Talk Elections

Hello, Atlas, and welcome to our fair redistricting project! We will be creating fair and representative congressional districts through a bipartisan panel of me (I), Singletxguyforfun (R), Sol (R), OPEN (D), and TimTurner (D). It is essential that you read the rules here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=284582.msg6055003#msg6055003).


State order and directory
KY - IN - OH - MI - WI - MN - IA - NE - KS - OK - MO - IL
*You have the entire order here, so try to stay ahead and have maps in advance.

Here's an initial proposal for Kentucky. Can't say I'm completely happy with it--there are more cuts than I'd like--but I think something like it seems the fairest. I took the liberty of renumbering the districts from West to East.

()
()

There are splits in Butler, Garrard, and Scott Counties. No UCCs are split and no municipalities are split except Louisville and cities along county lines.

KY-01: Deviation -6, PVI R+20.23
KY-02: Dv. +174, PVI R+23.81
KY-03: Dv. +8, PVI R+19
KY-04: Dv. -133, PVI D+5.67
KY-05: Dv. -279, PVI R+9.52
KY-06: Dv. +236, PVI R+27.44

This is a plan I posted in Nov 2011,so I'll submit it here. It chops no counties except Jefferson/Louisville and was designed to have compact districts. The concept of UCCs didn't exist then so it has one extra cover chop. We also didn't have an erosity measure back then, but I think it should score well. The drf file was long ago deleted, so I've had to reconstruct the plan from scratch.

Edit - I looked at the impact of the UCC and it turns out that by shifting just 6 counties I can preserve the erosity, improve the inequality and keep the UCC whole. CD 6 uses the I-64 corridor to link Lexington to Ashland.

As a side note, if the chop into Jefferson comes from the south instead of the southeast, the PVI drops from D+5.7 to D+5.0, which just pushes it into the competitive range. I'm not doing that since the other CDs are so Pub, and shifting the chop costs a point of erosity.

()

CD 1: -1234; R+20.21
CD 2: +862; R+20.69
CD 3: -133; D+5.67
CD 4: +697; R+17.76
CD 5: -890; R+30.25
CD 6: +698; R+10.52

As a reminder, there are two UCCs in KY. The UCCs were created to recognize metro areas as community of interest and avoid fragmenting their population into adjacent rural areas.

The Louisville UCC consists of Jefferson, Bullitt, and Oldham; it is 1.21 times a CD so there should be two CDs covering the three counties and one CD entirely within to meet the UCC test.

The Covington UCC consists of Kenton, Boone, and Campbell; it is 0.51 of a CD and only needs one CD to cover it.

The Ashland UCC consists of Boyd and Greenup counties; it is 0.12 of a CD and only needs one CD to cover it.

I'm probably just going to send this directly to a ranked vote since there are only two maps :p

Huntington-Ashland doesn't get any respect.

I'll likely have a map.

okie, no worries as long as you submit before the deadline. In fact, I think I'll extend it to 8:00 AM just to give everyone a little more time (I don't really expect many more ways of drawing KY though)

Kentucky has 15 Area Development Districts (ADD):

()

We can group them into congressional regions.

KY-1 (West): Purchase, Pennyrile, Green River (0.870)
KY-2 (Central): Barren River, Lincoln Trail, Lake Cumberland (1.052)
KY-6 (East): Buffalo Trace, Gateway, FIVCO, Big Sandy, Kentucky River, Cumberland Valley (1.065)
KY-3 (Louisville) KY-4 (Louisville, Cincinnati suburbs): KIPDA, Northern Kentucky (1.933)
KY-5 (Lexington)  Bluegrass (1.065)

The three metropolitan regions have a population equivalent to 2.998, while the three rural regions have a population equivalent to 3.002. We can balance the three rural regions by shifting counties to the west, largely maintaining the ADD regions. Greater importance was attached to population equality (without splitting counties), while largely maintaining regions, over erosity. Maintaining regions can be considered as measure of conciseness, as an alternate to compactness.

Since KY-5 (Lexington) is overpopulated, we shift that to KY-3, 4, and Franklin is the right size. Jefferson (1.025) is slightly large, and it will be divided.

()

KY-1 (West) 0.47%, R 20.79
KY-2 (Central) -0.18% R 23.48
KY-3 (Louisville) 0.04%*** D 4.8
KY-4 (Louisville, Cincinnati suburbs) 0.04%*** R 17.69
KY-5 (Lexington) -0.29% R 11.04
KY-6 (East) -0.08% R26.66

Standard Deviation 0.24%.

This assumes a perfect split of Jefferson. KY-3 and KY-4 will diverge a bit. Internet Exploder crashed as I did a save.

These maps show the division of Jefferson.

()

()

KY-1 (West) +0.47%; R 20.79; A 90, B 6, H 2, As 2
KY-2 (Central) -0.18%; R 23.48; A 90, B 5, H 2, As 1
KY-3 (Louisville) +0.04% D 5.67; A 73, B 19, H 4, As 2
KY-4 (Louisville, Cincinnati suburbs) +0.04% R 17.76; A 92, B 4, H 2, As 1
KY-5 (Lexington) -0.29%; R 11.04; A 86, B 8, H 4, As 2
KY-6 (East) -0.08%; R26.66; A 97, b 2, H 1

Standard deviation 0.24%

PVI?

I count three proposals for KY. Since all the plans are solid 5 R - 1 D, they will all get a SKEW of 1 and POLARIZATION of 12. I will treat jimrtex's plan for Jefferson the same as the other 2. The complete scores are:

Plan	-S-	-P-	-I-	-C-	-E-
Sol	1	12	4	4	50
muon2	1	12	6	1	48
jimrtex	1	12	10	1	52

SPICE scores would eliminate jimrtex by muon2.

Sol's map wins for Kentucky! NEXT IS INDIANA

()

Here's my Indiana. Not too much interesting about it, it's boring and blocky with only 8 County chops only for population equality. numbers in parenthases are the deviation so none of them exceeded +/- 1000 people

1- D+8 (-850)
2- R+12 (9)
3- R+17 (539)
4- R+17 (-238)
5- R+14 (420)
6- R+14 (24)
7- D+16 (-259)
8- R+16 (-180)
9- R+17 (539)

Were the results published somewhere?

would you like me to make a spreadsheet of all the state votes?

Yes.

kk i'll make it over the weekend (super busy this week :\)

boop
()
1: D+6
2: R+8
3: R+18
4: R+9
5: R+14
6: R+15
7: D+15
8: R+14
9: R+22

Indiana has 15 regional councils of government.

()

Unlike some states where the state government defines regions, these appear to be more voluntary (Indiana statute simply says counties can form the RCOG's). There is a large area in the central part of Indiana without ROCG's. I created three regions: (1) The seven counties south around Indianapolis, including 5 of the 6 counties in the UCC (The 6th, Madison(Anderson) is a single-county RCOG); (2) The three counties around Lafayette; and (3) five counties south of Indianapolis, including Monroe (Bloomington). In addition, Blackford was added to the region that largely surrounds it.

The regions were grouped into areas of approximately one district.

()

1. (Northwest, Gary) 1.071. Northwestern 1.071.
2. (North Central, South Bend, Elkhart) 1.021. Michiana 0.817, Kankakee-Iroquois 0.204.
3. (Northeast, Fort Wayne) 0.946. Northeastern 0.638, Region III 0.308.
4. (Central-North, Lafayette, Kokomo) 0.634. North Central 0.317, "Boilermaker" 0.317.
5-6. (Central, Indianapolis, Anderson) 2.485. "Naptown" 2.302, Madison 0.183.
7. (Eastern, Muncie, Richmond) 0.923. East Central 0.376, Eastern 0.200, Southeastern 0.347.
8. (South Central, Terre Haute, Bloomington) 0.946, West Central 0.316, Southern 0.222, "Southern Independents" 0.408.
9. (Ohio River, Evansville, Tell City, New Albany) 0.973, South West 0.415, Indiana 15 0.174, River Hills 0.384.

Kankakee-Iroquious was placed with Michiana mainly for population regions. Area 4 is undersized, with the intent that it be placed with Area 5-6 to create a third district that was about 1/2 in the Indianapolis area.

This is the final whole-county alignment.

()

IN-1 Northwest (Gary). -0.03% The three county region was too populous. Rather than splitting LaPorte, it was dropped, and three rural counties to the south were added. Newton and Jasper are part of the Chicago MSA, due to commuting into Gary, or possibly long distance into Chicago.

IN-2 North Central (South Bend, Elkhart) +0.46% After adding LaPorte it was possible to add Starke to get to close to the quota.

IN-3 Northeast (Fort Wayne) -0.25%. The two RCOGs were a bit short. Adding Miami hit the target.

I next worked on the Indianapolis UCC. I wanted two whole-county districts within the 6-county UCC, with ideally the remnant in a single district. Madison, Hamilton, Marion, and Johnson have a population about equivalent to two districts (2.012). But this would likely require a long corridor to connect Hamilton to Johnson OR division of Marion between two districts, In addition Hendricks and Hancock would be in different districts, are connected by a giant U south of Johnson. So instead, Hendricks replaced Johnson. This has a bit more population (2.020), but permits the link to Hendricks be along the Hamilton-Marion county line, and permits creation of another district wholly in Marion. Also the two surplus counties from the UCC, Hancock and Johnson can be placed in a single district along with another metro county of Shelby.

IN-5 (Northern Indianapolis suburbs, Anderson) +0.99%.

IN-6 (Indianapolis) +0.99%.

Placing the surplus UCC population on the east, required a reconfiguration of the district to the west and east.

IN-4 (West, Terre Haute, Lafayette, Kokomo) -0.33% This is an agglomeration of counties based on proximity. It includes most of the Wabash River once it enters the state.

IN-7 (East, Indianapolis eastern, southern suburbs, Columbus, Richmond) -0.28%. The smaller manufacturing centers are a reasonable match for the Indianapolis suburbs, which will constituted about 35% of the district.

The configuration of IN-4 and IN-7 resulted in a need to reconfigure the southern areas.

IN-8 (Southwest, Evansville, Tell City) +0.35% This includes 3 regions plus a few counties on the north. Elimination of the Ohio River district may reflect modern transportation and economic reality.

IN-9 (Southeast, Louisville Suburbs, Bloomington) -2.06% Bloomington doesn't really fit with its neighbors as a liberal arts university plunked down in a corn field it doesn't even have the agricultural interests that Purdue does.

This is my final map.

()

()

Marion County was divided across the three northern townships. In the east it dips down to include the city of Lawrence which is not part of the Unigov. In the NNW it is narrowed down a bit to avoid cutting into predominately black areas of Indianapolis (IN-6 is slightly more black than Marion as a whole).

Because the four-county area has a slight excess of population (2.020) a small portion of Marion County (southeast corner) is shifted to NC-7. NC-9 is slightly underpopulated in the whole county version (0.979). Four more rural townships in Johnson County, Blue River, Ninevah, Hensley, and Union are shifted. The small portion of Bargersville that is in Union Township is retained.

Townships in Indiana are relatively weak. They do not assume the roles of cities, and many of their former functions have been transferred to county governments. On the other hand they exist in areas where there are city governments. There are nine functioning township governments in Marion County that are independent of the Unigov. For this reason, I don't think that chops of townships should be considered as significant, though they may be handy for drawing nices square boundaries.

IN-1 (Northwest, Gary) -0.03%, D+5.68 A69, B17, H11, As1, O1.
IN-2 (North Central, South Bend, Elkhart) +0.46%, R+9.28 A83, B7, H7, As1, O1.
IN-3 (Northeast, Fort Wayne) -0.25%, R+17.30, A88, B6, H4, As1, O1.
IN-4 (West, Terre Haute, Lafayette, Kokomo) -0.33%, R+14.35, A89, H4, B3, As2, O1.
IN-5 (Northern, Western Indianapolis suburbs) -0.11%, R+10.57, A84, B8, H4, As3, O1.
IN-6 (Indianapolis, Central and Southern) -0.18%, D+12.75, A62, B26, H8. As2, O1.
IN-7 (East, Muncie, Richmond, Eastern, Southern Indianapolis suburbs) +0.00%, R+18.22, A93, B3, H2, As1, O1.
IN-8 (Southwest, Evansville, Tell City) +0.35%, R+18.06. A94, B3, H2, O1, AS1.
IN-9 (Southeast, New Albany, Louisville suburbs, Cincinnati ex/suburbs, Bloomington, Columbus) -0.09%, R+11.73, A92, H3, B3, As2, O1.

Standard Deviation 0.25%

What's the status of the KY results? I have more than a passing interest. I'm involved with some graduate level academic research on redistricting algorithms, and any feedback about which maps were preferred over others may find its way into that research. Even better would be comments about the maps, but that doesn't seem to be the way panelists want to react. Of course if people want to say why they voted for a particular plan, I'll dutifully make note.

On a side note: Shouldn't Sol be moved into the open Dem spot? Then a Pub or at least an indy would take the second R spot.

The KY maps are all so similar, that it is hard to generate much passion about which map is best. The Sol and Muon2 maps appear to be  almost identical, except that Sol has more chops to get down inequality (not my bag, but that is a matter of taste), while the Jimrtex has some extra erosity that appears not to really be necessary (with that jut into Laurel County looking particularly unfortunate).

Laurel gives better equality, while avoiding chops and maintaining regional integrity.

I actually want the panelists to make comments, but it’s so difficult to have the others even just vote. I’d be happy to share my opinion though. I thought Sol’s grouping of Lexington and Frankfort made sense. I didn’t particularly like the way your map split that area among four districts. Also, Sol’s KY-05 and KY-01 reflected the ancestrally Dem parts of the state well imo. I look at pop density and voting trend maps primarily in forming my ideas about good district lines

About Sol’s role, there aren’t many Republicans so I’m just having Sol acting as a Republican. If a Republican does want to join then I would move Sol to a Dem. I know there might be concerns about partisan skew, but having 2 Ds and 2 Rs isn’t for them to want to gerrymander for their party, we’re all trying to follow the fair nonpartisan goal

I tried to take a different approach for Lexington. As opposed to making it a cluster of counties surrounded by other districts, I ran it out to WV along the I 64 corridor. It turns out that had a positive effect in reducing erosity. However, one of my early observations is that people are most comfortable voting for district designs they are used to seeing in their respective states. The fact that other designs might perform better on objective metrics doesn't seem to convince voters.

Aren't you concerned that by considering voting trends you might fall prey to subtle gerrymanders? In many states that have enacted or considered neutral reforms, they explicitly require that the maps be made without considering election data to avoid that very thing. IA is a good example of an independent mapping process that bars the map drawers from considering election results.

As an aside, my wife has family in the Lexington area, so I am personally familiar with it. Frankfort isn't that closely affiliated with Lexington. As the state capital it's kind of a shared area by the major metros. I find that's often true when the capital is outside of one of the big cities in the state.

yeah I realize it's potentially shaky territory but it's only one factor, also yes some slight gerrymandering may occur in states like massachusetts or oklahoma

Here are my two submissions for IN. Both are from the same 2015 thread that included my CO map. Since PVI's weren't available then, I'll add them later this evening. The Indianapolis UCC (Marion , Hamilton,  Hendricks,  Johnson,  Madison,  Hancock) ideally is covered by 3 CDs with 2 packed into thsoe counties. The overall state PVI of R+9 would predict that a 3D-6R would be expected to avoid any skew.

muon2-A
There are no county chops except Marion, and there are no township chops in Marion. UCC cover rules are followed with one less pack than the maximum, so the chop score is 1. The erosity is 81, and the range is 0.89% for an inequality of 12. Politically the districts are 2D, 1e, 1r, 5R based on 2008.

()

CD 1: -3498; D+5.8
CD 2: -2685; R+8.2
CD 3: +2667; R+18
CD 4: -88; R+16
CD 5: -1451; R+18
CD 6: +2884; R+14
CD 7: -2859; D+13
CD 8: +2790; R+14
CD 9: +2244; R+12

2008 was an unusually good year for Dems in IN. CD 2 in this map was (e)ven R+0, but now has an uncompetitive PVI R+8. The lean Pub CD also shifts hard R, leaving this plan as a 2D, 7R. Of course when this map would have had to be designed those future shifts would be unknown.

muon2-B
All UCCs are maintained with minimal chops. Marion has two chops and a township microcrop, plus there is one other chop to equalize population and minimize erosity, putting the chop score at 4. The erosity is 66, and the range is 0.53% for an inequality of 8. The 2008 partisan breakdown is 1D, 1d, 1e, 3r, 3R.

()

CD 1: +1050; D+5.7
CD 2: -2252; R+8.1
CD 3: +1547; R+18
CD 4: -2011; R+11
CD 5: -326; R+5.6
CD 6: +173; R+18
CD 7: +841; R+0.7
CD 8: +746; R+16
CD 9: +236; R+11

The partisan shifts from 2008 to 2016 have even more effect on this plan. keep in mind these are shifts compared to the national averages, so that even as the presidential vote was shifting more Pub, the IN vote was shifting even more so. It also shows that though Indy is a huge Dem vote sink, trying to split that to get two CDs could potentially cost Dems a seat.

Here is mine. I am not sure what CD in Muon2's map is an "e," using the DRA PVI numbers. I have the usual 7R and 2D districts. I am also not sure he followed the subunits in Marion County, if those subunits are the former towns plus the inner city of Indianapolis prior to Mayor Lugar doing unigov for Marion County when I was an adolescent. I did follow those subunits, although it required two non contiguous chops. I have a pack penalty for the Indianapolis UCC.

()

()

I'd actually like to make comments if that's okay--I'll be sure to cross-post them in the future. I was under the impression initially that there might be a certain degree of secrecy on account of the PMs.

Once cvparty releases the results I'll go through them; for some of the states I don't remember the exact nuances of ranking which I did, since I forgot to save some of the PMs. :P

Can we extend this a day? I've been insanely busy and just realized the deadline is in an hour and a half. I love making maps of Indiana and I'd feel bummed out if I couldn't participate, haha.

Go for it! I dont think anyone would care if you miss the deadline by like a few hours

you have like 10 hours :p

()

I JUST WROTE A REALLY REALLY LONG WRITE-UP ABOUT THIS BUT IT DELETED UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Either way, here are the new and old PVIs.
OLD:
Indiana 1  D+8   
Indiana 2   R+11
Indiana 3   R+18
Indiana 4   R+17   
Indiana 5   R+9   
Indiana 6   R+18
Indiana 7   D+11
Indiana 8   R+15
Indiana 9   R+13

NEW:
Indiana 1  D+8
Indiana 2  R+12
Indiana 3  R+17
Indiana 4  R+15
Indiana 5  R+17
Indiana 6  R+15
Indiana 7  D+16
Indiana 8  R+16
Indiana 9  R+14

To make it quick, this map accomplishes everything I wanted. Has 2 suburban seats (IN-05, IN-08) instead of the million we have now (IN-04, IN-05, IN-06, IN-09), Has one centralized rust belt seat (IN-06), divides the 8th and 9th by horizontal geography rather than vertical which makes more sense given Southern Indiana's cultural similarity to the South. It also gives the Northern 3 townships of Marion County to IN-07, which makes more sense given urbanization, racial, etc. patterns of the county. There are also only 8 county splits without comprises geographical compaction.

That’s a great map. I love what you did with the Indy metro and the big western district is cool as well. Also glad you put the rural northwestern counties with that district instead of with the region district.

Thank you! And I agree about the Region, it makes a lot more sense to include Michigan City in Lake County's District rather  than the very rural counties south of Lake/Porter. With all do respect, I really don't understand why so many people did that since it means you have a few counties completely disconnected from the Chicago metro in the same district as near-Chicago.

meh, speaking for myself it's apparently part of the Chicago/Gary MSA and I was trying to make the 2nd more competitive

I agree with you on that one. I think our 1st districts are the same too. It makes more sense to put a more urban industrial area in with the Lake county area than it does to stick farm land in with the Chicago suburbs

Packing urban areas together too heavily guarantees a polarized map with fewer meaningful contests. Having some competitive seats means that when there is a swing in the mood of the electorate, the results respond with a changed delegation. If every state in the country only grouped like socioeconomic areas to form districts, I suspect that wave elections would have very little impact on Congress.

Although I like the sound of this idea, it doesn't make as much sense when it's put into place, tbh. How would we do this in Massachusetts? Oklahoma? West Virginia? Unless we gerrymandered these states to oblivion, we won't get even close to representational government. So if we do this in states like Indiana, attempting to create competitive seats for the sake of competitiveness, we are putting ourselves in a position where in order to be fair we have to do this everywhere. So while sure, it's good to have competitive districts, I'm not a huge fan of arbitrarily placing republican voters in a democratic district to spread out the potential democratic wins (or visa versa, obviously.)

I agree that drawing competitive districts solely for that reason generally results in some pretty bad districts. I'm advocating for competitive districts when they are a reasonable option.  If my choice was between two plans that were roughly equal in geographic characteristics, then I would prefer a plan that provides more districts that could change with the mood of the electorate. That's not going to happen in all states all the time.

If you look at my IN plans, both had more competitive districts in 2010 than they do today. That reflects changes in the electorate, but if all were D+10 and R+10 or higher, there would be little chance that they could become competitive over the course of a decade. IN could just as well shifted in ways that made their districts more competitive as in other states, but that it didn't happen doesn't mean it should be excluded at the beginning of the decade.

Ohio plan and Cleveland highlight

()()

Ohio 1 D+6
Ohio 2 R+18
Ohio 3 D+17
Ohio 4 R+4
Ohio 5 R+23
Ohio 6 R+9
Ohio 7 R+3
Ohio 8 R+19
Ohio 9 D+5
Ohio 10 R+4
Ohio 11 D+25
Ohio 12 R+14
Ohio 13 EVEN
Ohio 14 D+5
Ohio 15 R+14
Ohio 16 D+1

Total:
6 R (R>+6)
7 swing (3 D-leaning, 3 R-leaning, 1 even)
3 D (D>+6)

My Ohio Plan.

()
()

That 15th is quite a few CoIs I have to imagine

I may do a second submission and realign the 6th and 15th.

()
1: D+6.3
2: R+17.8
3: R+1.4
4: R+23.0
5: D+4.6
6: R+12.5
7: R+14.3
8: R+18.5
9: D+0.3
10: R+1.8
11: D+32.9
12: R+17.9
13: D+2.2
14: R+4.6
15: D+15.7
16: D+2.8

In 2011 OH held a redistricting competition with strict criteria to judge submitted plans. The criteria weren't the same as the muon rules. For instance they counted county fragments instead of chops, except that is the chop was only the part of a city that crossed the line it wasn't a chop. Whole districts within a county weren't fragments either, even if they included pieces of cities across the line to keep them whole. The competition used different geographical blocks than DRA and scored compactness based on the size of a bounding circle.

So I can't resist submitting that winning plan, slightly reworked to fit DRA and the recommendation that cities and towns not be chopped more than is reasonable. This plan keeps subunits whole, using wards within Columbus and Cleveland where they are chopped. The cities of  Crestline, Dublin, Westerville, Buckeye Lake, Reynoldsburg, Plain City and Middletown are kept intact as if they were all in one county. Using the competition measurements there are 8 fragments in 5 chopped counties.

()

CD 1: +782; D+5.0
CD 2: +2485; R+20
CD 3: +1389; R+2.4
CD 4: -3193; R+18
CD 5: -2730; R+0.8
CD 6: -271; R+13
CD 7: -3363; D+2.9
CD 8: +1756; R+18
CD 9: +1630; R+2.3
CD 10: -1033; R+2.7
CD 11: +2554; D+32; BVAP 46.8% (48% at the block group level, met the standard set by the Urban League for the competition)
CD 12: -419; R+16
CD 13: +2730; R+2.5
CD 14: -419; R+2.9
CD 15: -3269; D+9.7
CD 16: +201; D+1.3

It is interesting to see how the districts here have shifted since the competition. At that time, 8 of those were considered D districts: 1, 5, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 9 was rated a tossup. Also 11 had a PVI of 2.5 or less. Now only 5 rate D. It shows the dangers of trying to guess the partisan composition a decade out if the districts are designed to be competitive.

Here's the detail for the Columbus area illustrating cities that are kept together in a CD and not penalized with a chop/fragment. There are 7 in this view, including two from one city.

()

()

1. R+10 (1889)
2. R+21 (-379)
3. R+4 (-341)
4. R+19 (591)
5. D+6 (110)
6. R+16 (447)
7. R+1 (309)
8. R+13 (-66)
9. D+15 (372)
10. R+5 (-951)
11. D+6 (-282)
12. R+17 (1754)
13. R+3 (-78)
14. D+1 (-285)
15. D+1 (-1336)
16. D+30 (-1772) 49% B 40% W

This is my base plan. Ohio does not have a statewide system of RCOG's, and many counties are members of multiple organizations. Instead, I'm basing my map on the UCC's.

()

UCC allocations:

Cleveland 3
Columbus 2+
Cincinnati 2+
Dayton 1+
Akron 1
Toledo 1
Youngstown 1
Canton 1
Remainder 4-

The four-county Cleveland UCC is entitled to 2.751 districts. The area in the extreme NE corner (Geauga and Ashtabula) has to be added to either Cleveland, Akron, or Youngstown regions. The additional population puts the Cleveland region at 3.021. The small surplus complements the small deficit in the Akron region.

The Cleveland region will be divided into: (1) Medina and Lorain, plus western and southern Cuyahoga; (2) Lake, Ashatbula, and Geagua, plus eastern Cuyahoga; (3) Cleveland and other areas in Cuyahoga. Ideally, this can include the near eastern suburbs, so as to provide a maximum minority population.

The Akron UCC is entitled to 0.975 districts. The deficit will be made up from the Cleveland region. Whether this is from Cuyahoga, Medina, or Geauga depends on what provides the best alignment of the Cleveland districts.

Youngstown UCC and Canton UCC are too large to share a district, so the Youngstown region extends southward picking up small industrial towns along the Ohio River, west of the West Virginia northern panhandle.

The Dayton UCC is slightly greater than one district. Miami is dropped, and Fayette is added based on population balance.

The four-county Cincinnati UCC is entitled to 2.193. Two districts needs three counties, plus most of the fourth. Hamilton has population for 1.113 districts. (1) One district will be in Hamilton; (2) Butler, Warren, remainder of Hamilton, and some of Clermont. (3) The remainder of Clermont will be added to an area eastward along the Ohio River (this counts as one of the four outstate regions).

I had originally extended the Canton district southward parallel to the Youngstown district and to meet up with the Cincinnati river district, but that didn't work out very well.

The four-county Columbus UCC has a population equivalent to 2.290 districts. Delaware fits better with Franklin since it is more a pure suburban area, while Licking and Fairfield have distinct population centers of Newark and Lancaster, respectively. Franklin and Delaware, along with Madison and Union have a population equivalent to 1.989 districts. (1) Columbus and southern and eastern areas of Franklin (1) Northern and western Franklin, including parts of Columbus, and Delaware, Union, and Madison.

Fairfield and Licking will form about half of a district stretching eastward. This counts as another of the four outstate districts.

The Canton region was then extended westward.

This means the two remaining outstate regions will be in the western and north central parts of the state. Ideally, the Toledo area would extend eastward along Lake Erie picking up smaller industrial areas, but this made the two rural areas less compact as they had to stretch into the northwest corner of the state. So instead the Toledo area was shifted to include four rural counties in the northwest.

In a better world, we would only need two chops in Cuyahoga, one in Franklin, one in Hamilton, and one in Clermont to achieve reasonable equality.

---

These are the four Cleveland-Akron seats.

()

OH-1 (Cleveland) Cleveland and eastern suburbs - Cleveland, Euclid, Cleveland Heights)

-0.02%, D+32.53, B47, A 44, H 5, As 2, O 1.

OH-2 (Cleveland Suburban West - Lorain, Elyria, Lakewood)

-0.04%, R+0.15, A 89, B 4, H 4, As 1, O 2.

OH-3 (Cleveland Suburban South and East - Parma, Mentor, Strongsville)

-0.25%, R+4.74, A 92, B 3, As 2, H2, O 1.

OH-11 (Akron - Akron, Cuyahoga Falls)

+0.00%, D+2.58, A 85, B 11, As 2, H 1, O 1.

---

There are three Columbus area seats.

()

Franklin County detail

()

OH-4 (Columbus - Columbus) 97% of the district is in the city of Columbus, Columbus itself is too large for a district, but 91% of the city is in Columbus. The areas of Columbus that are in OH-5 provide contiguity to cities such as Worthington, Upper Arlington, Whitehall, Bexley, and some more populated unincorporated enclaves. Some of the tentacles, such as that between Dublin and Hilliard are trimmed back. Three eviscerated townships: Franklin, Clinton, and Mifflin, parts of two others: Perry, Blendon, and Truro, and two isolated villages: Valleyview and Minerva Park are also included in OH-4.

-0.12%, D+19.77, A 63, B 26, H 5, As 4, O 2.

OH-5 (Columbus Suburbs - Columbus, Grove City. Dublin. Delaware City, Upper Arlington) Roughly 60% of the district is in Franklin, with the remainder in Delaware, Union, and Madison. 94% of the areas in Franlin, that are not in the city of Columbus are in OH-5, where they form about half the district.

-0.13% R+5.19, A 86, B 7, As 4, H 2, O 1.

()

OH-6 (Eastern - Newark, Lancaster, Zanesville) Roughly half the population are included in the suburban counties of Fairfield and Licking. For population balance, Monroe township of Licking is shifted to OH-5, the western tier of townships of Coshocton is added from OH-14, the southern tier of townships of Belmont is added from OH-13, and the southern tier of Hocking is shifted to OH-9.

+0.20%, R + 14.11, A 94, B 3, O 1, H 1, As 1.

---

There are four Cincinnati-Dayton areas seats. The Cincinnati UCC has population for just more than two districts, and the Dayton UCC has population for slightly more than one district. For the Dayton district, Miami was dropped and Fayette was added, because it was adjacent and had about the right population. OH-10 includes the two core Dayton metro counties of Montgomery and Greene, and is about 96% nested within the UCC.

Hamilton has the population of about 1.11 districts. The original intent was to have one district in Hamilton, with the other district comprised of Butler, Warren, the remainder of Hamilton (northeast corner) and some of Clermont. The remainder of the UCC (most of Clermont) was placed in a district with counties along the Ohio River to the east.

A somewhat reasonable map was drawn, but the 3-district region was slightly underpopulated. Four towns from southern Fayette, and the southern tier of Hocking were added to OH-9, which left the 3 Cincinnati districts unbalanced. I couldn't find a reasonable way to adjust the plan, so I added Clinton to Butler-Warren district, and shifted the Hamilton portion to the northwestern part of the county. A small part of Clermont is included for population balance.

Most of Clermont is added to the eastern district.

()

OH-7 (Cincinnati - Cincinnati)

Most of Hamilton county, except the northwest corner.

+0.09%, D+4.89, A 69, B 25, As 2, H 2, O 1.

OH-8 (Northern suburbs - Hamilton, Middletown, Mason)

Butler, Warren, and Clinton counties, remainder of Hamilton, and a smidgen of Clermont (Goshen township, Loveland (Clermont part).

-0.00%, R+17.98, A 86, B 6, As 2, H 1, O 1.

OH-10 (Dayton - Dayton, Kettering, Xenia)

Montgomery, Green, and Fayette. Four townships in Fayette are shifted to ON-9 for population balance.

+0.12%, R+3.96, A 79, B 16, As 2, H 2, O 1.

()

OH-9 (Clermont, Southern Ohio - Athens, Chillicothe, Portsmouth)

Most of Clermont and 12 whole counties to east. Four townships in Fayette, and southern tier of Hocking added for population balance.

-0.08%, R+15.22, A 95, B 2, O 1, H 1, As 1.

---

()

OH-12 (Toledo - Toledo, Bowling Green)

Six counties in extreme northwest Ohio. 79% of the district is in the Toledo UCC. Two townships are shifted in from Ottawa for population balance.

+0.04%, D+3.00, A 81, B 11, H 5, As 1, O 1.

OH-15 (Western - Springfield, Lima, Sidney)

13 counties in western Ohio. Western tier of Putnam shifted in for population balance.

+0.02%, R+21.44, A 93, B 4, H 1, O 1, As 1.

OH-16 (Northern - Mansfield, Findlay, Marion, Sandusky)

13 counties in northern Ohio. Two townships in Ottawa shifted to OH-11, western tier of Putnam shifted to OH-15, western tier of Ashland shifted in from OH-14 for population balance reasons.

+0.04%, R+13.90, A 92, B 4, H 3, O 1, As 1.

---

()

OH-13 (Youngstown - Youngstown, Warren, Steubenville)

6 counties in northeastern Ohio. The linear shape is due to Akron and Canton districts constraining the district to the Pennsylvania and West Virginia line. The southern tier of Belmont townships is shifted to OH-9 for population balance.

-0.02%, R+2.05, A 88, B 8, H 2, O 1, As 1.

OH-14 (Canton - Canton, Massilon, Wooster,)

7 counties in northeastern Ohio. The district is forced south and west by Akron and Younstown districts. The western tier of Ashland townships is shifted to OH-16 for population reasons. While providing a cleaner-looking boundary, aligned with the Lorain/Huron-Erie border to the north, it does come right up to the Ashland city limits. An alternative would take a couple of townships from the southern part of the county. The western tier of Coshocton is shifted to OH-9 for population balance.

+0.13% R+11.00, A 93, B 4, H 1, O 1, As 1.

---

Final Map:

()

---

UCC's

Cleveland 2.751 districts:

OH-1 1.000 (100% in UCC), OH -2 1.000 (100%), OH-3 0.752 (75%)

Columbus 2.289 districts.

OH-4 0.999 (100%), OH-5 0.863 (86%), OH-6 0.427 (43%)

Non-optimal split preserves county boundaries, keeps Fairfield and Licking together.

Cincinnati 2.192 districts.

OH-7 1.001 (100%), OH-8 0.942 (94%), OH-9 0.250 (25%)

Non-optimal split preserves county boundaries better.

Dayton 1.108

OH-10 0.966 (97%), OH-15 0.142 (14%)

Non-optimal split preserves county boundaries.

Akron 0.975

OH-1 0.975 (98%)

Toledo 0.787

OH-12 0.787 (79%)

Youngstown 0.623

OH-13 0.623 (62%)

Canton 0.521

OH-14 0.521 (52%)

---

Large Counties:

Cuyahoga 1.775

OH-1 1,000 (100% in county, includes all of Cleveland), OH-2 0.3

43 (34%), OH-3 0.433 (43%)

Non-optimal packing of Cuyaghoga, due to UCC extending on east and west of county along lake shoreline.

Franklin 1.614 districts

OH-4 0.999 (100%, includes 91% of Columbus), OH-5 0.615 (62%)

Hamilton 1.113

OH-7 1.001 (100%, including all of Cincinnati), OH-8 0.112 (11%)

---

Small County Splits:

Geauga: OH-3 0.105, OH-11 0.025
Clermont: OH-9 0.250, OH-8 0.024
Putnam: OH-16 0.031, OH-15 0.011
Licking: OH-6 0.221, OH-5 0.010
Ashland: OH-14 0.064, OH-16 0.009
Ottawa: OH-16 0.049, OH-12 0.009
Belmont OH-13 0.091, OH-6 0.007
Hocking OH-6 0.034, OH-9 0.007
Fayette OH-10 0.035, OH-9 0.005
Coshocton OH-14 0.048, OH-9 0.003

Total Gerryvictims 0.110 (79628)
Gerry Rate 6.9 (per 1000)

There are several Columbus-area noncontiguous parts.

I am WITHDRAWING my old submission. This is the new submission.

()


PVI is the same on all except districts 6 and 15.

District 6 is now R+11. 15 is now R+12.

I'll use this opportunity to renew my call for comments on all maps from those voting, but even others are welcome to say what they like or not about any of the maps.

I lost the long version, here is the short one.

Ohio has discontiguous townships (unincorporated areas) as a result of annexations by cities removing territory from the townships, or other cities annexing territory. Some cities, Columbus, Dublin, Westerville are independent of any township, and when they annex the territory it is removed from the township. Other cities such as Worthington and Grove City do not remove territory from township, but may remove it from the political authority of the township. In Franklin County many townships have become quite fragmented.

This is an election precinct in Perry Township. The big block contains Brookside Golf Club, and the adjacent Brookside Estates residential area, which is adjacent to Worthington to the east. Four small exclaves to the southeast are adjacent to Worthington. Eight small exclaves to the norhwest are surrounded by Columbus. They are likely unpopulated or have small handfuls of persions.

DRA uses VTD's which are based on election precincts. In a real exercise, I would either argue that political entities should be treated as if they were self-contiguous, or exclude the areas that are surrounded by Columbus.

()

This is a map of Columbus (in Franklin County)

()

This is the map of OH-4.

()

The district considerably cleans up the city limits.

97% of OH-4 is in Columbus. 91% of Columbus is in OH-4 (Columbus is too large for a district).
94% of the non-Columbus part of the county are in OH-5.

The apparent enclaves have very few persons. They are shown because of (1) deficiencies in DRA, or (2) they would be permitted under a practice of treating political entities as self-contiguous.

()

• 1st district has the same boundaries as Single's
• 13 and 14 are drawn such that they're majority-black

1: R+9
2: EVEN
3: R+14
4: R+12
5: D+5
6: R+5
7: D+8
8: D+2
9: D+3
10: R+13
11: R+11
12: D+7
13: D+35
14: D+24

()
()

1. R+9 (-1339)
2. R+9 (1454)
3. R+7 (772)
4. R+6 (1397)
5. D+9 (1099)
6. R+4 (865)
7. R+9 (137)
8. R+10 (197)
9. D+8 (-1186)
10. R+10 (1259)
11. R+1 (-1637)
12. D+27 (-542) 49% B, 37% W, 9% H
13. D+10 (-671)
14. D+30 (-1801) 51% B, 43% W

We've probably looked at more MI maps on this board than those of any other state. Many of the muon rules were refined looking at plans for MI. Urban county clusters gained prominence (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=181065.0) in 2013 as a tool to avoid splits of the Lansing metro counties, which when separated could result in good scores with few chops, but a mess in that area. Later they too were refined with other states.

In 2015 we returned to MI to do a detailed scoring (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=208002.0) of a number of plans. To fascilitate our exercise then I identified the county connections, UCCs (in pink with minimum cover size), subunits and connections in the big 3 Detroit counties, and subunits within Detroit.

[Img=left]https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/256_31_01_15_11_08_35.png[/img]

()

()

In the aforementioned exercise there were a number of plans that had good scores. Unfortunately plans from Torie and traininthedistance were posted on Photobucket and aren't visible anymore. This was my best plan from that exercise, though the partisan caclulations do not reflect the latest PVI values.

Though I can't see traininthedistance's maps, I did build a plan that used some of his ideas on to top of one of my plans. I'll use that as my second submission. I'm quite curious how the currecnt audience sees these plans three years later.

Wisconsin is a tricky state to draw because Democrats are packed in Madison and Milwaukee. I'm really interested in how people approach the Milwaukee area districts

If it pleases the committee I would like to include my map:

()

()

WI-##: Region / Three Largest Cities / Color / Incumbent (Party) / Population Deviation / VAP White / VAP Black / VAP Hispanic / VAP Asian / VAP Native American / VAP Other / PVI (2016 & 2012)

WI-01: Southeast Wisconsin / Kenosha – Racine – Janesville / Blue / Paul Ryan (R) / -2,532 / 84.2% / 5.5% / 7.6% / 1.5% / 0.3% / 0.9% / R+1

WI-02: South Central Wisconsin / Madison – Sun Prairie – Fitchburg / Green / Mark Pocan (D) / +38 / 88.1% / 3.2% / 4.0% / 3.3% / 0.4% / 1.0% / D+17

WI-03: Western Wisconsin / Eau Claire – La Crosse – Onalaska / Ron Kind (D) / -533 / 95% / 0.9% / 1.6% / 1.5% / 0.5% / 1.6% / R+2

WI-04: Milwaukee County / Milwaukee – South Milwaukee – Cudahy / Gwen Moore (D) / +1,647 / 51.5% / 30.4% / 12.9% / 3.2% / 0.6% / 1.5% / D+25

WI-05: Western Milwaukee Metro / Waukesha – West Allis – Wauwatosa / Jim Sensenbrenner (R) / +2,730 / 91.5% / 1.6% / 3.9% / 2% / 0.3% / 0.7% / R+12

WI-06: Northern Lake Michigan Shoreline / Green Bay – Sheboygan – Manitowoc / Mike Gallagher (R) & Glen Grothman (R) / +632 / 91.7% / 1.2% / 3.4% / 2% / 1% / 0.7% / R+10

WI-07: Northern Wisconsin / Wausau – Superior – Stevens Point / Sean Duffy (R) / -1,497 / 94.4% / 0.4% / 1.3% / 1.4% / 1.7% / 0.8% / R+6

WI-08: Lake Winnebago / Appleton – Oshkosh – Fond du Lac / Vacant / -483 / 92.8% / 1% / 2.6 % / 1.4% / 1.5% / 0.7% / R+8

This map only splits one county (Milwaukee twice) and it keeps together all of the Metro areas except Milwaukee Metro and Oconto County from the Green Bay Metro.

()

1. R+3 (Southeast) -868
2. D+18 (Madison) +1261
3. EVEN (Southwest) +199
4. D+25 (Milwaukee) -761
5. R+17 (WOW Counties) +737
6. R+8 (East Central) +615
7. R+6 (Northeast) -1115
8. R+7 (Northwest) -66

Oconto may be in the Census MSA with Green Bay, but its urban population is small and it doesn't qualify as part of a UCC. There are three UCCs in WI: Milwaukee (Milwaukee, Waukesha, Washington, Ozaukee); Appleton (Outagamie, Calumet); Eau Claire (Eau Claire, Chippewa). The Milwaukee UCC can have 2 CDs packed within and a bit left over for a third. Munis matter in WI, so add a detail map for the Milwaukee area with city and town lines turned on to see if any munis are being chopped.

Also, here's a map of inter-county connections if you are trying to minimize erosity.

()

If one desires commentary on these maps, it would help if for each state, they were all collected in one place in a series of posts, or one post. As it is, I find the process so chaotic, that I kind of backed away from it all.

As a general rule, I give a lot of weight to the pack and cover rules, and dislike maps that chop up metro areas with abandon. I saw some maps of Ohio that chopped the Columbus metro area to bits.

I have a Wisconsin map I will be putting here soon.

()

Here's my plan A. Back in 2012 I posted this map as a way to make compact districts out of whole counties (except for Milwaukee). The only chop is for Milwaukee, and there is a chop of the city of Milwaukee cutting off the sw peninsula. We didn't have UCCs in 2012, but this plan does comply with the UCC rules for Milwaukee since 2 CDs are nested entirely within the 4 county region and only one other CD covers the remaining county. However, the plan does chop the Appleton UCC into two parts following the county line.

()

CD 1: (-2794) R+1.0
CD 2: (+38) D+17
CD 3: (-533) R+1.9
CD 4: (+1374) D+22
CD 5: (+901) R+10
CD 6: (+1829) R+11
CD 7: (-671) R+5.8
CD 8: (-142) R+6.8

()
1: D+5
2: D+18
3: D+1
4: D+14
5: R+17
6: R+8
7: R+7
8: R+7
Kenosha and Racine Counties are split because the western parts have a lot more in common with CD-5 than their eastern, urban counterparts (Kenosha and Racine cities)

Here's my plan B. It maintains all the UCCs within the minimum number of districts. The only chop is in Milwaukee and se part of the state is identical to plan A. The erosity is a bit better that A, but ithas somewhat more inequality.

()

CD 1: (-2794) R+1.0
CD 2: (+2414) D+17
CD 3: (-1788) R+3.8
CD 4: (+1374) D+22
CD 5: (+901) R+10
CD 6: (-2317) R+7.1
CD 7: (+1252) R+5.1
CD 8: (+960) R+10

Curious Question Muon2, is it possible to have only a single County split, while also having a District entirely within Milwaukee County?

Probably not, since his one chop is butt ugly,  so if he could arrange the other counties is such a way that that the chop into Milwaukee county was far smaller, but that population shift would not cause a chop elsewhere (the odds of that sized number of folks being moved around, to accomplish a specific goal and not causing a chop elsewhere are low in any event), he would have done so.

FYI the Oneida reservation is in both Brown and Outgamie counties.

It is possible with a chop of the city of Milwaukee creating a bridge between Waukesha and Ozaukee (now that bridge chops are legal in the rules with possible erosity penalties). I thought that was worse than chopping the part of the city that sticks out to the sw. It's also possible if one gives up the pack or cover rules for the Milwaukee UCC, or if point contiguity is permitted.

If I wanted really ugly, I could make the bridge chop include all of the black neighborhoods of Milwaukee. Even though the CD would have all of Waukesha and Ozaukee the PVI would only be R+0.9. The other CD would be entirely within Milwaukee county and have a PVI of D+10.

()
()
1: R+4
2: R+2
3: D+1
4: D+12
5: D+26
6: R+13
7: R+14
8: R+3

Please turn on city/town lines when making a zoom map of the Twin Cities. As someone who grew up there, I can tell you that they matter locally. They also matter if I try to score the submissions.


MN has 3 UCCs to track. The Minneapolis UCC (Hennepin, Ramsey, Dakota, Anoka, Scott, Wright, Carver, Sherbune) has about 4.6 CDs of population. That means the ideal plan from a UCC perspective only covers those counties with 5 CDs while putting 4 completely within that part of the metro. The other two UCCs are much smaller: St Cloud (Stearns, Benton) and Mankato (Blue Earth, Nicollet), and ideal those pairs should not be split.

I think it is very justified to have these 2 Counties split if you want to use the river as a boundary line between 2 Congressional Districts.

Here's my plan A submission, originally posted in 2013. Counties matter in the rural parts of the state and munis matter in the Twin Cities metro. This plan chops no counties except in the metro and chops no munis within a metro county. It gives up a UCC pack point to put St Cloud in the same CD as Sherburne county with includes part of the St Cloud city limits though it is in a different UCC due to suburbs on the east side of the county.

()
()

CD 1: (-1015) R+5.0
CD 2: (+513) R+3.3
CD 3: (+126) D+0.1
CD 4: (-1169) D+12
CD 5: (+632) D+25
CD 6: (+944) R+7.6
CD 7: (+191) R+13
CD 8: (-225) R+3.5

The goal in my plan B, also from 2013, was to separate St Cloud from the Twin Cities. Otherwise this plan also chops no counties outside the TC metro and no munis within a metro county. As discussed with other states this plan includes a CD that exceed 0.5%, but the overall range is less than 1%. Keeping Ramsey intact creates more skew for this plant than my plan A.

()
()

CD 1: (-2899) R+5.6
CD 2: (+3555) R+2.5
CD 3: (-432) R+1.6
CD 4: (-62) D+14
CD 5: (+632) D+25
CD 6: (-16) R+8.6
CD 7: (-2689) R+13
CD 8: (+1908) R+2.7

I'll let you argue that point with BRTD. I think he would confirm how closely linked North Mankato is to Mankato. In any case splitting them counts the same as any other chop.

Muon and Australia swing voter, could you make a 7 seats MN map please? As it seems a likely scenario.

We often engage in projected map-making when new census estimates come out. One of those exercises involving MN with 7 CDs for 2020 was in 2015. My plan is here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=209488.msg4757690#msg4757690). One can't just use DRA since it has 2010 data, and many of the counties and cities are projected to change relative to each other. In 2009 DRA came out with 2008 estimates and perhaps they'll do that again next year with 2018 estimates. I used a spreadsheet with the projections and then used DRA just as a drawing tool.

Certainly

()
()

1. R+6
2. R+1
3. R+2
4. D+14
5. D+26
6. R+10
7. R+12
8. R+3

PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS NOT A SUBMISSION
A rough idea of how 7 seats would have gone, in my opinion, in 2010.

District 1 R+04.94 - 51.0 - 46.6
District 7 R+01.70 - 49.7 - 48.5
District 3 R+06.49 - 46.3 - 51.8
District 4 D+11.83 - 61.2 - 36.9
District 5 D+22.20 - 69.9 - 28.2
District 6 R+12.65 - 46.5 - 51.0
District 7 R+04.71 - 52.6 - 44.9

()

Minnesota Non-Partisan plan 1 (4 MSP districts).

My first non-partisan redistricting plan for Minnesota. Besides Hennepin, only 2 counties are split, Washington and Wright. There are four MSP districts.

District 1 R+05.14 - 50.2 - 47.5
District 2 D+01.98 - 52.6 - 45.5
District 3 R+03.32 - 48.2 - 50.0
District 4 D+13.78 - 62.6 - 35.5
District 5 D+25.28 - 72.7 - 25.4
District 6 R+11.83 - 45.2 - 52.4
District 7 R+13.12 - 45.8 - 51.9
District 8 R+03.30 - 53.8 - 43.8

()
()



Minnesota Non-Partisan plan 2 (5 MSP districts).

My second non-partisan redistricting plan for Minnesota. Besides Hennepin, only 44 counties are split, Wright and Wright. There are five MSP districts.

District 1 R+03.59 - 51.9 - 45.7
District 2 R+00.58 - 50.9 - 47.1
District 3 R+01.54 - 49.6 - 48.6
District 4 D+13.73 - 62.6 - 35.6
District 5 D+24.57 - 72.3 - 25.8
District 6 R+12.42 - 42.9 - 54.9
District 7 R+12.43 - 47.1 - 50.4
District 8 R+03.50 - 53.8 - 43.8

()
()

Just noticed, in plan 2 half of all the districts are Obama-Republican PVI

I feel like putting Eden Prairie and St. Cloud in one district would cause rioting!

Personally I think the current Minnesota map is near perfect.

Muh CounTIes

Where are the results for past states?

Virginia thread, second (?) post

If you lived in one of those MN counties, particularly the smaller ones, I think you would have a different attitude. On Solid's list, I've lived in two, plus one not on the list. They mattered to the residents, sometimes more than the municipality.

Do counties matter so little in FL? Are there no shared services at the county level?

That was why I came up with a plan B back then. :)

Yes, your Plan B is much more acceptable :)  To reiterate Muon's point, counties do matter quite a bit in Minnesota, including around the Cities.  Although I know the objective metrics rightly can't force it, folks around the Cities would breathe a lot easier if (1) Hennepin only had two districts (Minneapolis vs. suburbs + random other suburban county bits) and (2) Ramsay was kept whole... although AustralianSwingVoter's Map 1 split isn't a bad split if you must go three ways (save for the random Savage jaunt in District 2).

True but that's not true for Anoka and Washington. Especially Anoka where there's no reason whatsoever for Nowthen and Columbia Heights to be in the same district.

It's interesting to note that when Ramsey stays together it packs the Dems and makes the remaining suburban seats more Pub. It shows that the county can be more important than partisan fairness. The Hennepin-Ramsey rivalry reflected the suburban counterpart of the Minneapolis-St Paul rivalry, which is a real thing, not to mention the library and park services provided by the counties to areas outside of Mpls and St Paul proper (at least when I was living there).

I don't think I would. You say they "matter" over and over again, but what does that mean? In what sense? And how does that translate to "these people CANNOT be in different congressional districts"
I don't live in Florida either...

My bad, I was going off of your avatar.

I'm saying that people identify with their counties, and those shared services create a community of interest. I'm not saying that you can't split them, but that you should split them as little as possible absent other compelling reasons. States with neutral redistricting laws also recognize counties as entities that should be preserved intact to the extent possible.

In terms of salience in one's brain, I do think rural counties matter a lot more than urban ones. Heck even the little town[ships] matter. In Columbia County people make a fairly big deal as to what town they live in. Part of that might be that everybody knows personally the government officials in those towns.

That's true.  But, in an alternate universe, Pubs could also try to pack Minneapolis and St. Paul into one district, which would be absolute anathema to most everyone (although it would also push the new MN-03 to the left, and possibly whatever Ramsay-based district depending which direction it extended in).  Local preferences giveth and taketh away! :)

()
I took a different approach by making the 2nd centered around the urban eastern cities
1: R+4
2: D+5
3: D+1
4: R+14

Does Iowa permit splitting counties?  What would it be if Delaware was fully in the 2nd?

This map does seem vastly superior to the current map.

The 2nd would be overpopulated by 7000. You could swap Delaware for Louisa for whole counties, but I don't think Delaware being in 2 different districts is a big deal

I don't think it's a big deal either, but I believe Iowa does

It's not against the rules here, but IA does not permit county splits for CDs. It's interesting that IA, WV, and AR (no splits before 2010) are all up at once, all states that avoided county splits can do so reasonably.

Polk+Dallas make up the only UCC in IA.

My dad's family is from Cedar Rapids, and as someone with roots there, Cedar Rapids fits better with Waterloo than with the Quad Cities on the Mississippi.

WI:
singletx>Gass>tim>muon2-A>cvparty>muon2-B

I rejected maps that split the Oneida reservation. I also rejected maps which didn't have a Milwaukee county-only district as that is a clear community of interest.

()

1. R+2
2. D+5
3. EVEN
4. R+14

Since IA is generally considered to be the gold standard for fair redistricting, it seems only right that one of the submissions should be the official plan. I'll make that my submission. There are no split counties, the UCC is intact, and the population range is a mere 76 or 0.01%.

()

CD 1: (-41) D+1.0
CD 2: (+35) D+0.7
CD 3: (+23) R+1.4
CD 4: (-18) R+11

no trolling pls

you are the troll.

Iowa Non-Partisan plan.

My nonpartisan redistricting plan for Iowa keeps De Moines within one district and the eastern cities within another.

District 1 D+05.43 - 60.6 - 37.9
District 2 R+04.15 - 55.0 - 43.2
District 3 D+01.33 - 54.0 - 44.1
District 4 R+14.06 - 45.6 - 52.8

()

Nebraska Non-Partisan plan.

My nonpartisan redistricting plan for Nebraska splits only one county.

District 1 R+10.71 - 45.1 - 53.3
District 2 R+02.96 - 50.5 - 48.2
District 3 R+28.23 - 29.7 - 68.6

()

()

1. R+11 (+10)
2. R+3 (+109)
3. R+28 (-118)

Hmm, we have 2 plans that respect the integrity of County boundaries, and 2 plans that ignore the integrity of County boundaries.

the world ain't gonna end if a county's in two different congressional districts

There is no reason not to have a whole County plan if it can be done without high deviation, or really ugly shapes.

Such is in fact possible to do in Nebraska, so it should be required.

Dude just chill. There’s a reason Nebraska is drawn as it is

This debate is why we started looking at a scoring UCC integrity. The Omaha UCC is Douglas and Sarpy and is larger than one CD. If the UCC is kept whole there is a county chop. If counties are kept whole there is a penalty for the UCC chop. The chop score is the same either way. By recognizing the metro area as a community of interest like counties it equalizes the two plans.

BTW, if you really wanted a whole county plan with low deviations (like IA), this one has deviations of -34, +59 and -24. It does chop the UCC of course.

()

If you didn't care about compactness you can get the deviations down to -8, +12 and -3. The shape of the CDs in this plan show why erosity is an important measure to consider beyond the population with whole counties.

()

However, the advantage of maintaining the UCC is that it tends to produce less erose plans as seen in the two submissions, especially singletxguyforfun. What I can't tell is whether either of the UCC plans preserves the municipal boundaries, since there is no detail. If they don't then they would have more chops than the whole county plans.

I think there is a misplaced precinct. I get that the deviation for your CD 3 is +1962.

If I'm guessing correctly at your Sarpy chop, you preserve city lines, but chop two townships.

I would note that if you wanted to reduce erosity by two points with a slight increase in inequality (though no change in the inequality score) you could swap the following counties.

CD 1 to CD 3: Dixon, Dakota, Thurston, Stanton, Colfax, Cuming, Burt
CD 3 to CD 1: Saline, Jefferson, York, Fillmore, Thayer, Hamilton, Clay, Nuckolls

The deviations would be +149, +87, -235

PLAN A
()
featuring a Dem-favored Kansas River-centered district
1: D+3
2: R+15
3: R+14
4: R+26


PLAN B
()
1: R+4
2: R+10
3: R+14
4: R+26

()
1: R+17
2: R+23
3: R+24
4: R+28
5: R+5

Kansas Non-Partisan plan.

My nonpartisan redistricting plan for Kansas splits only one county.

District 1 R+25.56 - 30.1 - 68.1
District 2 R+09.19 - 45.8 - 52.2
District 3 R+03.64 - 48.8 - 49.9
District 4 R+14.92 - 39.9 - 58.3

()

Oklahoma Non-Partisan plan.

My nonpartisan redistricting plan for Oklahoma splits only two counties.

District 1 R+16.96 - 36.1 - 63.9
District 2 R+23.58 - 34.2 - 65.8
District 3 R+25.32 - 29.3 - 70.7
District 4 R+23.25 - 31.0 - 69.0
District 5 R+09.10 - 41.0 - 59.0

()

I have been following the Fair redistricting series for some times now and I must admit I m always fond of your maps

I believe I once drew this exact map. It's the BEST! :)

Thank you for your most kind comments.

()
1: D+22
2: R+3
3: R+16
4: R+25
5: D+5
6: R+14
7: R+23
8: R+21

Here is my Missouri effort. It has three county chops, with one macro-chop in St. Louis County.  It has no pack or cover penalties for multi county metro areas. The Pub Skew is 1.

Addendum. I modified the chop lines in Jefferson County. By doing that I avoided under the Muon2 rules an erosity penalty point, by having the county seat (Hillsboro) sit in MO-02 rather than MO-03, which avoided three road cuts from Hillosboro to the county seats of the two counties to the south, and St. Louis County to the north (which would have to leave MO-03, and go through MO-02 to get to MO-08, or MO-01, where the county seat of St. Louis County, Clayton, sits), while generating two road cuts to the county to the SW and to Franklin County to the west, for a net of one less road cut and penalty point. Another trick is that the population needed by MO-03 is about 35,000, which is a tad less than a macro-chop. So you want the chop to be in Jefferson County, rather than St. Louis County, which is already macro-chopped, and any new CD chopping into that county is also a macro-chop, no matter how small. Macro-chops generate a lot more erosity penalty points, because road cuts are counted for each sub-jurisdiction, typically generating multiple road cuts and penalty points.

So the Muon2 rules tend to force this kind of map, to minimize the erosity penalty points, and avoid cover and pack penalties. The excess population of the St. Louis metro area (in addition to the two CD's already nested in it) needs to be all in one CD (here MO-03), as is true with the Kansas City metro area, which forces, all things being otherwise equal, the CD that contains Kansas City to take in the entirety of the county to the south, to avoid that county, or part of it, being in a third CD, with the second CD taking in the two counties to the north.

()

()
 ()
 ()

Missouri Non-Partisan plan.

My nonpartisan redistricting plan for Missouri splits only two counties. McCain won the 2nd district by only 289 votes.

District 1 D+27.88 - 79.5 - 19.6 - 49.3 African American
District 2 R+06.97 - 49.5 - 49.5
District 3 R+17.41 - 43.5 - 55.3
District 4 R+17.48 - 41.6 - 56.9
District 5 D+07.20 - 61.4 - 37.4
District 6 R+16.82 - 43.3 - 55.1
District 7 R+23.25 - 35.3 - 63.3
District 8 R+26.28 - 35.6 - 62.8

()
()

()

1st (St. Louis): D+23.33. White 49.8%
2nd (Overland): R+4.18. White 81.5%
3rd (Columbia): R+14.53. White 89.1%
4th (Jefferson City): R+27.04. White 91.9%
5th (Kansas City): D+7.27. White 64.7%
6th (Liberty): R+16.46. White 89.5%
7th (Springfield): R+21.67. White 89.4%
8th (Hillsboro): R+21.98. White 92.0%

When are we moving onto Illinois?

now i guess

This is my busy work season, so I had to drop off. However, I put IL together during my spring break and posted it elsewhere, so I'll put it in as my submission.

Here is the Chicagoland detail.


And here is how it fits into the whole state.


Here are the deets by CD:

CD 1: (-2611); D+30; BVAP 53.9%
CD 2: (-2880); D+28; BVAP 52.3%
CD 3: (-2433); D+27; HVAP 59.6% (exceeds the standards set by the 7th circuit for the VRA)
CD 4: (-1606); D+33; BVAP 42.5%
CD 5: (-264); D+22; HVAP 36.8%
CD 6: (+706); D+27
CD 7: (+236); D+15
CD 8: (+455); D+3.4
CD 9: (+2684); D+2.8
CD 10: (+1404); R+0.7
CD 11: (-2490); D+1.0
CD 12: (-2122); D+0.3
CD 13: (+1299); R+3.7
CD 14: (+2267); R+5.8
CD 15: (+3331); R+9.2
CD 16: (+1098); R+6.9
CD 17: (+478); R+5.5
CD 18: (+446); R+20

Illinois Non-Partisan plan.

My non-partisan redistricting plan for Illinois doubles the number Hispanic VRA districts, while maintaining the number of African American VRA districts. Only 4 counties are split, of which only 2 were not required.

District 1 D+28.70 - 81.6 - 17.8 - 51.3 African American
District 2 D+28.03 - 79.7 - 19.6 - 51.0 African American
District 3 D+21.30 - 70.1 - 28.6 - 60.6 Hispanic
District 4 D+29.76 - 78.9 - 19.7 - 50.4 Hispanic
District 5 D+26.90 - 76.3 - 22.5
District 6 D+04.90 - 56.5 - 42.2
District 7 D+36.71 - 88.2 - 11.0 - 50.7 African American
District 8 D+06.20 - 59.1 - 39.7
District 9 D+03.72 - 56.2 - 42.5
District 10 D+06.26 - 59.5 - 39.4
District 11 D+01.36 - 55.7 - 43.1
District 12 R+05.47 - 54.7 - 43.8
District 13 R+11.85 - 48.2 - 50.2
District 14 R+05.23 - 51.4 - 47.2
District 15 R+19.12 - 44.6 - 53.6
District 16 R+04.60 - 53.1 - 45.1
District 17 R+03.52 - 54.0 - 44.5
District 18 R+06.94 - 50.1 - 48.2

()
()

ASV - are your racial/ethnic numbers population or voting age population (VAP)? They look like the former which are not used for VRA purposes. The VRA relies on the citizen VAP, which is close to the VAP for the black population. For Hispanics the non-citizen population is too high to use VAP directly. The courts have established 59.2% HVAP as sufficient to meet the VRA.


I know that the exercise does not require VRA compliance, but we should probably quote the right stats.

I don't use the VAP solely because if I use it it takes even longer to load a state, and given that I use a 2012 MacBook Air you can probably imagine how glacial the loading already is.

Here's what the comparison between pop and VAP is for my Cook CDs:


Since your CDs largely overlap mine, it's probably a good assumption that the differences between the pop and VAP will be similar in your plan.


Only one of the three black CDs is probably over 50% BVAP, though given Chicago's politics all three would probably elect the choice of the black population. However, if the Dems didn't like the map they would probably challenge the lack of at least 2 CDs over 50% in a VRA case.

The 59.2% HVAP threshold for Cook Hispanic CDs is based on the performance of the current CD-4, considering the lack of HCVAP numbers. Since it successfully has elected Gutierrez over the last 20 years it is considered to have demonstrated the ability to elect the candidate of choice. However, Chicago has a lot of recent history of white candidates defeating Latinos in state and local districts with even higher HVAP. Both of your Hispanic CDs would likely be won by white candidates, though the Latinos would certainly be an important voting bloc.

()
()
1: R+3
2: R+22
3: R+13
4: R+4
5: R+1
6: R+8
7: R+3
8: D+6
9: D+3
10: D+5
11: EVEN
12: D+29
13: D+3
14: D+30
15: D+11
16: D+44
17: D+36
18: D+31