Redistricting Commissions and Referenda

[BigSkyBob]

There needs to be a referendum. I can't think of an uglier gerrymander in recent memory. Even the 2001 districts were much better than this.

I could get behind referenda in both Ohio and Maryland on their horrible maps. I can't agree with unilateral disarmament but we need some kind of counter-weight to the legislative impulse to do the worst they can get away with. It doesn't matter if it's a single-party gerrymander or a bipartisan protection scheme.

Maybe a constitutional amendment establishing a national redistricting commission like other countries?

So, Washington insiders can pick their own voters?

[BigSkyBob]

There needs to be a referendum. I can't think of an uglier gerrymander in recent memory. Even the 2001 districts were much better than this.

I could get behind referenda in both Ohio and Maryland on their horrible maps. I can't agree with unilateral disarmament but we need some kind of counter-weight to the legislative impulse to do the worst they can get away with. It doesn't matter if it's a single-party gerrymander or a bipartisan protection scheme.

Maybe a constitutional amendment establishing a national redistricting commission like other countries?

So, Washington insiders can pick their own voters?

Well, what's your idea, genius?

I've stated my position a number of times.

Again, redistricting is an inherently political process. Notions of "fair" or "objective" redistricting are right there with beliefs in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. That said, there are abuses. As Justice Potter famously said, "I know it when I see it!"

I prefer legislators to draw maps because the electorate will have some say over what biases are reflected in the final map. On the other hand, "non-partisan" and "bi-partisan" systems are neither. They are merely a set of rules. Once the rules are understood, the system can be gamed. New Jersey is little more than a coin-flip gerrymander. Iowa has a ridiculous system that, essentially, shuffles districts every ten years for no reason whatsoever. Arizona, and California were gamed.

My solution involves applying reasonable controls over the process: equal population, single-member districts, a ban on "double-crossovers," respect for county lines, etc. It isn't a pefect solution, nor was California, Arizona, Iowa or New Jersey.

[BigSkyBob]

Garbage commissions has not worked out well for New Jersey where the commissions keep implementing Democratic gerrymanders.

That said, at least there is a sense of honor in that municipalities are not sliced and diced.

I don't think it has anything to do with honor. Instead, it has everything to do with Constitution that specifies these rules. It wasn't very honorable to split Newark three ways, or for the State Supreme Court to strike down their own Constitution. [At least the Constitution was reasserted in this map based on some other decision in another state??]

[BigSkyBob]

Divide the State into atomic districts, 16384 x Number of congressional districts, so each atomic district would have around 40 persons.  Appoint 3 commissioners for each atomic district, chosen by lot from the voter rolls.

Districts would be formed by consolidation of districts on a pairwise basis in rounds.  So in the first round pairs of atomic districts would be merged based on agreement of the commissioners of the districts.  Some of the commissioners would be chosen by lot to represent the merged district.

Repeat for 14 rounds and you have your congressional districts.

1) Best solution I've read yet.

2) The initial districting of people into groups of forty is still gameable.

[BigSkyBob]

Divide the State into atomic districts, 16384 x Number of congressional districts, so each atomic district would have around 40 persons.  Appoint 3 commissioners for each atomic district, chosen by lot from the voter rolls.

Districts would be formed by consolidation of districts on a pairwise basis in rounds.  So in the first round pairs of atomic districts would be merged based on agreement of the commissioners of the districts.  Some of the commissioners would be chosen by lot to represent the merged district.

Repeat for 14 rounds and you have your congressional districts.

1) Best solution I've read yet.

2) The initial districting of people into groups of forty is still gameable.

How is it gameable?

There is a street. On one side everyone is Black, and on the other side, everyone is White. In one distribution the street is the dividing line. In another, blocks are the units, taking folks from both sides of the street. If Whites prefer to aggregated with Whites, and Blacks with Blacks, in the first case the street will be a dividing line, while in the second, the aggregation will occur along the street as neither the Black or White groupings will want to aggregate with the street people. Either initial distribution creates its own logic of aggregation.

[BigSkyBob]

Divide the State into atomic districts, 16384 x Number of congressional districts, so each atomic district would have around 40 persons.  Appoint 3 commissioners for each atomic district, chosen by lot from the voter rolls.

Districts would be formed by consolidation of districts on a pairwise basis in rounds.  So in the first round pairs of atomic districts would be merged based on agreement of the commissioners of the districts.  Some of the commissioners would be chosen by lot to represent the merged district.

Repeat for 14 rounds and you have your congressional districts.

1) Best solution I've read yet.

2) The initial districting of people into groups of forty is still gameable.

How is it gameable?

There is a street. On one side everyone is Black, and on the other side, everyone is White. In one distribution the street is the dividing line. In another, blocks are the units, taking folks from both sides of the street. If Whites prefer to aggregated with Whites, and Blacks with Blacks, in the first case the street will be a dividing line, while in the second, the aggregation will occur along the street as neither the Black or White groupings will want to aggregate with the street people. Either initial distribution creates its own logic of aggregation.

So if there is a city with 1.4 million persons, and all the Blacks live east of Grey Street, and all the Whites live to the west of Grey street, but equal numbers of Blacks and Whites live on opposite sides of every block of Grey.

So in one case, the Blacks who live between Grey and Charcoal will coalesce with Blacks further to the east, and the Whites who live between White and Beige will coalesce with Whites to the west.

But if the atomic districts cross Gray, they will aggregate north south along Grey.  What happens when that aggregation is finished and the district with 2560 persons along Gray is completed.  Who will they aggregate with then?

That's one of the problems with your proposed system. Early in the process, the mergers won't be particularly problematic. As the districts congel, coercion will become increasing the norm.

Suppose at the tip of the Panhandle the districts had coalesced to something like [New Mexico to the West, and Oklahoma to the North and East],

AAAA
BBCC
BBCC
DDDD

Since A is separated from the rest of Texas by B and C, it must merge with one or the other. If B and C want to merge with each other, or D, coercion must occur. If A and D both want to merge with B, but not C, coercion must occur.

As your districts coalesce coercion will be increasingly necessary to maintain contiguous subdistricts, while pairing every district.

In my example above, it may very well end with one side being coerced to accept the boundary district before the other side.

[BigSkyBob]

That's one of the problems with your proposed system. Early in the process, the mergers won't be particularly problematic. As the districts congel, coercion will become increasing the norm.

It is not a problem.  You exclaimed that it was gameable and had to contrive an example, and there was no problem dealing even with your contrived example.

There is no such word as "congel".  You mean coalesce or aggregate (verb).

Spell check failed me. "Congeal."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There would be constraints on choices of partners. [/quote]

That's my point. Your claim was, "So in the first round pairs of atomic districts would be merged based on agreement of the commissioners of the districts."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or, my point, they may be boxed in a way that they will forced to pair with one group regardless of their wishes. The system wouldn't be as voluntary as you describe it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

There would be constraints on choices of partners.

That's my point. Your claim was, "So in the first round pairs of atomic districts would be merged based on agreement of the commissioners of the districts."

Agreements often are made within constraints.  The simple fact that pairs of atomic districts are merged, is a constraint.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or, my point, they may be boxed in a way that they will forced to pair with one group regardless of their wishes. The system wouldn't be as voluntary as you describe it.

Agreement doesn't necessarily imply voluntary.  You might agree to purchase a used car because you don't want to walk 5 miles to work and that is all you can afford, even though your wish would be to have the Maserati you saw in a magazine.

And, my analogy would be that you do want the Maserati that you can't afford, but, have the money to buy a Ford or a Chevy. You would chose the Chevy, but, you are told to buy the Ford because someone else can afford the Chevy, but, not the Ford. Now, your buying of the Ford wouldn't be all that voluntary. In the same way, some masters over the process are going to have to force, or forbid, certain pairings to assure that every group is successfully paired at every iteration. That will give the overseers certain powers. What are your controls to stop the overseers from abusing their power?

Your plan does have the avantage that small towns will in all probability coalese earlier than larger cities could possibily do so.

[BigSkyBob]

Agreement doesn't necessarily imply voluntary.  You might agree to purchase a used car because you don't want to walk 5 miles to work and that is all you can afford, even though your wish would be to have the Maserati you saw in a magazine.

And, my analogy would be that you do want the Maserati that you can't afford, but, have the money to buy a Ford or a Chevy. You would chose the Chevy, but, you are told to buy the Ford because someone else can afford the Chevy, but, not the Ford. Now, your buying of the Ford wouldn't be all that voluntary. In the same way, some masters over the process are going to have to force, or forbid, certain pairings to assure that every group is successfully paired at every iteration. That will give the overseers certain powers. What are your controls to stop the overseers from abusing their power?

Your plan does have the avantage that small towns will in all probability coalese earlier than larger cities could possibily do so.

There was one Ford and one Chevy.  The seller of the Chevy liked the other buyer more.  He didn't seem to like your negotiating style.  Or maybe it was caprice.  You bought the Ford.

The number of atomic districts was set to a power of 2 for a reason: so that every district can always be paired at every iteration.

That's true if you don't mind non-contiguous districts, nearly impossible if you do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Suppose Presidio, Jeff Davis and Culbertson counties coalese in the early rounds, and aggregate togeather soon after. What then? Unless the number of groups to the West C-JD-P group boundary is an exact power of two, the process will fail [assuming contigious pairings].

[BigSkyBob]

The constraints would be rule-based.  No reason for the administrators to abuse them.

Suppose Presidio, Jeff Davis and Culbertson counties coalesce in the early rounds, and aggregate together soon after. What then? Unless the number of groups to the West C-JD-P group boundary is an exact power of two, the process will fail [assuming contigious pairings].

This is one reason why it is difficult for computer programs to automatically draw districts. Mapping algorithms start with seed areas, but generally get stuck when an area is cut off that contains a population not equal to a whole number of districts. Programs then have to iterate by unbuilding one or more districts and try to rebuild such that equal population is restored. There are usually several such iterations, and in the process rules that governed the original construction are weakened or bypassed.

Exactly. The question is how much power and control over redistricting will flow to those that decide when, where and why to "weaken or bypass" the algorithm? [In the case above the algorithm takes over. Describe the population cutoff to the West as a binary fractions of a district  {1 + 0*1/2 + 1*1/4+ ....} When the binary digit is one the C-JC-P block must merge to the West, and if it zero it must merge to the East.]

Jimrtex's plan does have the advantage of letting people decide for themselves whom shares a "community of interest" rather than letting politicians decide for those folks for the benefit of politicians.

Another problem with Jimr's plan is that the last pairing is between blocks of over three-hundred thousand people. The system could create two beautifully compact half-districts that represent meaningful communities of interest only to see the last pairing create a schizophrenic district that isn't compact, and where half the district has very little in common with the other half.

[BigSkyBob]

Suppose Presidio, Jeff Davis and Culbertson counties coalesce in the early rounds, and aggregate together soon after. What then? Unless the number of groups to the West C-JD-P group boundary is an exact power of two, the process will fail [assuming contigious pairings].

El Paso would have 18,781 atomic districts; Hudspeth 82; Culberson (no t) 56; Jeff Davis 55; and Presidio 183.

Run through a few rounds and explain where it will fail.

After six rounds, Jeff Davis and Culberson coalesce because people will want their county not to be split in redistricting. After round seven, Hudspeth coalesces, and Jeff Davis and Culberson merge. In the eight round, Presido has coalesced, and Hudspeth merges with Jeff Davis/Culberson. In round nine, Presido merges with Hudspeth/Jeff Davis/Culberson. In the tenth round, and after, the Presido/Hudspeth/Jeff Davis/Culberson want to merge with blocks to the East. After eleven rounds, there would about 17 blocks West of the P/H/JD/C block, 16 of which will eventually coalesce to form a district, and a seventeenth that would have to merge with districts to the East. That would be the P-H0JD-C block whether it wanted to merge or not.

It is a little trickier than that. After the four counties cut off El Paso from the rest of the state, the detached area would be one, and some fraction, of a Congressional district expressed in binary format.  When that digit is one, the P-H-JD-C block would have to merge to the West, while if it is zero, it would have to merge to the East.  That isn't a voluntary system.