US House Redistricting: Michigan

[dpmapper]

Torie, I count three CDs in Oakland on that map.  2 splits of Oakland, 1 in Macomb, 3 in Wayne, and 1 in Washtenaw = 7.  On my map I had 1-1-3-0 (plus one in Monroe) for 6. 

It looks like you are relying on the near equality of population for your CD 6. I get a value that is over by 299 persons. That isn't going to be exact enough for MI, so you will need at least one additional county split somewhere.

Ah, OK.  Didn't realize it needed to be that close.  We'll need 13 splits for my map, then (I had CDs 1 + 2 in a set of whole counties as well, but that was only good to within 100 or so.) 

[Torie]

Torie, I count three CDs in Oakland on that map.  2 splits of Oakland, 1 in Macomb, 3 in Wayne, and 1 in Washtenaw = 7.  On my map I had 1-1-3-0 (plus one in Monroe) for 6.  

It looks like you are relying on the near equality of population for your CD 6. I get a value that is over by 299 persons. That isn't going to be exact enough for MI, so you will need at least one additional county split somewhere.

Ah, OK.  Didn't realize it needed to be that close.  We'll need 13 splits for my map, then (I had CDs 1 + 2 in a set of whole counties as well, but that was only good to within 100 or so.)  

Oh, I see your point. MI-13 gets black enough from Macomb, that MI-14 does not need to cross into Oakland anymore. In any event, if both my plans are illegal, then the Macomb chop needs to be from the north, as per my old plan, and Dingell takes most of Wastenaw. Your plan of course is totally unacceptable to the Pubbies. You created a Dem CD in Oakland!  That ain't happening. Yes, a north Macomb chop still results in an extra chop in the five county region, but now the Dems are reduced to arguing that yes, one black CD needs to leave Wayne, but the chop has to be into Macomb rather than Oakland, because that results in one less chop, because you get a "twofer" for going into Macomb, at once taking up Macomb's excess population and making both CD's black at the same time. That is a pretty weak argument. The court is really micromanaging the map now.

I guess the "dp" in dpmapper stands for "Democrat Plan" or Democrat Planner" or Democratic Planner" doesn't it?  You are a pretty clever little adversary, I must admit. Well it is better to know now, rather than later. See you in court pal!  

In any event, if the law is that strict, then just why was the existing map deemed legal, with its quad chop of Oakland? MI-12 could have been shoved into Macomb, and MI-09 take in the lost territory from MI-12 in Oakland, and then MI-08 takes more territory in Oakland, and MI-08 has its population equalizing chop off to the east somewhere, just like now, but obviously somewhere to the east and south of where it is under the 2000 map.

Indeed, MI-11 could have been also ejected MI-08 from Oakland as well (to get your bichop), and that would result in two less chops assuming that did not result in a second chop by MI-08 elsewhere (which is the question that needs to be resolved with my various alternatives: just how does minimizing the chops in the Detroit area play vis a vis chops elsewhere?  I think entirely into Oakland, taking the territory lost by MI-12 and MI-08. I guess if the 2000 map was litigated, the court decisions should be read, and that needs to be made a priority. Maybe that will give guidance, or maybe not. Or maybe the prior map was not litigated. 

Anyway, excellent caution dmapper, and the pubs will need a plan C I guess, as a backup to its first two plans if they end up biting the legal dust.

[dpmapper]

The current map has 4 districts in Wayne and Oakland (3 chops each) plus 1 chop in each of Macomb, Washtenaw, Saginaw, Bay, Shiawasee, Allegan, Calhoun, and Kent, for a total of 14, for 15 districts.  This is normal - in general with x districts, one will need x-1 chops unless a numerical miracle occurs.   So with one fewer district this go-round, the norm should be 13 chops. 

I realize the GOP won't want a Dem district in Oakland, but how do you avoid that, while also protecting McCotter?  If he goes into Oakland, the black district can't, and vice versa.  Would a map like this be at all workable? 



Livingston+ half of Oakland, and Lapeer + half of Oakland, might be lean GOP districts (assuming you do the division of Oakland correctly which I may not have)... I think?  One of the black districts takes the leftover bits in Southfield.  Together the two black districts take McCotter's worst areas (Redford, Wayne, parts of Westland) and Dingell's best areas (particularly Inkster, Taylor, Romulus, and Dearborn Heights) leaving them together with the whitest parts of Wayne, plus about 100K population from either Washtenaw or Monroe (more likely the latter).  I notice that Dingell only won his Wayne County portion by 12K votes in 2010, and lost Monroe, whereas McCotter won his Wayne County portion by 21K votes in 2010 (granted, it was an easy race this go-around).  I doubt McCotter likes the plan, but is this a toss-up district?  It's hard for me to tell. 

The GOP then concedes the two black districts, plus an Ann Arbor-Lansing district, plus the Flint-Saginaw district (which should ease any burdens on the other districts - Camp will be much happier not having to worry about Saginaw, for instance). 

[Torie]

Oh, one other thought. If the Michigan Supremes do micromanage, and demand the Macomb chop "twofer," the Pubbies are going to change the redistricting law. They simply will not tolerate a Dem CD being drawn in Oakland County - period! Someone might let the Supremes know that in advance.

As to the above map, it's interesting, but your Livingston-Oakland CD looks like but lean GOP to me. Pontiac + West Bloomfield + Farmington is just a bit too many Dems. The gerry in short is rather hideously inefficient, with Pubbie points being lost all over the place.

The green CD is lean Dem or soft safe Dem (the only Pubbie areas, and they are soft Pubbie, is the green zone north of Westland, to wit Livonia, and a grab bag of burbs in the northwest corner of Wayne, plus Monroe is soft Pubbie. The balance is heavily Dem (less so in 2010, but that was a GOP wave number, and we don't draw CD's based on wave mathematics). So, you give the  Dems 4 CD's, plus close to a 5th, plus a marginal CD in Macomb, plus another marginal or but lean CD in Livingston-Oakland. That ain't happening. The Dems to get that will have to get it from the Supremes, and somehow prevent the GOP from changing the law. Maybe they can leave the state like the Dems in Wisconsin and Indiana did. Does Michigan have a supra majority quorum law?  

Ah this twofer thingy is an evil attempt to deny giving the Pubbies one extra chop under the guise of the  VRA. It's not fair!

[krazen1211]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-ap-mi-ushouse-knollenbe,0,3040370.story


TROY, Mich.— Republican state Rep. Marty Knollenberg says he's running for Congress in a district now held by Gary Peters, who unseated Knollenberg's father.



Sigh, this is not looking that great. It's much safer to try to condense the Democrats to 5 (giving Sander Levin all the Dem trending areas in Macomb/Oakland that don't fit elsewhere), rather than 4 (eliminating Levin and converting Peters's district into a Republican one)

[dpmapper]

I guess the "dp" in dpmapper stands for "Democrat Plan" or Democrat Planner" or Democratic Planner" doesn't it?  You are a pretty clever little adversary, I must admit. Well it is better to know now, rather than later. See you in court pal!  

Heh.  Not at all, I'm pretty conservative.  I'm just trying to game out what the scenarios are.  It's been fun arguing with you!   

[dpmapper]

I got it!  Having a black district taking Southfield cuts off McCotter from Oakland, but Dingell taking Ann Arbor cuts off McCotter from going south to Monroe.  The solution: the black district takes Ann Arbor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Black districts are at 51.4 and 51.5 VAP black.  The green district coming into Oakland from the north has all of the thumb counties as well, except for St. Clair.  Miller should be safe, as should the new 11th.  Only drawback is that Walberg and McCotter are in the same (green) district.  Is this a dealbreaker?  Can't be: Walberg just moves a few miles north into his new seat. 

[minionofmidas]

Wait... does this still fulfill all the other requirements?

[dpmapper]

Wait... does this still fulfill all the other requirements?

7 districts down, 7 splits made.  I'm fine there.  The black percentages are over 50.  You can't see the township lines but I've only split one town between each pair of districts (Detroit between the two black districts and Dingell's, Westland between Dingell and the 11th, one in Macomb, and Farmington Hills and Novi between the bronze district and the other two Oakland districts, respectively. 

The only question is, now that I've used the thumb plus Hillsdale and Lenawee to gain an extra district in the Detroit area, is there enough left to deal with whatever is leftover from the Flint pack?  I'm not sure; I think one of them might have to be swingy.  But I think I'm done for the time being.  Someone can take over from here. 

[Torie]

Wait... does this still fulfill all the other requirements?

7 districts down, 7 splits made.  I'm fine there.  The black percentages are over 50.  You can't see the township lines but I've only split one town between each pair of districts (Detroit between the two black districts and Dingell's, Westland between Dingell and the 11th, one in Macomb, and Farmington Hills and Novi between the bronze district and the other two Oakland districts, respectively.  

The only question is, now that I've used the thumb plus Hillsdale and Lenawee to gain an extra district in the Detroit area, is there enough left to deal with whatever is leftover from the Flint pack?  I'm not sure; I think one of them might have to be swingy.  But I think I'm done for the time being.  Someone can take over from here.  

Yes, I would like to see the northern part of your map please. Great job! You figured out the larger formula first, which is necessary to really know what you are doing. There are still legal arguments to be made (in part because of this from the statute: "(ii) Congressional district lines shall break as few county boundaries as is reasonably possible".), but one part of the game is surely to see what is possible if you meet your # of CD-s - 1 chop formula.

[dpmapper]

So I lied and decided to finish the job.  Here's the best I can do:





CD-02 takes Mt. Pleasant from Camp's district in red, which expands into Bay City and part of the thumb.  CD-03 (purple) takes Dem parts of Calhoun County (including Mark Schauer's home) away from Walberg, who otherwise would be in trouble since a finger goes up to Saginaw.  I think Upton should be OK in the southwest; his district is probably about the same in partisan balance.  If not, you could try to swap areas within Kent County with Amash, but there's not a lot of room to maneuver.  

CD-01 (blue) and CD-04 (red) can also swap some territory if it is necessary to balance their strength.  

I tried to put Kildee into Lansing, Flint, and Saginaw simultaneously, but doing so requires his district to be involved in 3 county cuts, which severely hamstrings one's options in designing the rest of the map (eg, a Holland-Saginaw district is then necessary) and in order to be legal some of the districts end up a bit too marginal.  

Here's Detroit:



I gave Rogers his area around Lansing back, since they love him there.  Also, I figured the light blue district could stand to come in a little bit more from the thumb.  I don't know what the partisan balance is but you can swap towns between the two if Rogers is too strong, for instance.  McCotter has options within Wayne County, depending on whether he'd prefer Westland/Garden City from his old district, or some slightly less Dem towns in SE Wayne County.  ETA: Ah, he definitely wants Grosse Ile!  So swap that in for more of Westland...

Tan district is 51% black VAP, bronze is 52.2%.  Neither of them ventures into Wayne County outside of Detroit (with one small exception of Northville, which might be necessary in order to not split the town; if it's not, McCotter gets a few hundredths of a percent back).  

[muon2]

Here's Detroit:



I gave Rogers his area around Lansing back, since they love him there.  Also, I figured the light blue district could stand to come in a little bit more from the thumb.  I don't know what the partisan balance is but you can swap towns between the two if Rogers is too strong, for instance.  McCotter has options within Wayne County, depending on whether he'd prefer Westland/Garden City from his old district, or some slightly less Dem towns in SE Wayne County.  ETA: Ah, he definitely wants Grosse Ile!  So swap that in for more of Westland...

Tan district is 51% black VAP, bronze is 52.2%.  Neither of them ventures into Wayne County outside of Detroit (with one small exception of Northville, which might be necessary in order to not split the town; if it's not, McCotter gets a few hundredths of a percent back).  

This has a three-way split of Detroit. That's unnecessary, so it won't work.

[muon2]

Wait... does this still fulfill all the other requirements?

7 districts down, 7 splits made.  I'm fine there.  The black percentages are over 50.  You can't see the township lines but I've only split one town between each pair of districts (Detroit between the two black districts and Dingell's, Westland between Dingell and the 11th, one in Macomb, and Farmington Hills and Novi between the bronze district and the other two Oakland districts, respectively.  

The only question is, now that I've used the thumb plus Hillsdale and Lenawee to gain an extra district in the Detroit area, is there enough left to deal with whatever is leftover from the Flint pack?  I'm not sure; I think one of them might have to be swingy.  But I think I'm done for the time being.  Someone can take over from here.  

Yes, I would like to see the northern part of your map please. Great job! You figured out the larger formula first, which is necessary to really know what you are doing. There are still legal arguments to be made (in part because of this from the statute: "(ii) Congressional district lines shall break as few county boundaries as is reasonably possible".), but one part of the game is surely to see what is possible if you meet your # of CD-s - 1 chop formula.

I'm not sure if the CD's -1 is the right formula. The redistricting statutes say

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's different than saying split the fewest number of counties.

A district wholly contained within one county does not split a county boundary.

The current map has 4 districts in Wayne and Oakland (3 chops each) plus 1 chop in each of Macomb, Washtenaw, Saginaw, Bay, Shiawasee, Allegan, Calhoun, and Kent, for a total of 14, for 15 districts.  This is normal - in general with x districts, one will need x-1 chops unless a numerical miracle occurs.   So with one fewer district this go-round, the norm should be 13 chops. 

According to the legislation that enacted the 2001 map, there were 11 county splits. Here's the language from within that statute:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Counting county splits in that map according to the above rules I get single splits in Bay, Saginaw, Kent, Allegan, Shiawassee, Calhoun, Washtenaw, and Macomb. That leaves three splits to get to 11, so the interpretation is that the current map counts two splits in Oakland and one in Wayne. Thus the the whole districts in those counties do not count as splits.

More importantly, this all may be moot for the current cycle, as may be the 1999 redistricting rules that are in my earlier link. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in Leroux v Secretary of State (2002) that the statutory provisions for congressional districts cannot bind a future legislature.

Following that decision, the current legislature could adopt any interpretation of the Apol standards they wished. They could even replace them with new standards that defined their map. I suspect that tradition would tend to hold them to some interpretation of the Apol standards, but as we see in AR, tradition can go away quickly in the face of political reality.

[dpmapper]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is necessary.  First, it's necessary for Dingell to take the Pointes, lest the minority percentages drop too much.  Second, it's necessary because there isn't enough room in the two black districts to take all of Detroit anyhow.  Finally, and probably most importantly, it's necessary because there are 4 districts in Wayne, so there must be 3 splits somewhere.  My map puts two splits in Detroit and one in Westland; does that differ any from having one split in Dearborn, one in Westland, and one in Detroit? 

[dpmapper]

According to the legislation that enacted the 2001 map, there were 11 county splits. Here's the language from within that statute:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Counting county splits in that map according to the above rules I get single splits in Bay, Saginaw, Kent, Allegan, Shiawassee, Calhoun, Washtenaw, and Macomb. That leaves three splits to get to 11, so the interpretation is that the current map counts two splits in Oakland and one in Wayne. Thus the the whole districts in those counties do not count as splits.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this seems like an odd way to count splits.  If there are 3 counties in a state that go in a line, A next to B next to C, with populations 20-110-20 in that order, and there are to be three districts, you can do it two ways:

PLAN 1: 20 from A, 30 from B; 50 from B; 30 from B, 20 from C
PLAN 2: two districts entirely within B, one containing A, C, and a 10-person bridge from B

Are you telling me that PLAN 2 has no splits, whereas PLAN 1 does?  My method of counting splits makes much more sense.  

ETA: I should add that you can put the light blue district entirely within Oakland if you want, and give Rogers the two thumb counties in exchange, with little change in partisan balance (put Pontiac+W. Bloomfield in Rogers's district).  But it makes for an uglier map, in my opinion - a district from Lansing to Lake Huron? 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Heh.  All our work for nothing, if so.    (But if you can get close to optimal without having to litigate this matter, so much the better, right?)  

[Verily]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this seems like an odd way to count splits.  If there are 3 counties in a state that go in a line, A next to B next to C, with populations 20-110-20 in that order, and there are to be three districts, you can do it two ways:

PLAN 1: 20 from A, 30 from B; 50 from B; 30 from B, 20 from C
PLAN 2: two districts entirely within B, one containing A, C, and a 10-person bridge from B

Are you telling me that PLAN 2 has no splits, whereas PLAN 1 does?  My method of counting splits makes much more sense.  

No, Plan 2 would still have 2 splits.

The difference comes up in the context of somewhere like Macomb County. You could have one district wholly in Macomb County and another district partly in Macomb County, or you could have two districts partly in Macomb County (or more than two, but let's assume those are the only options).

Under the county-splits interpretation, both maps have one county split, as Macomb County is split across two districts on both maps. However, under the county-line-crosses interpretation, as mandated by the statute, the first map has one county line cross while the second map has two county line crosses. (Of course, you might avoid a county line cross elsewhere on the second map, so it's not so simple, but you get the idea.)

[muon2]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this seems like an odd way to count splits.  If there are 3 counties in a state that go in a line, A next to B next to C, with populations 20-110-20 in that order, and there are to be three districts, you can do it two ways:

PLAN 1: 20 from A, 30 from B; 50 from B; 30 from B, 20 from C
PLAN 2: two districts entirely within B, one containing A, C, and a 10-person bridge from B

Are you telling me that PLAN 2 has no splits, whereas PLAN 1 does?  My method of counting splits makes much more sense.  

No, Plan 2 would still have 2 splits.

The difference comes up in the context of somewhere like Macomb County. You could have one district wholly in Macomb County and another district partly in Macomb County, or you could have two districts partly in Macomb County (or more than two, but let's assume those are the only options).

Under the county-splits interpretation, both maps have one county split, as Macomb County is split across two districts on both maps. However, under the county-line-crosses interpretation, as mandated by the statute, the first map has one county line cross while the second map has two county line crosses. (Of course, you might avoid a county line cross elsewhere on the second map, so it's not so simple, but you get the idea.)

The way I read their description and see how it is applied, both plans have one split.

In plan 1 there is a whole district within the county, which is like the current example of Oakland. The wholly contained district doesn't count in their total, and in plan 1 the remainder is split once. That equals one split.

In plan 2 there are two whole districts within the county, which is like the current example of Wayne. The current example of Wayne does have one split of the remainder, so I can't apply it's example too far, but I can note that if the remainder didn't count as one split, the current map could have been improved. For example, there is a split formed between CD 10 and 12 in Macomb. It would have been possible to place a whole district within Macomb and use the remainder for just one district. If that remainder did not count as a split, then the map could have been reduced to 10 county splits. Since this was not done, I conclude that the mappers would have counted Macomb as one split either way. Thus, the single fragment in plan 2 county B counts as one split.

This method of counting favors putting whole districts in counties that need to be split more than once, but does not favor a whole district in a county where the other fragment remains intact. It also does not provide any advantage to a three-way split over two two-way splits which occurs in some methods of counting fragments.

[dpmapper]

OK, I guess you're saying that
"(i) Breaking a county line means assigning part of the population of a county to 1 or more counties in the formation of a district."
means, putting part of a county with a district that contains other counties.  (I couldn't figure out what it meant to "assign part of a county to other counties"...)

But if that's so, doesn't Oakland currently have 3 breaks, and Wayne 2?  

I still don't know what "including a district from 2 geographically-separate areas" means, though.  

I also don't understand how dividing Wayne into 2 whole districts plus two partial districts can constitute the same number of splits (1) as dividing Wayne into 2 whole districts plus one partial would. 

[muon2]

OK, I guess you're saying that
"(i) Breaking a county line means assigning part of the population of a county to 1 or more counties in the formation of a district."
means, putting part of a county with a district that contains other counties.  (I couldn't figure out what it meant to "assign part of a county to other counties"...)

But if that's so, doesn't Oakland currently have 3 breaks, and Wayne 2?  

I still don't know what "including a district from 2 geographically-separate areas" means, though.  

I also don't understand how dividing Wayne into 2 whole districts plus two partial districts can constitute the same number of splits (1) as dividing Wayne into 2 whole districts plus one partial would. 

What I'm saying is that after reading the text that was part of the passed map, I looked at the splits and compared it to the reported number. From that comparison I can deduce the algorithm they used. I'll summarize how it apparently worked in 2001.

A county that is split in two counted as one split.

A county that is split in three would have counted as two splits. Think of the county as having been split twice from its original intact form.

A county split into n pieces would have counted as n-1 splits.

A county with one or more districts wholly contained and one other piece attached to other counties would have counted as one split. The lesser part crossed the county line to form that one split.

A county with one or more districts wholly contained and two other pieces attached to other districts counted as one split. This is somewhat counter-intuitive, but it compares to the case where a single county is split in two. The remainder fragment is treated as a county for splits, except that it would be one split even by itself.

A county with one or more districts wholly contained and three other pieces attached to other districts counted as two splits. This parallels the three-split case for a single county.

In general a county with N districts wholly contained and n pieces attached to other districts outside the county would have counted as n-1 splits, except when n = 1 and then it counts as 1 split.

[dpmapper]

What I'm saying is that after reading the text that was part of the passed map, I looked at the splits and compared it to the reported number. From that comparison I can deduce the algorithm they used. I'll summarize how it apparently worked in 2001.

A county that is split in two counted as one split.

A county that is split in three would have counted as two splits. Think of the county as having been split twice from its original intact form.

A county split into n pieces would have counted as n-1 splits.

A county with one or more districts wholly contained and one other piece attached to other counties would have counted as one split. The lesser part crossed the county line to form that one split.

A county with one or more districts wholly contained and two other pieces attached to other districts counted as one split. This is somewhat counter-intuitive, but it compares to the case where a single county is split in two. The remainder fragment is treated as a county for splits, except that it would be one split even by itself.

A county with one or more districts wholly contained and three other pieces attached to other districts counted as two splits. This parallels the three-split case for a single county.

In general a county with N districts wholly contained and n pieces attached to other districts outside the county would have counted as n-1 splits, except when n = 1 and then it counts as 1 split.

Well, I guess I believe you.  But if so, that's a ridiculously stupid way of counting.  

Consider the scenario where one big county A (pop. 63) in the middle is attached to 3 smaller counties B/C/D (20 each) which are not adjacent to one another.  Dividing into three districts of 21-20 seems reasonable, but that has two splits.  

A different plan would have one whole district in A, 21 from A + all of B, and a district of D+C+a bridge via A.  This technically has one split, but I can't see any reason why this is preferable.  

Here's a different scenario.  Consider the following plans:

Plan 1:
51 from A;
10 from A, 20 from B, 21 from C;
10 from A, 20 from D, 21 from C.  

Plan 2:
51 from A;
20 from A, 20 from B, 11 from C;
20 from D, 31 from C.  

Which is superior?  Clearly plan 2 is, but according to the formula you just laid out, both have exactly 2 splits.  

So the counting formula mandates an inferior (or at least, non-superior) plan in my first scenario, and fails to distinguish a superior plan in my second scenario.  Boo!

****************

Finally, what is the minimum number of splits according to the formula?  Ignoring VRA for a moment, I think the best you can do is the following:
2 whole districts in Wayne
1 whole in Oakland
1 whole in Macomb
1 with the leftovers from Wayne, Macomb, and some of the leftovers from Oakland

... leaving 9 to go, which will split 8 other counties between them.  Add in 1 split in Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne, and we're at 11.  Am I missing something?  

Let's say I shove the light blue district entirely into Oakland in my scenario.  Then Oakland has one split, Macomb has 1 split, and Wayne 2.  Washtenaw, Kent, Calhoun, Ingham, Saginaw, Isabella, and one between CD-1 and CD-4 are the others.  That's 11!  Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

[muon2]

What I'm saying is that after reading the text that was part of the passed map, I looked at the splits and compared it to the reported number. From that comparison I can deduce the algorithm they used. I'll summarize how it apparently worked in 2001.

A county that is split in two counted as one split.

A county that is split in three would have counted as two splits. Think of the county as having been split twice from its original intact form.

A county split into n pieces would have counted as n-1 splits.

A county with one or more districts wholly contained and one other piece attached to other counties would have counted as one split. The lesser part crossed the county line to form that one split.

A county with one or more districts wholly contained and two other pieces attached to other districts counted as one split. This is somewhat counter-intuitive, but it compares to the case where a single county is split in two. The remainder fragment is treated as a county for splits, except that it would be one split even by itself.

A county with one or more districts wholly contained and three other pieces attached to other districts counted as two splits. This parallels the three-split case for a single county.

In general a county with N districts wholly contained and n pieces attached to other districts outside the county would have counted as n-1 splits, except when n = 1 and then it counts as 1 split.

Well, I guess I believe you.  But if so, that's a ridiculously stupid way of counting.  

Consider the scenario where one big county A (pop. 63) in the middle is attached to 3 smaller counties B/C/D (20 each) which are not adjacent to one another.  Dividing into three districts of 21-20 seems reasonable, but that has two splits.  

A different plan would have one whole district in A, 21 from A + all of B, and a district of D+C+a bridge via A.  This technically has one split, but I can't see any reason why this is preferable.  

Here's a different scenario.  Consider the following plans:

Plan 1:
51 from A;
10 from A, 20 from B, 21 from C;
10 from A, 20 from D, 21 from C.  

Plan 2:
51 from A;
20 from A, 20 from B, 11 from C;
20 from D, 31 from C.  

Which is superior?  Clearly plan 2 is, but according to the formula you just laid out, both have exactly 2 splits.  

So the counting formula mandates an inferior (or at least, non-superior) plan in my first scenario, and fails to distinguish a superior plan in my second scenario.  Boo!

****************

Finally, what is the minimum number of splits according to the formula?  Ignoring VRA for a moment, I think the best you can do is the following:
2 whole districts in Wayne
1 whole in Oakland
1 whole in Macomb
1 with the leftovers from Wayne, Macomb, and some of the leftovers from Oakland

... leaving 9 to go, which will split 8 other counties between them.  Add in 1 split in Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne, and we're at 11.  Am I missing something?  

Let's say I shove the light blue district entirely into Oakland in my scenario.  Then Oakland has one split, Macomb has 1 split, and Wayne 2.  Washtenaw, Kent, Calhoun, Ingham, Saginaw, Isabella, and one between CD-1 and CD-4 are the others.  That's 11!  Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

I get that the lowest theoretical count comes from putting as many whole districts into counties that one can, and then use at least a two-way split for the remainder of those counties. In this case 4 districts would be entirely within one county, leaving 10 CDs. Those 10 require 9 county splits (n-1) at a minimum so 9 splits is the ideal.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can see this as making some sense, if, and only if, the two fragments are appended to one other CD. Take Kent County for example (MI-03). Let us say, it can hold one CD, but with 20,000 extra people. If that 20,000 is appended to MI-02, with 10,000 from the NW corner, and 10,000 from the SW corner, then Kent has been split once. But if the NW corner goes to MI-02, while the SE corner goes to MI-04, then to me that is two splits. Why wouldn't it be?  You could avoid an extra chop, just by having the entire 20,000, either in one fragment or two, go to just one one CD as one chop. If it isn't, one then can use different fragments of Kent, or Wayne, to equalize population for other CD's, thereby cutting down on the splits, giving one a chance to chop up some county elsewhere for gerrymandering purposes.

For example, to get down to actual cases, look at my map below. MI-12 and MI-09 are wholly contained in Oakland and Macomb respectively. MI-14 goes into Oakland for one chop, and MI-13 goes into Macomb for a second. Fine - so far so good. Now are you saying that my MI-10 pink dip down does not count as a second chop?  And if it doesn't, then why can't MI-14 also go into Macomb from Oakland or Wayne as a "non-chop" event?  Heck we could send MI-05 from Flint to pick up Pontiac if we want as well.  It suddenly becomes like the Wild West!  



Otherwise, I agree completely with Muon2's analysis. It is the only one that makes sense really.

[dpmapper]

I get that the lowest theoretical count comes from putting as many whole districts into counties that one can, and then use at least a two-way split for the remainder of those counties. In this case 4 districts would be entirely within one county, leaving 10 CDs. Those 10 require 9 county splits (n-1) at a minimum so 9 splits is the ideal.

OK, that seems right.  But it would require two separate districts having their border within the 20K or so extra people left out of the whole-Macomb district... and those two districts couldn't be in Oakland or Wayne!  You'd have to come in from the north.  Ai-yai-yai. 

In any case, do you agree that this method for counting splits is completely whacked? 

[I'd also point out that the theoretical minimum is 10 for the current 15 districts and it is not hit.  So who knows what is actually required?]

[dpmapper]

I've calculated that the district I've given McCotter gave Bush just over 53% of the 2-party vote in 2004.  He might be able to up that a tad by picking the right precincts to excise from Van Buren Township.  This might be half a point better than his current district, but I'm guessing the blue-collar whites in Monroe and southern Wayne are trending more GOP than the country as a whole is. 

Incidentally, does anyone know if there's a hippie commune in Van Buren Township or something?  One precinct (#3) apparently gave the Green Party 497 votes in 2004 (out of 1367 cast).  Is this just a typo?  (Bush got 349, Kerry 508, so 1367 does at least match the sum, and it is about the same number of votes as other precincts.) 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm assuming that's an error or something as Nader had no noticeable area of strength in 2000.