Ohio - a celebration of the Muon2 rules
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:36:24 AM
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)
  Ohio - a celebration of the Muon2 rules
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Ohio - a celebration of the Muon2 rules  (Read 4118 times)
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 24, 2017, 10:49:25 PM »
« edited: May 24, 2017, 10:51:15 PM by Torie »

This map is based on the county population projections for Ohio counties based on the latest census data. In my biased opinion, since I drew it, this is a really good map. The erose looking CD in the NE corner of the state is to preserve a performing district for a black candidate in Cleveland. Nobody is going to want to bleach out the Ohio delegation. The Cleveland CD is 41.7% BVAP. It cannot go much lower. Interestingly, Trump really got trashed in the CD in north Franklin County, plus Delaware and the prong into Licking. In the Franklin portion, Trump lost by about 36,000 votes, and lost the district maybe by about 18,000 votes or so - a massive swing from the Romney numbers there. And that is the advantage of the tight rules about metro areas. It gives the suburbs more of an undiluted voice.


Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,120
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 25, 2017, 03:27:35 PM »

How did the Youngstown CD vote?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 25, 2017, 06:06:54 PM »

I see you have a pack penalty for both Cincinnati and Cleveland. I guess I should look to see if I have to increase chops beyond your 6 to get that number down.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2017, 06:20:48 PM »

What's the black VAP for the Columbus seat? Any VRA concerns about dilution there?

I'm not a huge fan of the NE corner seat or the green one that is around 1 county wide on the Indiana border, but all in all a good map.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 25, 2017, 06:47:42 PM »

What's the black VAP for the Columbus seat? Any VRA concerns about dilution there?

I'm not a huge fan of the NE corner seat or the green one that is around 1 county wide on the Indiana border, but all in all a good map.

24.5% BVAP circa the 2010 census. There is not much dilution. The black neighborhoods are mostly in that CD. The VRA is not triggered unless there is a 50% BVAP CD to be had. No way is it in play in Columbus. The Cleveland CD is 41.7% BVAP, which makes it performing as a minority CD, but not by all that much. Thus the lines cannot be cleaned up with the CD that mostly wraps it, without making the Cleveland CD non-performing for a minority. That won't happen. The NE corner CD is only lean Pub anyway.

The map is drive by metro areas as defined by Jimrtex's map, and avoiding county splits. That forces a long narrow CD on the west side of Ohio.

I would hate to have the task of assigning a real PVI to the Ohio River CD on the east side of the state. It did a massive flip between 2012 and 2016. Where it really lies going forward is very hard to discern. In a much more muted fashion, the CD in the north Columbus metro area did the reverse. I think it had around a 1.5% Dem PVI based on the 2016 results alone.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2017, 06:57:15 PM »
« Edited: May 25, 2017, 06:59:54 PM by Justice TJ »

What's the black VAP for the Columbus seat? Any VRA concerns about dilution there?

I'm not a huge fan of the NE corner seat or the green one that is around 1 county wide on the Indiana border, but all in all a good map.

24.5% BVAP circa the 2010 census. There is not much dilution. The black neighborhoods are mostly in that CD. The VRA is not triggered unless there is a 50% BVAP CD to be had. No way is it in play in Columbus. The Cleveland CD is 41.7% BVAP, which makes it performing as a minority CD, but not by all that much. Thus the lines cannot be cleaned up with the CD that mostly wraps it, without making the Cleveland CD non-performing for a minority. That won't happen. The NE corner CD is only lean Pub anyway.

I know the Columbus seat won't be a Section 2 seat, but the current district is 33% black and elected a black representative, who narrowly won a primary with a high degree of racially polarized voting. I was merely wondering if any problems would be encountered by shifting it such that the candidate of the minority group's choice (Joyce Beatty) would likely lose the primary.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a good textbook example for whether or not the Trumpian realignment is permanent and/or whether it also carries over down-ballot.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 26, 2017, 07:37:25 AM »
« Edited: May 26, 2017, 08:12:08 AM by Torie »


What's a 15 point swing of the two party vote among friends? And as an added bonus, I offer up the numbers for a couple of other CD's.  And Clinton carried the Akron CD by about one percentage point, so based on the numbers in 2016 alone, it had a Pub PVI.

Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 26, 2017, 08:23:43 AM »

Based on the 2015 ACS 5-year estimates the Cleveland UCC counties have the following black (alone) populations:
Cuyahoga 375.0K
Lake 8.5K
Lorain 25.4K
Medina 2.5K

The target CD in 2020 is 778K by my projections, so Cuyahoga alone does not trigger a VRA district. However, the UCC as a whole does have a black population that exceeds 50% of a CD, so perhaps one can make the case that one is required. Let's assume that one is required, then the first question becomes what is the BVAP level for the CD to elect the black candidate of choice? The black population is segregated on the east side of Cleveland, so the mapping question becomes it is worth a chop of Cleveland to greatly reduce the erosity?

For example the Cleveland and Akron UCCs minus Lorain can be made into 3 CDs within 0.5% tolerance. Lake and the east side of Cleveland/Cuyahoga would be in the UCC and have a 46% BVAP. Medina and the west side of Cleveland/Cuyahoga would also be in the UCC so there would be no pack penalty. The chop in Geauga would move to Cuyahoga and there would be a cover penalty for the Cleveland UCC. The net result would be an extra chop for Cleveland but a lower erosity with a more clearly performing VRA CD.

If I get time later I'll transfer my spreadsheet to a map.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 26, 2017, 11:21:31 AM »

FWIW, I don't think there is any precedent that a theoretical 50% BVAP CD, that is impossible to draw in practice, or would look ridiculous, triggers Gingles, and I don't think SCOTUS will ever go there. It is going in the opposite direction. I also think 41.5% BVAP is clearly performing. So I don't think there is any case to chop Cleveland, and in particular a macrochop.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 26, 2017, 11:42:12 AM »
« Edited: May 26, 2017, 11:45:52 AM by muon2 »

FWIW, I don't think there is any precedent that a theoretical 50% BVAP CD, that is impossible to draw in practice, or would look ridiculous, triggers Gingles, and I don't think SCOTUS will ever go there. It is going in the opposite direction. I also think 41.5% BVAP is clearly performing. So I don't think there is any case to chop Cleveland, and in particular a macrochop.

Aren't we supposed to balance erosity against chops, so the right course would seem to be to look at both alternatives. If you are saying that there is insufficient black population to trigger Gingles then there is no need to try to draw a performing district - chops and erosity should be the only factors. If it is about performance one needs to look at the fraction of the Dem primary electorate that is black. In a heavily Dem city like Cleveland there are lots of white Dems and that can pose a problem for the minority. That happens in Chicago and I would imagine it applies to Cleveland, too.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 26, 2017, 11:47:55 AM »

FWIW, I don't think there is any precedent that a theoretical 50% BVAP CD, that is impossible to draw in practice, or would look ridiculous, triggers Gingles, and I don't think SCOTUS will ever go there. It is going in the opposite direction. I also think 41.5% BVAP is clearly performing. So I don't think there is any case to chop Cleveland, and in particular a macrochop.

Aren't we supposed to balance erosity against chops, so the right course would seem to be to look at both alternatives. If you are saying that there is insufficient black population to trigger Gingles then there is no need to try to draw a performing district - chops and erosity should be the only factors.

Yes, per your rules, you are absolutely correct. But in the real world, such a CD would never be drawn. That is why if I wrote the legislation, I would allow a deviation of the rules to allow drawing performing minority CD's, if both parties agree, and they would in this case, particularly if the NE corner CD is only marginal politically, which it is. If one does not allow this flexibility, I don't think your rules would ever become law, nor adopted by a court.
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 26, 2017, 11:51:24 AM »

I'd expect the Cleveland based CD to elect a black Democrat barring any freak scenarios.

Really like the competitiveness of this map. There's a solid 6-7 seats that could be won by either party (Though the Lake Erie district and the blue Cleveland district are trending hard R, and the Youngstown based district might force Tim Ryan to either finally run statewide or just carpetbag over to Akron.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 26, 2017, 12:22:47 PM »

I'd expect the Cleveland based CD to elect a black Democrat barring any freak scenarios.

Really like the competitiveness of this map. There's a solid 6-7 seats that could be won by either party (Though the Lake Erie district and the blue Cleveland district are trending hard R, and the Youngstown based district might force Tim Ryan to either finally run statewide or just carpetbag over to Akron.

Yeah, it's great when a map that follows good redistricting principles, also generates a host of competitive districts, and gets close to replicating the political balance of the state. One then has it all, as it were. It's healthy for our democracy, when control of the Congress changes hands back and forth. That way, ideas can be tried out, and if a fail, then the party in power will be bounced out, and the other party gets in. The alternative, tends to be stagnation.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 26, 2017, 12:24:06 PM »

I'd expect the Cleveland based CD to elect a black Democrat barring any freak scenarios.

Really like the competitiveness of this map. There's a solid 6-7 seats that could be won by either party (Though the Lake Erie district and the blue Cleveland district are trending hard R, and the Youngstown based district might force Tim Ryan to either finally run statewide or just carpetbag over to Akron.

Yeah, it's great when a map that follows good redistricting principles, also generates a host of competitive districts, and gets close to replicating the political balance of the state. One then has it all, as it were. It's healthy for our democracy, when control of the Congress changes hands back and forth. That way, ideas can be tried out, and if a fail, then the party in power will be bounced out, and the other party gets in. The alternative, tends to be stagnation. Thus, the more competitive districts, the better, in that sense.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 26, 2017, 01:14:35 PM »

FWIW, I don't think there is any precedent that a theoretical 50% BVAP CD, that is impossible to draw in practice, or would look ridiculous, triggers Gingles, and I don't think SCOTUS will ever go there. It is going in the opposite direction. I also think 41.5% BVAP is clearly performing. So I don't think there is any case to chop Cleveland, and in particular a macrochop.

Aren't we supposed to balance erosity against chops, so the right course would seem to be to look at both alternatives. If you are saying that there is insufficient black population to trigger Gingles then there is no need to try to draw a performing district - chops and erosity should be the only factors.

Yes, per your rules, you are absolutely correct. But in the real world, such a CD would never be drawn. That is why if I wrote the legislation, I would allow a deviation of the rules to allow drawing performing minority CD's, if both parties agree, and they would in this case, particularly if the NE corner CD is only marginal politically, which it is. If one does not allow this flexibility, I don't think your rules would ever become law, nor adopted by a court.

The flexibility is built in through the Pareto test. If one has to draw bizarre districts to get a minority CD where not required by the VRA then that may not fly with the courts either. And the Cuyahoga wrap-around CD approaches districts found to be bizarrely-shaped in cases from other states. Only if it survives Pareto on chops and equality could I make a case that it is not entirely influenced by race.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 26, 2017, 01:57:43 PM »
« Edited: May 26, 2017, 02:50:48 PM by Torie »

I don't agree with you as a legal matter on this one. The recent case in NC, had a packing element. This is not the case here. And the Cleveland CD is compact, and keeps Cleveland together. The next door CD is erose to avoid county chops, and that is a good reason. Particularly given that the hypo here is that both parties want it, no court in the world is going to nix it in any event.

Of course, policy is not the same as the law. And your rules allow one to have more chops to reduce erosity. I chose not to do so here. I think what you really want to do is chop Cleveland, so that way the BVAP is up, and the erosity down. That's OK, but certainly not what any court would demand, in lieu of what I did. And the Pubs would not agree to that version, so the CD in that scenario would cease to be performing.

For example, just following your rules, if the two parties cannot agree, one would get something like this I would think (the Cleveland CD has a 25.3% BVAP):



Or we could go the other way (it kind of looks like an arm, with a grasping hand), and the CD with Cleveland in it goes up to 31.1% BVAP. The Pubs won't agree to that CD either, and it probably isn't performing. But it might have a better erosity score than the first map.

Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 26, 2017, 05:56:56 PM »

Here is what I had in mind. The orange CD is 43% BVAP according to the 2015 ACS 5-year estimates. The other two CDs are both competitive. It preserves the UCC pack, but sacrifices a cover point. The chop of Geauga for the Akron CD is shifted to Cuyahoga. The rest of NE OH is in the Youngstown CD which needs no county chop. Even with the chop of Cleveland I think judges might find this arrangement quite attractive.



Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 26, 2017, 06:04:41 PM »
« Edited: May 26, 2017, 06:16:31 PM by Torie »

All the maps in this discussion are legal (this isn't a close case either), so the judges will not be involved. So it gets back to your rules, and the erosity figure (given that the chop count is tied), which means you need to to figure out the communities in Cleveland, since you macro-chopped it. That assumes of course that what you did here, does not generate another chop elsewhere in the state.

Whether the pubs like this map better than the one in my state map, and agree to it on that basis, I guess depends on what happens to the balance of the state (and the precise numbers of the two CD's involved that are competitive - they might not, if they think the Trump trends have staying power, and bourgeoisie areas are that have been, or recently were, safely Pub, cannot be relied upon in the future). If they do like your iteration, then the map could be drawn even if it loses out on scoring, and the Dems like it better than one of the other versions too. They can do it under my rules for this issue, because you up the BVAP (but not over 50%), so the score can go down to get there.

See, I am learning this stuff, oh so slowly, slowly, but I am learning it, so perhaps your batting average in these discussions might fall below 100% at some point. Tongue
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 26, 2017, 07:30:08 PM »

I'll be happy to put together some scores. If you could give me the list of munis in the Cleveland CD from your initial offering that would help, since the detail is hard to read.

I assume that an independent body is scoring maps based on some set of approved rules. OH has considered adopting this type of arrangement before, so it isn't completely crazy to think this way. If those rules are the muon2 rules then the legislature can only consider maps on the Pareto frontier. If a map loses on Pareto scoring then it doesn't matter what the legislature or parties like about it.

The independent body will also be charged with enforcing federal law, including the VRA. To that end do we or do we not assume that the VRA requires a performing district in NE OH based on Gingles? An independent body will not be able to require a performing CD in a non-Gingles situation absent a law to that effect.

It is probably safe to assume that a map with a CD that can elect a candidate for the black minority will be a plus. But if it is not required by the VRA or other law, then that advantage only comes into play if a map gets to the Pareto frontier and thus to the decision makers (eg the legislature).
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 26, 2017, 09:25:33 PM »
« Edited: May 26, 2017, 09:45:02 PM by Torie »

I will get back to you on the munis. No, the law is clear. The VRA does not require a minority CD. You already knew that. Yes, I understand your rules. As I said above, I would use the codicil that I outlined above, and have done before, regarding a departure with mutual consent. I don't think your rules will be accepted without that codicil. If both parties want more minority CD's, for your rules to just say no, means your rules will not become law. You will have annoyed Pubs, Dems, and minorities. Well done! Smiley

Your map is more "artistic" than mine by the way. Well done on that too!

In a way, this debate does not matter. In the real world, if a political body gets interested, they will probably modify them in any event. And this modification does not upset the apple cart, regarding departing from a common set of rules, given the mutual consent aspect.

You say the Youngstown CD has no chops even though it has now absorbed Ashtabula and the balance of Geauga. I assume that you drew it to verify that. It probably is doable, given the small counties to play with in the south. But one thing leads to another, as you shift the whole map, or much of it, counterclockwise.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 27, 2017, 03:12:57 AM »

FWIW, I don't think there is any precedent that a theoretical 50% BVAP CD, that is impossible to draw in practice, or would look ridiculous, triggers Gingles, and I don't think SCOTUS will ever go there. It is going in the opposite direction. I also think 41.5% BVAP is clearly performing. So I don't think there is any case to chop Cleveland, and in particular a macrochop.

Aren't we supposed to balance erosity against chops, so the right course would seem to be to look at both alternatives. If you are saying that there is insufficient black population to trigger Gingles then there is no need to try to draw a performing district - chops and erosity should be the only factors.

Yes, per your rules, you are absolutely correct. But in the real world, such a CD would never be drawn. That is why if I wrote the legislation, I would allow a deviation of the rules to allow drawing performing minority CD's, if both parties agree, and they would in this case, particularly if the NE corner CD is only marginal politically, which it is. If one does not allow this flexibility, I don't think your rules would ever become law, nor adopted by a court.
Doesn't your law violate the 15th Amendment?


Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 27, 2017, 04:57:49 AM »

FWIW, I don't think there is any precedent that a theoretical 50% BVAP CD, that is impossible to draw in practice, or would look ridiculous, triggers Gingles, and I don't think SCOTUS will ever go there. It is going in the opposite direction. I also think 41.5% BVAP is clearly performing. So I don't think there is any case to chop Cleveland, and in particular a macrochop.

Aren't we supposed to balance erosity against chops, so the right course would seem to be to look at both alternatives. If you are saying that there is insufficient black population to trigger Gingles then there is no need to try to draw a performing district - chops and erosity should be the only factors.

Yes, per your rules, you are absolutely correct. But in the real world, such a CD would never be drawn. That is why if I wrote the legislation, I would allow a deviation of the rules to allow drawing performing minority CD's, if both parties agree, and they would in this case, particularly if the NE corner CD is only marginal politically, which it is. If one does not allow this flexibility, I don't think your rules would ever become law, nor adopted by a court.
Doesn't your law violate the 15th Amendment?


Well that never occurred to me. A law that allows the legislature to agree to draw districts so that minorities can have adequate representation where the metrics of the state law in practice otherwise preclude that, violates the 15th amendment? Has anyone made that argument in an analogous context? I would be amazed if that argument ever got any traction.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 27, 2017, 05:35:17 AM »

FWIW, I don't think there is any precedent that a theoretical 50% BVAP CD, that is impossible to draw in practice, or would look ridiculous, triggers Gingles, and I don't think SCOTUS will ever go there. It is going in the opposite direction. I also think 41.5% BVAP is clearly performing. So I don't think there is any case to chop Cleveland, and in particular a macrochop.

Aren't we supposed to balance erosity against chops, so the right course would seem to be to look at both alternatives. If you are saying that there is insufficient black population to trigger Gingles then there is no need to try to draw a performing district - chops and erosity should be the only factors.

Yes, per your rules, you are absolutely correct. But in the real world, such a CD would never be drawn. That is why if I wrote the legislation, I would allow a deviation of the rules to allow drawing performing minority CD's, if both parties agree, and they would in this case, particularly if the NE corner CD is only marginal politically, which it is. If one does not allow this flexibility, I don't think your rules would ever become law, nor adopted by a court.
Doesn't your law violate the 15th Amendment?


Well that never occurred to me. A law that allows the legislature to agree to draw districts so that minorities can have adequate representation where the metrics of the state law in practice otherwise preclude that, violates the 15th amendment? Has anyone made that argument in an analogous context? I would be amazed if that argument ever got any traction.

There's a needle to thread here. The type of district at issue here is known as a crossover district - one where the minority relies on some votes from the white majority to "crossover" and vote for their candidate of choice. In Bartlett v Strickland (2009) SCOTUS ruled that the minority must constitute a numerical majority of the VAP to require a district. The case involved the NC requirement for whole counties which in one instance was chopped to create a crossover district. The ruling allows for crossover districts as a means to meet the VRA, but cautions against codification.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

In 2010 after the ruling, IL Dems passed a law with the following text.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
However, though their plan had crossover districts, they never invoked this law in their narrative for the justification of those districts. The feeling among lawyers at the time was that doing so would begin to look like a race-based mechanism that could be found unconstitutional. The courts found that the plan with crossover districts was constitutional but never had to rule on the law quoted above.

The problem here is a set of rules that would be used by an independent commission reviewing and scoring maps. A plan that had crossover districts would be legal, but codifying a rule to prefer their use is tricky given the language of Bartlett. I think the best we've done so far is to define minority county clusters as a measurable community of interest akin to UCCs. I'm not sure even that would pass SCOTUS today. Cuyahoga would require a step further, defining something like a minority subunit cluster, and that seems dangerously close to the entrenched majority-minority districts Kennedy warned about in Bartlett.

What's your thought on how to write the rule for the commission?
 
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 27, 2017, 05:55:14 AM »
« Edited: May 27, 2017, 07:07:40 AM by Torie »

Well, I have never proposed that such districts be required, but rather only to allow their drawing, even if the ensuing map has a lower score, and for a given minority percentage, the highest scoring map must be used. In all events, where there is a consensus that such a map be drawn, that is really going to slow down court intervention. Thanks for bringing this all to my attention.

I outlined the metric before. One can vote in a lower scoring map, up to a 50% minority voting age percentage, if it is the highest scoring map for that percentage, and both parties agree to it, and it gets the minority closer to their fair share of CD's for a state.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 27, 2017, 07:33:33 AM »

Well, I have never proposed that such districts be required, but rather only to allow their drawing, even if the ensuing map has a lower score, and for a given minority percentage, the highest scoring map must be used. In all events, where there is a consensus that such a map be drawn, that is really going to slow down court intervention. Thanks for bringing this all to my attention.

I outlined the metric before. One can vote in a lower scoring map, up to a 50% minority voting age percentage, if it is the highest scoring map for that percentage, and both parties agree to it, and it gets the minority closer to their fair share of CD's for a state.

I think you are saying that Pareto equality is subservient to a map with a crossover district regardless of its need by the VRA. I don't think that flies as a law, though it clearly could as a matter of legislative choice. The problem is that this is about statute to direct a commission. Parties don't figure into this at all.

I think the commission has to say if they determine that a minority district is required by the VRA. Then it it up to the map makers to determine how they will comply, and that can include the use of a crossover district. If the commission doesn't find that the VRA requires a minority district then I think crossovers are welcome, but there is no mechanism to prefer them.

This was basically the mechanism used in the OH competition in 2011. It was known that a contorted CD could be drawn with 50% BVAP (and was by the Pubs linking Cleveland and Akron in the adopted plan). The competition allowed for a 48% BVAP based on discussions with the OH Urban League so we didn't have to actually work out crossover performance.

In the specific case of NE OH for 2020, I've laid out the number of blacks in the UCC and note that it appears that whites are leaving the area faster than blacks based on Census estimates. The black population could be hypothetically drawn into to 50% BVAP district, even more so if Akron is included. So I think that a requirement for VRA district, which could be a crossover, would likely be present in 2020.
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 0.058 seconds with 12 queries.