The Missouri Miracle – and a Celebration of the Muon2 Redistricting Rules

[Torie]

On RRH, somebody asserted that the Muon2 rules as they applied to Missouri, the “Show Me” state, would make a harsh of things. So I drew a map for 2021 based on the projected county populations calculated by the census bureau. The map speaks for itself. Rather than a map miss-mash hash, it is precisely the opposite – a thing of beauty, and in fact, it just so happens that the population distribution results in the near miracle, that St. Charles County need not be chopped at all, with the other two St. Louis urban cluster CD’s perfected nested in the balance of the urban cluster zone. The KC urban cluster is almost as good, and only requires a non-macro chop of Jackson County.

I am quite sure this map minimizes chops, and it looks good from an erosity standpoint to boot. Maybe there is a map with a better erosity score, with no more chops, but I strongly tend to doubt it. I worked hard to make this map beautiful. The equality score is bad, but the benefit is the almost perfect CD nesting within the two urban clusters. Muon2 should make Exhibit A to his white paper. ☺

Speaking of the equality metric, is it just in interplay with the erosity score, or does in play with the chop score?  Hopefully just the former.  I think it poor public policy to encourage chops over de minimus population variances.  And do subunit chops just affect the erosity score? Are you allowed more than one subunit chop per county per CD? I probably have been told the answers before, but need to be reminded, because I’m old.

I think Muon2 and I are on the same page as to bridge chops now, but I am studying his definitions. On that one, I know I’m right. Yes, I do. Are bridge chops just banned, or do they just count as a penalty point now, Muon2? Probably the latter is preferable, assuming you cannot be persuaded to go the preference route on anything.

That’s all for now. Well done, Muon2.  I have a reasonable hope that some day you will become a famous man over this. Yes I do.  Your life has a meaning and a purpose, and without that, in my view, one does not have much at all. Count yourself fortunate. ☺

[Torie]

"With my current definition, a bridge fragment that includes the regional connection between the separated counties has no penalty at all. If the bridge fragment has a connection that isn't the primary regional connection then it acts like two counties only connected locally, which gets an erosity penalty for extra components. If the bridge fragment is a macrochop then the calculation of erosity is based on the subunits of the macrochop and not the overall bridge fragment, just as any other macrochop would be measured."

Does this have something to do with nick cuts (the no penalty variation)?  If that is the case, then the rule makes sense. Bridge chops will generally not pay, including what you used to call not a bridge chop merely because the county on the other side of the bridge chop was not entirely within the CD. I hated that.

[Torie]

I put this comment up on RRH in  response to a diss of my MO map, after I was politely accused of being a Dem hack more or less. How times change!   Some of you might find it of interest. In a word, I think team Eric Holder might be Muon2's best friend in turbo charging his endeavor. I really do.

Here is my post:

Sometimes the rules help one party, sometimes another party. These maps are drawn without any concern for party impact, except as a tie breaker, and there are rarely ties. The CD’s are nested in the KC urban cluster. Cass is party of the urban cluster. You are discussing communities of interest, and that instantly becomes a subjective exercise. In any event, some county in the urban cluster needs to be chopped, or you will have a pack and a cover penalty point for having 3 CD’s in the urban cluster, or a county outside the urban cluster will be chopped, with the other CD making a ring around Jackson, that would look terrible and have a huge number of erosity points. Try it yourself.

As I said, the main thing is to have objective rules, so a computer can draw the map, If you don’t have that, then, well, the discussion will devolve into the type that we are having, which frankly goes absolutely nowhere. What would be more productive, is suggesting other rules, if you don’t like these, that would also end up with just a few winning maps, that a computer would select. I warn again, that if you don’t have objective rules as I describe, or some variation thereof, the courts will come up with another objective rule – the map that comes closest to the partisan balance in the state wins, which would help Democrats in most states (not all, e.g. Mass). That is what Eric Holder is pushing for. Blow me off if you want, but hopefully some of you will listen to me. And it is going to happen one way or the other, and sooner rather than later. You shall see.

It’s odd that you speak of partisan issues when it comes to MO. It is still a safe 6-2 GOP map. And trying to go for 7-1, would probably end up being a dummy-mander.

Anyway, I obviously am not going to persuade you of anything, and visa versa, and that is OK. The goal here is to persuade the courts, and/or legislatures. Thank heavens for powerful computers. That is what makes this all possible. Doing it manually, as I did, for the PA and MO maps is time consuming, and in general will not generate the highest scoring maps, although MO turned out to be so fortuitously simple, that I think it probably is.

One final thing, that I assume that you are probably inferring. is that I think I am the GOP’s best friend on this one, trying to save it from itself as it were. It’s getting greedy, and you know what they say: pigs get fat, and hogs get slaughtered.

Thanks for you interest, and no, I am not offended at all. I get many of the same types of comments from partisan Democrats. If both sides are aiming the slings and arrows at me, that gives me a good feeling that I am probably on the right track! 🙂

[Torie]

That is a fine map Mr. Torie.

Here is the trick, though. The Missouri map of 2011 required compromise with Democrats to override Jay Nixon's veto in the Missouri House. There were various factions in the party that wanted more of Jefferson County to go into the 2nd district, and some others that wanted more of Jefferson County to go into the 8th district.

Link

Clay/Cleaver allies were required to pass a map. So the contours of the 5th district make more sense in that context.

Thank you. Spread the news! 

[Torie]

Should Kansas City be treated as a county since it has its own election board, or alternatively should it be treated as if it is entirely in Jackson County?

I don't think so. I don't know about MO, but in many states where cities can span multiple counties statute makes it clear that the portion in each county is treated separately. Aurora IL is in four counties and has its own electoral board for three of those counties. Even so, precincts cannot span county lines. It makes the most sense to treat district lines the same way.

Can precinct boundaries span city lines?

If the city does not constitute an election jurisdiction, like a township, then the precinct lines can cross muni lines. They do in my township.

I think that the district entirely in the UCC should include all of Kansas City.

If an objective set of rules prevents this, my subjective opinion is that there is a problem with objective set of rules.

Unlike some other issues that we have been arguing about, where I think the Muon2 rules may have potential problems at the margins (I'm still worried about Phoenix for example, and accidents of populations, that undermine political equality, and not sure we are quite there yet on bridge chops and nick cuts, but I have not yet finished my homework yet on that one), I don't see why this matters when it comes to the quality of the maps. In this instance, if KC City is made whole, there is a chop elsewhere, and probably a cover and pack penalty. I know Muon2 hates preference structures for some reason, but if two maps were otherwise equal, and one kept KC City whole, it should prevail (akin, sort of, to the matter of Indian Reservations). But that is about it.

[Torie]

"each of which spans the entire space of the preceding unit"

Since that cannot mean "nested within," just what does it mean?

[Torie]

OK, well that does not help where there are overlaps, as with KC, or Indian Reservations, so it is not a universal principle.

[Torie]

OK, well that does not help where there are overlaps, as with KC, or Indian Reservations, so it is not a universal principle.

Within a MO county there are no overlaps between cities. That's the point of a hierarchy, I don't look at objects outside of a county in dealing with chops. In WA we used municipalities and school districts outside of munis, and together they formed sets that spanned each county. If reservations need a special status the best choice within the system is to create a county cluster that includes the reservation and use the UCC rules with it. It's not unlike the Black Belt cluster we looked at in analyzing maps of AL.

Well we have been around this before, but that does not reward a map that both avoids a county and a reservation chop. In your system, you would ignore the county chop, if there were one. Ditto for a map that manages to both keep KC whole, and Jackson County whole, as opposed to treating a map that chops KC as just as good as one that does not, all other things being equal. It is another example of elegance over, well, what makes sense.

[Torie]

I would treat all chops equal. If there are two small counties that have a reservation across the border and they were a CC, then splitting the reservation along the county line would be a chop. keeping the reservation together, but splitting one of the counties would also be a chop. Neither is favored.

OK. Reservations have a higher standing than cities, but OK.

I think a Jackson +KC would be a mess given the shape of KC up north. The more likely split is to put all of the UCC plus the Jackson part of KC in a district, then attach the rest of Jackson to something else. That's not a penalized bridge chop in my current formulation.

I appreciate in this instance, keeping KC together is a no go, but the principle stands. One gets no credit (the preference thing that you reject) for keeping KC together, even if the cost of doing so, swamps the credit. That does not make sense to me. And yes, I agree that counties should have a higher standing than cities, if one must choose.