How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission

[Torie]

I am not sure exactly what you are recommending sbane. Perhaps you could draw it. Most of the eastside father south put in CA-15 is majority Hispanic.

[Sbane]

Right, you put the majority hispanic areas in the 15th, the middle class district. And you cut them off from the Asian areas right to its south which have similar incomes. I would keep that area together. In exchange you can pick up Mountain View and other more middle of the road areas like Campbell in the 15th. This plan works even better with how Muon has drawn his map by including Newark and a chunk of Fremont in the 15th. This allows us to keep the class theme going and making sure the asian VAP doesn't fall too much. And we keep the east side mostly together. A win-win-win. Anyways, even in your map there is no reason for including the Hispanic areas in the 15th. Keep the east side together.

[Torie]

Right, you put the majority hispanic areas in the 15th, the middle class district. And you cut them off from the Asian areas right to its south which have similar incomes. I would keep that area together. In exchange you can pick up Mountain View and other more middle of the road areas like Campbell in the 15th. This plan works even better with how Muon has drawn his map by including Newark and a chunk of Fremont in the 15th. This allows us to keep the class theme going and making sure the asian VAP doesn't fall too much. And we keep the east side mostly together. A win-win-win. Anyways, even in your map there is no reason for including the Hispanic areas in the 15th. Keep the east side together.

Now you have me totally confused. CA-15 is the lower income Asian-Hispanic CD. CA-16 is the middle class CD. CA-14 is the upper middle class CD. So I stuffed as many Hispanics and Asians into CA-15 as possible while avoiding muni chops. The change from my prior map per Mike's comments, was to switch out 3 or 4 west-side Hispanic precincts for east-side Hispanic precincts, plus pick up the 2 or 3 foothill precincts (Asian), immediately south of Milpitas, as well as delete a couple of white plurality precincts for heavily Asian ones in its SW corner.

[muon2]

So if I follow sbane' comments, I think this is the plan of mine he likes for the Asian district. I've adjusted the boundary between the central SJ district and the western SV to put the Campbell in the former and the New Almaden valley in the latter as suggested by Torie. The most Hispanic areas of Evergreen stay with central SJ, and it's now a HVAP plurality district. Did I pick up the comments accurately?

All the pictured districts are within 200 of the ideal population.



edit: I think I did misread sbane's comments, but I really don't want to put Mountain View in that district. I was trying to provide somewhat more separation between the Hispanic and Asian areas and that throws them together more.

[muon2]

edit: I think I did misread sbane's comments, but I really don't want to put Mountain View in that district. I was trying to provide somewhat more separation between the Hispanic and Asian areas and that throws them together more.

Based on the Commission's data, the ACVAP is about 10% lower than the AVAP in that district. I also note that they connected Cupertino instead of Mountain View whihc is a big boost to AVAP, but that means that Los Altos only connects to Saratoga in the same district by way of the Pac coast and Santa Cruz.

[Sbane]

I am not sure exactly what you are recommending sbane. Perhaps you could draw it. Most of the eastside father south put in CA-15 is majority Hispanic.

You should keep the northeast Asian areas with Milpitas in CA-15 but move the Hispanic areas out and into the CA-16. So keep the east and southeast together. By moving the northeast Asian areas into CA-15 you are able to get it up to 40.5%VAP. And CA-16 is 37%HVAP. This is what I drew.

[Torie]

So if I follow sbane' comments, I think this is the plan of mine he likes for the Asian district. I've adjusted the boundary between the central SJ district and the western SV to put the Campbell in the former and the New Almaden valley in the latter as suggested by Torie. The most Hispanic areas of Evergreen stay with central SJ, and it's now a HVAP plurality district. Did I pick up the comments accurately?

All the pictured districts are within 200 of the ideal population.



edit: I think I did misread sbane's comments, but I really don't want to put Mountain View in that district. I was trying to provide somewhat more separation between the Hispanic and Asian areas and that throws them together more.

I don't think sbane liked the Evergreen reach, which also creates erosity, which I don't like, along with the class confusion, which is not on your agenda if it reduces the Asian percentage clearly, unless it creates a chop, but then he drew this eastside thing (which seemed to chop the Hispanics in half), and then deleted his post, so I am confused about that too.

[Torie]

I am not sure exactly what you are recommending sbane. Perhaps you could draw it. Most of the eastside father south put in CA-15 is majority Hispanic.

You should keep the northeast Asian areas with Milpitas in CA-15 but move the Hispanic areas out and into the CA-16. So keep the east and southeast together. By moving the northeast Asian areas into CA-15 you are able to get it up to 40.5%VAP. And CA-16 is 37%HVAP. This is what I drew.

OK. No I want to keep the Hispanics in CA-15, not CA-14, due to class reasons, and to get the Asian share of the actual voters up. Basically I wanted a center city San Jose CD created, that excised whites - and richer Asians.  Xahar was for this, and it seemed a reasonable balancing test, and that other chap who dropped by, and nobody seemed to disagree. So it became more north south, than east west. I don't think I will change it now. One reason for that, is that it is entirely peripheral to the purpose of my exercise.

[Sbane]

edit: I think I did misread sbane's comments, but I really don't want to put Mountain View in that district. I was trying to provide somewhat more separation between the Hispanic and Asian areas and that throws them together more.

Here is what I would do with your cut in Fremont and Newark. It makes it easier to draw a rational Asian heavy mostly middle class district. The 15th is 44.3% AVAP and the 16th (Cyan) is 37% HVAP.

[Sbane]

I am not sure exactly what you are recommending sbane. Perhaps you could draw it. Most of the eastside father south put in CA-15 is majority Hispanic.

You should keep the northeast Asian areas with Milpitas in CA-15 but move the Hispanic areas out and into the CA-16. So keep the east and southeast together. By moving the northeast Asian areas into CA-15 you are able to get it up to 40.5%VAP. And CA-16 is 37%HVAP. This is what I drew.

OK. No I want to keep the Hispanics in CA-15, not CA-14, due to class reasons, and to get the Asian share of the actual voters up. Basically I wanted a center city San Jose CD created, that excised whites - and richer Asians.  Xahar was for this, and it seemed a reasonable balancing test, and that other chap who dropped by, and nobody seemed to disagree. So it became more north south, than east west. I don't think I will change it now. One reason for that, is that it is entirely peripheral to the purpose of my exercise.

No, the wealthy areas are in the west valley mostly with a small pocket around Evergreen and some other areas to the south of San Jose. That's CA-16 the Hispanics are in BTW, not the 14th. The 14th is the upper class district by the hills.

[Torie]

edit: I think I did misread sbane's comments, but I really don't want to put Mountain View in that district. I was trying to provide somewhat more separation between the Hispanic and Asian areas and that throws them together more.

Here is what I would do with your cut in Fremont and Newark. It makes it easier to draw a rational Asian heavy mostly middle class district. The 15th is 44.3% AVAP and the 16th (Cyan) is 37% HVAP.

You are abandoning the class metric as between CA-16 and CA-15.  You have the well to do Asians with poor Hispanics. It certainly is a reasonable choice however. My Asian CD has almost as high a percentage of Asian voters however, and clearly higher among actual voters, since you need to mix the Hispanics with the Asians to get there - not separate them.

[Torie]

I am not sure exactly what you are recommending sbane. Perhaps you could draw it. Most of the eastside father south put in CA-15 is majority Hispanic.

You should keep the northeast Asian areas with Milpitas in CA-15 but move the Hispanic areas out and into the CA-16. So keep the east and southeast together. By moving the northeast Asian areas into CA-15 you are able to get it up to 40.5%VAP. And CA-16 is 37%HVAP. This is what I drew.

OK. No I want to keep the Hispanics in CA-15, not CA-14, due to class reasons, and to get the Asian share of the actual voters up. Basically I wanted a center city San Jose CD created, that excised whites - and richer Asians.  Xahar was for this, and it seemed a reasonable balancing test, and that other chap who dropped by, and nobody seemed to disagree. So it became more north south, than east west. I don't think I will change it now. One reason for that, is that it is entirely peripheral to the purpose of my exercise.

No, the wealthy areas are in the west valley mostly with a small pocket around Evergreen and some other areas to the south of San Jose. That's CA-16 the Hispanics are in BTW, not the 14th. The 14th is the upper class district by the hills.

Yes, I was referring to Evergreen, and south SJ, not an insignificant chunk, and yes, I meant CA-16 rather than CA-14, but whatever, you have severed the Hispanics from the Asian CD.

I guess my order of priorities is:

1. VRA
2. Compactness, not crossing jurisdictional and/or topographical lines absent compelling COI reasons to do so.
3. Class
4. COI of a lessor order, be it race or whatever.
5. Partisan competitiveness, with a balance between formerly Dem and GOP CD's put in play.

[Sbane]

edit: I think I did misread sbane's comments, but I really don't want to put Mountain View in that district. I was trying to provide somewhat more separation between the Hispanic and Asian areas and that throws them together more.

Here is what I would do with your cut in Fremont and Newark. It makes it easier to draw a rational Asian heavy mostly middle class district. The 15th is 44.3% AVAP and the 16th (Cyan) is 37% HVAP.

You are abandoning the class metric as between CA-16 and CA-15.  You have the well to do Asians with poor Hispanics. It certainly is a reasonable choice however. My Asian CD has almost as high a percentage of Asian voters however, and clearly higher among actual voters, since you need to mix the Hispanics with the Asians to get there - not separate them.

No, most of those Asian areas are from working class to middle class with a few pockets of affluence near the hills.

[muon2]

edit: I think I did misread sbane's comments, but I really don't want to put Mountain View in that district. I was trying to provide somewhat more separation between the Hispanic and Asian areas and that throws them together more.

Here is what I would do with your cut in Fremont and Newark. It makes it easier to draw a rational Asian heavy mostly middle class district. The 15th is 44.3% AVAP and the 16th (Cyan) is 37% HVAP.

You removed the area of Fremont I included north of Newark. I need that for population balance in Alameda county and it's heavily Asian as well. I assume that you would adjust your map to remove blocks in SJ south of Santa Clara.

[Sbane]

It's about 15,000 people it looks like? Putting it in and taking out more of San Jose north of Campbell leads to it becoming 45.4%AVAP.

[muon2]

It's about 15,000 people it looks like? Putting it in and taking out more of San Jose north of Campbell leads to it becoming 45.4%AVAP.

But, as Torie has implied the WCVAP would be significant higher than the ACVAP. WCVAP increases by about 4/3 compared to WVAP. The Latino citizen rates are higher than the Asian rates in that area.

[Sbane]

It's about 15,000 people it looks like? Putting it in and taking out more of San Jose north of Campbell leads to it becoming 45.4%AVAP.

But, as Torie has implied the WCVAP would be significant higher than the ACVAP. WCVAP increases by about 4/3 compared to WVAP. The Latino citizen rates are higher than the Asian rates in that area.

That's fine with me. It's an influence district but really it's mostly a division based on class.

[muon2]

It's about 15,000 people it looks like? Putting it in and taking out more of San Jose north of Campbell leads to it becoming 45.4%AVAP.

But, as Torie has implied the WCVAP would be significant higher than the ACVAP. WCVAP increases by about 4/3 compared to WVAP. The Latino citizen rates are higher than the Asian rates in that area.

That's fine with me. It's an influence district but really it's mostly a division based on class.

One reason I mixed in Evergreen was to cement the influence. The citizen rate among voting age Asians in the lower valley is less than 80%, but it rises to 94% in Evergreen.

[Torie]

OK, I "fixed" CA-20, and restored Riverside too, so I think I am done. On to the matrix!

[Sbane]

It's about 15,000 people it looks like? Putting it in and taking out more of San Jose north of Campbell leads to it becoming 45.4%AVAP.

But, as Torie has implied the WCVAP would be significant higher than the ACVAP. WCVAP increases by about 4/3 compared to WVAP. The Latino citizen rates are higher than the Asian rates in that area.

That's fine with me. It's an influence district but really it's mostly a division based on class.

One reason I mixed in Evergreen was to cement the influence. The citizen rate among voting age Asians in the lower valley is less than 80%, but it rises to 94% in Evergreen.

By lower valley do you mean the Asian areas right south of Milpitas? What about the Asian areas along the 101 (so a little farther from the hills) south of 680? Where are you getting this data from?

[Хahar 🤔]

However this little salient of SJ does not.  It is just not up to Cupertino standards. It has more of the feel of Campbell.

I can speak with some authority (that swatch of green in the middle of the map contains my middle school and high school, and I live a little to the north) when I say that it's not like Campbell at all, despite its population density relative to much of Cupertino. The lots are small and there's no new development since everything was built fifty years ago, but that tract of land is part of the Cupertino Union School District. Municipal boundaries are quite meaningless, but school boundaries matter, because they determine where people decide to live. House prices are actually higher than they are in the part of Cupertino directly to the north, which is zoned to less-desirable Cupertino High.

EDIT: I see sbane already got to that. I'll look through and see if there's anything else I can add.

EDIT II: To me, it seems pointless to worry about percent Asian. Maximizing Asian percentage means lumping together rich and poor areas even though Asians can get elected anywhere.

[muon2]

It's about 15,000 people it looks like? Putting it in and taking out more of San Jose north of Campbell leads to it becoming 45.4%AVAP.

But, as Torie has implied the WCVAP would be significant higher than the ACVAP. WCVAP increases by about 4/3 compared to WVAP. The Latino citizen rates are higher than the Asian rates in that area.

That's fine with me. It's an influence district but really it's mostly a division based on class.

One reason I mixed in Evergreen was to cement the influence. The citizen rate among voting age Asians in the lower valley is less than 80%, but it rises to 94% in Evergreen.

By lower valley do you mean the Asian areas right south of Milpitas? What about the Asian areas along the 101 (so a little farther from the hills) south of 680? Where are you getting this data from?

I extrapolated from the Commission's data matched by the MALDEF submission. The district including Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Northern SJ, Milpitas, and Fremont/Newark has an AVAP of 50% and ACVAP of 40% so the effective share is 80% due to citizenship. The real citizenship rate is lower but since our district covers much the same area the shift in percentage is appropriate to measure. Similarly the Evergreen and areas south of 680 are in a commission district where the fractional dropoff in the CVAP fraction was much less.

[Sbane]

It's about 15,000 people it looks like? Putting it in and taking out more of San Jose north of Campbell leads to it becoming 45.4%AVAP.

But, as Torie has implied the WCVAP would be significant higher than the ACVAP. WCVAP increases by about 4/3 compared to WVAP. The Latino citizen rates are higher than the Asian rates in that area.

That's fine with me. It's an influence district but really it's mostly a division based on class.

One reason I mixed in Evergreen was to cement the influence. The citizen rate among voting age Asians in the lower valley is less than 80%, but it rises to 94% in Evergreen.

By lower valley do you mean the Asian areas right south of Milpitas? What about the Asian areas along the 101 (so a little farther from the hills) south of 680? Where are you getting this data from?

Similarly the Evergreen and areas south of 680 are in a commission district where the fractional dropoff in the CVAP fraction was much less.

Perhaps that is because the district also contains many Hispanics and so the drop from AVAP to ACVAP is not as great in this district because citizenship rates of Hispanics is even lower.

[Хahar 🤔]

It's about 15,000 people it looks like? Putting it in and taking out more of San Jose north of Campbell leads to it becoming 45.4%AVAP.

But, as Torie has implied the WCVAP would be significant higher than the ACVAP. WCVAP increases by about 4/3 compared to WVAP. The Latino citizen rates are higher than the Asian rates in that area.

That's fine with me. It's an influence district but really it's mostly a division based on class.

One reason I mixed in Evergreen was to cement the influence. The citizen rate among voting age Asians in the lower valley is less than 80%, but it rises to 94% in Evergreen.

By lower valley do you mean the Asian areas right south of Milpitas? What about the Asian areas along the 101 (so a little farther from the hills) south of 680? Where are you getting this data from?

The 101? We're not talking about the Hollywood Freeway here.

[muon2]

It's about 15,000 people it looks like? Putting it in and taking out more of San Jose north of Campbell leads to it becoming 45.4%AVAP.

But, as Torie has implied the WCVAP would be significant higher than the ACVAP. WCVAP increases by about 4/3 compared to WVAP. The Latino citizen rates are higher than the Asian rates in that area.

That's fine with me. It's an influence district but really it's mostly a division based on class.

One reason I mixed in Evergreen was to cement the influence. The citizen rate among voting age Asians in the lower valley is less than 80%, but it rises to 94% in Evergreen.

By lower valley do you mean the Asian areas right south of Milpitas? What about the Asian areas along the 101 (so a little farther from the hills) south of 680? Where are you getting this data from?

Similarly the Evergreen and areas south of 680 are in a commission district where the fractional dropoff in the CVAP fraction was much less.

Perhaps that is because the district also contains many Hispanics and so the drop from AVAP to ACVAP is not as great in this district because citizenship rates of Hispanics is even lower.

No the difference is in the Asian rates alone. The northern commission district I mentioned (17) has an ACVAP pop of 145,669 and AVAP pop of 267,863 or 54.3%. The district that includes Evergreen (19) has an ACVAP pop of 102,286 and AVAP pop of 143,387 or 71.3%. The populations are substantially different on their own.