CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll

[dpmapper]

I voted for 3.  However, is there a way to give Napa to CA-3 in exchange for putting Del Norte + more of Sonoma County (all except maybe Petaluma and Sonoma city) into CA-2, and letting CA-5 take all of Vallejo and maybe Benicia for a complete surround of the north bay? 

[dpmapper]

I voted for 3.  However, is there a way to give Napa to CA-3 in exchange for putting Del Norte + more of Sonoma County (all except maybe Petaluma and Sonoma city) into CA-2, and letting CA-5 take all of Vallejo and maybe Benicia for a complete surround of the north bay? 

Look at map 4.  CA-03 with this map design can't go farther north, without chopping Woodlands, which has 35,000 people or something.

It wouldn't need to go north if it's taking Napa County.  It would actually come south, since Del Norte slides from CD-1 to CD-2, so CD-1 takes some of CD-3's northern reaches.  CD-3 gains Napa, loses a bit in the north + the remainder of Vallejo. 

[dpmapper]

Here you go. CA-05 gets uncomfortably close to Fairfield, but not there, so not bad - at all. The alternative which would push CA-05 away from Fairfield would be for CA-02 to take Siskiyou County, and the cost of CA-02 crossing I-5 causes that pawn move to be too expensive. '

Looks good.  I like keeping CA-03 farther away from SF and the CA-05 wraparound of the north bay is a nice way to do it.  I understand sbane's concern about Richmond but it at least gets paired with Vallejo here.  Yes, other than being on the same body of water, it's an odd fit with Marin but these things inevitably happen; nobody complains about Daly City and East Palo Alto being matched with Atherton and Menlo Park. 

[dpmapper]

Here you go. CA-05 gets uncomfortably close to Fairfield, but not there, so not bad - at all. The alternative which would push CA-05 away from Fairfield would be for CA-02 to take Siskiyou County, and the cost of CA-02 crossing I-5 causes that pawn move to be too expensive. '

Looks good.  I like keeping CA-03 farther away from SF and the CA-05 wraparound of the north bay is a nice way to do it.  I understand sbane's concern about Richmond but it at least gets paired with Vallejo here.  Yes, other than being on the same body of water, it's an odd fit with Marin but these things inevitably happen; nobody complains about Daly City and East Palo Alto being matched with Atherton and Menlo Park. 

Well, I think the difference here is that you are crossing a bridge to pick up Richmond. Though keeping it with Vallejo makes it slightly better I suppose. East Palo Alto is only 10-20k people and Daly City and EPA are right adjacent to the areas its put with. It's unwise to cross bridges from the peninsula or Marin County to the East Bay. That geographical barrier creates a different community of interest on the two sides of the bay. And this is not something obscure but would be something that would be acknowledged by the majority of Bay Area residents.

In this map there's no need to rely on the bridge.  That's partly why I suggested it (that, and adding Vallejo to Richmond).  Yes, the east and west halves of the district are very distinct parts of the Bay Area.  But that fact by itself shouldn't entitle the Bay Area to another district just so that they can be split up.  Better they get kept together rather than drawing places like Yolo County in with Richmond, for instance. 

[dpmapper]

So let me summarize the proposed rules.

1. A plan shall minimize county CD pieces. All pieces count towards the total, including one for the case where a county is entirely in a CD. (BTW this works against minimizing the number of counties chopped, since a tri chop counts the same as two dual shops, but that may be OK in CA).

2. When a county is split, the plan shall minimize the number of census places split within the county (ie cities). Census divisions that span a place boundary can be counted on either side of the line.

3. Pieces of counties less than 1 CD, or pieces of places between 20K and 1 CD, shall not be split leaving less than 80% of the county or place in one piece. (I don't think we settled on a number here, so I'm guessing, but you suggested that some small communities may need a larger split.)

4. Pieces that are less than 0.5% of a CD shall not count in assessing rules 1 through 3.

5. Violations of the aforementioned rules require a finding based in federal or state law approved by a supermajority of the mapping body.

This is probably buried back in your lengthy discussion, but I don't see any rationale for rule 3.  You're saying that if a county has 600,000 people it can't be split 450,000-150,000 but it can be split 500,000-100,000 (or 500,000-50,000-50,000)?  What is the distinction? 

[dpmapper]

So let me summarize the proposed rules.

1. A plan shall minimize county CD pieces. All pieces count towards the total, including one for the case where a county is entirely in a CD. (BTW this works against minimizing the number of counties chopped, since a tri chop counts the same as two dual shops, but that may be OK in CA).

2. When a county is split, the plan shall minimize the number of census places split within the county (ie cities). Census divisions that span a place boundary can be counted on either side of the line.

3. Pieces of counties less than 1 CD, or pieces of places between 20K and 1 CD, shall not be split leaving less than 80% of the county or place in one piece. (I don't think we settled on a number here, so I'm guessing, but you suggested that some small communities may need a larger split.)

4. Pieces that are less than 0.5% of a CD shall not count in assessing rules 1 through 3.

5. Violations of the aforementioned rules require a finding based in federal or state law approved by a supermajority of the mapping body.

This is probably buried back in your lengthy discussion, but I don't see any rationale for rule 3.  You're saying that if a county has 600,000 people it can't be split 450,000-150,000 but it can be split 500,000-100,000 (or 500,000-50,000-50,000)?  What is the distinction? 

There are a couple of goals here in search of a rule. One is to encourage smaller chops rather than large chops. The other is to limit the urge to split counties and cities right down the middle. That tends to either dilute or magnify their vote depending on what fraction of a CD they make.

I hope this is the rule Torie massages. It can go a lot of ways. One is to simply say that when there is a choice of cuts, one chooses the one that keeps a bigger fraction of the split entity intact.

Even if I grant that one should prefer 80-20 chops to 50-50 chops (which isn't at all obvious to me), your rule seems pretty weird to me.  The 80% cutoff is quite arbitrary - you're saying that you'd prefer a plan that splits one county 81-19 to a plan that splits a different county 78-22, even if the first plan requires all sorts of weird contortions (still keeping counties whole) and violations of CoI.  That's a ridiculous standard. 

[dpmapper]

Splitting a jurisdiction into two relatively even parts is used to dilute their vote if the split jurisdiction can no longer compete against the other parts of the district.

It can also be used when the jurisdiction is large enough or nearly so for its own district but by making a relatively even split the jurisdiction can effectively control two districts.

Either way it is a classic gerrymandering technique. I think it is desirable to limit it by attempting to keep most of a jurisdiction intact. I agree that the 20% number is arbitrary, but that's what we had been batting around. As I just suggested it can be modified to remove the reliance on a specific number yet still having a meaningful impact on a map.

So if a jurisdiction is small, splitting it weakens its power.  If it's large, splitting it enhances its power.  If it's medium-sized, I guess it does neither? 

In any case, my point is not that splits aren't bad (and you still haven't convinced me that a 80-20 split isn't equally bad - doesn't that sort of dilute the 80% part and really dilute the 20% part? - but never mind that), but that having a hard and fast rule regarding them is bound to have perverse consequences. 

[dpmapper]

Thus the "finding" out for most stuff that goes beyond the Michigan rules.

I don't need any experimentation to know that there will be perverse consequences. 

For instance, suppose you've got three adjacent counties with equal population.  How do you split them into two districts, while maintaining your rules?  It's impossible. 

To give a case where it's possible, but has ridiculous implications, consider 5 counties.  County A, with a population of 5, is farthest west, bordering only county B, population 1, just to the east.  B borders both C and D which both have population 5.  Finally county E is farthest east and borders both C and D, with population 2.  Divide this up into 2 districts following your rules - the only way you can do it is if you have one district comprised of counties A, B, and E plus a connecting strip in either C or D. 

[dpmapper]

Thus the "finding" out for most stuff that goes beyond the Michigan rules.

I don't need any experimentation to know that there will be perverse consequences. 

For instance, suppose you've got three adjacent counties with equal population.  How do you split them into two districts, while maintaining your rules?  It's impossible. 

To give a case where it's possible, but has ridiculous implications, consider 5 counties.  County A, with a population of 5, is farthest west, bordering only county B, population 1, just to the east.  B borders both C and D which both have population 5.  Finally county E is farthest east and borders both C and D, with population 2.  Divide this up into 2 districts following your rules - the only way you can do it is if you have one district comprised of counties A, B, and E plus a connecting strip in either C or D. 

The use of a connecting strip between whole counties is not unusual in a state with whole county preservation rules. Ohio Senatorial districts often end up with such a strip. Check out current SD 12 and 33 in OH as examples.

Yes, I've seen those.  They're ugly, and if I were a mapmaker I wouldn't want to be forced into one of them for the sake of an arbitrary 80% split cutoff. 

[dpmapper]

A percent split isn't what forced those examples to happen. They arose just from the way county splits are counted. Would you like to suggest a rule that would discourage those type of districts?

I'm aware of that, too.  My point was that we shouldn't want to force ourselves into making more of them.  Ohio's rules at least have the virtue of being non-arbitrary; the 80% rule that you are suggesting does not. 

In my 5-county scenario, do you honestly prefer an A/B/strip from C/E district over trying to find a natural division of C or D to make one western district and one eastern district? 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As far as proposing new rules go, no, I think trying to prevent shenanigans by writing a comprehensive set of convoluted and semi-arbitrary rules will be counterproductive.  C'mon, Muon, you're a Republican - you should know all about unintended consequences of well-meaning regulation. 

[dpmapper]

2. Contiguous county pieces require a connection by public road, and two whole counties in a CD shall not be connected if their only connection is through a split piece of a county.

Not a bad rule... but doesn't your proposed CD-12 violate it?