Wisconsin Legislative Redistricting

[muon2]

Since districts are nested, is it more useful to create whole senate districts first, then go to house districts? By starting with HDs there could be cases where the resulting SD map has more chops than necessary.

[muon2]

Since senate districts matter, too, I decided to start from the top down. I set all senate districts within 5% of the quota and tried to minimize chops. I also preserved the UCC rules here. There are a total of 14 county chops, 11 of which are required in large counties. The only city chops are those required for Milwaukee and Madison. 3 house districts would then be nested in each SD.



Kenosha: -3.4%
Green, Lafayette, Racine, Rock, Walworth (3 SD): -3.1%; chop in Racine, Rock
Milwaukee, Ozaukee (6 SD): +0.1%; 5 chops in Milwaukee, 4 chops in Milwaukee city; this incudes 2 BVAP majority SDs and a 40% HVAP SD.
Washington, Waukesha (3 SD): +2.8%; 2 chops in Waukesha
Dodge, Jefferson: +0.1%
Dane, Iowa (3 SD): -3.0%; 2 chops in Dane, chop in Madison city
Crawford, Grant, Richland, Sauk, Vernon: +3.1%
Adams, Columbia, Juneau, La Crosse, Marquette, Monroe, Wood (2 SD): +5.3%; chop in Juneau
Green Lake, Portage, Waupaca, Waushara: -3.7%
Buffalo, Clark, Jackson, Pepin, Pierce, Taylor, Trempeleau: -3.3%
Chippewa, Eau Claire, Rusk: +2.1%
Barron, Dunn, St Croix: +1.0%
Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett, Douglas, Iron, Polk, Sawyer, Washburn: +0.6%
Marathon, Shawano: +2.1%
Calumet, Fond du Lac, Manitowoc, Sheboygan (2 SD): +1.7%; chop in Sheboygan
Outagamie: +2.5%
Winnebago: -3.1%
Florence, Forest, Langlade, Lincoln, Marinette, Oneida, Price, Vilas: +2.0%
Brown, Door, Kewaunee, Menominee, Oconto: -3.7%

[muon2]

WI doesn't have a specific constitutional rule permitting a 10% deviation for whole counties. Their annotated constitution only references that the range not exceed 10%. Based on that I adhere to a 5% deviation. Columbia is the only single county-single HD I recognized, so there are three counties I require chops for that you do not. Chippewa is one of those, and my grouping insures that the Eau Claire UCC stays within one SD.

If I group the clusters (by notable city) in your plan into whole SDs. I get the following:
Green Bay+Marinette (2 SD)
Manitowoc (1 SD)
Appleton (1 SD)
Oshkosh (1 SD)
Wausau (1 SD)
Rhinelander+Ashland+Superior (1 SD)
Hudson (1 SD)
Hayward+Chippewa Falls (1 SD)
Eau Claire+La Crosse (2 SD)
Wisconsin Rapids+Tomah+Stevens Point+Waupaca+Portage+Fond du Lac+Sheboygan (4 SD)
Baraboo+Platteville (1 SD)
Madison+Racine (6 SD)
Fort Atkinson (1 SD)
Waukesha (3 SD)
Milwaukee (6 SD)
Kenosha (1 SD)

The number of SD in excess of 1 above is the number of chops needed. The above grouping requires 17 chops plus the UCC cover penalty, for 18 chops at the senate level. That compares to 14 in my plan.

My cluster of southern counties from Racine to Lafayette shows a total of 8.907 HD on your map. Divided by three gives 2.969 SD or -3.1%.

[muon2]

I was measuring cluster deviation and you were measuring mean district deviation.

I measure chops and you are measuring fragments. I thought we all debated this years ago and concluded that chops were a better measure. Chops put large and small counties on an equal footing and reduce the incentive to split a single county multiple times.

The idea of a UCC as a tool to avoid cracking urban areas or diluting rural areas seems just as applicable for legislative districts. These problems show up in gerrymandered maps at any scale.

I believe that Chippewa must be split under the WI constitution. 10% is just not an option. I agree that it is preferable to pack two HDs in Sheboygan. I could keep my cluster but move the chop at the cost of some erosity. I'll take a look to see if it is worth the cost. I assume when I go to the HD level there may be other SD changes that suggest themselves.

I'm glad we both see this as a way to look at the efficiency gap in a neutral way. It will be interesting to compare results. The court decision used 2012 as a measure, but DRA only has 2008. Which year of precinct results are you planning to use for split counties?

[muon2]

OH had a detailed process in its constitution that included the creation of HD that were a whole county up to 10% variation. The court upheld that in the context of its overall constitutional rules for redistricting. I understood that OH removed that provision in the 2015 amendment due to complaints about equal representation.

WI has no detailed language for the process as OH had. The annotations to the WI constitution clearly reference a limit of 10% on the range. Barring a constitutional amendment in WI, I don't see any way to justify a single county HD beyond the limits of the 10% range.

[muon2]

I found that maintaining two majority HVAP districts puts a serious constraint on the map in Milwaukee. This version has them at 64% and 51%. The SD they are in is 40% HVAP. There are also 6 BVAP majority districts ranging from 52% to 69% forming two majority BVAP SDs. I chopped Oak Creek to keep one SD out of Milwaukee city.

If I use the 10% range limit, I might be able to avoid the small chop into West Allis. That will require no other district to be smaller than 0.952. It's something I'll come back to at the end, but for now it's chopped.



Edit: By controlling the smallest districts elsewhere, I was able to keep West Allis whole with a range of 9.884%. The HVAP-majority ADs are at 65.3% (Menomonee Valley) and 51.3% (Polonia). The BVAP-majority ADs are at 60.2% (West Side), 53.1% (Triangle), 57.1% (Harambee), 62.5% (Capitol Heights), 52.3% (Granville), and 69.3% (Havenwoods). This now reflects the final edits.

[muon2]

I recall the 7th circuit demanding a certain configuration of the 2 Hispanic districts.

Link

Link

In recent briefs, the plaintiffs argued the Legislature violated the federal Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting power of Latinos by dividing them into two Assembly districts on Milwaukee's south side instead of concentrating them into one.

One of my ADs is at HVAP of 64% which should be over 50% HCVAP. 62% is usually the threshold, though the 7th circuit ruled in IL that 59.2% was sufficient to elect a Latino candidate of choice.

[muon2]

This is my final map for Milwaukee County.



1. Milwaukee (far south); tan; 0.990; VAP%: 77W, 15H, 3A, 3B, 2O.
2. Milwaukee (southside west); blue; 0.986; VAP%: 54H, 36W, 6B, 2O, 2A.
3. Milwaukee (southside east) and West Milwaukee; red; 1.000; VAP%: 57H, 30W, 8B, 3A, 2O.
4. Milwaukee (westside and near northside); lime; 1.012; VAP%: 48B, 41W, 6H, 3A, 2O.
5. Milwaukee (westside); blue; 1.012; VAP%: 60B, 26W, 6A, 6H, 3O.
6. Milwaukee (northside); purple; 0.992; VAP%: 92B, 4W, 2H, 2O, 0A.
7. Milwaukee (northside west); green; 0.996; VAP%: 49B, 42W, 3H, 3A, 2O.
8. Milwaukee (far northside) and Brown Deer; mauve; 0.995; VAP%: 57B, 33W, 5A, 3H, 2O.
9. Milwaukee (far northside west); yellow; 0.994; VAP%: 53B, 36W, 5A, 4H, 2O.
10. Oak Creek and South Milwaukee; light blue; 0.968; VAP%: 87W, 6H, 3A, 2B, 2O.
11. Franklin, Greendale, Hales Corner; orange; 0.996; VAP%: 88W, 4A, 4B. 4H. 1O.
12. Milwaukee (Bayview, downtown), Cudahy, and St. Francis; green; 1.008; VAP%: 86W, 6H 3B, 3A, 2O.
13. Greenfield and Milwaukee (West Allis-Greenfield finger); pink; 0.989; VAP%: 86W, 7H, 3A, 2B, 2O.
14. West Allis; kelly green; 1.052; 86W; 7H, 3B, 2O, 2A.
15. Wauwatosa and Milwaukee (Wauwatosa-West Allis finger); slate; 0.995; VAP%: 88W, 5B,  3H, 3A, 1O.
16. Milwaukee (eastside), Whitefish Bay, and Shorewood; orange; 0.979; VAP%: 88W, 4B, 4A, 3H, 2O.
17. Mequon, Glendale, Fox Point, Bayside, Thiensville, River Hills, and Milwaukee (Glendale indention); red; 0.995; VAP% (Milwaukee County only): 74W, 19B, 3A, 3H, 1O,
18: Northern Ozaukee County (off map); 1.043.

Senate districts:

SD1. AD1-3, southern Milwaukee;
SD2. AD4-6. westside and near northside Milwaukee;
SD3. AD7-9. northwest Milwaukee.
SD4. AD 10-12. southern Milwaukee county and southern shoreline.
SD5. AD 13-15. western Milwaukee county.
SD6. AD 16-18. Ozaukee County and northern shoreline Milwaukee County.

And a version without wards.

I'd be concerned about a 92% BVAP district (AD 6) it looks like a clear case of packing. It would certainly get challenged. If the claim is that the 48% BVAP and 49% BVAP districts adjacent to that are VRA-performing, then why not split AD 6 between two districts and make both over 46% BVAP and claim that they would both be performing?

Also the 57% HVAP AD 3 would definitely lose in court. As krazen pointed out the 60% HVAP AD lost in 2012 and was redrawn.

[muon2]

I have put together a complete map of WI ADs using 2010 data. As I noted before, I started with the SD to minimize their chops and erosity staying within 5% of the quota. Then I shifted to the AD making adjustments to avoid chops when it could be done without overly increasing erosity. Here is SE WI:



No towns or villages are chopped, but Kenosha, Racine, and Janesville are chopped. The colors indicate the AD groupings by SD. There are 4 SD with 12 AD. To get PVIs I have averaged 2008 and 2012 as shown in parentheses. I used DRA for 2008, and the Atlas for 2012. The 2012 votes for the chopped cities are estimated since the ward boundaries changed in 2011 after the census data was released. The votes will also be used to calculate the efficiency gap for the overall plan.

AD 1 (Kenosha city central): deviation -1776; PVI D+14 (14.0, 13.5)
AD 2 (Kenosha NW): deviation -1998; PVI D+8 (8.1, 7.5)
AD 3 (Pleasant Prairie): deviation -2132; PVI R+6 (-4.5, -7.3)

AD 4 (Racine city central): deviation -2124; PVI D+21 (19.4, 22.5)
AD 5 (Racine - Mt Pleasant): deviation +1; PVI D+4 (3.9, 3.6)
AD 6 (Caledonia): deviation -817; PVI R+13 (-12.7, -14.3)

AD 7 (Burlington): deviation +401; PVI R+9 (-8.0, -10.8 )
AD 8 (Elkhorn): deviation -1271; PVI R+7 (-5.6, -9.3)
AD 9 (Beloit): deviation -1070; PVI D+9 (9.3, 9.4)

AD 10 (Janesville city central): deviation +134; PVI D+13 (14.3, 12.0)
AD 11 (Edgerton): deviation -492; PVI D+7 (7.7, 5.7)
AD 12 (Monroe): deviation -335; PVI D+8 (8.7, 6.5)

Region: 7 D, 1 d, 4 R

I can tell Milwaukee is going to be a challenge since I don't have an easy conversion from 2008 voting wards to 2012 voting wards.

[muon2]

Do you have the ward numbers for Milwaukee?

I have the ward numbers and results for the 2008 election on DRA for each of my ADs. I have a PDF of the wards assigned in 2012, and the Atlas has the election totals for each of those wards for 2012. There are over 300 wards and it will be time consuming to match them all by hand in a spreadsheet. I was hoping for a quicker conversion.

[muon2]

I'll skip over Milwaukee/Ozaukee for the moment and go to the counties immediately west. The AD were adjusted from my original SD design so that all are within 5% of the quota and no town or village is chopped. The only city chopped is Waukesha, which must be chopped.

Waukesha city extends into Brookfield and when they are combined with Elm Grove they nicely form 2 AD. Wards are approximated for the 2012 election results. The other districts are formed based on that constraint and only having one AD cross between Wuakesha and Washington. Also shown are the 3 AD that form a SD in Dodge and Jefferson.



AD 31 (Brookfield): deviation +1795; PVI R+18 (-17.2, -18.0)
AD 32 (New Berlin): deviation +1934; PVI R+18 (-16.5, -19.4)
AD 33 (Waukesha city): deviation +2254; PVI R+9 (-7.4, -10.6)

AD 34 (Muskego): deviation -1615; PVI R+22 (-20.0, -23.2)
AD 35 (Oconomowoc): deviation +2345; PVI R+20 (-18.7, -22.3)
AD 36 (Pewaukee): deviation -60; PVI R+22 (-20.8, -24.1)

AD 37 (Menominee Falls): deviation +1133; PVI R+17 (-15.5, -18.0)
AD 38 (Hartford): deviation -1178; PVI R+23 (-21.0, -24.3)
AD 39 (West Bend): deviation -1826; PVI R+19 (-16.6, -20.6)

AD 40 (Fort Atkinson): deviation +2403; PVI R+2 (-0.9, -2.3)
AD 41 (Watertown): deviation -817; PVI R+14 (-11.4, -15.6)
AD 42 (Beaver Dam): deviation -1473; PVI R+5 (-5.3, -4.2)

There are 10 solid R and 2 lean R districts.

[muon2]

Do you have the ward numbers for Milwaukee?

I have the ward numbers and results for the 2008 election on DRA for each of my ADs. I have a PDF of the wards assigned in 2012, and the Atlas has the election totals for each of those wards for 2012. There are over 300 wards and it will be time consuming to match them all by hand in a spreadsheet. I was hoping for a quicker conversion.

Luckily they did not make any major changes to the ward map during redistricting.

But all the ward numbers are different, so there is a lot of matching by hand.

[muon2]

I discovered that the census boundaries for VTDs do not match the city and village boundaries.

What does DRA do?  For example, what does it show for the population of the city of Waukesha (38 wards)?

I believe DRA used the boundaries for cities and wards as they were defined going into the 2010 Census. In 2011 and 2012 the jurisdictions in WI redrew the wards, and one complaint about themap is that the wards were done after, rather than before the legislative districts making moot the need to conform districts to wards. The Census regularly updates its files to match boundaries needed for the ACS and estimates programs.

For example I went to the city of Waukesha's site to get the current council map and identified the wards in each district. I then matched those up with the wards I wanted in each district. Higher numbered wards generally referred to those in areas annexed since 2011-12.

For Milwaukee city I'm about a third of the way through the matching process. Many wards are just renumbered from the previous decade, but there are many cut and recombined wards, too. I'm adjusting my AD boundaries as I go so that the DRA boundaries for 2008 will coincide with current ward boundaries from 2012. This is the master map of Milwaukee's current wards.

[muon2]

For larger cities like Waukesha and Racine I'm looking at the wards that have been added after 2010. I use them to deduct 2012 votes from the city counts. My goal is to take a map drawn with information from 2010 then use the 2012 votes to get the efficiency gap that would be applied as in the 7th circuit decision. Smaller villages that may have extended their borders won't affect my result.

[muon2]

I've converted all the Milwaukke wards from 2008 to 2012 so that election data can line up. This caused some minor adjustments of the districts to avoid some split wards in 2012. The Oak Creek chop generally follow the 2012 aldermanic lines, since the Atlas aggregates the ward votes into those districts. The chop there replaces a chop in Milwaukee and reduces the number of senate chops by one. West Allis is at 5.2% over quota, but the total range for the state is at 9.884% so the deviation is acceptable.



AD 13 (South Milwaukee): deviation +2548; PVI D+1 (1.3, 1.5)
AD 14 (Franklin): deviation +1250; PVI R+8 (-6.2, -9.1)
AD 15 (Greenfield): deviation +1062; PVI R+6 (-5.4, -5.9)

AD 16 (Milwaukee - Bayview): deviation -1973; PVI D+11 (9.5, 12.3)
AD 17 (Milwaukee - Polonia, HVAP 51.3%): deviation -584; PVI D+22 (18.5, 25.2)
AD 18 (Milwaukee - Menomonee Valley, HVAP 65.3%): deviation -2477; D+30 PVI (27.8, 32.4)

AD 19 (West Allis): deviation +2967; PVI D+0 (-0.3, 0.4)
AD 20 (West Milwaukee): deviation -2711; PVI D+3 (1.5, 4.0)
AD 21 (Wauwatosa): deviation -917; PVI R+0 (-0.4, 0.0)

AD 22 (Milwaukee - West Side, BVAP 60.2%): deviation +1093; PVI D+36 (35.0, 37.9)
AD 23 (Milwaukee - Triangle, BVAP 53.1%): deviation +926; PVI D+33 (32.4, 33.1)
AD 24 (Milwaukee - Harambee, BVAP 57.1%): deviation +365; PVI D+39 (38.7, 39.7)

AD 25 (Milwaukee - Capitol Heights, BVAP 62.5%): deviation -806; PVI D+34 (31.8, 35.7)
AD 26 (Milwaukee - Granville, BVAP 52.3%): deviation -1853; PVI D+28 (26.0, 29.3)
AD 27 (Milwaukee - Havenwoods, BVAP 69.3%): deviation +646; PVI D+37 (35.5, 38.9)

AD 28 (Shorewood): deviation -1673; PVI D+13 (13.9, 12.4)
AD 29 (Mequon): deviation -220; PVI R+2 (-2.1, -2.9)
AD 30 (Port Washington): deviation +2495; PVI R+16 (-15.0, -17.2)

There are 10 solid D, 1 lean D, 3 even, 1 lean R, 3 solid R districts.

[muon2]

Here's my detail for Madison. Dane and Iowa counties are only 5319 under the quota for 9 ADs and 3 SDs so they are grouped together here. Madison is only 3433 over the quota for 4 ADs, but Maple Bluff, Monona, and Shorewood Hills are surrounded by Madison and water. They have a combined population of 10411 and if combined with Madison are too big for 4 ADs within the 5% deviation limit.

Within Madison groupings were made with adjacent towns to reduce erosity. Wards were lined up from the 2008 set on DRA and the current wards used in the Atlas 2012 data. The map reflects ADs that can reasonably compare 2008 to 2012 voting data.



AD 43 (Sun Prairie): deviation -825; PVI D+10 (9.9, 9.9)
AD 44 (Monona): deviation +1152; PVI D+23 (21.5, 23.6)
AD 45 (Madison - North Side): deviation -1211; PVI D+32 (30.7, 32.8 )

AD 46 (Madison - UW): deviation -794; PVI D+28 (29.3, 26.7)
AD 47 (Madison - Arboretum): deviation 0; PVI D+28 (27.3, 28.8 )
AD 48 (Middleton): deviation -1597; PVI D+18 (17.9, 17.1)

AD 49 (Stoughton): deviation +572; PVI D+12 (12.6, 11.0)
AD 50 (Fitchburg): deviation -1998; PVI D+15 (15.7, 14.7)
AD 51 (Waunakee): deviation -618; PVI D+9 (10.0, 8.8 )

All 9 ADs here are solid D.

[muon2]

Here are the ADs for the lower WI river centered around the Dells. Columbia county gets 1 AD and La Crosse gets two, with one consisting of just La Crosse city and Campbell town. In this grouping there is only one county chop for SDs.



AD 52 (Platteville): deviation +2043; PVI D+7 (8.5, 5.2)
AD 53 (Richland Center): deviation +2345; PVI D+7 (8.3, 6.7)
AD 54 (Baraboo): deviation +1207; PVI D+7 (7.5, 7.1)

AD 55 (Tomah): deviation +1577; PVI R+1 (1.3, -2.3)
AD 56 (Onalaska): deviation +1721; PVI D+1 (1.9, 0.2)
AD 57 (La Crosse): deviation -1971; PVI D+14 (14.7, 14.0)

AD 58 (Marshfield): deviation +1646; PVI D+2 (2.3, 2.3)
AD 59 (Wisconsin Rapids): deviation +1610; PVI R+1 (3.7, -5.3)
AD 60 (Stevens Point): deviation +2371; PVI D+9 (11.6, 6.4)

AD 61 (Portage): deviation -611; PVI D+4 (4.0, 4.9)
AD 62 (Wautoma): deviation -1805; PVI R+7 (-5.3, -8.3)
AD 63 (Waupaca): deviation -1722; PVI R+4 (-2.4, -5.9)

In this region there are 5 solid D, 2 lean D (2 to 5), 3 even (0 or 1), 1 lean R, 1 solid R.

[muon2]

Here's the Lake Winnebago-Sheboygan area. A macrochop occurs at ten times the maximum deviation, which is 50% of an AD. With only a simple chop in Calumet, but a macrochop in Sheboygan, it lowers erosity to have 2 ADs nested in Sheboygan county matching what jimrtex suggested earlier. All of Calumet stays in the same SD so there is no cover penalty at that level.

The only chopped muni is Oshkosh which must be chopped at the AD level due to population. The 2008 wards were picked to be close to the 2012 wards for better comparison of votes.



AD 64 (Menasha): deviation -2181; PVI R+2 (0.1, -4.0)
AD 65 (Neenah): deviation -1656; PVI D+3 (3.8, 2.3)
AD 66 (Oshkosh): deviation -1501; PVI D+2 (2.7, 1.2)

AD 67 (Ripon): deviation +801; PVI R+13 (-10.9, -14.4)
AD 68 (Fond du Lac): deviation -512; PVI R+4 (-3.4, -3.7)
AD 69 (Harrison): deviation +1387; PVI R+6 (-3.8, -8.5)

AD 70 (Sheboygan): deviation +1182; PVI D+4 (4.9, 3.7)
AD 71 (Plymouth): deviation -563; PVI R+14 (-11.9, -16.2)
AD 72 (Manitowoc): deviation +594; PVI D+1 (2.2, -0.5)

In this group there are 3 lean D, 1 even, 2 lean R, and 3 solid R ADs

[muon2]

Here's the Green Bay area. Green Bay city must be chopped at the AD level, but the plan was drawn to keep Green Bay city in one SD. The wards were grouped to make the closest comparison between 2008 and 2012. Appleton was not chopped in this plan, but it did annex extra wards after 2008. Those wards were left off the city total votes and kept in AD 73.



AD 73 (Grand Chute): deviation +2714; PVI R+7 (-4.0, -9.8 )
AD 74 (Kaukauna): deviation -313; PVI D+2 (5.3, -1.3)
AD 75 (Appleton): deviation +1942; PVI D+4 (5.5, 3.0)

AD 76 (Sturgeon Bay): deviation -2582; PVI D+1 (3.5, -1.4)
AD 77 (Green Bay - east): deviation -2549; PVI D+5 (6.2, 3.5)
AD 78 (Green Bay - west): deviation -2702; PVI D+6 (7.1, 5.6)

AD 79 (Suamico): deviation +1723; PVI R+4 (-1.2, -7.1)
AD 80 (Howard): deviation +1272; PVI R+4 (-2.6, -6.3)
AD 81 (De Pere): deviation -1548; PVI R+5 (-2.1, -7.4)

In this group there are 1 solid D, 3 lean D, 1 even, 3 lean R, and 1 solid R ADs

[muon2]

Here's the rest of northern WI. Of the cities not previously mentioned only Eau Claire is chopped and the chop follows the Chippewa and Eau Claire rivers, which makes vote calculations uniform from 2008 to 2012. All of Wausaw and Schofield is in AD 83, which may not be clear from the map detail.



AD 82 (Shawano): deviation +163; PVI R+4 (-1.0, -6.8 )
AD 83 (Wausaw): deviation +2324; PVI D+1 (2.9, -1.9)
AD 84 (Weston): deviation +1193; PVI R+5 (-1.3, -7.9)

AD 85 (Merinette): deviation -1968; PVI R+2 (-0.5, -4.1)
AD 86 (Rhinelander): deviation -1469; PVI R+2 (0.0, -4.7)
AD 87 (Merrill): deviation +2015; PVI D+0 (1.9, -1.8 )

AD 88 (Ashland): deviation +1073; PVI D+4 (4.5, 2.6)
AD 89 (Superior): deviation +2626; PVI D+9 (9.1, 8.9)
AD 90 (Osceola): deviation +2218; PVI R+5 (-4.1, -6.2)

AD 91 (Chippewa Falls): deviation +2664; PVI R+1 (0.2, -2.7)
AD 92 (Eau Claire - north): deviation -780; PVI D+7 (8.1, 5.9)
AD 93 (Eau Claire - south): deviation +1690; PVI D+4 (5.8, 2.9)

AD 94 (Medford): deviation -2065; PVI R+5 (-1.4, -8.7)
AD 95 (Black River Falls): deviation -1255; PVI D+6 (8.1, 4.3)
AD 96 (River Falls): deviation -2293; PVI R+0 (1.4, -1.8 )

AD 97 (Rice Lake): deviation +1458; PVI R+1 (-0.0, -1.6)
AD 98 (Menomonee): deviation +293; PVI R+2 (0.5, -4.8 )
AD 99 (Hudson): deviation -11; PVI R+7 (-5.8, -8.1)

In this group there are 3 D, 2 d, 5 e, 7 r, 1 R.

For the whole plan there are 35 solid D, 12 lean d, 13 even, 16 lean r, and 23 solid R.

[muon2]

Here's some preliminary analysis of my AD plan. The distribution 35D-12d-13e-16r-23R gives a 47 to 39 advantage to the Dems in the PVI of the districts which is an 8 seat margin. The PVI of the state was D+2.4 (3.4, 1.5). Studies predict a 4% swing in seat margin for every 1% change in state PVI, so the expected margin for the Dems would be 10 seats. Thus the plan has a SKEW of 2 to the Pubs for the 99 seats. Obama won 74 of these districts in 2008 and 57 in 2012, so it seems very close to fair in a partisan sense.

The plan has 41/99 districts that are lean or even which is better than the 30% that is expected. The POLARIZATION is 144. 17 seats shifted from 2008 to 2012 even though Obama's statewide 2-party vote only dropped from 57.1% to 53.5%, which is twice the number expected. That points to a reasonably competitive plan that would be responsive to changes in voter preference.

The above analysis is based on both 2008 and 2012 data. One interesting result was the PVI shift between the two years. The two point swing R isn't so unusual, but what is more telling is that Milwaukee and Madison swung D, while the rest of that state moved further R than the statewide number suggests. That increased polarization shows up as I look at the score based on each year separately. It goes from 137 in 2008 to 156 in 2012. With that concentration, the turnout in Milwaukee and Madison becomes more critical for the Dems. It seems to presage the results of 2016 as the outstate areas continued to polarize towards the Pubs.

[muon2]

Do you have a map showing the Janesville split?

Janesville city is completely whole (AD 10) except for ward 5 on DRA which is the far northern end of the city. That corresponds essentially to wards 19, 20, 21, 22 and 26 on the current ward map.

[muon2]

Do you have a map showing the Janesville split?

Janesville city is completely whole (AD 10) except for ward 5 on DRA which is the far northern end of the city. That corresponds essentially to wards 19, 20, 21, 22 and 26 on the current ward map.

Thanks, but it was jimrtex's map where I couldn't tell where the split was in Janesville. Once I'm done with his map, I'll go through your's to come up with the 2016 numbers.

Great. I would do it myself, but I can't do the chopped cities since Atlas doesn't have ward results posted yet. I am especially interested in the vote totals so that I can calculate the wasted votes and efficiency gap as I'll discuss in an upcoming post.

[muon2]

I have decided to eliminate the single-district counties with a deviation of between 5% and 10% (Sauk, Waupaca, and Chippewa). Rather than redo the entire map, I made as few changes as possible - as if I was responding to a court decision.

Sauk (1.079) is added to the region comprised of Dane, Green, Iowa, and Lafayette. The average error for that group improves from -1.6% to -0.7%.

(7) Dane, Sauk, Green, Iowa, and Lafayette 10.922 (11), -0.7% 8 districts in Dane, 1 district in Sauk, 1 in Green and Dane(part) (65% in Green), and 1 in Iowa, Lafayette, Sauk(part), and Dane (part)(8/10 in Iowa, Lafayette, and Sauk). Three surplus fragments, with two surplus fragments in Dane.

Waupaca (0.912) is added to Outagamie, recognizing a small surplus in Outagamie. The average error improves from +2.5% to -0.3%.

(12) Outagamie and Waupaca, 3.988 (4) -0.3%. Three districts in Outagamie, with the fourth district comprised of Waupaca (90% plus of district) and a small surplus fragment of Outagamie. One surplus fragment.

Chippewa (1.087) is added to a region comprised of Lincoln, Taylor, Sawyer, Washburn, Rusk, and Price 1.929(2) -3.5%. The region is then split, with a northern region consisting of Sawyer, Washburn, Rusk, and Price; and southern region comprised of Chippewa, Lincoln, and Taylor. The northern district will be slightly overpopulated, but a split of a small county is eliminated.

(17) Chippewa, Lincoln, and Taylor, 1.947 (2) -2.6%. One district in Chippewa, one district in Lincoln and Taylor, with a small portion of Chippewa (about 1/9 of the district). One surplus fragment.

(27) Sawyer, Washburn, Rusk, and Price 1.069(2) +6.9%. One district, no county splits Slightly excessive deviation.

We both have 27 whole county regions, so in principle we should match in chop count. Will you be able to maintain a 10% range given the deviation of (27)? I had to work at mine with only the 5.2% deviation of West Allis. It's grouped with West Milwaukee at -4.7% to get the range to 9.884%. The tricky part was watching some of the lower pop regions to make sure none went beyond the -4.7% deviation. 6.9% forces a floor of -3.1%.

[muon2]

Neutral districts can also say a lot about trends. Since they aren't gerrymandered to pack or crack parties they can show how the natural political leanings are shifting. For example, consider the 6 whole county ADs in northern WI. PVIs reflect a districts political leanings compared to the national presidential average, and I'll look at the last 3 cycles (2008, 2012, 2016) and negative numbers are Pub. Instead of averaging two cycles, I'll keep each cycle separate.



AD 85 (Merinette): PVI (-0.5, -4.1, -18.4)
AD 86 (Rhinelander): PVI (0.0, -4.7, -13.2)
AD 87 (Merrill): PVI (1.9, -1.8, -7.4)

AD 88 (Ashland): PVI (4.5, 2.6, -4.8 )
AD 89 (Superior): PVI (9.1, 8.9, -1.9)
AD 90 (Osceola): PVI (-4.1, -6.2, -15.7)

Notice that the Pub swing was already underway from 2008 to 2012, with shifts of up to almost -5% in AD 86. But the shift for 2016 is really astounding with PVI jumps of -14% in AD 85, and almost -11% in the tradition Dem bastion of Superior. It defies common wisdom that AD 89 would support a Pub candidate, yet Trump won by 458 votes out of over 30K cast. This is one of the clearest indications I've seen of the effect of the Dem loss of the WWC and why Trump won WI.