feasible to put Saginaw in the northern district, but this then forces the Flint-Lansing district to push upward to include Mount Pleasant and areas to the west. Four districts is feasible, but leaves very little wiggle room.

Three districts for 12.4 representatives is very flexible, since the district populations don't need to be balanced.

2601 - Wayne County or Detroit-Wayne - 4.0 representatives.

2602 - Detroit Metro North - 5.2 representatives.

2603 - Upper Peninsula & Northern Lower Peninsula or Northern Michigan or Great Lakes or Michilimackinac - 3.0 representatives.

2604 - Lansing-Flint-Saginaw - 3.2 representatives.

2605 - Southern Michigan - 3.2 representatives.

2606 - Grand Rapids & Lake Michigan Shore - 3.0 representatives.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 01, 2016, 02:49:45 PM »

Michigan is entitled to 21.6 representatives in five to seven districts.



The Detroit UCC has enough population for 9.2 representatives, which are placed in two districts, one for Wayne County, and the other for the northern four counties.

The remaining 12.4 representatives is just barely enough for four districts. Starting with the Upper Peninsula and coming down the Lower Peninsula, the first encountered major source of population is the Saginaw-Midland-Bay City area. Taking the Tri-Cities into the northern district, puts Flint and Lansing in a district. This in turn places a district across the southern part of the state, leaving the Lake Michigan shore line plus from Grand Rapids-Muskegon southward for the fourth district.

It is feasible to put Saginaw in the northern district, but this then forces the Flint-Lansing district to push upward to include Mount Pleasant and areas to the west. Four districts is feasible, but leaves very little wiggle room.

Three districts for 12.4 representatives is very flexible, since the district populations don't need to be balanced.

2601 - Wayne County or Detroit-Wayne - 4.0 representatives.

2602 - Detroit Metro North - 5.2 representatives.

2603 - Upper Peninsula & Northern Lower Peninsula or Northern Michigan or Great Lakes or Michilimackinac - 3.0 representatives.

2604 - Lansing-Flint-Saginaw - 3.2 representatives.

2605 - Southern Michigan - 3.2 representatives.

2606 - Grand Rapids & Lake Michigan Shore - 3.0 representatives.


This alternative divides the area outside Detroit into three districts rather than four. Saginaw and the Michigan Thumb are switched to the northern district, and the southern district is divided, with Jackson, Ann Arbor, and Monroe, placed with Lansing and Flint; and Kalamazoo and Battle Creek placed with Grand Rapids.


Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 01, 2016, 04:27:47 PM »

I think the second one makes more sense. I like that it keeps the Saginaw Midland Bay City area together.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 03, 2016, 10:36:02 AM »

I think the second one makes more sense. I like that it keeps the Saginaw Midland Bay City area together.
This is a second alternative, placing Grand Rapids and Muskegon with the northern part of the state.



About half the population is in the southern four counties, and my preference is that large districts be closer to 3 representatives than five. I also had to go north a bit from the Tri-Cities in order to get the northern district below 5.0.

I think I will use the first alternative. The original four-district map stretched things too thin, removing much of the flexibility.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: February 03, 2016, 12:31:48 PM »

Florida is entitled to 41.2 representatives in between 9 and 13 districts.



The population per representative is quite similar to that of the Florida Senate, which has 40 members.

There are 3 large UCCs in Florida: Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach; Tampa-St.Petersburg; and Orlando. In additions there are several smaller UCCs that require keeping counties together: (by counties) Manatee and Sarasota; Volusia and Flagler; Martin and St. Lucie; Escambia and Santa Rosa; and Duval, Clay, and St. Johns.

The Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach UCC has a population for about 12 representatives. Because of its connectivity issues, Monroe is treated as part of the UCC. Miami-Dade and Monroe are split off as one district with 5.6 representatives. Broward and Palm Beach are entitled to 6.6 representatives, which is too large, but Palm Beach is entitled to 2.8 representatives, which is too small. To avoid dividing counties, Broward was made its own district, and other counties outside the UCC were added to Palm Beach.

The Orlando UCC is entitled to 4.7 representatives and can be kept in one district.

The Tampa-St. Petersburg UCC is entitled to just over 6 representatives, and must be divided. My original attempt was to keep Hillsborough and Pinellas together, with possibly Pasco, stripping Hernando from from the UCC.

I then started filling in other districts.

Beginning with Collier, Lee, and Charlotte on the Gulf Coast, there was insufficient population unless Manatee-Sarasota were included, or the district jumped inland up to Polk. I preferred the coastal configuration with Manatee and Sarasota, though I initially included some of the inland rural counties.

I had initially placed Martin and St.Lucie with Palm Beach, but that would leave Brevard-Volusia-Flagler-Indian River short of enough population, which would require the area to be added to the Jacksonville district or to come inland. Eventually I settled on the coastal district from Flagler through Martin, which while long and skinny does reflect actual settlement patterns. To make enough population for Palm Beach, I added three rural counties around Lake Okeechobee. They do have a connection to Palm Beach since Belle Glade is in Palm Beach County.

My initial effort was to place Polk in a district winding through the gap between Hillsborough and Lake up to Marion. This was quite ugly, so I eventually split Hillsborough and Pinellas, so that both are part of districts that extend outside the UCC in opposite directions.

After drawing a panhandle district with enough population, and getting the Jacksonville district enough population, there was an area including Marion(Ocala) and Alachua(Gainesville) that might have had enough population for a district, but it would have had to included Citrus, Levy, Sumter, and Hernando, and required an almost perfect split into three districts barely over 3.0.

So instead the Jacksonville and Panhandle districts absorbed this area. The initial boundary followed the Suwanee River, but had a large population imbalance of 4.8 in Jacksonville and 3.2 in the Panhandle, and would have the Jacksonville district extending to the Gulf Coast with Levy. So a few counties were added to the panhandle district.

It would be feasible to place Marion and Alachua in the Panhandle district, which would give the area four medium population centers (Pensacola, Tallahassee, Gainesville, and Ocala) separate from the larger Jacksonville, but the population imbalance would be large, and the panhandle district already has 25 counties.

So a quite reasonable Panhandle and Jacksonville district can be drawn. But they both are compromised by including the area in between.

1201 - Miami or Miami-Dade & Monroe or Miami, Everglades, & Florida Keys - 5.6 representatives.

1202 - Fort Lauderdale or Broward - 3.8 representatives.

1203 - Palm Beach & Lake Okeechobee - 3.0 representatives.

1204 - St.Petersburg & Metro North - 4.0 representatives.

1205 - Orlando - 4.6 representatives.

1206 - Jacksonville, Ocala, & Gainesville or Jacksonville & North Florida or North Florida - 4.4 representatives.

1207 - Gulf Coast - 4.0 representatives.

1208 - Tampa & Central Florida - 4.4 representatives.

1209 - Atlantic Coast - 3.8 representatives.

1210 - Panhandle - 3.6 representatives.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: February 03, 2016, 05:38:48 PM »

Why not put Highlands, Hardee, and DeSoto with Palm Beach? It balances the population better and keeps the interior counties of south FL together.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: February 03, 2016, 10:10:35 PM »

Why not put Highlands, Hardee, and DeSoto with Palm Beach? It balances the population better and keeps the interior counties of south FL together.
I associate Highlands with Polk. 62% of the county population is in the Sebring-Avon Park UA which is in the extreme northeastern part of the county.

The extension of Palm Beach was only to get enough population for a district, and to recognize Lake Okeechobee as a focus for a small part of the Palm Beach population that is itself isolated from the bulk of the county.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: February 04, 2016, 12:09:18 AM »

Why not put Highlands, Hardee, and DeSoto with Palm Beach? It balances the population better and keeps the interior counties of south FL together.
I associate Highlands with Polk. 62% of the county population is in the Sebring-Avon Park UA which is in the extreme northeastern part of the county.

The extension of Palm Beach was only to get enough population for a district, and to recognize Lake Okeechobee as a focus for a small part of the Palm Beach population that is itself isolated from the bulk of the county.

From my travels there, Sebring is well separated from Lake Wales and the farther points of Polk. Polk is very much an I-4 county, not shared by the three rural counties to the south. I view it more as grouping the six inland south counties together, separate from central FL. They go with Palm Beach only because Palm Beach needs the extra population.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: February 04, 2016, 01:52:25 AM »

Why not put Highlands, Hardee, and DeSoto with Palm Beach? It balances the population better and keeps the interior counties of south FL together.
I associate Highlands with Polk. 62% of the county population is in the Sebring-Avon Park UA which is in the extreme northeastern part of the county.

The extension of Palm Beach was only to get enough population for a district, and to recognize Lake Okeechobee as a focus for a small part of the Palm Beach population that is itself isolated from the bulk of the county.

From my travels there, Sebring is well separated from Lake Wales and the farther points of Polk. Polk is very much an I-4 county, not shared by the three rural counties to the south. I view it more as grouping the six inland south counties together, separate from central FL. They go with Palm Beach only because Palm Beach needs the extra population.
Perhaps.

After I decided that Palm Beach + Martin-St.Lucie was not going to work, I had decided I was going to have to split Broward, and put part of it with Palm Beach.

But then I saw that I could add a couple of smaller counties to get Palm Beach over the threshold. Okeechobee was added a bit later. So my thinking process was to minimize the division of the central Florida area.

Looking at population number since WWII, Highlands has started to differentiate a bit from the other five counties. The others have actually had strong growth, but I suspect it is mostly pioneering retirees, who have the ability to buy or build a house and be dependent on the development of a retirement community. There could also be some small scale mobile home parks.

In an alternate reality, there could well be an effort to maintain districts from decade to decade, since the apportionment can self-adjust. The actual alignment in 2010 would be dependent on what had been done in the past.

Neither of us are clearly wrong or right.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: February 04, 2016, 04:22:18 AM »
« Edited: February 04, 2016, 11:57:55 AM by jimrtex »

Texas is entitled to 55.0 representatives.





This is the second cut. It still needs the division of Harris County.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: February 12, 2016, 12:41:35 AM »

Harris County is entitled to 9.0 representatives (8.930 before rounding), and must be divided into 2 districts. A split between Houston and non-Houston, would produce a 4.489:4.440 split.

But the city limits of Houston are quite irregular. Here we see the familiar shape of a galloping hedgehog with antlers, a kudzo-covered TV antenna, as a squirrel and a hunchback with a top hat pushing a wheelbarrow attempt to stay on its back.



This map shows Kingwood, Lake Houston, IAH, Greenspoint, and Willowbrook, and the fence lines trimmed, as well as the areas that extend into Fort Bend and Montgomery counties.



These are the final districts with a split of Houston 4.141, non-Houston 4.788 representatives. Roughly 150,000 people were trimmed from Houston.

Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: February 12, 2016, 03:54:47 PM »

Texas is entitled to 55.0 representatives in between 11 and 18 districts, with a target of 14.







Collectively, the Dallas-Fort Worth (13.0), Houston (12.6), San Antonio (4.2), and Austin (3.6) UCC's have enough population for 33.5 representatives, leaving 21.5 for the remainder of the state. The four major UCCs were packed (districts entirely within the UCC) so that as much population as possible was available for the other districts. If this were not a consideration, the San Antonio and Austin districts might have been expanded to include more of their metropolitan areas.

The Dallas-Fort Worth UCC requires 3 districts. Dallas (5.0) and Tarrant (4.1) have sufficient population for their own districts, but that would have split the northern and southern suburbs. Since the northern suburbs (Collin, Denton, and Rockwall) have enough population for a district, they remained separate, with the southern suburbs (Ellis and Johnson) placed with their larger northern neighbor.

The Houston UCC requires 3 districts. Harris (9.0) has enough population for two districts. The suburban counties must be placed in a single district to have enough population. Waller was added to provide contiguity. Harris County was divided between Houston, and the area outside Houston, with the non-compact areas trimmed off.

San Antonio and Austin were set off as their own districts.

The remainder of the state has enough population for 21.6 representatives. This would barely support 7 districts, but with no flexibility. Six districts with about 3.6 representatives each is more comfortable, and helps keep the district size down somewhat (235 counties divided by six is an average of 39 counties).

My initial plan was to start working inward from Brownsville in the south, El Paso in the west, Dalhart in the Panhandle, Texarkana in the northeast, and Beaumont in the southeast. The remainder, including Waco, Temple, and Killeen in Central Texas would form the sixth district.

There is sufficient population along the border between Brownsville and Laredo and Eagle Pass for adistrict. This left Val Verde (Del Rio) to be attached to the Big Bend. Coming east from El Paso, the Big Bend and Permian Basin (Midland-Odessa) were added. Some more population was needed, so Tom Green (San Angelo) was added,

This then made the northern district, Amarillo, Lubbock, Abilene, and Wichita Falls to the western fringe of the Metroplex.

The northeastern district had to extend south of the Metroplex, and the southeastern district wrapped around Houston to get enough population. Fundamentally, there was not enough population in East Texas for two districts.

So instead, East Texas was combined into one district, and a district composed of Corpus Christi, Victoria, and Bryan-College Station, the less populous suburbs of San Antonio and Austin were formed into a district. While East Texas did not have enough population for two districts, it was relatively large for one, so the central Texas district was pushed eastward, and the West Texas district expanded to include the Hill Country.

4801 - Dallas - 5.4 representatives.

4802 - Fort Worth - 4.2 representatives.

4803 - Metroplex North or Dallas-Fort Worth North Metro - 3.4 representatives.

4804 - Harris County - 4.8 representatives.

4805 - Houston - 4.2 representatives.

4806 - Houston Metro - 3.6 representatives.

4807 - San Antonio - 4.2 representatives.

4808 - Austin - 3.6 representatives.

4809 - Rio Grande - 3.6 representatives.

4810 - West Texas - 3.8 representatives.

4811 - North Texas - 3.6 representatives.

4812 - East Texas - 4.2 representatives.

4813 - South Texas - 3.2 representatives.

4814 - Central Texas - 3.2 representatives.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: February 13, 2016, 12:40:36 AM »

Iowa is entitled to 6.6 representatives in two districts.



Because the districts will be close to 3.0 representatives, they will have be fairly equal in population. The obvious split is between east and west, and Des Moines will have to be in the western district. Coming from the east, I got to Polk County and had sufficient population for both districts. I played around moving Marshall, Jasper, and Marion to the western district, based on their proximity to Des Moines, but that would have made a more U-shaped eastern district.

The final map places all of I-35 in the western district, assuming a slightly stronger community of interest with Des Moines based on the transportation link. It also results in the denser eastern part of the state having the slightly higher population.

1901 - Eastern Iowa - 3.4 representatives.

1902 - Western Iowa - 3.2 representatives.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: February 13, 2016, 03:43:54 PM »

Wisconsin is entitled to 12.4 representatives in three or possibly four districts.



The Milwaukee UCC has enough population for 3.4 representatives. The other two district would begin with Madison; and the Fox River valley (Appleton-Oshkosh-Green Bay), with both districts extending north and westward. To get to better population balance, Racine and Kenosha were added to the Milwaukee district. Eventually you end up trying to decide whether to put Superior with a district based in the eastern part of the state, or in the southern part of the state. If added to the eastern district, Superior ends up in a sort of panhandle. If added to the southern district, the population is unbalanced, and the district stretches to Milwaukee.

A second effort tried to create a 4-district plan. With the Milwaukee UCC at nearly 3.4 representatives, the other three districts had to have almost precisely 3-representatives each. Racine and Kenosha were placed with Dane (Madison) which was the western extent of a southern district. While a 4-district plan may be barely possible, there is almost no choice of counties.

So I went back to the 3-district plan. I extended the Milwaukee district to the west to include Dodge, Jefferson, and Walworth. This made the most urban district, the most populous. It also made Madison the southern end of a district that includes La Crosse, Eau Claire, Twin City exurbs, and on up the St. Croix River towards Superior. With the loss of the counties nearer Milwaukee, the population of the non-Milwaukee districts are more balanced, and the district has a clear theme of following the western boundary of the state.

5501 - Milwaukee & Southeastern Wisconsin - 4.6 representatives.

5502 - Western Wisconsin - 4.2 representatives.

5503 - Eastern Wisconsin - 3.6 representatives.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: February 14, 2016, 12:17:41 PM »

California is entitled to 81.6 representatives.







The Los Angeles UCC, consisting of Los Angeles and Orange counties is entitled to 28.1 representatives. Los Angeles is entitled to 21.5 representatives and will be divided into 5 or 6 districts. The city of Los Angeles is entitled to 8.3 representatives and will be divided into two districts. The remainder of the county is entitled to 13.2 reprsentatives. It might be divided into four districts, if there is sufficient population in the north and west for districts. The other districts would be based in the San Gabriel Valley, and the southeast (north and west from Long Beach). Orange is entitled to 6.6 representatives and will be divided into two districts, with a dividing line likely north of Irvine.

The San Francisco-Oakland UCC is entitled 9.5 representatives. I initially placed Alameda and Contra Costa together, which had 5.6 representatives. While going over 5.0 might be justified in order to keep the district within the UCC, it does not prevent the UCC from being divided. So I added Solano to the area, which has a second advantage of reducing the population of the Northern California district. The UCC will be divided into:
    San Francisco-San Mateo-Marin;
    Alameda; and
    Contra Costa-Solano

The Riverside-San Bernardino UCC is entitled to 9.25 representatives. This easily divided into a district for each county.

The San Diego UCC is entitled to 6.8 representatives. Since the single-county UCC will be split into smaller districts, Imperial County was added in. The choice over Riverside is based on Imperial being a larger portion of the smaller district. The city of San Diego is too small for a district, so areas to the south such as Chula Vista, National City, Imperial Beach, Coronado will be added in. The other district will consist of the North County and the El Cajon-area suburbs.

The four county Sacramento UCC is entitled to 4.7 representatives and will form a single district.

The single county San Jose UCC is entitled to 3.9 representatives and forms a single district.

The remainder of the state is entitled to 18.1 representatives.

The Central Coast (Ventura to Santa Cruz) has enough 4.8 representatives, while the San Joaquin Valley (plus mountain areas) has enough for 9.25 representatives. There is not an obvious way to split the Central Valley into two districts, without one of them exceeding 5.0 representatives. The split into 3 districts just above 3.0 is possible, though a bit non-compact. The Owen Valley is too remote and low-populated to be concerned about. It might be possible to get more compact districts, coming over the Coast Range, but since keeping it separate works OK, it will be kept separate.

Northern California, including the coast, the Central Valley, and the mountains, has enough population for 4.9 representatives. So it gets one district. Moving Solano into a Bay Area district reduces the population to around 4.0 representatives.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: February 15, 2016, 03:00:55 AM »
« Edited: February 16, 2016, 07:25:03 AM by jimrtex »

The districts in Los Angele County are based on the county census divisions. It appears that the CCD may have been defined after the cities were established. They largely match. I conformed the CCD to match city boundaries.





The city of Los Angeles has enough population for 8.307. Los Angeles is in two CCDs, and the two districts are based on those CCDs.

San Fernando Valley CCD (Los Angeles): 3.122 representatives.
Los Angeles CCD (Los Angeles): 5.185 representatives.

The desert portion of the county: North Antelope Valley CCD, South Antelope Valley CCD, and Newhall CCD have enough population for 1.432 representatives so we have to come further south. Adding San Fernando Valley CCD (exluding Los Angeles) adds 0.758 (most of this is Glendale and Burbank) to get to a total of 2.190 representatives. Agoura Hills-Malibu CCD (west of LA, between Ventura Couny and Malibu) has population for 0.140 representatives, and the Pasadena CCD (including Pasadena, Altadena CDP, South Pasadena, La Caņada Flintridge, La Crescenta-Montrose CDP, and San Marino) has enough population for 0.587 representatives, and a total of 2.917 representatives. To get over 3.0 representatives, we add Arcadia and Sierra Madre to reach a total of 3.064 representatives. About half of the district is in the desert north, and half in the area around Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena.

The San Gabriel Valley district is comprised of East San Gabriel Valley CCD (including Pomona, West Covina, Baldwin Park, Diamond Bar, Hacienda Heights CDP, Glendora, Rowland Heights CDP, Covina, Azusa, La Puente,  Claremont, La Verne, San Dimas,  and Walnut) 2.050; Southwest San Gabriel Valley CCD (including Alhambra, Montebello, Monterey Park, Rosemead, and San Gabriel) 0.699; and Upper San Gabriel Valley CCC (including El Monte, Arcadia, Monrovia, and Temple City) 0.709. The three CCD together have a population together of 3.458 representatives. Arcadia, Sierra Madre, and Montebello were switched to other districts to get them above 3.000. This leaves a final district with 3.177 representatives.

The western district starts with the Los Angeles CCD (excluding Los Angeles, but including the enclaves of Culver City, West Hollywood, and Beverly Hills) 0.300; Santa Monica CCD (coterminous with Santa Monica) 0.197; Inglewood CCD (including Inglewood, Hawthorne, Gardena, Lawndale, and Westmont CDP) 0.810; South Bay Cities CCD (including Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach) 0.302; Torrance (coterminous with Torrance) 0.319; and Palos Verdes CCD (Rancho Palos Verdes, Lomita, the remainder of the Palos Verdes peninsula, and Santa Catalina and San Clemente islands) 0.200. Collectively these areas west of the Harbor Freeway have enough population for 2.128 representatives.

Areas on the eastern edge of the city of Los Angeles were added: Compton CCD (including Compton, Carson, Lynwood, and Willowbrook CDP) 0.750; and South Gate-East Los Angeles CCD (including East Los Angeles CDP; South Gate; Florence-Graham CDP; Huntington Park; Bell Gardens; Bell; and
Maywood) 1.098. These two CCD bring the grand total to 3.976 representatives. Bell Gardens was shifted to the southeastern district to bring it up over 3.000. The final value for the western district is 3.881 representatives.

The southeastern district is comprised mostly of the three CCD between the Los Angeles River and Orango County: Long Beach-Lakewood CCD (including Long Beach and Lakewood) 1.247; Downey-Norwalk CCD (including Downey, Norwalk, Bellflower, Paramount, and Cerritos) 0.907; and Whittier CCD (including Whittier, Pico Rivera, South Whittier CDP, La Mirada, and West Whittier-Los Nietos CDP) 0.694. Collectively these areas have a population of 2.848 representatives. Montebello and Bell Gardens were added to reach a final result of 3.077.

These are final districts with rounding.

Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: February 17, 2016, 04:12:09 AM »





Orange County is entitled to 6.6 representatives, and thus must be divided into two districts. As in Los Angeles County, cities largely conform to CCD boundaries, at least in the longer settled northern area that is based on the PLSS grid. Only Irvine, Lake Forest, San Clemente, and San Juan Capistrano have a significant share of population across multiple CCD.

A majority of the population lives in the Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove CCD. The population in the other six CCD: North Coast, Central Coast, South Coast, Irivine-Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, and Sliverado is just short of 3.000, so Tustin was shifted. This makes the boundary somewhat irregular because Tustin is oddly shaped.

Cities in the Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove CCD include: Anaheim, Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Orange, Fullerton, Buena Park, Yorba Linda, Tustin, La Habra, Placentia, Cypress, Brea, and
Stanton. The CCD is entitled to 3.611 representatives, prior to removal of Tustin, and 3.456 without.

Cities in the North Coast CCD include: Huntington Beach, Westminster, and Fountain Valley (0.802 representatives).

Cities in the Central Coast CCD include: Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, and Irvine (about 1/4) (0.539 representatives).

Cities in the South Coast CCD include Laguna Niguel, San Clemente (most), Aliso Viejo, Dana Point, Laguna Hills, and San Juan Capistrano city (most) (0.667 representatives).

Collectively, the three coast CCD have about 2.008 representatives, and comprise almost 2/3 of the district.

Irvine-Lake Forest CCD is comprise of most of Irvine and Lake Forest (0.483 representatives).

Mission Viejo CCD includes the cities of Mission Viejo and Rancho Santa Margarita, and other smaller cities and unincorporated areas (0.486 representatives). Silverado CCD only as a couple thousand persons (0.006 representatives).

Collectively, the three inland CCD have a a population of 0.974 representatives.

After the shift of Tustin, ths coast and southern district have a population equivalent to 3.137 representatives.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: February 17, 2016, 11:21:28 PM »





San Diego County has enough population for 6.8 representatives and must be split. Because San Diego County will be split, Imperial County was attached, since this will be a larger share of a smaller district, than if it were attached to Riverside County. This brings the total for the two districts to near 7.2 representatives.

The city of San Diego is entitled to 2.863 representatives and thus is two small, while the San Diego CCD has 4.972 representatives, which would leave the other district with about 2.2 representatives. So we start with San Diego CCD and start trimming other cities.

Trimming areas north of San Diego, including Encinitas and Poway, yields about 0.381 representatives. Cutting out far eastern suburbs gives us another, 0.179 representative, and brings the smaller district up to about 2.8. We could include a larger suburb such as El Cajon, La Mesa, or Santee and reach 3.000, but there is little to distinguish among the choices. So we take the remainder of the eastern suburbs, yielding 3.509 for the San Diego County district.

Roughly half of the district is in North County (if we consider anything north of the San Diego city limits as being North County), about one-fourth in the East County suburbs around El Cajon and La Mesa), and one-eighth in each of the desert areas of San Diego County, and Imperial County.

The district based on the city of San Diego is left with 3.653 representatives, and includes the city of San Diego, plus cities to the south including Chula Vista, National City, Imperial Beach, Coronado, and Bonita CDP. San Diego itself extends to the Mexican border in the San Ysidro area. Roughly 4/5 of the district is in the city of San Diego, with most of the rest in Chula Vista.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: February 19, 2016, 02:04:06 PM »

California is entitled to 81.4 representatives









601 - Los Angeles City - 5.2 representatives.

602 - San Fernando Valley - 3.2 representatives.

603 - Los Angeles County North - 3.0 representatives.

604 - San Gabriel Valley - 3.2 representatives.

605 - Los Angeles County West - 3.8 representatives.

606 - (Long Beach &) Los Angeles County Southeast - 3.0 representatives.

607 - Orange County North - 3.4 representatives.

608 - Orange County Coast & South - 3.2 representatives.

609 - (Oakland &) Alameda County - 3.4 representatives.

610 - Contra Costa-Solano - 3.2 representatives.

611 - San Francisco-San Mateo-Marin (or Golden Gate) - 3.8 representatives.

612 - Riverside - 4.8 representatives.

613 - San Bernardino - 4.4 representatives.

614 - San Diego City - 3.6 representatives.

615 - San Diego and Imperial Counties - 3.6 representatives.

616 - Sacremento - 4.8 representatives.

617 - San Jose - 4.0 representatives.

618 - Central Coast - 4.8 representatives.

619 - Southern San Joaquin Valley or Bakersfield-Visalia - 3.2 representatives

620 - Central San Joaquin Valley or Fresno-Merced - 3.0 representatives.

621 - Northern San Joaquin Valley of Stockton, Modesto & Central Sierra - 3.0 representatives.

622 - Northern California - 4.0 representatives.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.151 seconds with 12 queries.