Fair Redistricting (PA aftermath)

[muon2]

I think this would be more appropriate in the Political Geography board, where we've done this sort of thing before.

[muon2]

I think this would be more appropriate in the Political Geography board, where we've done this sort of thing before.

Ohh I didnt know it was done already. lol. Are you able to move it there?

We've done lots of redistricting exercises on that board. Some have been guided by rules and others open-ended posts by members expressing what they might like to see. I used a couple of the threads to flesh out the muon rules for scoring neutral maps stickied on that board.

[muon2]

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?

[muon2]

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?

Why not both? I.e. the public can propose a map but the panel can also draw and choose a map.

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?

I'd prefer to be the the person evaluating the maps for the benefit of the panel. That's why I asked my second question about criteria.

[muon2]

Anyone got a suggestion for which state we should do first? I'm thinking we maybe do one a day until we do huge states like Texas and Cali

If you want it realistic and want public input, you should have enough time for the public to react to plans and suggest changes. I've also found in the past that panelists will have RL interruptions and daily votes may be difficult. I know I have such interruptions.

[muon2]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[muon2]

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

I suppose any map with just 3/5 would pass then
and if no map that anyone created is considered fair by 3/5...well there's probably a problem in one of the panel members

One mechanism is to use a numeric measure of the non-mandatory criteria, such as in the muon rules. Then if no plan gets 3/5 with bipartisan support the plan with the best score wins.

[muon2]

Since this is a redo of 2010, for VRA compliance one can look at the current number of minority districts in each state and use that as a baseline.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

I vote to approve the rules. That should be 3/5 majority

Does that include the amendment to go to 2 submissions per person? TimTurner should also vote on cvparty's revised amendment that the submission limit applies to all. Even though their votes are not necessary, it would be nice to see panelists Ted Bessell and LimoLiberal weigh in to confirm their continued interest.

[muon2]

Given some of the uncertainty with the timing and participation I would suggest that the initial schedule only take up the New England states. They all rely heavily on town integrity more than county integrity so it's easier to look at them in a common way. There aren't any minority issues to consider and the partisan composition is going to be less of a factor than in more polarized states. By going in the order ME-NH-RI-CT-MA you can get to a medium-sized state relatively soon and get a better sense of any kinks in the process. After New England is done you can assess the process, make revisions as needed, and set the rest of the schedule.

[muon2]

Regarding Maine, I am not sure using towns is a very good idea. Many of the towns are defunct, although where the lines are drawn between CD's, in all probability the towns involved will have some governmental life to them. But even using block groups on the DRA rather than election districts (which are larger), the block groups do not necessarily match the town lines. For example, looking at the maps below, if I added the town of Sweden in Oxford county to the blue CD, I would get very close to exact population equality (Sweden has a population of 391). But I can't do that. There are two block groups that together cover Sweden and Lovell, but the line between the two block groups does not match the town line between Sweden and Lovell. Other block groups combine more than one town, as one can see with the block group that takes in Stow, South Oxford and Stoneham.

I use the 2010 voting districts option, not block groups. ME consolidates its voting districts across towns for polling efficiency. I believe that when towns are consolidated into a voting district the voting district consists only of whole towns so no chops are needed. In any case the panel has expressed less interest in exact equality as long is the maximum deviation is under 0.5%. So going from under 400 deviation to under 100 deviation may not carry much weight.

[muon2]

It might carry weight which map is more exact if the maps otherwise tie, but whatever. And you might be right, that there is no voting district that takes in parts (slices, dices, bits, pieces, fragments) of two towns (are you sure?). But the participants will have to figure out digging out the town maps, which voting districts chop a town, and which do not (see map below where one town (South Oxford) is split into two voting districts, with one voting district therein also taking in another town (Stoneham) to confuse matters further). Good luck with that. The voting district numbers give no clue as to whether a split is involved or not.

Ah well. I had hope that one grouping might be better than the other.

So this would be my initial submission. I checked the town maps and there is only one county chop and no town chops and does not chop a UCC. CD 1 (blue) has a deviation of +75. I think this is as low as I can get erosity using counties as the primary unit and towns as the subunit.

[muon2]

Perhaps you could provide a link to where one finds all these town maps.

I search for them separately, eg franklin county maine town map. I can usually find one in the images. There are too many in ME overall to see them clearly on a state map.

[muon2]

It might carry weight which map is more exact if the maps otherwise tie, but whatever. And you might be right, that there is no voting district that takes in parts (slices, dices, bits, pieces, fragments) of two towns (are you sure?). But the participants will have to figure out digging out the town maps, which voting districts chop a town, and which do not (see map below where one town (South Oxford) is split into two voting districts, with one voting district therein also taking in another town (Stoneham) to confuse matters further). Good luck with that. The voting district numbers give no clue as to whether a split is involved or not.

Ah well. I had hope that one grouping might be better than the other.

So this would be my initial submission. I checked the town maps and there is only one county chop and no town chops and does not chop a UCC. CD 1 (blue) has a deviation of +75. I think this is as low as I can get erosity using counties as the primary unit and towns as the subunit.

Your map is using block groups, rather than VD's, right? So there is no partisan data, although obviously it could be closely estimated by redrawing a close approximation of the map using VD's. Everybody should draw using the same map I would think.

The original map was drawn in voting district mode and because of combined towns I was left with a deviation of 521. To get the chop I wanted I switched to block group mode (swapping Chesterville and New Vineyard). I found that also had PVI info that matched the values that appeared in voting district mode. Since I had partisan data from the block groups and my preferred chop, I went with that.

[muon2]

Maine conducts its elections by towns, except the unorganized towns, which are generally unorganized because there are no people to organize them.

The VTD's are what Maine submitted to the Census Bureau, and appear to be Senate-House intersections (they are relatively small because Maine has so many House districts). The numbers are of the form: sshhhi, where ss is the senate district, hhh is the house district, and i is an index.

The last digit is the County Commissioner district.  Also, these are the pre-2013 State House, State Senate and County Commissioner districts.  I find the block groups much better overall for Maine, but they have issues too, as has been shown.

I'm working with Amanda Rector, who's Maine's State Economist but also the "Governor's liaison" to the Census Bureau's Redistricting Data Program, to get better voting districts in the future (although most of our conversations so far have concerned census block lines as the Redistricting Data Program was in its Block Boundary Suggestion Project phase until last year).  Like each town with its own polling place being its own voting district, and also each ward in a city being its own voting district, like New Hampshire does now (their 2000 voting districts were as bad as or worse than Maine's, but they really improved in 2010).  Or perhaps the voting districts could be the intersections of the towns/city wards as well as the State House districts, State Senate districts and County Commissioner districts.  The Congressional district lines in Kennebec County haven't been voting district lines there (unless they're also one of the other three district lines), but if you had the borders of organized towns as voting district boundaries that would take care of the Congressional district lines anyway, with all the Congressional districts Maine has had in recent memory at least.

In a way it would be better if the Census Bureau got rid of VTD's, since they often change after the census, as state and local election boundaries change. Alternatively, they should retabulate the census results like they do for legislative and congressional districts.

Since any state realign their VTDs after the Census, it seems that the best solution would be for the Census to retabulate VTDs in 2023 based on 2020 data (looking ahead to the next cycle).