Applying Muon2 scheme for redistricting to Columbia County

[Kevinstat]

Kind of a late bump here, but below is my own 11-member plan (minus specifying how exactly a city or town is divided) that I sent to Torie back in November.  It makes the same assumptions as Torie about it being okay to split towns with less than 110% of an ideal district population and, like Torie's plan, basically says "s---- you" to jimrtex (you know I appreicate your posts jimrtex but on deviation tolerance levels and weighted voting we just don't see eye-to-eye).

District 1: ~9.90% of Chatham, ~33.47% of Kinderhook and (all of) Stuyvesant, adj. pop. ~5,656 (-0.98%)
District 2: ~66.53% of Kinderhook, adj. pop. ~5,656 (-0.98%)
District 3: ~81.10% of Chatham and New Lebanon, adj. pop. ~5,656 (-0.98%)
District 4: Austerlitz, Canaan, ~16.75% of Copake and Hillsdale, adj. pop. ~5,898 (+3.26%)
District 5: ~5.11% of Claverack and Ghent, adj. pop. ~5,716 (+0.07%)
District 6: ~51.26% of Greenport, ~11.27% of Hudson and Stockport OR ~68.54% of Greenport and Stockport, adj. pop. ~5,681.33 (-0.53%)
District 7: ~88.73% of Hudson, adj. pop. ~5,681.33 (-0.53%)
District 8: ~48.74% of Greenport and Livingston, OR ~31.46% of Greenport, ~11.27% of Hudson and Livingston, adj. pop. ~5,681.33 (-0.53%)
District 9: ~94.89% of Claverack, adj. pop. ~5,716 (+0.07%)
District 10: Clermont, Gallatin and Germantown, adj. pop. 5,589 (-2.15%)
District 11: Ancram, ~83.25% of Copake and Taghkanic, adj. pop. ~5,898 (+3.26%)

Claverack's prisoner-adjusted quota is 1.0547 (rather than 1.0497 without the prisoner adjustment; kind of surprising as Claverack apparently has a small prison, but it has three more people with the prisoner adjustment and the denominator is substantially lower with the prisoner adjustment as there are lots of people from outside Columbia County in the Hudson prison).  I used that >5% deviation on the large side (coupled with neighboring Ghent's >5% deviation on the small side) as justification for splitting it, but unlike Torie's plan I have a district entirely in Claverack.

As far as the split towns that don't have a district entirely in that town go, the ~81.10% of Chatham in with New Lebanon would make up ~59.25% of (the prisoner-adjusted population of) that district (Chatham's (prisoner-adjusted) "quota" would be 0.7234) and the ~83.25% of Copake in with Ancram and Taghkanic would make up ~51.05% of that district (and would be roughly centered within that district; Copake's "quota" would be 0.6333).  Greenport (quota 0.7311) would be less fortunate, making up either ~37.68% or ~50.38% of the district with Stockport and ~35.82% or ~23.12% of the district with Livingston (depending on whether the Hudson remainder was in with Stockport and northern Greenport or in with Livingston and southern Greenport).  Greenport plus the remainder of Hudson (which would be on the "Greenport side" of whichever district it was in), however, would make up ~50.38% of the district with Stockport and ~35.82% of the district with Livingston.  The Hudson remainder would make up only ~12.70% of its district (Hudson's quota would be 1.1210), so it could bolster the Greenport side without overshadowing it.

[Kevinstat]

Kind of a late bump here, but below is my own 11-member plan (minus specifying how exactly a city or town is divided) that I sent to Torie back in November.  It makes the same assumptions as Torie about it being okay to split towns with less than 110% of an ideal district population and, like Torie's plan, basically says "s---- you" to jimrtex (you know I appreicate your posts jimrtex but on deviation tolerance levels and weighted voting we just don't see eye-to-eye).

Why? What would a county legislature do?

Probably the same thing they do in the other New York counties with county legislatures.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do the towns (so excluding Hudson) actually have aldermen (or selectmen)?  I got the sense that the town supervisor performed that role.  If there are aldermen than perhaps the supervisors could be eliminated, but I'd say that would best be left to the voters (and potential petitioners) of the individual town.  I'd definitely say to get rid of the Hudson supervisors, which seems to be what Torie has in mind.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That may be the most efficient system, but having both municipal and county elected boards (in Maine, city/town councils or boards of selectmen and county commissioners) both elected from districts of substantially equal population (or often at-large or a mixture at the municipal level) with each member having one vote is how many places do things.  Many people in Maine criticize the dual system of local government here too) but it is what we have and at least everyone in a county is treated broadly equally (except for the deferral/acceleration phenomenon which I don't think would be an issue in Columbia County as I don't think Torie's plan envisions staggering - is there even staggering now?).

Neither you nor I live in Columbia County and see first-hand how the current process works (or doesn't), while Torie does, and I'm willing to defer to him on what constitutes the best basic structure for his county, while suggesting an alternative that does not greatly deviate from that.