The Trond can't help it...

[Kevinstat]

Lewis Trondheim got the closest New Hampshire plan that didn't split counties or render either district contiguous.  It was the 12th closest combination of counties without considering contiguity.  The closest had the larger district, with 618,483 people (1.0001), consisting of Hillsborough County in the center of New Hampshire's southern teir and a scythe(sp?)-shaped trio of Grafton, Carroll and Stafford counties.  The other district consisted of everything else, surrounding Hillsborough County together with Massachusetts but having Coos County cut off itself by Carroll and Grafton counties.  The next closest such plan, and the closest one with one district contiguous had the contiguous district, with 617,057 people (0.999), consist of Hillsborough, Merrimack, Belknap and Carroll counties, cutting off Rockingham and Strafford counties from those along the state's western border.

[minionofmidas]

Lewis Trondheim got the closest New Hampshire plan that didn't split counties or render either district contiguous.

I know that. Due to the much higher variation, I expended far more attention on this one. (Plus, it was actually rather easy, thanks to the counties' geographical positions.) 

[minionofmidas]

Someone advise me...
In Idaho, should I go with a variant of the current map, splitting the Boise area though not (as currently) Ada County?
e.g.
1 Idaho Co & North of that + anything as far as Valley, Boise, Gem, Payette + Ada
643,303 .994
2 remainder
650,650 1.006
(this one could be done with better balance I am sure, though it'd look somewhat worse. It's only an example for now.)

Or should I build one district around Boise and Twin Falls, and have another bridge the remaining areas?
e.g.
1 Ada, Canyon, Payette, Washington, Elmore, Owyhee, Gooding, Lincoln, Jerome, Minidoka, Twin Falls, Cassia
645,089 .997
2 remainder
648,864 1.003

[minionofmidas]

Kentucky

Yes, I did go and try to replace Ben Chandler with a coalfield Democrat.

1 Hancock, Ohio, Butler, Logan, Simpson, and west
672,379 .998
2 Meade, Hardin, Larue, Taylor, Adair, Russell, Pulaski, Rockcastle, Jackson, Laurel, Whitley, and west to D1
672,486 .998
3 97% of Jefferson
675,668 1.003
4 3% of Jefferson, Bullitt, Shelby, Henry, Owen, Grant, Pendleton, Oldham, Trimble, Carroll, Gallatin, Boone, Kenton, Campbell, Bracken, Mason, Harrison, Nicholas, Barbour, Clark
675,668 1.003
5 Bell, Knox, Clay, Owsley, Lee, Estill, Powell, Montgomery, Bath, Fleming, Robertson, Lewis, and east
671,591 .997
6 Franklin, Scott, Fayette, Woodford, Jessamine, Anderson, Mercer, Spencer, Nelson, Washington, Marion, Boyle, Garrard, Casey, Lincoln, Madison
673,977 1.001

[minionofmidas]

Missouri

1 Saint Louis City, 27% of Saint Louis County
626,069 1.007
2 62% of Saint Louis County
626,070 1.007
3 11% of Saint Louis County, Jefferson, Saint Genevieve, Saint Francois, Perry, Cape Girardeau, Washington, Franklin, Crawford, Gasconade
626,069 1.007
4 94% of Jackson
615,412 .990
5 6% of Jackson, Lafayette, Carroll, Livingston, Linn, Sullivan, Mercer, and west
615,411 .990
6 anything else north of the Missouri including Saint Charles, except Boone County
619,192 .996
7 Jasper, Newton, McDonald, Lawrence, Barry, Stone, Greene, Christian, Taney, Ozark
620,796 .999
8 southeastern portion of the remainder, as far as Phelps, Pulaski, Camden, Dallas and Polk
620,434 .998
9 Cass, Bates, Vernon, Barton, Johnson, Henry, Saint Clair, Cedar, Dade, Sullivan, Pettis, Benton, Hickory, Morgan, Miller, Cooper, Moniteau, Cole, Boone, Osage, and Maries
625,768 1.007

States left to do - Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, California, Oregon, Washington.
West Virginia, Arkansas, Iowa, Nevada and Hawaii maps already conform to the rules as they are.

[minionofmidas]

Nebraska
Douglas can't be paired with Sarpy, pretty much forcing this kind of map.

1 Douglas, Washington, Burt, Dodge, Cuming, Thurston, Dakota, Dixon
570,282 1.000
2 Sarpy, right bank of the Platte as far as Hamilton, Fillmore, Thayer
569,889 .999
3 remainder
571,092 1.001

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think I got this right:

[minionofmidas]

I think I got this right:

Wow, that was quick. Remember that those 3% of Jefferson are probably rather more than that by area o/c... oh and Robertson (that ugly dent of 5 into 4) is extremely low in population (2000-odd. One of the smallest counties in KY. Probably one of the smallest counties anywhere east of the Mississippi, come to think of it.), and was moved for better balance but *could* be legally included in D4 instead. Otherwise, yeah you did get that right.

[minionofmidas]

Kansas
1 Johnson, Wyandotte, and Leavenworth
677,659 1.008
2 Brown, Jackson, Shawnee, Wabaunsee, Lyon, Greenwood, Elk, Chautauqua, and west (except for D1 of course)
671,973 1.000
3 Sedgwick, Reno, Harvey, Butler, Sumner, Cowley (I didn't check how the Census Bureau defines it... but if I'd made the definition, this'd be the exact boundaries of the Wichita Metropolitan Area)
672,247 1.000
4 remainder
666,539 .992

[minionofmidas]

Oklahoma

1 Tulsa, Rogers, Wagoner
691,431 1.002
2 Nowata, (D1), Creek, Okfuskee, Hughes, Coal, Atoka, Bryan, and east
691,018 1.001
3 Oklahoma, Lincoln
692,528 1.003
4 Washington, Osage, Pawnee, Payne, Logan, Kingfisher, Blaine, Custer, Washita, Kiowa, Comanche, Cotton, Jefferson and west
689,836 1.000
5 Canadian, Caddo, Grady, Stephens, Cleveland, Pottawattomie, Seminole, McClain, Garvin, Murray, Carter, Love, Pontotoc, Johnston, Marshall
685,841 .994

[minionofmidas]

New Mexico
Bernalillo can't be paired with either Valencia or Sandoval (nor Santa Fe either) which means it has to extend into quite vast areas. The number of legal combinations within these constraints however is legion - districts as diverse as Bernalillo - Cibola - Catron - Sierra or Bernalillo - Torrance - San Miguel - Dem hold NM1 for ever.
I *think* this map has the lowest pop. variation, although it's right up there in Absurdistan...

1 Bernalillo, Cibola, Torrance, Guadalupe, De Baca
606,104 1.000
2 North of that and as far as Quay and Curry
606,989 1.001
3 remainder
605,953 .999

[minionofmidas]

Wait... I think I already did Arizona and just didn't post it yet... Ah, here:
1-4 21% of Maricopa
646,435 1.008
5 16% of Maricopa, Yuma
646,435 1.008
6 75% of Pima
632,217 .986
7 25% of Pima, Santa Cruz, Cochise, Graham, Pinal, Gila
632,216 .986
8 La Paz, Mohave, Yavapai, Coconino, Navajo, Apache, Greenlee
634,024 .989

[minionofmidas]

Utah is easy.
1 Davis, Weber, Morgan, Rich, Cache, Summit, Wasatch, Duchesne, 17% of Salt Lake
746,858 1.003
2 83% Salt Lake
746,859 1.003
3 remainder
739,452 .993

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Wow, that was quick. Remember that those 3% of Jefferson are probably rather more than that by area o/c...

Yeah, I realised that just after I uploaded it

I like the overall map a lot, btw.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If it can be in D4 it should be. Wait a sec...

[minionofmidas]

I just threw up all over Colorado. That state is one sorry son of a bitch.

Anyways, here's beautiful Oregon

1 Multnomah, Hood River
680,897 .995
2 Washington, Columbia, Clatsop, Tillamook, Yamhill, Lincoln
678,265 .991
3 Clackamas, Marion, Polk
685,605 1.002
4 Linn, Benton, Lane, Douglas, Coos, Curry
688,496 1.006
5 remainder
688,136 1.006

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Version II:

[minionofmidas]

Washington
A split around Snohomish is inevitable.

1, 2 38% of King
ca.656,732 1.003
3 24% of King, 38% of Snohomish
ca.656,732 1.003
4 62% of Snohomish, Skagit, Whatcom, San Juan
ca.656,732 1.003
5 Thurston, Mason, Jefferson, Clallam, Kitsap, Island
650,765 .994
6 93% of Pierce
ca.654,740 1.000
7 7% of Pierce, Lewis, Cowlitz, Clark, Wahkiakum, Pacific, Grays Harbor, Skamania
ca.654,740 1.000
8 Spokane, Lincoln, Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, Whitman, Asotin. Garfield, Columbia, Walla Walla
649,677 .992
9 remainder
657,271 1.004

[minionofmidas]

Colorado
A split around Denver is inevitable. Additional splits would be very much welcome, but are alas evitable, resulting in the following tortured disgusting map:

1 Denver, 16% of Adams
ca.611,930 .996
2 84% of Adams, Boulder, Gilpin, Clear Creek (Broomfield didn't exist yet when the Census was done, and has been ignored.)
ca.611,930 .996
3 Arapahoe, Washington, Morgan, all the counties along the eastern boundary from Logan all the way down to Baca, Bent, Otero
614,809 1.001
4 Larimer, Weld, Grand, Summit, Lake, Pitkin, Garfield and northwest of that
616,991 1.004
5 Jefferson, Park, Chaffee, Gunnison, Delta, Saguache, Hinsdale, Mineral, Ouray, San Juan
611,449 .995
6 El Paso, Teller, Fremont, Custer, Rio Grande, Alamosa
614,511 1.000
7 (laugh. hard.) Douglas, Elbert, Lincoln, Crowley, Pueblo, Huerfano, all the counties along the southern and western boundary from Las Animas right up to Mesa
619,641 1.008

[minionofmidas]

California
I've done the state twice, actually, (though I'm only posting the second one,) but ended up with quite a number of differences but the same number of county splits - three - and the same nagging feeling that one of these is inevitable. One split is necessary because the country north of the bay, Sacramento, and Placer just doesn't add up to a legal number of districts, or at least not without an internal county split there (the combined population would be large enough for four districts only if they'd all be right at the legal minimum.) One split is necessary because of the population totals of certain San Joaquin Valley counties. The third split (in San Bernardino in the map) becomes necessary because there are several areas where there's only one legal configuration which while legal is rather above par, so the remaining population for the last district is just way too small, and I end up combining it with one of the oversized-but-legal territories neighboring it.

1 Del Norte, Humboldt, Trinity, Mendocino, Siskiyou, Shasta, Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, Modoc, Lassen, Plumas
626,266 .980
2 Sonoma, Napa, Lake
641,202 1.003
3 Marin, Solano (yeah. I consider this contiguous. )
641,831 1.004
4 51% of Sacramento
ca.629,300 .985
5 49% of Sacramento, Amador
ca.629,299 .985
6 68% of Contra Costa
ca.646,075 1.011
7, 8 45% of Alameda
ca.646,075 1.011
9 83% of San Francisco
ca.646,075 1.011
10 91% of San Mateo
ca.646,075 1.011
11 32% of Contra Costa, 10% of Alameda, 17% of San Francisco, 9% of San Mateo (yeah, crossing the bay.)
ca.646,076 1.011
12, 13 38% of Santa Clara
ca.646,062 1.011
14 23% of Santa Clara, Santa Cruz
ca.646,063 1.011
15 San Joaquin, 16% of Stanislaus
ca.637,120 .997
16 85% of Stanislaus, Merced, San Benito
ca.6317,119 .997
17 81% of Fresno
ca.645,269 1.010
18 19% of Fresno, Madera, Tulare
ca.645,268 1.010
19 Monterey, San Luis Obispo
648,443 1.015
20 98% of Kern
ca.647,883 1.014
21 Santa Barbara, 14% of Ventura, 2% of Kern, Kings (weird I know)
ca.647,883 1.014
22 86% of Ventura
ca.647,884 1.014
23-37 7% of Los Angeles
ca.634,623 .993
38 Yolo, Sutter, Yuba, Butte, Sierra, Nevada, 11% of Placer
ca.634,575 .993
39 Inyo, Mono, Alpine, Mariposa, Tuolumne, Calaveras, El Dorado, 89% of Placer, 7% of San Bernardino 300,490
ca.634,575 .993
40, 41 37% of San Bernardino
ca.634,575 .993
42 19% of San Bernardino, 11% of Orange
ca.634,575 .993
43-46 22% of Orange
ca.634,576 .993
47, 48 42% of Riverside
ca.643,083 1.006
49-52 23% of San Diego
ca.643,083 1.006
53 9% of San Diego, 17% of Riverside, Imperia
ca.643,083 1.006

[minionofmidas]

And now for the crowning glory... Texas!

1-5 19% of Harris
ca.653,089 1.002
6 4% of Harris, Brazoria, Galveston, Chambers
ca.653,089 1.002
7 Fort Bend, Wharton, Matagorda, Colorado, Austin, Waller, Washington, Fayette, Lee, Burleson, Bastrop
652,277 1.001
8 Montgomery, Liberty, San Jacinto, Walker, Grimes, Brazos, Madison, Leon
652,168 1.001
9 Jefferson, Orange, Newton, Sabine, Shelby, San Augustine, Panola, Rusk, Angelina, Tyler, Jasper, Hardin
651,534 1.000
10 Fannin, Hunt, Rains, Wood, Upshur, Gregg, Harrison, and northeast of that
655,467 1.006
11 Nacogdoches, Cherokee, Smith, Van Zandt, Kaufman, Henderson, Anderson, Houston, Trinity, Polk, Navarro
651,628 1.000
12-14 29% of Dallas
ca.650,548 .998
15, 16 45% of Tarrant
ca.650,548 .998
17 12% of Dallas, 10% of Tarrant, Johnson, Ellis
ca.650,549 .998
18 Collin, Grayson, Rockwall
645,350 .990
19 Denton, Cooke, Wise, Parker, Montague, Palo Pinto
652,770 1.002
20 Freestone, Limestone, Robertson, Milam, Falls, McLennan, Hill, Bosque, Somervell, Hood, Coryell, Hamilton, Erath, Eastford, Comanche, Brown, Mills, Lampasas, Burnet
652,948 1.002
21 Bell, Williamson, 20% of Travis
ca.650,110 .998
22 80% of Travis
ca.650,111 .998
23 Nueces, San Patricio, Aransas, Refugio, Bee, Goliad, Calhoun, Victoria, DeWitt, Karnes, Wilson, Jackson, Lavaca
656,598 1.008
24 Cameron, Willacy, Kenedy, Kleberg, Jim Wells, Duval, Webb, La Salle, McMullen, Live Oak
651,861 1.000
25 Hidalgo, Starr, Brooks, Jim Hogg, Zapata
648,499 .995
26, 27 47% of Bexar
ca.651,291 .999
28 6% of Bexar, Blanco, Hays, Caldwell, Gonzales, Guadalupe, Comal, Kendall, Atascosa, Bandera, Real, Medina, Frio, Uvalde, Zavala, Kinney, Dimmit, Maverick
ca.651,291 .999
29 Val Verde, Edwards, Kerr, Gillespie, Llano, San Saba, McCulloch, Coleman and west of these (with a straight line for a northern boundary), excluding D30
ca.651,544 1.000
30 96% of El Paso
ca.651,544 1.000
31 Andrews to Callahan, Gaines to Stephens, Yoakum to Jack, Cochran to King
648,954 .996
32 six rows of Panhandle counties, Hardeman, Foard, Knox, Wilbarger, Baylor, Wichita, Archer, Clay
652,760 1.002

[WMS]

New Mexico
Bernalillo can't be paired with either Valencia or Sandoval (nor Santa Fe either) which means it has to extend into quite vast areas. The number of legal combinations within these constraints however is legion - districts as diverse as Bernalillo - Cibola - Catron - Sierra or Bernalillo - Torrance - San Miguel - Dem hold NM1 for ever.
I *think* this map has the lowest pop. variation, although it's right up there in Absurdistan...

1 Bernalillo, Cibola, Torrance, Guadalupe, De Baca
606,104 1.000
2 North of that and as far as Quay and Curry
606,989 1.001
3 remainder
605,953 .999

Yes, the population + county geography combination make splitting counties hard to avoid. Although my old plan did quite well in minimizing that. I only split four counties: Bernalillo because you have to, Sandoval to pick up the northern Urban Area (although if I hadn't hit the population limit I would've then gone south into Valencia to pick up the southern Urban Area), Socorro to nab the Native American Reservation there for CD3, and Colfax to reduce population deviation.

Oh, my version 2 had:
1: 606,359 1.000 Dev. -10
2: 606,421 1.001 Dev. +72
3: 606,266 .999   Dev. -83

Now that is minimal population deviation!

Interesting map there...but it is absurd.

[minionofmidas]

New Mexico
Bernalillo can't be paired with either Valencia or Sandoval (nor Santa Fe either) which means it has to extend into quite vast areas. The number of legal combinations within these constraints however is legion - districts as diverse as Bernalillo - Cibola - Catron - Sierra or Bernalillo - Torrance - San Miguel - Dem hold NM1 for ever.
I *think* this map has the lowest pop. variation, although it's right up there in Absurdistan...

1 Bernalillo, Cibola, Torrance, Guadalupe, De Baca
606,104 1.000
2 North of that and as far as Quay and Curry
606,989 1.001
3 remainder
605,953 .999

Yes, the population + county geography combination make splitting counties hard to avoid. Although my old plan did quite well in minimizing that. I only split four counties: Bernalillo because you have to, Sandoval to pick up the northern Urban Area (although if I hadn't hit the population limit I would've then gone south into Valencia to pick up the southern Urban Area), Socorro to nab the Native American Reservation there for CD3, and Colfax to reduce population deviation.

Oh, my version 2 had:
1: 606,359 1.000 Dev. -10
2: 606,421 1.001 Dev. +72
3: 606,266 .999   Dev. -83

Now that is minimal population deviation!

Interesting map there...but it is absurd.

Why exactly do you have to split Bernalillo? Couldn't you do a district of Bernalillo + remainder of Indian rez.s partly in Bernalillo + Albuquerque suburban areas in Sandoval?

[WMS]

New Mexico
Bernalillo can't be paired with either Valencia or Sandoval (nor Santa Fe either) which means it has to extend into quite vast areas. The number of legal combinations within these constraints however is legion - districts as diverse as Bernalillo - Cibola - Catron - Sierra or Bernalillo - Torrance - San Miguel - Dem hold NM1 for ever.
I *think* this map has the lowest pop. variation, although it's right up there in Absurdistan...

1 Bernalillo, Cibola, Torrance, Guadalupe, De Baca
606,104 1.000
2 North of that and as far as Quay and Curry
606,989 1.001
3 remainder
605,953 .999

Yes, the population + county geography combination make splitting counties hard to avoid. Although my old plan did quite well in minimizing that. I only split four counties: Bernalillo because you have to, Sandoval to pick up the northern Urban Area (although if I hadn't hit the population limit I would've then gone south into Valencia to pick up the southern Urban Area), Socorro to nab the Native American Reservation there for CD3, and Colfax to reduce population deviation.

Oh, my version 2 had:
1: 606,359 1.000 Dev. -10
2: 606,421 1.001 Dev. +72
3: 606,266 .999   Dev. -83

Now that is minimal population deviation!

Interesting map there...but it is absurd.

Why exactly do you have to split Bernalillo? Couldn't you do a district of Bernalillo + remainder of Indian rez.s partly in Bernalillo + Albuquerque suburban areas in Sandoval?

I split Bernalillo in two different ways:
First, I included the To'hajillee and Isleta Indian Rez's in CD3 - to be honest, that's the only type of ethnicity I was considering in my redistricting (I was trying to get as many Indian Rez's as possible in one district without gerrymandering things a ton...all but 2, because Sandia is surrounded by Hispanics and Anglos in my CD1 and Mescalero is too far away, deep in CD2). So that explains that.
Second, I put the parts of Bernalillo County east of the Sandia Mountain Ridgeline in the same district as the neighboring parts of Santa Fe and Torrance Counties, because they have way more in common with them than with the Albuquerque Metro Area. Follow the Interstate - there is a clear Tijeras-Edgewood-Moriarty commonality and the county borders are borders in name only, with the same mostly-rural environment. We call it the East Mountain Area in BernCo, and it is distinctly separate from the other parts of the County (which doesn't stop us employees from biannually attending department meetings in a gorgeous piece of County Property just NW of Tijeras ). So that explains that.
I was following communities of interest and trying to unify as much of the Albuquerque Metro Area as possible, while increasing the chances of both Indians and rural mountaineers to have a voice in their districts.

Not that your idea isn't also interesting, although you would likely have to leave out the communities of Bernalillo, Placitas, Sandia Pueblo, and maybe some other parts to stay under the population restrictions (I shaved off the west, south, and east of BernCo and Rio Rancho still almost made up the entire distance to 'fill' the CD's population totals). Give it a try and come back to me.

[muon2]

New Mexico
Bernalillo can't be paired with either Valencia or Sandoval (nor Santa Fe either) which means it has to extend into quite vast areas. The number of legal combinations within these constraints however is legion - districts as diverse as Bernalillo - Cibola - Catron - Sierra or Bernalillo - Torrance - San Miguel - Dem hold NM1 for ever.
I *think* this map has the lowest pop. variation, although it's right up there in Absurdistan...

1 Bernalillo, Cibola, Torrance, Guadalupe, De Baca
606,104 1.000
2 North of that and as far as Quay and Curry
606,989 1.001
3 remainder
605,953 .999

Yes, the population + county geography combination make splitting counties hard to avoid. Although my old plan did quite well in minimizing that. I only split four counties: Bernalillo because you have to, Sandoval to pick up the northern Urban Area (although if I hadn't hit the population limit I would've then gone south into Valencia to pick up the southern Urban Area), Socorro to nab the Native American Reservation there for CD3, and Colfax to reduce population deviation.

Oh, my version 2 had:
1: 606,359 1.000 Dev. -10
2: 606,421 1.001 Dev. +72
3: 606,266 .999   Dev. -83

Now that is minimal population deviation!

Interesting map there...but it is absurd.

It's interesting to see what happens to Trond's map if you project it to 2010. CD 1 become too large and CD 3 quite a bit to small. To correct it I had to reduce CD 1 to Bernalillo and Cibola only (projected 679.0 K in 2010). CD 2 wraps around Albuquerque and becomes Guadalupe, Los Alamos, McKinley, Mora, Rio Arriba, Sandoval, San Juan, Santa Fe, Taos, Torrance, and Valencia (678.5 K). CD 3 takes in the rest in the south and east (679.5 K).

[WMS]

New Mexico
Bernalillo can't be paired with either Valencia or Sandoval (nor Santa Fe either) which means it has to extend into quite vast areas. The number of legal combinations within these constraints however is legion - districts as diverse as Bernalillo - Cibola - Catron - Sierra or Bernalillo - Torrance - San Miguel - Dem hold NM1 for ever.
I *think* this map has the lowest pop. variation, although it's right up there in Absurdistan...

1 Bernalillo, Cibola, Torrance, Guadalupe, De Baca
606,104 1.000
2 North of that and as far as Quay and Curry
606,989 1.001
3 remainder
605,953 .999

Yes, the population + county geography combination make splitting counties hard to avoid. Although my old plan did quite well in minimizing that. I only split four counties: Bernalillo because you have to, Sandoval to pick up the northern Urban Area (although if I hadn't hit the population limit I would've then gone south into Valencia to pick up the southern Urban Area), Socorro to nab the Native American Reservation there for CD3, and Colfax to reduce population deviation.

Oh, my version 2 had:
1: 606,359 1.000 Dev. -10
2: 606,421 1.001 Dev. +72
3: 606,266 .999   Dev. -83

Now that is minimal population deviation!

Interesting map there...but it is absurd.

It's interesting to see what happens to Trond's map if you project it to 2010. CD 1 become too large and CD 3 quite a bit to small. To correct it I had to reduce CD 1 to Bernalillo and Cibola only (projected 679.0 K in 2010). CD 2 wraps around Albuquerque and becomes Guadalupe, Los Alamos, McKinley, Mora, Rio Arriba, Sandoval, San Juan, Santa Fe, Taos, Torrance, and Valencia (678.5 K). CD 3 takes in the rest in the south and east (679.5 K).

Hmm...interesting indeed. I suspect my map isn't projectable because I split too much of Bernalillo and Sandoval and your projections are only down to the county level...