Fair Redistricting (PA aftermath)

[Kevinstat]

Behold, the Portland Perimeter (okay, more of a quadrant than a perimeter):



The background map didn't come through for me when I saved this view.  If someone wanted to re-create my map on DRA and post it here they could feel free (but you'd have to use the block group option rather than voting districts, which are putrid for Maine; hopefully they'll be better next time).  As of and according to the 2010 census, District 1 (blue) had 664,175 people (-5.5 people from the state average) and District 2 (green) had 664,186 people (+5.5).

[muon2]

To add to rule questions, how much weight is given to keeping counties intact in New England? CT has no county government, but ME does. Is chopping a New England town a greater penalty than chopping a county there?

Here's another. All other criteria equal, SCOTUS says that the plan with less population inequality rules. Does that apply here?

[cvparty]

To add to rule questions, how much weight is given to keeping counties intact in New England? CT has no county government, but ME does. Is chopping a New England town a greater penalty than chopping a county there?

Here's another. All other criteria equal, SCOTUS says that the plan with less population inequality rules. Does that apply here?

I would say yes to preserving Maine's, but really just town lines for Connecticut. I guess the whole New England thing is more about most of them being populous but geographically small states with few counties. For example Massachusetts has nearly 7,000,000 people packed in only 14 counties. And New Jersey (another small state) has 9,000,000 in 21. Making the CDs strictly follow county lines is not the best idea for those kinds of states, hence county lines being lower than compactness and representativeness in priority. There's a lot more leeway there, than say, Mississippi, which has 3,000,000 in 82. The focus for the small but populous states is really on town lines.

And I don't think we are applying that rule, the population deviation is just a requirement. The .5% is low enough that the differences aren't significant.

[jimrtex]

Hamlinmander.



Features: Keeps Portland-South Portland UCC whole.

Whole county version is Androscoggin, Cumberland, Lincoln, Sagahadoc, and York.

(+1.19% deviation).

Moving Litchfield and Monmouth (in Kennebec) reduces deviation to (+0.03% deviation). Victims were chosen because Kennebec is most populous county on boundary, two towns are somewhat distance from Augusta, and smooth the boundary somewhat.

[Strudelcutie4427]

To add to rule questions, how much weight is given to keeping counties intact in New England? CT has no county government, but ME does. Is chopping a New England town a greater penalty than chopping a county there?

Here's another. All other criteria equal, SCOTUS says that the plan with less population inequality rules. Does that apply here?

In New England counties don’t matter in MA, NH,  RI, and CT. But splitting towns is a big no in New England unless necessary. Although Boston can be split. Other large cities (Providence, Worcester, New Gaven etc)  are okay to split but they shouldn’t be an issue. Boston is the only city that comes close to a CD on its own

[Mike Thick]

I see that cvparty says there is an open spot on the panel -- is this still the case? If so, I would be interested in taking it.

[cvparty]

I see that cvparty says there is an open spot on the panel -- is this still the case? If so, I would be interested in taking it.

yeet I'm assuming you'll be the Democrat? we shall commence Monday with Maine then (I still think we need another day to sort things out)

[Mike Thick]

I see that cvparty says there is an open spot on the panel -- is this still the case? If so, I would be interested in taking it.

yeet I'm assuming you'll be the Democrat? we shall commence Monday with Maine then (I still think we need another day to sort things out)

Yep!

[Kevinstat]

Behold, a variant of my "Portland Perimeter" plan that only divides one county, Oxford:



Pretend the "horses hoof" of the white area (the town of Gilead) is in blue and the rest of the white area is in green.  It would have came out even worse with the voting district option, as Milton Twp. just south of Rumford which is part of a block group with eastern Bethel (and I have both municipalities in District 1) is part of the same "voting district" as the white area which besides Gilead I have in District 2 (and Milton Twp. is dis-contiguous from the remainder of that "voting district").  As of and according to the 2010 census, District 1 (blue) had 664,138 people (-42.5 people from the state average) and District 2 (green) had 664,223 people (+42.5).

[muon2]

I see that cvparty says there is an open spot on the panel -- is this still the case? If so, I would be interested in taking it.

yeet I'm assuming you'll be the Democrat? we shall commence Monday with Maine then (I still think we need another day to sort things out)

To help facilitate, I suggest that the panel begin to approve its rules. This is the panel as I understand it.
Singletxguyforfun (R)
LimoLiberal (R)
cvparty (I)
Ted Bessell (D)
TimTurner (D)

This is the first set of procedural rules.
1) Votes shall be cast by post with an X, the panelist's screen name and party initial.
2) All actions must be approved by at least 3 of the 5 panelists, with at least one from a (D) panelist and one from a (R) panelist.
3) Members can be removed for cause based on evidence of unfairness.
4) Any person may submit a plan for a state, but a person may not submit more than one plan per state.
5) Official submissions will be by DRA with a drf file, though submissions in other forms may be accepted and translated into DRA. Translating a map into DRA does not count against the submission limit.
6) Plans shall conform with the following criteria, and nonconforming plans will not be considered for submission:
6.1) The maximum population deviation of any district is 0.5% from the quota;
6.2) Districts in a plan must be contiguous and connected. That is it must be possible to go between political units within a district on public roads or ferries without leaving the district.
7) Plans will be evaluated on the following criteria that may be prioritized by vote of the panel:
7.1) the compactness/erosity of districts;
7.2) the number of chops of political units and subunits as established for each state;
7.3) the partisan polarization and competitiveness;
7.4) comparison of minority districts to current enacted plans;
7.5) the degree that districts avoid excess division of defined urban areas that span multiple political units (eg UCCs).

If this set (or an amended version) is approved the panel can then consider the rules governing the order and selection of plans. The voting is open.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I much prefer for two plans to be permitted per panelist, not just one.

[muon2]

I much prefer for two plans to be permitted per panelist, not just one.

I will take that as a proposed amendment that can be voted on by the panel. To be clear - you are drawing a distinction between the number of plans a panelist can submit compared to the number from other posters. This is not about the step when plans are put into the final pool for voting.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I much prefer for two plans to be permitted per panelist, not just one.

I will take that as a proposed amendment that can be voted on by the panel. To be clear - you are drawing a distinction between the number of plans a panelist can submit compared to the number from other posters. This is not about the step when plans are put into the final pool for voting.

I don't have an opinion on how many plans other posters can submit, not yet anyway. But I think the way we have been moving so far suggests two is the maximum a panelist can submit, not one.

[cvparty]

I much prefer for two plans to be permitted per panelist, not just one.

I will take that as a proposed amendment that can be voted on by the panel. To be clear - you are drawing a distinction between the number of plans a panelist can submit compared to the number from other posters. This is not about the step when plans are put into the final pool for voting.

I don't have an opinion on how many plans other posters can submit, not yet anyway. But I think the way we have been moving so far suggests two is the maximum a panelist can submit, not one.

The thing is that if we let the panelists submit two maps, then they'll likely use their two choices on their own maps. I wanted more say from the public in the maps while keeping the flow relatively quick. If we increase the number of choices, then we get too many maps (this whole thing could take a year or something). The goal here is to create a plan with fair and similar districts. And considering that focus, when it comes down to choosing between two maps that one likes, I believe there is probably one you can choose that is ultimately the better fit.

[cvparty]

are we doing this tomorrow or no lol

[Strudelcutie4427]

are we doing this tomorrow or no lol

I think so. Im guessing there will be a new thread up for Maine tomorrow, unless its all done on this one

[muon2]

I tried to move it along by giving the panel something to practice on earlier today - the panel rules. None have even voted on them yet, and the only two who commented on them didn't agree. I'm not sure if you all want any organization to your panel and submissions.

[cvparty]

I tried to move it along by giving the panel something to practice on earlier today - the panel rules. None have even voted on them yet, and the only two who commented on them didn't agree. I'm not sure if you all want any organization to your panel and submissions.

yeah I really appreciate that but only two of us have actually responded...

[muon2]

I tried to move it along by giving the panel something to practice on earlier today - the panel rules. None have even voted on them yet, and the only two who commented on them didn't agree. I'm not sure if you all want any organization to your panel and submissions.

yeah I really appreciate that but only two of us have actually responded...

I've run one of these panels before and GMed a couple Diplomacy games on the Election and History Games board here. If only two people respond the day after the panel formed I'm not optimistic that a state every other day is going to work for you.

[cvparty]

I tried to move it along by giving the panel something to practice on earlier today - the panel rules. None have even voted on them yet, and the only two who commented on them didn't agree. I'm not sure if you all want any organization to your panel and submissions.

yeah I really appreciate that but only two of us have actually responded...

I've run one of these panels before and GMed a couple Diplomacy games on the Election and History Games board here. If only two people respond the day after the panel formed I'm not optimistic that a state every other day is going to work for you.

We *could* wait another/a few more days...or we could just go ahead and do a little sort of run with Maine tomorrow. I think everyone said the rules were good/sufficient. It's a simple 2-CD state anyway it's not like we're running headfirst into California...if we run into problems we can go back and revise

[muon2]

I tried to move it along by giving the panel something to practice on earlier today - the panel rules. None have even voted on them yet, and the only two who commented on them didn't agree. I'm not sure if you all want any organization to your panel and submissions.

yeah I really appreciate that but only two of us have actually responded...

I've run one of these panels before and GMed a couple Diplomacy games on the Election and History Games board here. If only two people respond the day after the panel formed I'm not optimistic that a state every other day is going to work for you.

We *could* wait another/a few more days...or we could just go ahead and do a little sort of run with Maine tomorrow. I think everyone said the rules were good/sufficient. It's a simple 2-CD state anyway it's not like we're running headfirst into California...if we run into problems we can go back and revise

In that case I wouldn't start a new thread. You have a bunch of ME plans already on this one. Just identify them by name so commissioners can vote.

[cvparty]

I tried to move it along by giving the panel something to practice on earlier today - the panel rules. None have even voted on them yet, and the only two who commented on them didn't agree. I'm not sure if you all want any organization to your panel and submissions.

yeah I really appreciate that but only two of us have actually responded...

I've run one of these panels before and GMed a couple Diplomacy games on the Election and History Games board here. If only two people respond the day after the panel formed I'm not optimistic that a state every other day is going to work for you.

We *could* wait another/a few more days...or we could just go ahead and do a little sort of run with Maine tomorrow. I think everyone said the rules were good/sufficient. It's a simple 2-CD state anyway it's not like we're running headfirst into California...if we run into problems we can go back and revise

In that case I wouldn't start a new thread. You have a bunch of ME plans already on this one. Just identify them by name so commissioners can vote.

well I'd prefer to just start clean so there are clear rules that are easily found in the OP, plus there was a lot said in this thread before Maine came up. I'd link the plans that appeared in this thread in the new thread

[jimrtex]

I much prefer for two plans to be permitted per panelist, not just one.

I will take that as a proposed amendment that can be voted on by the panel. To be clear - you are drawing a distinction between the number of plans a panelist can submit compared to the number from other posters. This is not about the step when plans are put into the final pool for voting.

I don't have an opinion on how many plans other posters can submit, not yet anyway. But I think the way we have been moving so far suggests two is the maximum a panelist can submit, not one.

The thing is that if we let the panelists submit two maps, then they'll likely use their two choices on their own maps. I wanted more say from the public in the maps while keeping the flow relatively quick. If we increase the number of choices, then we get too many maps (this whole thing could take a year or something). The goal here is to create a plan with fair and similar districts. And considering that focus, when it comes down to choosing between two maps that one likes, I believe there is probably one you can choose that is ultimately the better fit.

Let's assume it takes a day to draw a district. If the states are drawn serially the process could bog down when we get to larger states. So I suggest that the states be divided into tiers, and handled in parallel.

So you could have:

ME-NH-RI-CT-WV-KY-SC-AL-MS-LA-AR-IA-NE-KS-OK-NM-UT-NV-ID-OR-HI

These would each be a week or less.

MA-MD-TN IN-WI-MN-MO-CO-AZ-WA

A week or so.

NJ-VA-NC-GA-OH-MI

A couple of weeks.

NY-PA-IL-FL

Up to a month.

TX-CA

Up to two months.

Their could be a thread for each, and each could be opened up for submissions in turn. Overall this would take three months. Or you could have fewer tiers and take somewhat longer.

[jimrtex]

I see that cvparty says there is an open spot on the panel -- is this still the case? If so, I would be interested in taking it.

yeet I'm assuming you'll be the Democrat? we shall commence Monday with Maine then (I still think we need another day to sort things out)

To help facilitate, I suggest that the panel begin to approve its rules. This is the panel as I understand it.
Singletxguyforfun (R)
LimoLiberal (R)
cvparty (I)
Ted Bessell (D)
TimTurner (D)

This is the first set of procedural rules.
1) Votes shall be cast by post with an X, the panelist's screen name and party initial.
2) All actions must be approved by at least 3 of the 5 panelists, with at least one from a (D) panelist and one from a (R) panelist.
3) Members can be removed for cause based on evidence of unfairness.
4) Any person may submit a plan for a state, but a person may not submit more than one plan per state.

I'd like to be able to submit multiple maps. If this becomes problematic, a limit could be set.

5) Official submissions will be by DRA with a drf file, though submissions in other forms may be accepted and translated into DRA. Translating a map into DRA does not count against the submission limit.

What is the .drf format? Are the DRA shapefiles and associated data files available?

6) Plans shall conform with the following criteria, and nonconforming plans will not be considered for submission:
6.1) The maximum population deviation of any district is 0.5% from the quota;
6.2) Districts in a plan must be contiguous and connected. That is it must be possible to go between political units within a district on public roads or ferries without leaving the district.
7) Plans will be evaluated on the following criteria that may be prioritized by vote of the panel:
7.1) the compactness/erosity of districts;
7.2) the number of chops of political units and subunits as established for each state;
7.3) the partisan polarization and competitiveness;
7.4) comparison of minority districts to current enacted plans;
7.5) the degree that districts avoid excess division of defined urban areas that span multiple political units (eg UCCs).

Should there be any criteria? Why not let the submitter provide a narrative?

If this set (or an amended version) is approved the panel can then consider the rules governing the order and selection of plans. The voting is open.

[cvparty]

jimrtex and TimTurner, we'll go with 2 allowed submissions for now, but if it becomes too much we should scale it down again. the map just needs to be made with DRA, you can even submit it as an interactive google map if ya know how to do that, but you do need to have the file available so we can open it in DRA. and yes we will have the listed criteria as factors in evaluation, but you are free to explain your map with a narrative and that will be considered.