Big Redistricting News Out Of PA!

[Kamala]

Beautiful map, muon.

Would Cartwright probably win in the 11th?

[Oryxslayer]

Back in 2013 I looked at PA using DRA as the muon rules were first being fleshed out. With help from Torie, traininthedistance, and jimrtex, I came up with a balanced neutral plan. I couldn't find my drf file from back then, so I reconstructed it with a couple of tweaks to reflect the current version of the rules.



Chester is the only macrochopped county smaller than a CD, and only three other small counties have regular chops. No city/borough/township is chopped except Philly, and no ward within Philly is chopped. Obama won 11 of the 18 CDs in 2008. DRA population deviations and current PVIs for the CDs are:

CD 1: (-42) D+22
CD 2: (-497) D+39; BVAP 52.6%
CD 3: (+180) R+5
CD 4: (-1808) R+5
CD 5: (+1704) R+16
CD 6: (-691) R+0
CD 7: (-616) D+8
CD 8: (+1566) R+2
CD 9: (+1078) R+15
CD 10: (-1173) R+20
CD 11: (-491) R+2
CD 12: (+1919) R+8
CD 13: (-636) D+17
CD 14: (+921) D+12
CD 15: (-2359) R+7
CD 16: (+963) R+13
CD 17: (-1047) D+0
CD 18: (+1006) D+2

This might give some sense as to what a new neutral map might produce.

Just confirming did you use the "first" or the "second" 2010 map in the list provided by DRA on popup? Because the 2012-2016 PVI is piecemeal at best in the first. You need to pick 2010 Voting Districts, not 2010 Voting districts (updated by state).

I knew this exists because last week I was playing around and was confused why PA04 is only R+4/5. The correct PVI is R+17ish. Similar tells are you PA 11 and 15 - they should be pretty much PVI of 0, the piecemeal map however is missing a bunch of PVI's for precincts and sants the districts one way or another.

Also, can I get a zoom in on Philly?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

CD 1: (-42) D+22
CD 2: (-497) D+39; BVAP 52.6%
CD 3: (+180) R+5
CD 4: (-1808) R+5
CD 5: (+1704) R+16
CD 6: (-691) R+0
CD 7: (-616) D+8
CD 8: (+1566) R+2
CD 9: (+1078) R+15
CD 10: (-1173) R+20
CD 11: (-491) R+2
CD 12: (+1919) R+8
CD 13: (-636) D+17
CD 14: (+921) D+12
CD 15: (-2359) R+7
CD 16: (+963) R+13
CD 17: (-1047) D+0
CD 18: (+1006) D+2

2, 1, 13, 14, 7, 18, 17, 6, 8, 11, 3, 4, 15, 12, 16, 9, 5, 10
<more dem...................more gop>
Median seats are 8 and 11, R+2, pretty much in line with the state at large.

[Oryxslayer]

CD 1: (-42) D+22
CD 2: (-497) D+39; BVAP 52.6%
CD 3: (+180) R+5
CD 4: (-1808) R+5
CD 5: (+1704) R+16
CD 6: (-691) R+0
CD 7: (-616) D+8
CD 8: (+1566) R+2
CD 9: (+1078) R+15
CD 10: (-1173) R+20
CD 11: (-491) R+2
CD 12: (+1919) R+8
CD 13: (-636) D+17
CD 14: (+921) D+12
CD 15: (-2359) R+7
CD 16: (+963) R+13
CD 17: (-1047) D+0
CD 18: (+1006) D+2

2, 1, 13, 14, 7, 18, 17, 6, 8, 11, 3, 4, 15, 12, 16, 9, 5, 10
<more dem...................more gop>
Median seats are 8 and 11, R+2, pretty much in line with the state at large.

Again he is using a piecemeal map, with only about 1/3 of the precincts having 2012/2016 data - HE NEEDS TO USE THE SECOND ON THE LIST. Want to confirm? Open PA in DRA and then mouse around over precincts - you will easily see many missing ones. You need to pick 2010 voting districts, not 2010 voting districts State Updated.

This is a problem because DRA ads up PVI per precinct and averages them to produce a final result. If only a third of precincts have data - you districts will only reflect that third.

[muon2]

CD 1: (-42) D+22
CD 2: (-497) D+39; BVAP 52.6%
CD 3: (+180) R+5
CD 4: (-1808) R+5
CD 5: (+1704) R+16
CD 6: (-691) R+0
CD 7: (-616) D+8
CD 8: (+1566) R+2
CD 9: (+1078) R+15
CD 10: (-1173) R+20
CD 11: (-491) R+2
CD 12: (+1919) R+8
CD 13: (-636) D+17
CD 14: (+921) D+12
CD 15: (-2359) R+7
CD 16: (+963) R+13
CD 17: (-1047) D+0
CD 18: (+1006) D+2

2, 1, 13, 14, 7, 18, 17, 6, 8, 11, 3, 4, 15, 12, 16, 9, 5, 10
<more dem...................more gop>
Median seats are 8 and 11, R+2, pretty much in line with the state at large.

Again he is using a piecemeal map, with only about 1/3 of the precincts having 2012/2016 data - HE NEEDS TO USE THE SECOND ON THE LIST. Want to confirm? Open PA in DRA and then mouse around over precincts - you will easily see many missing ones. You need to pick 2010 voting districts, not 2010 voting districts State Updated.

This is a problem because DRA ads up PVI per precinct and averages them to produce a final result. If only a third of precincts have data - you districts will only reflect that third.

Unfortunately I was not aware that the precincts were incomplete. I know that precincts have changed in some locations so I thought the updated list would better reflect the current numbers. I also see that I can't change the precinct choice on a saved map, so I will have to recreate it, again.

You asked about Philly, and while I am recreating the map, I can tell you that the city is divided such that everything north of South and east of Broad except ward 61 is in CD 1. Everything south of South or west of Broad except for wards 9, 10, 22 and 50 is in CD 2. Those other wards not in CD 1 or 2 are in CD 13.

[Torie]

Back in 2013 I looked at PA using DRA as the muon rules were first being fleshed out. With help from Torie, traininthedistance, and jimrtex, I came up with a balanced neutral plan. I couldn't find my drf file from back then, so I reconstructed it with a couple of tweaks to reflect the current version of the rules.



Chester is the only macrochopped county smaller than a CD, and only three other small counties have regular chops. No city/borough/township is chopped except Philly, and no ward within Philly is chopped. Obama won 11 of the 18 CDs in 2008. DRA population deviations and current PVIs for the CDs are:

CD 1: (-42) D+22
CD 2: (-497) D+39; BVAP 52.6%
CD 3: (+180) R+5
CD 4: (-1808) R+5
CD 5: (+1704) R+16
CD 6: (-691) R+0
CD 7: (-616) D+8
CD 8: (+1566) R+2
CD 9: (+1078) R+15
CD 10: (-1173) R+20
CD 11: (-491) R+2
CD 12: (+1919) R+8
CD 13: (-636) D+17
CD 14: (+921) D+12
CD 15: (-2359) R+7
CD 16: (+963) R+13
CD 17: (-1047) D+0
CD 18: (+1006) D+2

This might give some sense as to what a new neutral map might produce.

I just drew my map, which attempted to follow the Muon2 rules, and see that it unsurprisingly is quite similar to his (which I am now just seeing), except for how Chester is dealt with. PA-03 remains solidly Pub, no matter how the lines are drawn. PA-15 and PA-17 do move to the Dems by about by a bit more than one point in PVI, but PA-15 remains a swing CD, and Dent if he had run for reelection, would certainly have easily held it. Trump carried PA-17 by 7.5 points, rather than 10 points. I did not crunch the numbers for PA-06, but I suspect it moves a bit to the Pubs over the current CD. (In Muon2's map, it moves a lot to the Pubs.) PA-08 moves very slightly to the Dems, but remains a swing district. As I said, the only Pub CD which disappears is PA-07. So maybe the Dems net about two seats, but it could easily be just one. The Pub gerrymander just did not harvest that much for them, at least as things have evolved since it was originally drawn.

Oh, this business that Brady needed more white votes, and thus needed a CD that left Philly, is just not supported by the numbers. In my map, his CD is 23.5% BVAP. I suspect some Pubs made that one up as their own little urban legend, to justify their gerrymander as not entirely partisan in that it helped Brady, and Krazen picked up on it to troll us.

[krazen1211]

Oh, this business that Brady needed more white votes, and thus needed a CD that left Philly, is just not supported by the numbers. In my map, his CD is 23.5% BVAP. I suspect some Pubs made that one up as their own little urban legend, to justify their gerrymander as not entirely partisan in that it helped Brady, and Krazen picked up on it to troll us.

Well, these are the accounts of the activities from 2011. Brady's district went the other way into Northeast Philadelphia. In his great wisdom Brady preserved 3 districts for Philadelphia Democrats, and 2 districts for Philadelphia white Democrats...despite the city having 2 districts worth of population.

Jason Altmire also supported the map.

Link
Link


Dem. City Committee Chairman and U.S. Congressman Bob Brady lobbied his allies in Harrisburg to vote for the map, and it wasn’t too bad for Rep. Chaka Fattah either. These 18 Democrats aren’t necessarily Brady’s people (though many are), but they’re in the Philly orbit and voted for the map:

Louise Bishop, Vanessa Brown, Michelle Brownlee, Mark Cohen, Angel Cruz, Margo Davidson, Maria Donatucci, Kenyatta Johnson, William Keller, Thaddeus Kirkland, John Myers, Cherelle Parker, James Roebuck, John Sabatina, Curtis Thomas, Ron Waters, Jewell Williams, and Rosita Youngblood.
Brady ally Tina Tartaglione cast the deciding vote in favor of the plan in the Pa. Senate State Government Committee last week (it passed committee 6-5; she voted against it on the Senate floor).

[krazen1211]

Two problems I see with this - perhaps you could enlighten me on either of these things. First the map, if redrawn, will probably be handed down from the Democrat dominated court rather than left to the State like in Florida. The court will pick a map/draw its own, then encourage the legislature it can change it in little ways if it doesn't like it.

Second, in 2010, the Republicans controlled everything. They had the power to promise concessions beyond the shape of their districts to the Philly machine. Now with wolf in the Governors mansion, Democrats can offer their own deals if it truly comes to this in regards to redistricting.

Redistricting per the precedents of both the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and even the US Supreme Court is a legislative function.

It is entirely unclear where the words 'probably' and 'will' come from. If you operate under the assumption that the court will simply act like a partisan legislature and simply disregard all other things, they may do what you claim. All I can do is point to how things have gone in the past with regards to this Court and also Congressman Brady.

All states in this great Nation are guaranteed a Republican Form of Government.

[muon2]

CD 1: (-42) D+24
CD 2: (-497) D+39; BVAP 52.6%
CD 3: (+180) R+8
CD 4: (-1808) R+17
CD 5: (+1704) R+15
CD 6: (-691) R+3
CD 7: (-616) D+8
CD 8: (+1566) R+1
CD 9: (+1078) R+20
CD 10: (-1173) R+17
CD 11: (-491) D+0
CD 12: (+1919) R+13
CD 13: (-636) D+17
CD 14: (+921) D+10
CD 15: (-2359) R+0
CD 16: (+963) R+9
CD 17: (-1047) R+9
CD 18: (+1006) R+3

2, 1, 13, 14, 7, 18, 17, 6, 8, 11, 3, 4, 15, 12, 16, 9, 5, 10
<more dem...................more gop>
Median seats are 8 and 11, R+2, pretty much in line with the state at large.

I edited the PVIs to match the correct VTD choice on DRA. Here's the updated sequence:

2, 1, 13, 14, 7, 11, 15, 8, 6, 18, 3, 16, 17, 12, 5, 10, 4, 9
Median (6, 18) R+3, which is a couple points more Pub than the state as a whole. However, if the votes from the VRA district are removed the rest of the state performs at R+3 which is the median without CD 2.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If this gets through, it's huge. I could both Harrisburg and Erie-based districts that are tossups at worst for Democrats. There may even be a competitive Lancaster-based district.

Democrats are losing ground in Erie. It voted for Trump, Toomey and just last week for Mundy. All the counties around it are solidly Republican (60%+ solid) and it doesn't have enough population on its own. If PA loses a district in 2020, there position will get even worse because it would need even more heavily Republican counties meet population requirement.

Many aspects of the GOP gerrymander are now unnecessary and irrelevant. And frankly Republicans would probably be better off tossing a district in SE PA at this juncture, because the house of cards in that region is looking shaky, just like the PA-13 game they played in 2002 and absent a redraw it could backfire in 2018 just as that did in 2006.

[Mr.Phips]

If this gets through, it's huge. I could both Harrisburg and Erie-based districts that are tossups at worst for Democrats. There may even be a competitive Lancaster-based district.

Democrats are losing ground in Erie. It voted for Trump, Toomey and just last week for Mundy. All the counties around it are solidly Republican (60%+ solid) and it doesn't have enough population on its own. If PA loses a district in 2020, there position will get even worse because it would need even more heavily Republican counties meet population requirement.

Many aspects of the GOP gerrymander are now unnecessary and irrelevant. And frankly Republicans would probably be better off tossing a district in SE PA at this juncture, because the house of cards in that region is looking shaky, just like the PA-13 game they played in 2002 and absent a redraw it could backfire in 2018 just as that did in 2006.

I really don't know what Republicans were thinking by trying to keep PA-13 competitive in 2002.  Al Gore won there by 12 points even after the redraw.  Had they conceded that seat to Hoeffel, they would have been able to make PA-06 and PA-07 Bush districts and may have even been able to save Weldon in 2006.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

The districts in the Philly suburbs are ridiculously gerrymandered and I've long felt that the GOP should simply concede one more district to the dems in southeast PA. On the other hand, PA 17 was drawn as a democrat vote sink and Trump still won it in 2016. A fairly drawn PA 17 would probably have to include all of Luzcerne and Lackawanna counties while Easton is given back to Lehigh Valley based PA 15. If this were the case, the district would lean R. The truth is that, as a result of democrats being so concentrated in Philly, it would take an extreme gerrymander to even have 7 democrat districts out of 18. PA will lose a district after the 2020 census anyway (maybe even two) so this seems like a waste of time for one or two elections at most.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The districts in the Philly suburbs are ridiculously gerrymandered and I've long felt that the GOP should simply concede one more district to the dems in southeast PA. On the other hand, PA 17 was drawn as a democrat vote sink and Trump still won it in 2016. A fairly drawn PA 17 would probably have to include all of Luzcerne and Lackawanna counties while Easton is given back to Lehigh Valley based PA 15. If this were the case, the district would lean R. The truth is that, as a result of democrats being so concentrated in Philly, it would take an extreme gerrymander to even have 7 democrat districts out of 18. PA will lose a district after the 2020 census anyway (maybe even two) so this seems like a waste of time for one or two elections at most.

Well historically PA-11 was based around Luzerne while PA-17 was centered around Harrisburg. Hilarious, if that strategy is followed, PA-17 becomes the Luzerne seat while 11 becomes the seat in Harrisburg metro. PA-17 only began its march eastward in 2002, when they merged it with Holden's Schuylkill county based PA-06 in the hopes of knocking out Holden and creating a new PA-06 for then State Senate Jim Gerlach. The latter succeeded, but the former failed, and Holden held that version of PA-17 all the way until the new map in 2012.

PA-10 and PA-11 have been in NE PA for like, ever. PA-10 was Lackawanna County, and PA-11 was Luzerne. Following the 1950 census, PA-10 inherited the rural NE PA counties from a heavily Republican district that was dismantled. Scranton was only removed in 2002 following the close call in 1998 in PA-10.

[Oryxslayer]

The districts in the Philly suburbs are ridiculously gerrymandered and I've long felt that the GOP should simply concede one more district to the dems in southeast PA. On the other hand, PA 17 was drawn as a democrat vote sink and Trump still won it in 2016. A fairly drawn PA 17 would probably have to include all of Luzcerne and Lackawanna counties while Easton is given back to Lehigh Valley based PA 15. If this were the case, the district would lean R. The truth is that, as a result of democrats being so concentrated in Philly, it would take an extreme gerrymander to even have 7 democrat districts out of 18. PA will lose a district after the 2020 census anyway (maybe even two) so this seems like a waste of time for one or two elections at most.

Interestingly as shown by Moun's district above, the 2010 numbers really encourage PA-17 to be Luzerne+Lackawanna+Monroe - the three counties are only a few hundred voters off of baseline. Such a district would be 51.7-44.6 Trump, compared to the current districts 54-43. It would have a Even PVI whereas the current district has a R+1. The thing really anchoring Pubs in the current PA-17 is Schuylkill, the one real remnant of the 2000 PA-17. The county was Tim Holden's base, and so it was grafted on to all the former Dem areas of PA-11.

The thing about PA is that the geography really favors the Pubs. Most fair maps can really only get 10/11 Obama districts out of a state Obama won by 10%. A 2012/2016 fair map of PA typically has:

-5 Solid Blue Districts: 4 in Philly Metro and one in Philly
-4 Marginal districts:  two in Metro, one in Lehigh valley, one in Northeast - my maps tend to have these all never leave a D+1/R+1 margin
-1 rarely competitive R seat somewhere with a R+5/6/7 PVI
-8 Safe Republican Seats across the state.

A fair map only really gives the Dems one seat, and pushes the four remaining swing seats closer to the center. The state favors the Pubs, and if this wasn't looking like a Democratic year, a fair map might not really change the state arithmetic.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The districts in the Philly suburbs are ridiculously gerrymandered and I've long felt that the GOP should simply concede one more district to the dems in southeast PA. On the other hand, PA 17 was drawn as a democrat vote sink and Trump still won it in 2016. A fairly drawn PA 17 would probably have to include all of Luzcerne and Lackawanna counties while Easton is given back to Lehigh Valley based PA 15. If this were the case, the district would lean R. The truth is that, as a result of democrats being so concentrated in Philly, it would take an extreme gerrymander to even have 7 democrat districts out of 18. PA will lose a district after the 2020 census anyway (maybe even two) so this seems like a waste of time for one or two elections at most.

Interestingly as shown by Moun's district above, the 2010 numbers really encourage PA-17 to be Luzerne+Lackawanna+Monroe - the three counties are only a few hundred voters off of baseline. Such a district would be 51.7-44.6 Trump, compared to the current districts 54-43. It would have a Even PVI whereas the current district has a R+1. The thing really anchoring Pubs in the current PA-17 is Schuylkill, the one real remnant of the 2000 PA-17. The county was Tim Holden's base, and so it was grafted on to all the former Dem areas of PA-11.

The thing about PA is that the geography really favors the Pubs. Most fair maps can really only get 10/11 Obama districts out of a state Obama won by 10%. A 2012/2016 fair map of PA typically has:

-5 Solid Blue Districts: 4 in Philly Metro and one in Philly
-4 Marginal districts:  two in Metro, one in Lehigh valley, one in Northeast - my maps tend to have these all never leave a D+1/R+1 margin
-1 rarely competitive R seat somewhere with a R+5/6/7 PVI
-8 Safe Republican Seats across the state.

A fair map only really gives the Dems one seat, and pushes the four remaining swing seats closer to the center. The state favors the Pubs, and if this wasn't looking like a Democratic year, a fair map might not really change the state arithmetic.

This is a marked shift from the 2000's map, where it definitely was gerrymandering that made the difference to produce a 12-7 GOP Map in a state that voted for Gore and Kerry. We are really worlds away from a Democratic district being anchored in Somerset and Cambria County for instance (Murtha's) and 4 Democratic Districts to the West of it. PA-04 (Lawrence/Beaver based seat), PA-12 (Murtha), PA-14 (Pittsburgh, PA-18 (Pittsburgh and suburbs), PA-20 (WV Border Counties) were all Dem held seats in Western PA in the 1990's and PA-21 (Erie Based) could have been if not for Phil English and Tom Ridge before him.

[politicallefty]

Interestingly as shown by Moun's district above, the 2010 numbers really encourage PA-17 to be Luzerne+Lackawanna+Monroe - the three counties are only a few hundred voters off of baseline. Such a district would be 51.7-44.6 Trump, compared to the current districts 54-43. It would have a Even PVI whereas the current district has a R+1. The thing really anchoring Pubs in the current PA-17 is Schuylkill, the one real remnant of the 2000 PA-17. The county was Tim Holden's base, and so it was grafted on to all the former Dem areas of PA-11.

The thing about PA is that the geography really favors the Pubs. Most fair maps can really only get 10/11 Obama districts out of a state Obama won by 10%. A 2012/2016 fair map of PA typically has:

-5 Solid Blue Districts: 4 in Philly Metro and one in Philly
-4 Marginal districts:  two in Metro, one in Lehigh valley, one in Northeast - my maps tend to have these all never leave a D+1/R+1 margin
-1 rarely competitive R seat somewhere with a R+5/6/7 PVI
-8 Safe Republican Seats across the state.

A fair map only really gives the Dems one seat, and pushes the four remaining swing seats closer to the center. The state favors the Pubs, and if this wasn't looking like a Democratic year, a fair map might not really change the state arithmetic.

I was digging through some of my old redistricting maps that I made prior to the 2012 election (so, based on Obama/McCain numbers) and I hadn't realized how badly Western PA has slipped away. Back then, Democrats would've been happy with an Erie-based district that took in the counties along the border with Ohio (which would've been a highly competitive R+1 district that Obama had won). The other district would've been a larger version of the old PA-20 (Greene, Fayette, Washington, and chunks of Beaver and Allegheny). It barely voted for McCain and I think that's only because McCain and Palin campaigned heavily in SWPA in the late days of 2008 campaign. Both of those would now be R+7 districts. Not impossible, but not even close to competitive. But that's really why the current PA-18 looks like it does, as opposed to being anchored in the corner (Westmoreland having already moved against Democrats federally).

Prior to 2010, Democrats controlled the PA delegation 12-7 and that's without PA-06 or PA-15 (although Democrats really had no business holding PA-10). The old PA-17 was really a Holden district, not a Democratic district. In that map, holding a majority of the delegation was contingent upon holding a majority of the marginal districts. We don't really know how relevant the Trump numbers are in some of these districts. For all we know, they could be as relevant as Obama's 2008 performance in states like Michigan and Wisconsin. In particular, I'm thinking about the reconstituted Lackawanna/Luzerne and Lehigh Valley districts. The former would've been considered a solid Dem district prior to 2016.

I think in any event, in a fair map, PA-07 will be gone for Republicans. There is absolutely no reason not to have Delco entirely contained within one district, creating a near-safe D+8 district. One thing I think makes things far more dangerous for Republicans in the new more competitive marginals is that incumbency is also mitigated, not to mention what it means if 2018 is a wave election with brand new districts.

Not to split hairs or anything, but I think there could be as many as three districts in your third category (R+5-7). Your point is still valid though. The geography of Pennsylvania is definitely tougher for Democrats now than it was several years ago. Even if Trump's numbers outside of SEPA inflate Republican performance, Western PA has been moving in their direction more than SEPA has for the Democrats (at least as far we can tell right now). To be honest, for all they hype, I was not at all impressed with Hillary's SEPA numbers. It does appear though, at the local level, that Trump's unpopularity is translating to Democratic gains. It remains to be seen if that will work it's way up to the state and federal level.

[Oryxslayer]

Or a new swing seat in a court-drawn map where Chester has a D+ PVI. What a time to be alive

Chester is interesting - in 2008/2012 the county was easily still to the right of the state. In 2016 the county swung very hard to to the left, and it looks to be staying that way. Democrats appear to have made strides in the row offices last week, and the county backed the failed Liberal bid at the Supreme court, even while the Liberal Judge lost Lakawanna, Erie, and Lehigh all went for the Conservative. For reference, the race was 52-47 Conservative Judge.

The weird thing is that when drawing fair districts in that region of PA, there is a Gordian Knot in the lines. You have the numbers for two districts (6/16) and a few extraneous pops to balance out the 13th or the 7th. However, the counties make things nice. Of Chester, Berks, and Lancaster, only two can get a district based around them. The third has to get brutally cut up between her neighbors. There is no way to avoid it. We have a map in this thread that cuts Chester, and a map that cuts Lancaster - and I always have liked to cut Berks. There is no real solution which is the better county to cut.

[muon2]

Or a new swing seat in a court-drawn map where Chester has a D+ PVI. What a time to be alive

Chester is interesting - in 2008/2012 the county was easily still to the right of the state. In 2016 the county swung very hard to to the left, and it looks to be staying that way. Democrats appear to have made strides in the row offices last week, and the county backed the failed Liberal bid at the Supreme court, even while the Liberal Judge lost Lakawanna, Erie, and Lehigh all went for the Conservative. For reference, the race was 52-47 Conservative Judge.

The weird thing is that when drawing fair districts in that region of PA, there is a Gordian Knot in the lines. You have the numbers for two districts (6/16) and a few extraneous pops to balance out the 13th or the 7th. However, the counties make things nice. Of Chester, Berks, and Lancaster, only two can get a district based around them. The third has to get brutally cut up between her neighbors. There is no way to avoid it. We have a map in this thread that cuts Chester, and a map that cuts Lancaster - and I always have liked to cut Berks. There is no real solution which is the better county to cut.

If two chops are needed and the chop is inevitably large, eg more than 5% of the district population, I find that the shapes can be best managed by putting both chops in one county. Metrics that look at chops sometimes build that in intentionally. For instance FL looks at how many counties are chopped, not how many chops are required and that forces all the chops into a few counties if applied rigorously.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Or a new swing seat in a court-drawn map where Chester has a D+ PVI. What a time to be alive

Chester is interesting - in 2008/2012 the county was easily still to the right of the state. In 2016 the county swung very hard to to the left, and it looks to be staying that way. Democrats appear to have made strides in the row offices last week, and the county backed the failed Liberal bid at the Supreme court, even while the Liberal Judge lost Lakawanna, Erie, and Lehigh all went for the Conservative. For reference, the race was 52-47 Conservative Judge.

The weird thing is that when drawing fair districts in that region of PA, there is a Gordian Knot in the lines. You have the numbers for two districts (6/16) and a few extraneous pops to balance out the 13th or the 7th. However, the counties make things nice. Of Chester, Berks, and Lancaster, only two can get a district based around them. The third has to get brutally cut up between her neighbors. There is no way to avoid it. We have a map in this thread that cuts Chester, and a map that cuts Lancaster - and I always have liked to cut Berks. There is no real solution which is the better county to cut.

If two chops are needed and the chop is inevitably large, eg more than 5% of the district population, I find that the shapes can be best managed by putting both chops in one county. Metrics that look at chops sometimes build that in intentionally. For instance FL looks at how many counties are chopped, not how many chops are required and that forces all the chops into a few counties if applied rigorously.

Leaving aside the flawed numbers, I like how your map above looks in terms of PA-16 and PA-06. I also liked that you kept 11 in the NE and put 17 back where it belongs.

I would note that by splitting Lancaster, from my birds eye view, has the effect of a soft pro-GOP gerrymander, since Lancaster is traditionally Republican (though ebbing), putting a chunk in with a Chester based PA-06 and a Berks based PA-16, has the effect of tilting both to the Republicans in too steep way for either to flip. Whereas Lancaster plus a piece of Chester, would be Safe Republican for at least a while, while a Berks plus rest of Chester seat would actually be competitive.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Or a new swing seat in a court-drawn map where Chester has a D+ PVI. What a time to be alive

Chester is interesting - in 2008/2012 the county was easily still to the right of the state. In 2016 the county swung very hard to to the left, and it looks to be staying that way. Democrats appear to have made strides in the row offices last week, and the county backed the failed Liberal bid at the Supreme court, even while the Liberal Judge lost Lakawanna, Erie, and Lehigh all went for the Conservative. For reference, the race was 52-47 Conservative Judge.

This not completely new, I would note that a lot of gains were made in SE PA in 2005-2008, in Montco, Delco and Bucks. Chester seems to have the makings of a shift to the Democrats demographically, but I wouldn't read a lot into local level sweeps in an off year for the party not in power. Remember in 2009, the Republicans gained the school board in Wake County, NC leading to that big fight over community schools/busing. You have to pare back and separate cyclical decline and structural, and recognize that a lot of places that were once formerly Republican strongholds are now swing areas and vice versa. So you are going to see these kind of results that shift unfolds. Some areas will become solid for the other party.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Pennsylvania Non-Partisan plan.

My non-partisan redistricting plan for Pennsylvania. Currently the 1st district is plurality black while the 2nd District is majority black, under my plan both are (barely) majority black.

District 1 D+36.23 - 86.0 - 13.5 - 50.5 African American
District 2 D+40.09 - 89.4 - 10.2 - 50.1 African American
District 3 R+07.92 - 49.9 - 48.7
District 4 R+15.94 - 41.1 - 57.8
District 5 R+15.67 - 44.6 - 53.9
District 6 R+03.31 - 53.5 - 45.3
District 7 D+02.38 - 54.2 - 44.9
District 8 R+00.68 - 53.9 - 45.0
District 9 R+23.28 - 37.9 - 60.7
District 10 R+18.38 - 41.1 - 57.6
District 11 R+08.43 - 47.0 - 51.8
District 12 R+03.28 - 48.7 - 50.3
District 13 D+11.61 - 62.1 - 37.1
District 14 D+12.51 - 63.0 - 36.0
District 15 R+00.74 - 55.9 - 42.8
District 16 R+08.66 - 46.4 - 52.7
District 17 D+00.28 - 57.6 - 41.4
District 18 R+13.38 - 44.8 - 54.1

My Pennsylvania redistricting plan.

[Oryxslayer]

Holy hell is that a lot of cut counties - I have drawn maps that only cut 6.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Holy hell is that a lot of cut counties - I have drawn maps that only cut 6.

No it isn't, only 16 counties were split between two or more congressional districts, and with 3 being larger than a congressional district, that leaves but 13 counties split.
Also, I don't draw my maps with the sole objective of splitting as few counties as possible, I also take into account urban areas, statistical areas, cultural regions, existing districts and many other factors.

[muon2]

Holy hell is that a lot of cut counties - I have drawn maps that only cut 6.

No it isn't, only 16 counties were split between two or more congressional districts, and with 3 being larger than a congressional district, that leaves but 13 counties split.
Also, I don't draw my maps with the sole objective of splitting as few counties as possible, I also take into account urban areas, statistical areas, cultural regions, existing districts and many other factors.

Counties are very important as political units, and except in New England probably the most important unit in the US. It is one of the most common items to protect for states that have rules against gerrymandering.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Holy hell is that a lot of cut counties - I have drawn maps that only cut 6.

No it isn't, only 16 counties were split between two or more congressional districts, and with 3 being larger than a congressional district, that leaves but 13 counties split.
Also, I don't draw my maps with the sole objective of splitting as few counties as possible, I also take into account urban areas, statistical areas, cultural regions, existing districts and many other factors.

Counties are very important as political units, and except in New England probably the most important unit in the US. It is one of the most common items to protect for states that have rules against gerrymandering.

Most certainly, I completely agree with you, however, as I said, I don't think the sole metric of a fair redistricting plan is that it splits as few counties as possible, yes that is a key metric, however it shouldn't be the only aim of redistricting.