My Attempt to Make Fair Districts

[LLR]

Basically, I'm trying to make fair districts - not paying attention to partisan composition, keeping metro areas together, following real boundaries, etc. I'll explain why I think these districts are fair, and compare them to the current maps.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

The plan: one district encompassing the Boston suburbs, Nashua, Portsmouth, Manchester. One district for the rest. This separates the high population density Bostonian south from the rural, maverick north. It's a logical boundary to separate the urban/suburban from the rural. It also keeps the major metro areas together. It favors a linear boundary over a county boundary, but the line is somewhat near the county boundary anyway.

The map:  

District 1 is a rectangle encompassing Portsmouth, Manchester, and Nashua. It has most of Rockingham and Hillsborough Counties. Rating: Lean R

District 2 is much more rural, has a much lower population density, and has parts of all ten counties. Rating: Likely D

Improvements: I have combined Manchester and Nashua, which is a designated metro area. The current districts do not. In addition, I've done a better job of keeping counties whole, keeping cultural boundaries, and keeping geometric shapes.


IDAHO

The plan: One district for the Boise-Nampa area. Another for the remainder. This is a logical metro area to keep together, and it'll connect most of the rural areas. it also gives a divide that looks somewhat like the state border.

The map:

District 1 is the home of Boise, Nampa, and Twin Falls. The only county plit is in southern Valley County. The district is more or less rectangular. Rating: Safe R

District 2 contains Coeur d'Alene and Pocatello, as well as most of the National Parks and the more mountainous parts. Rating: Safe R

Improvements: I combined Boise and Nampa, which is one metro area. In addition, I followed county boundaries to a greater extent, opted for a northwest-southeast divide rather than the awkward-looking east-west one that exists now. The disparity between population densities in the current district 1 is lowered considerably as well.


RHODE ISLAND

The plan: One district for the Providence area, one for the rest. This is a logical urban-rural divide.

The map:

District 1 follows municipal boundaries, containing Providence, Pawtucket, Cranston, Warwick, and Kent County. Rating: Safe D

District 2 contains everything else - Woonsocket, the coast, and many suburbs. Rating:Lean D

Improvements: I opted to keep the Providence metro area whole. This is more of a style choice, but it does highlight a logical divide. It makes the districts more split on density and connects all of the rural areas, as well.


What do y'all think?

[Goldwater]

Very interesting, I like it.

[kcguy]

Your New Hampshire and Rhode Island maps are logical and are an improvement over reality.

Your Idaho map, though, is problematic.  The Boise district is an improvement over reality, but the other district suffers from the problem of an impassible mountain in the middle of it.  It's basically impossible to drive from eastern Idaho to northern Idaho without either passing through Boise or Missoula.

[Green Line]

good job

[LLR]

Your New Hampshire and Rhode Island maps are logical and are an improvement over reality.

Your Idaho map, though, is problematic.  The Boise district is an improvement over reality, but the other district suffers from the problem of an impassible mountain in the middle of it.  It's basically impossible to drive from eastern Idaho to northern Idaho without either passing through Boise or Missoula.

Oh, thanks. This would imply that it's a tradeoff between joining the metro area and having a logical second district, since it's impossible to connect Boise-Nampa with the north, given the size of Coeur d'Alene. In terms of partisan bias, there is very little in Idahoan districts no matter what, so either is a good solution. It's not gerrymandered either.

[LLR]

HAWAI'I

The plan: The current system is alright, since I'd like to keep Honolulu in its own district. However, I can keep the city of Honolulu with the eastern islands, and the rest of Oahu with the western islands.

The map:  

District 1: At 51% Asian, and containing Kailua and all of Kauai Island, this district is very easily Rating: Safe D. It contains Honolulu suburbs

District 2: This district is even more liberal, containing Honolulu proper as well as Kahului and Hilo. Rating: Safe D

Improvements: Yeah, this was kind of useless


MAINE

The plan: Combine Portland and Lewiston, and have Augusta and Bangor in the other district. Try for a straight north-south line.

The map:


District 1: Featuring the main urban centers, this district is compact and population-dense. Rating: Safe D

District 2: More conservative than our actual District 2. Much more rural. I suspect many French-Canadians live here, perhaps more than in actual District 2. Rating: Lean D

Improvements: The only county split is in Sagahadoc, giving Brunswick and Bath to Portland, since they are more urban than rural. Fairly straight line border, combines Lewiston and Portland due to them having more similarity than Portland and Augusta do.

[justfollowingtheelections]

HAWAI'I

The plan: The current system is alright, since I'd like to keep Honolulu in its own district. However, I can keep the city of Honolulu with the eastern islands, and the rest of Oahu with the western islands.

The map:  

District 1: At 51% Asian, and containing Kailua and all of Kauai Island, this district is very easily Rating: Safe D. It contains Honolulu suburbs

District 2: This district is even more liberal, containing Honolulu proper as well as Kahului and Hilo. Rating: Safe D

Improvements: Yeah, this was kind of useless

Sorry, but that's not a good idea.  Honolulu should have it's own district with the addition of either Kailua/Waimanalo on the east side of the island,  or Aiea/Pearl City on the west side.  The former is a more wealthy area while the latter is more suburban and working class.  The neighbor islands and the North Shore of Oahu should be together.  The current Hawaii districts are pretty good I think.

Maui and the Big Island have far more in common with Kauai and the North Shore of Oahu than with urban Honolulu.

[muon2]

Great idea.

Basically, I'm trying to make fair districts - not paying attention to partisan composition, keeping metro areas together, following real boundaries, etc. I'll explain why I think these districts are fair, and compare them to the current maps.


IDAHO

The plan: One district for the Boise-Nampa area. Another for the remainder. This is a logical metro area to keep together, and it'll connect most of the rural areas. it also gives a divide that looks somewhat like the state border.

The map:

District 1 is the home of Boise, Nampa, and Twin Falls. The only county plit is in southern Valley County. The district is more or less rectangular. Rating: Safe R

District 2 contains Coeur d'Alene and Pocatello, as well as most of the National Parks and the more mountainous parts. Rating: Safe R

Improvements: I combined Boise and Nampa, which is one metro area. In addition, I followed county boundaries to a greater extent, opted for a northwest-southeast divide rather than the awkward-looking east-west one that exists now. The disparity between population densities in the current district 1 is lowered considerably as well.

Here's my thoughts on your plan for ID. It would be nice to keep the Boise UCC (Urban County Cluster) together, but your result has two big problems. Culturally the northern panhandle shares little in common with the Mormon eastern ID. The landscapes are pretty different, too. But not only are they culturally different, but you can't get from the northern to the eastern part as you have drawn it.

Here is my version posted in 2012, that at least provides for road connections between the northern and eastern portions while keeping the UCC intact. Note that no counties are chopped and the population deviation is less than 0.5% from the quota, which is a reasonable limit given SCOTUS rulings.



I'm happy to give you more analysis of your other states if you like. Much of what I say will reference the UCC definitions and muon rules which are stickied on the board.

[BuckeyeNut]

I like this thread a lot, but is there any order you're going in?

Also admirable taking on Rhode Island, seeing as it's likely going to be at-large after the next census.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

HAWAI'I

The plan: The current system is alright, since I'd like to keep Honolulu in its own district. However, I can keep the city of Honolulu with the eastern islands, and the rest of Oahu with the western islands.

The map:  

District 1: At 51% Asian, and containing Kailua and all of Kauai Island, this district is very easily Rating: Safe D. It contains Honolulu suburbs

District 2: This district is even more liberal, containing Honolulu proper as well as Kahului and Hilo. Rating: Safe D

Improvements: Yeah, this was kind of useless


MAINE

The plan: Combine Portland and Lewiston, and have Augusta and Bangor in the other district. Try for a straight north-south line.

The map:


District 1: Featuring the main urban centers, this district is compact and population-dense. Rating: Safe D

District 2: More conservative than our actual District 2. Much more rural. I suspect many French-Canadians live here, perhaps more than in actual District 2. Rating: Lean D

Improvements: The only county split is in Sagahadoc, giving Brunswick and Bath to Portland, since they are more urban than rural. Fairly straight line border, combines Lewiston and Portland due to them having more similarity than Portland and Augusta do.

If "New ME-02" is more conservative than real ME-02, why is it Lean D?  Trump won ME-02 by 10 points, and, while he may be a uniquely good fit for the district, I think that the real life district is probably Lean R (or, at least, Tilt R) at this point.

[Torie]

"Culturally the northern panhandle shares little in common with the Mormon eastern ID. The landscapes are pretty different, too."

Hey, Muon2, just why did you open this Pandora's Box?  The Muon2 rules don't take cognizance of such perceived cultural divides.  One man's cultural divide, is another man's band of brothers (with the differing opinions seemingly are almost always tied coincidentally enough to what happens to be the partisan preferences of the two chaps) Shame on you! Sin no more!

Just stick to you little roadie thing, and don't gild the lily this way is my best advice. Less is more.

[muon2]

"Culturally the northern panhandle shares little in common with the Mormon eastern ID. The landscapes are pretty different, too."

Hey, Muon2, just why did you open this Pandora's Box?  The Muon2 rules don't take cognizance of such perceived cultural divides.  One man's cultural divide, is another man's band of brothers (with the differing opinions seemingly are almost always tied coincidentally enough to what happens to be the partisan preferences of the two chaps) Shame on you! Sin no more!

Just stick to you little roadie thing, and don't gild the lily this way is my best advice. Less is more.

All true, and I stick to the rules with my example. I only brought up the other issue since ID has a fairly neutral process, and I wanted to put their reasons on the record. It's a case of not all rural being the same to the folks in ID.

[jimrtex]

NEW HAMPSHIRE

The plan: one district encompassing the Boston suburbs, Nashua, Portsmouth, Manchester. One district for the rest. This separates the high population density Bostonian south from the rural, maverick north. It's a logical boundary to separate the urban/suburban from the rural. It also keeps the major metro areas together. It favors a linear boundary over a county boundary, but the line is somewhat near the county boundary anyway.

The map:  

District 1 is a rectangle encompassing Portsmouth, Manchester, and Nashua. It has most of Rockingham and Hillsborough Counties. Rating: Lean R

District 2 is much more rural, has a much lower population density, and has parts of all ten counties. Rating: Likely D

Improvements: I have combined Manchester and Nashua, which is a designated metro area. The current districts do not. In addition, I've done a better job of keeping counties whole, keeping cultural boundaries, and keeping geometric shapes.

New Hampshire has five districts to elect members of the executive council. Perhaps the congressional districts could take two-1/2 districts each.

Executive Council districts.(PDF)

[jimrtex]

RHODE ISLAND
The plan: One district for the Providence area, one for the rest. This is a logical urban-rural divide.

The map:

District 1 follows municipal boundaries, containing Providence, Pawtucket, Cranston, Warwick, and Kent County. Rating: Safe D

District 2 contains everything else - Woonsocket, the coast, and many suburbs. Rating:Lean D

Improvements: I opted to keep the Providence metro area whole. This is more of a style choice, but it does highlight a logical divide. It makes the districts more split on density and connects all of the rural areas, as well.

I wasn't aware that you could get to Washington County from Newport. But is there any sort of relationship between Newport and the area? What if Newport were kept in the blue (eastern) district, and move Warwick to the green district.

[Nyvin]

NEW HAMPSHIRE

The plan: one district encompassing the Boston suburbs, Nashua, Portsmouth, Manchester. One district for the rest. This separates the high population density Bostonian south from the rural, maverick north. It's a logical boundary to separate the urban/suburban from the rural. It also keeps the major metro areas together. It favors a linear boundary over a county boundary, but the line is somewhat near the county boundary anyway.

The map:  

District 1 is a rectangle encompassing Portsmouth, Manchester, and Nashua. It has most of Rockingham and Hillsborough Counties. Rating: Lean R

District 2 is much more rural, has a much lower population density, and has parts of all ten counties. Rating: Likely D

Improvements: I have combined Manchester and Nashua, which is a designated metro area. The current districts do not. In addition, I've done a better job of keeping counties whole, keeping cultural boundaries, and keeping geometric shapes.

New Hampshire has five districts to elect members of the executive council. Perhaps the congressional districts could take two-1/2 districts each.

Executive Council districts.(PDF)

The executive council districts are hideous.   District 2 snakes from Keene all the way over to Dover.   It also throws Manchester in with a bunch of townships to the Northeast...which makes no demographic sense if you know the area. 

District 1 is the only one that's okay.   But really Carroll county is quite isolated from both Coos and Belknap, there is a geographic reason it's part of NH-1 in the congressional districts. 

[justfollowingtheelections]

Can the OP explain the rationale behind the maps?  What makes them fair?  Anyone from Hawaii would tell you that your Hawaii map is an abomination and it looks like people feel the same way about other maps such as the Idaho one or the NH one.  I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but I think a better explanation is necessary.

[LLR]

NEBRASKA

The plan: One district for Greater Omaha, one for suburbs of Omaha and Lincoln, and one for the rest of the state.

The map:  

District 1: This district contains all of Omaha proper. It's very similar to the current district, though it includes fewer suburbs. Rating: Likely R
District 2: This district contains Lincoln, southern Omaha suburbs, and Southeast Nebraska. The border between districts 2 and 3 west of Omaha is the Platte River, which happens to also be a major county boundary.Rating: Safe R
District 3: This district is mainly rural, although it is 9% Hispanic. Rating: Safe R[/color][/font]

Improvements: Follows logical boundaries (Omaha city, Platte River), creates slightly more geometric districts, consolidates Omaha into one district.

[LLR]

Responses to Concerns:

Hawai'i: I admitted that there was no reason to improve the current map, and just felt I had to do something. Turns out it's worse, oh well.

Idaho: Yeah, muon's map seems a better solution here.

Rhode Island: Again, it's a tradeoff - either keep the metro area together or make a contiguous district. A possible solution would be to trade Warwick for Newport County, would that be better? Either way, this won't be relevant in 2020.

What order I'm going in: Number of districts per state.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I think Rhode Island is fine the way you have it. There are bridges over Narragansett Bay.

[muon2]

NEBRASKA

The plan: One district for Greater Omaha, one for suburbs of Omaha and Lincoln, and one for the rest of the state.

The map:  

District 1: This district contains all of Omaha proper. It's very similar to the current district, though it includes fewer suburbs. Rating: Likely R
District 2: This district contains Lincoln, southern Omaha suburbs, and Southeast Nebraska. The border between districts 2 and 3 west of Omaha is the Platte River, which happens to also be a major county boundary.Rating: Safe R
District 3: This district is mainly rural, although it is 9% Hispanic. Rating: Safe R[/color][/font]

Improvements: Follows logical boundaries (Omaha city, Platte River), creates slightly more geometric districts, consolidates Omaha into one district.

Could you put in your deviations from the quota on these maps. When I look at this one it looks like NE-3 is +4368 over quota (0.72%). That's not likely to stand up in court, especially since three counties are chopped in your plan. By comparison the actual plan has a deviation of +912 for NE-3 (0.15%) with only one county chop. You should keep all deviations within 0.5% unless there is a very compelling reason. Also, Omaha is only in Douglas, so why chop it?

[Kevinstat]

MAINE

The plan: Combine Portland and Lewiston, and have Augusta and Bangor in the other district. Try for a straight north-south line.

The map:


District 1: Featuring the main urban centers, this district is compact and population-dense. Rating: Safe D

District 2: More conservative than our actual District 2. Much more rural. I suspect many French-Canadians live here, perhaps more than in actual District 2. Rating: Lean D

Improvements: The only county split is in Sagahadoc, giving Brunswick and Bath to Portland, since they are more urban than rural. Fairly straight line border, combines Lewiston and Portland due to them having more similarity than Portland and Augusta do.

Which towns in Sagadahoc County are in each district?  It looks like you might have had District 2 cross the Kennebec south of Bath to take in Phippsburg.  Of course, to get the numbers to come out okay, sometimes you have to do things like that.  Once I know the split in Sagadahoc County by town, I can calculate the deviation as of 2010 (and 2000 also; I have spreadsheets for redistricting based on both censuses).

[LLR]

I always try to get deviation under 1%. And muon, there are no county splits between district 2 and district 3 afaik?

Kevin, I know the Maine deviation was under 1,000 people.

[LLR]

NEW MEXICO

The plan: One district for Santa Fe and the north, one for Albuquerque, and one for the south.

The map:

District 1: Including Santa Fe, Taos, and Gallup, the Northern district is the Democratic stronghold. Featuring a somewhat rectangular shape, it's fairly similar to the real 3rd district. It's 20% Native American. Safe D

District 2: Including all of Bernalillo County and some of the urban parts of Sandoval, this is the Albuquerque district. Likely D

District 3: The Southern district includes the highest UFO population of any congressional district. It's also majority Hispanic (all three districts are majority-minority). Safe R

Improvements: All population deviations under 1,000. Only one county chop. Non-gerrymandered Albuquerque district.

[Kevinstat]

I always try to get deviation under 1%. And muon, there are no county splits between district 2 and district 3 afaik?

Kevin, I know the Maine deviation was under 1,000 people.

I figured it out from looking closely at the map.  Bath, Topsham and West Bath are in your District 1 (-665.5 or -0.1002%), while Arrowsic, Bowdoin, Bowdoinham, Georgetown, Perkins UT (Swan Island), Phippsburg, Richmond and Woolwich are in your District 2 (+665.5 or +0.1002%).  While I recognize individual people can't be divided into congressional districts, I think deviation statistics are more accurate (when comparing situations where there is a remainder to those where there isn't, like if Maine had an even population) when you don't round the average (I guess I shouldn't use the word "ideal") population per district to the nearest integer.  Moving Arrowsic to your District 1 would bring it up to -238.5 (-0.0359%) while moving District 2 down to +238.5 (+0.0359%), but would create a second case of a town "stranded" on its side of the lower Kennebec (the southern-most bridge crossing the Kennebec is between Bath and Woolwich) and would make the boundary quite jagged there.  Figures are as of and according to the 2010 census.

[muon2]

I always try to get deviation under 1%. And muon, there are no county splits between district 2 and district 3 afaik?

Kevin, I know the Maine deviation was under 1,000 people.

Jackson county (Grand Island) spans both sides of the Platte so to follow the Platte as you did caused it to be chopped. I still don't know why you chopped Douglas.

Deviations as large as yours have generally not been upheld when challenged. A range of almost 1% has been upheld, however. A range of 1% is what results from a maximum deviation of 0.5%, though it is possible to exceed that deviation slightly if other districts are suitably closer to the quota.