Fair Redistricting (PA aftermath)

[cvparty]

I would rather switch compactness and representativeness. Otherwise, the list looks good enough, albeit we should edit number 4 to be "small and reasonable and as few as is sensible"

alright that sounds good I’ll change it, but “small and reasonable and as few as is sensible” is very redundant

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

a possible Maine plan

This is why I asked about criteria. One might be what software can be used; for instance all plans must be submitted on DRA. TT's plan using the KHW app is whole county only, and in his case has a population range of 2.39%. That's pretty large, and how to handle population inequality is one of the most fundamental factors. Maybe the panel is less concerned with SCOTUS and more about ease of submission.

My recommendation is that the panel adopt its rules for submitting plans and the factors on which plans will be judged before starting on any states.

I lack DRA access, though I do have maps from when I did have access. Not for all states though, and most of the maps I have saved are gerrymanders.

[cvparty]

So what state do we want to start with?

we could do ME —> work southwest toward CA
or
smallest —> largest

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I would rather switch compactness and representativeness. Otherwise, the list looks good enough, albeit we should edit number 4 to be "small and reasonable and as few as is sensible"

alright that sounds good I’ll change it, but “small and reasonable and as few as is sensible” is very redundant

It's to emphasize the need to reduce the number of county splits.

[LimoLiberal]

So the first question is does the panel draw the map or do they select from publicly-submitted plans (ie including posters who aren't on the panel)?

The second question is what criteria will the panel use to evaluate plans?

hmm maybe
1) have a thread for each state where anyone can propose a map
2) each committee member selects 1 or 2 maps
3) the committee votes whether to approve each of these maps (3/5 needed for a pass)
4) the remaining maps are ranked (à la STV) and the one with most votes is the winning map

as for criteria (ranked by importance)
1) has contiguous districts (water contiguity allowed, but should be connected by something like a bridge)
2) population deviation is within 0.5%
2) districts are reasonably compact
3) districts are representative of the state’s overall partisan composition in a neutral cycle where reasonably possible
4) county/town splits are kept small and reasonable (exceptions are New England where counties don’t really matter, and large counties/towns where it’s kind of silly to require that they be fully within one district)

This sounds good. I would also add that each map submitted should have the PVIs for all districts in the state. We'll start each thread by posting the current PVIs of the district for comparison.

[Strudelcutie4427]

So what state do we want to start with?

we could do ME —> work southwest toward CA
or
smallest —> largest

Im in favor of the ME-CA plan, provided we get extra time to do states like New York, Illinois, Floirda, and Texas

[Strudelcutie4427]

So the first question is does the panel draw the map or do they select from publicly-submitted plans (ie including posters who aren't on the panel)?

The second question is what criteria will the panel use to evaluate plans?

hmm maybe
1) have a thread for each state where anyone can propose a map
2) each committee member selects 1 or 2 maps
3) the committee votes whether to approve each of these maps (3/5 needed for a pass)
4) the remaining maps are ranked (à la STV) and the one with most votes is the winning map

as for criteria (ranked by importance)
1) has contiguous districts (water contiguity allowed, but should be connected by something like a bridge)
2) population deviation is within 0.5%
2) districts are reasonably compact
3) districts are representative of the state’s overall partisan composition in a neutral cycle where reasonably possible
4) county/town splits are kept small and reasonable (exceptions are New England where counties don’t really matter, and large counties/towns where it’s kind of silly to require that they be fully within one district)

This sounds good. I would also add that each map submitted should have the PVIs for all districts in the state. We'll start each thread by posting the current PVIs of the district for comparison.

I like his plan too. If possible, I'd say that counties should not be split solely for partisan reasons, unless for things such as population count or to make VRA districts

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

So what state do we want to start with?

we could do ME —> work southwest toward CA
or
smallest —> largest

ME, NH, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, MD, VA, NC, WV, SC, OH, GA, FL, MI, IN, KY, TN, AL, WI, IL, MS, MO to LA, NE to TX, CO, NM, ID, UT, AZ, NV, WA to CA, then HI?
Or we could do this order but exclude states with more than 20 CDs, doing them all last.

[Badger]

I'll be a Dem.

No.

[jimrtex]

Okay, I feel like this would be a fun project. First I'm gonna need 2 democrats and 1 more republican plus an independent. We can try to run a mock bipartisan committee on redistricting in the gerrymandered states. For a map to pass, they would need 3/5 votes. After going through all the submissions we can put together a new map for the country. If anyone would like to join, please comment below! First come first serve, so again 2 Dems, 1 Rep (im already here) and 1 Ind. We can take up any of the states that have more than 1 district since I think all of them could be a little neater

This is fundamentally flawed, in the same way that the Arizona redistricting commission is. There, the two Republican and two Democrats chose an "independent" chairperson from persons submitted by retired judges.

One of the "independents" had a framed and signed picture of her with Nancy Pelosi. Another was so far left, that it was said that in comparison the Democratic Party was like Barry Goldwater. They chose the least worst, who turned out to be a sleeper agent.

The commission agreed to choose Democratic and Republican counsels. The two Democrats and the chair chose both counsels. As a GIS expert they chose a company that had never done redistricting work, but had done microtargetting exclusively for Democratic candidates. The chair made an agreement with the two Democrats that if they would support her ideas, she'd vote for theirs. The commission deliberately underpopulated Democratic legislative districts. The commission did not follow open meeting procedures, because the commission was established independently of those provisions. The chair and the GIS experts did some intimate redistricting at her house on weekends.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What is the limit on deviation?

[cvparty]

OKAY let me make a grand description of the process including y’all’s suggestions gimme a few minutes
alsooo @jimrtrex I‘m pretty neutral, I really try to make fair maps, but I‘d agree to be removed if I prove to be v unpopular and partisan (this goes for anyone I suppose, but especially me cuz I’m the independent)

[Strudelcutie4427]

So what state do we want to start with?

we could do ME —> work southwest toward CA
or
smallest —> largest

ME, NH, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, MD, VA, NC, WV, SC, OH, GA, FL, MI, IN, KY, TN, AL, WI, IL, MS, MO to LA, NE to TX, CO, NM, ID, UT, AZ, NV, WA to CA, then HI?
Or we could do this order but exclude states with more than 20 CDs, doing them all last.

That works good! So we'll all start off with Maine. I drew this one up in about 3 minutes so its a nice easy state to start out with. I only split Kennebec for population equality. Population deviation is only 424, and the PVIs are D+7 for the first one and R+1 for the second. Essentially no change from the real map, other than contracting the 1st more SW to take in the areas close to I-95 and the I-295 spur. For New England, Ill be using roads more often than county lines since counties dont really matter in New England, given the dynamic of its towns (besides Maine)

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Better order: ME-NH-MA-RI-CT-NY-NJ-PA-MD-WV-MI-WI-MN-OH-IN-IL-IA-MO-VA-NC-KY-TN-AR-SC-GA-AL-MS-FL-LA-TX-OK-NM-AZ-KS-NE-CO-UT-ID-WA-OR-NV-CA-HI

For Maine:

District 1: York+Cumberland+Sagadahoc+Lincoln+Androscoggin (all full Counties) + Voting District 210802, Kennebec (micro County chop)
PVI: D+6.94
District 2: Everything else
PVI: R+0.94
Population Difference: 391

[cvparty]

I guess I'll make the thread? And we'll start with Maine and work our way toward CA (save NY, FL, TX, and CA for last). But first we need another panel member, decide whether to follow VRA (personally I say no), and approve the rules I made below. NOW IS THE TIME TO PUT FORWARD ANY SUGGESTIONS

The panel

• Singletxguyforfun (R)
• LimoLiberal (R)
• cvparty (I)
• Ted Bessell (D)
• TimTurner (D)

*Panelists can be removed if there is considerable opposition and/or evidence of unfairness

State order
ME - NH - MA - RI - CT - NJ - PA - MD - VA - NC - SC - GA - WV - OH - MI - IN - KY - IL - WI - MN - IA - MO - AR - TN - AL - MS - LA - TX - OK - KS - NE - CO - NM - AZ - NV - UT - ID - WA - OR - HI - NY - FL - TX - CA
*You have the entire order here, so try to stay ahead and have maps in advance.

Map selection
1) Submissions are open for 2 days for each state (may be extended for populous states); anyone can post a map proposal

• Two proposals allowed per person—DO NOT POST MORE THAN TWO MAPS. If you do, only the first two you post will be eligible.

2) Each panelist chooses 2 maps - at least one of the choices must be a map that is not their own. (They are free to not submit a map at all and to select 2 others' plans.)

• Panelists must choose in secret by PMing me their choices (to avoid outside influences—votes will be made public afterward)

3) First round: The committee votes whether to approve each of the maps (3/5 votes needed for a pass; there must be at least one D and one R vote)
4) Second round: The remaining maps are ranked à la instant runoff and the most popular map wins

Criteria for maps
★ REQUIRED ★
1) All maps are to be made with DRA
2) PVI data must be provided, and the drf file must be available at hand to verify
3) Districts must be contiguous (water contiguity is allowed, but the areas should be connected by something like a bridge or ferry)
4) Populations must be provided; maximum allowed deviation is 0.5%
★ GOALS FOR EVALUATION ★
1) Each district's constituents are geographically, demographically, and politically similar (i.e. rural vs. urban, race, metro areas, voting)
2) The districts are generally representative of the state's partisan composition in a neutral election cycle, where reasonably possible (proportions need not be exact; states like Massachusetts and Oklahoma are understandable—just don't pull an NCGOP)
3) Districts are reasonably compact

• It is understood that compactness is not the best measure of fairness or gerrymandering; just no strange and unfair slivers and branches

4) County and especially town splits are kept small and reasonable

• Special cases are small states with large populations [e.g. there is more leeway for NJ, which has 9,000,000 people in only 21 counties vs. MS, which has 3,000,000 in 82)
• and large counties/towns [e.g. in Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh and Delaware County])

[Brittain33]

Yeah we can do both. I like that idea, it seems a bit more real. So right now we have myself as the republican, LimoLiberal and TimTurner as the Dems, CVparty as the Indy, and muon, you wanna be the other Rep?

This is your thread to do what you like with, and as a mod I've been one of his biggest defenders, but.... LimoLiberal as a Dem? Are you really sure you want to do that? He's admitted he was concern trolling in December.

[muon2]

Is this going to be an orderly process, or just running around the various states? It is starting to look like the latter, and that may be all the folks here want to do. I initially had the sense that the idea was to approach all the states in the same formal manner to create a national plan. For example, you all may want to do ME first, but the panel is not yet really organized to evaluate any plans.

If you want to act like a real panel there needs to be order with a clear timeline for each step. The submission rules and guidelines they should be put forward in a rational way, the panel should have open discussion for a set period including amendments. Then there should be a vote to adopt the rules. I've seen part of this, but nothing like what will be needed to make your way through all the states in a rational way.

After rules are adopted comes the submissions for a particular state. A deadline for review and evaluation for that state (this is when illegal plans due to population deviation or VRA defects get discarded). A final deadline for the panel to vote.

[cvparty]

Yeah we can do both. I like that idea, it seems a bit more real. So right now we have myself as the republican, LimoLiberal and TimTurner as the Dems, CVparty as the Indy, and muon, you wanna be the other Rep?

This is your thread to do what you like with, and as a mod I've been one of his biggest defenders, but.... LimoLiberal as a Dem? Are you really sure you want to do that? He's admitted he was concern trolling in December.

yeah i noticed too a lot of people said no to limo...so if another person is preferred to be the democrat that should be changed

[Torie]

Pending whatever, including rules, here is a map.

[muon2]

I guess I'll make the state threads? And we'll start with Maine and just go with Tim's sequence of states (save NY, FL, TX, and CA for last). But first we need another panel member, decide whether to follow VRA (personally I say no), and approve the provisions I made below

As board moderator I would ask that you not create 50 threads. That's a lot of threads that will likely interfere with the other threads here, and if they did I would have to start merging them.

I think you would be better off with a one or just a few threads. In the first post of a thread list all the states you are going to do in the order they will be done. Link from the OP to the point where you start on each state within the thread. If you want to have states in parallel create a few regional threads and work on one state at a time in each region.

[Strudelcutie4427]

Yeah we can do both. I like that idea, it seems a bit more real. So right now we have myself as the republican, LimoLiberal and TimTurner as the Dems, CVparty as the Indy, and muon, you wanna be the other Rep?

This is your thread to do what you like with, and as a mod I've been one of his biggest defenders, but.... LimoLiberal as a Dem? Are you really sure you want to do that? He's admitted he was concern trolling in December.

If he wants to play the part of the Republican i wouldnt mind since we have a vacancy and i feel like it'd be easier to fill a dem spot than a rep spot

[muon2]

Yeah we can do both. I like that idea, it seems a bit more real. So right now we have myself as the republican, LimoLiberal and TimTurner as the Dems, CVparty as the Indy, and muon, you wanna be the other Rep?

This is your thread to do what you like with, and as a mod I've been one of his biggest defenders, but.... LimoLiberal as a Dem? Are you really sure you want to do that? He's admitted he was concern trolling in December.

If he wants to play the part of the Republican i wouldnt mind since we have a vacancy and i feel like it'd be easier to fill a dem spot than a rep spot

You can also make the voting rule require that of the three votes needed there is at least one D and one R which should force more bipartisan support.

[Strudelcutie4427]

Yeah we can do both. I like that idea, it seems a bit more real. So right now we have myself as the republican, LimoLiberal and TimTurner as the Dems, CVparty as the Indy, and muon, you wanna be the other Rep?

This is your thread to do what you like with, and as a mod I've been one of his biggest defenders, but.... LimoLiberal as a Dem? Are you really sure you want to do that? He's admitted he was concern trolling in December.

If he wants to play the part of the Republican i wouldnt mind since we have a vacancy and i feel like it'd be easier to fill a dem spot than a rep spot

You can also make the voting rule require that of the three votes needed there is at least one D and one R which should force more bipartisan support.

Thats a good idea too. That would essentially make it so the more partisan ones dont get through. I feel like they really should do this in real life

[muon2]

Yeah we can do both. I like that idea, it seems a bit more real. So right now we have myself as the republican, LimoLiberal and TimTurner as the Dems, CVparty as the Indy, and muon, you wanna be the other Rep?

This is your thread to do what you like with, and as a mod I've been one of his biggest defenders, but.... LimoLiberal as a Dem? Are you really sure you want to do that? He's admitted he was concern trolling in December.

If he wants to play the part of the Republican i wouldnt mind since we have a vacancy and i feel like it'd be easier to fill a dem spot than a rep spot

You can also make the voting rule require that of the three votes needed there is at least one D and one R which should force more bipartisan support.

Thats a good idea too. That would essentially make it so the more partisan ones dont get through. I feel like they really should do this in real life

The OH redistricting commission has this rule. I have some familiarity with these type of commission rules and can suggest others. For example the panel should probably vote in public like a real commission.

[Torie]

What happens if the panel is unable to secure 3 votes for any map, with one Pub and one Dem voting for it?