Forum Redistricting Commission

[muon2]

OK, thanks, I see. You planning on fleshing out your definition of "erosity" to get in your state highway proxy concept? I don't see the arithmetic difference between a competitive and highly competitive CD. Should not a competitive CD have a .75 score plus or minus, as opposed to 1.0? 

I didn't want to overload the commission with erosity measures until the IC/chop issues were dealt with. So, yes we'll get to my connectivity-based measure for erosity.

Highly competitive districts (those of PVI 0 or 1) don't add to either political measure. Uncompetitive districts add twice as much to polarization, but they don't double penalize a plan on skew. In part that would be double counting. I also wanted to make all the scores based on simple integers for clear comparisons.

[muon2]

I'm not sure if this process can be resurrected, but here's the current status of items before the commission.

Item 8 (on ICs as counties). Jerry (alt) aye on 8, X aye on 8C, morgieb aye on 8A. So there's no concurrence yet. It's a unique feature of VA and scoring can't happen without it. Should we use ranked voting here?

Item 9 (on county clusters). X nay on their use in scoring. The miles-A example shows some of the tradeoffs this would force mappers to consider.

Item 10 (on chops). morgieb aye. I've put out a pretty detailed example of how it works, so I don't know what else could help the commission decide if this is fine or they want changes.