Fair redistricting: Texas

[muon2]

I strongly recommend you look at my post about an additional split.

[muon2]

A little over two years ago Torie started a thread to look at the plans for states that had particularly partisan gerrymanders. One of them was NC and Torie and I went back and forth hammering out a plan that fit under the rules.

North Carolina has the following UCCs (cover, pack is 1 less):
Charlotte UCC (3): Mecklenburg, Gaston, Union, Cabarrus, Iredell, Rowan.
Raleigh UCC (2): Wake, Johnston
Winston-Salem UCC (1): Forsyth, Davidson
Durham (1): Durham, Orange
Asheville (1): Buncombe, Henderson, Haywood
Fayetteville (1): Cumberland, Hoke
Hickory (1): Catawba, Burke, Caldwell

This is the plan that emerged and will by my submission (Torie is welcome to join in as it was a joint project). All UCC covers are maintained and only one pack is missing for the Charlotte UCC. Only four counties were chopped, two of which had to be chopped because of size, and none were chopped more than once. Though VRA compliance is not required in this exercise, CD 1 groups together the rural counties with significant black populations (over 40%) as a community of interest. The whole county CD 1 is 40.3% BVAP and D+3 so the preferred candidate of the black minority would be likely to win both the primary and general election.



CD 1: +1797; D+3.06; BVAP 40.3%
CD 2: -3440; R+2.55; BVAP 27.5%
CD 3: +1084; R+8.07; BVAP 25.0%
CD 4: +2027; D+14.25; BVAP 20.0%
CD 5: +469; R+8.78
CD 6: -319; D+2.17; BVAP 26.7%
CD 7: -1146; R+8.71
CD 8: +22; D+0.96; BVAP 24.1%
CD 9: -326; R+19.08
CD 10: +1037; R+19.14
CD 11: -971; R+8.93
CD 12: -2472; D+5.03; BVAP 25.6%
CD 13: +2234; D+4.80; BVAP 22.9%

[muon2]

Here are some additional features about NC in SPICE scoring.

The state has a PVI of R+3.00. Statistically that means with 13 seats the Pubs would be expected to have a two seat edge in the delegation. Since there are an odd number of seats a plan with 7 R, 5 D and one tossup would have a 0 SKEW.

Two counties have to be chopped due to their population: Mecklenburg and Wake. NC doesn't have defined county subdivisions like towns, but we have used planning regions to show the locally-recognized communities of interest. I'll find the files and post them.

Erosity is based on county connections. The following map shows which counties are connected, and how. Blue (highways both shades) and green (all-year ferry) links represent full connections between two counties. Yellow and gold links represent counties that are only connected by a local road, not a state highway. Orange and pink links show counties that are contiguous but not directly connected, that is one has to go through a third county to go from one county seat to another.


 

[muon2]

To guide chops, here's a map showing subunits and connections Mecklenburg county. Subunits are based on the 6 independent towns and 6 planning areas for Charlotte. Blue links are regional connections between counties. Gold links are local connections. Pink links are contiguous only without a connection.

[muon2]

North Carolina has 16 planning regions. It used to have 18. There were separate regions for Winston-Salem and Greensboro. It also had a Pee-Dee Region, that apparently dissolved and the four counties scattered among four neighbors.



Collectively, the three big regions of Centralina (Charlotte), Piedmont Triad (Greensboro, Winston-Salem), and Triangle J (Raleigh, Durham) have a population equivalent to 7.212 districts. The five regions to the west have a population equivalent to 1.909 districts, and the eight regions to the east have a population equivalent to 3.879 districts. This suggests roughly a 2:7:4 division. None of the three central regions are close to an integer number of districts, and have sprawled outwards so it should be possible to combine fringe areas one way or the other.



The two westernmost regions have a population equivalent to 0.809 districts, and the western five equivalent to 1.909 districts. Moving Surry gets the western area to 2.009. Counties are then moved to the western area to reach approximately one district.

NC-1 (Appalachian, Asheville) 1.009
NC-2 (Western, Unifour) 1.000.

The two southeastern regions of Lumber River and Cape Fear have a population equivalent to 0.981 districts. The three northeastern regions of Upper Coastal Plain, Mid-East and Albermarle have a population equivalent to 1.047 representatives. Adjusting counties to get closer to 1.000, by dropping Beaufort and Hyde, and adding Greene, gets the Eastern Carolina region closer to a district which is done by adding Sampson.

Later I was having trouble assembling counties into meaningful districts. So I shifted New Hanover and Pender into the Eastern Carolina district, and added Cumberland to the southeast district. This has the added benefit of unifying the Fayetville UCC.

NC-11 (Southeast, Fayetteville) 1.005
NC-12 (East Coast, Wilmington, New Bern) 1.007
NC-13 (Albermarle, Rocky Mount) 1.004

This tends to increase the central regions to 8 districts as the greater Raleigh-Durham area will dominate three districts.

Dividing up the central area. An area based on Mecklenburg with a population equivalent to 2 districts was identified. Mecklenburg has to be chopped. My inclination would be to keep one district wholly in Mecklenburg, and bridge across between Gaston and Unon.

NC-3, NC-4 (Charlotte) 1.998

An area including northern suburbs of Charlotte and areas south of Winston-Salem was constructed.

NC-5 (Not your Father's I-85 District) 0.979

Two districts are created in the Greensboro/Winston-Salem and areas to the south. This will require a major split of Guilford and Greensboro.

NC-6 (Greensboro/Winston-Salem) 1.369
NC-7 (Greensboro, points south) 0.617

Collectively, 1.986.

The area around Raleigh-Durham collectively have a population of 3.010.

NC-8 (Durham, Chapel Hill) 1.062
NC-9 (Raleigh) 1.228
NC-10 (Raleigh suburbs, points east) 0.720.

Wake will be chopped. My inclination is to move Franklin in NC-10, and add a nibble of Wake to NC-8. NC-9 would be wholly in Wake and dominated by Raleigh. NC-10 would include the remnant of Wake, mostly in the south, but with an area in the northeast to link to Franklin.

So Mecklenburg, Wake, and Guilford, the three most populous counties would be chopped.

Do you have a map(s) showing the chops?

[muon2]

Drawing to a target is unconstitutional. NC-4 is particularly suspect.

What do you mean "a target?" You mean drawing to create maj-min districts intentionally? I don't think there's any other map on here that has at least 3.

You can not assign persons to voting districts based on race.

It appears that you had a target (i.e. we need more black people in this district). You did not establish the three prongs of the Gingles test,  Your NC-4 is particularly problematic in the way you linked Durham and eastern Raleigh.

NC-9 you would have to show that minorities vote cohesively.

Also Republican members of the panel would likely vote against your map because of NC-7.

Isn't assigning people to a district based on race required to create VRA-mandated maj-min districts? Regardless, fair point. I think NC-4 failed Gingles, but otherwise the others come across as fair to me.

See Cooper v Harris

Cooper made an important clarification to Bartlett and the use of crossover districts. Bartlett said that crossover districts were not mandated when there was no 50% BVAP in a compact area - the first Gingles test. Copper said that evidence of sufficient crossover voting to regularly elect the minority candidate of choice was evidence that the white majority did not vote sufficiently as a bloc to defeat the minority-preferred candidate - the third Gingles test. Thus an area where a BVAP majority district could be drawn, need not be if a sufficiently strong crossover district was possible. By not forcing a performing crossover district into a 50% BVAP district, race would not become the predominant factor in drawing the district.

[muon2]

This is an updated map. This shifts Alamance into NC-7, and Caswell, Rockingham, and Stokes into NC-8. Franklin is shifted into NC-10. This is not depending on point contiguity, since NC-10 will take a substantial portion of Wake County along the eastern and southern borders. This is reasonably compact since it providing a partial donut around three sides of Raleigh. In addition NC-3 (Charlotte suburbs) is shown separate from NC-4 (Charlotte). Mecklenburg will be divided to connect the two parts of NC-3.

Mecklenburg, Guilford, and Wake will be divided.

Mecklenburg will be 732,928 in NC-4. and 186,700 in NC-3 (this could conceivably be a partial donut following the I-485 loop)

These show rough divisions of the split counties. In general, I was trying to make the Charlotte and Raleigh seats compact, rather than necessarily making the surrounding seats compact. I was also trying to avoid picking off areas that were largely black (avoid cracking black population). In Guilford, I ended up placing High Point in NC-7. You can bring in more white areas in the southwestern part of Greensboro, but then High Point stands out as prong down from the north, and looks more like race sorting.



Mecklenburg - Detail

The idea of following I-485 around makes sense if it starts around I-85 where it crosses the Catawba river from Gaston county. Connecting them across Lake Wylie without a bridge, seems akin to jumping across the Albemarle sound to connect Tyrrell to a district with Perquimans and Chowan county without including Washington county.

[muon2]

I don't intend this as a submission, but I thought it might be interesting to some on the thread. I posted this plan back in 2011 a few months after the new data was out. Both CD 6 and CD 7 are BVAP majority at 50.2% and 50.1% respectively. All CDs are within 100 of the population quota without splitting any voting districts.

[muon2]

I offered some muon rules scoring early on, but that has only figured in once when there was an unusually large number of submissions. I got a lol about their use from one of the panelists, so I'm probably not going to invest the time to do a calculation on plans other my own. As I noted on on of the other thread in the series, I am working with a research group and a master's student on some algorithm design related to the muon rules, so I may score some interesting maps to help with that.

[muon2]

Here's my real entry for SC. The main goal was to keep the CDs as close to whole county as possible while preserving UCC covers. CDs 5,6,7 are whole county. Only three counties are chopped between the other CDs and if the chops were removed to make them whole county, CDs 1,2,3,4 are each within 5% of the quota.

CD 1 is packed entirely within the Charleston UCC and would be a competitive district. CD 6 is D+6 with BVAP 38.7%, and would likely elect the candidate of the black minority by controlling the Dem primary. CD 2 is R+1 with 36.4% BVAP and is a swing district where the black minority would be able to control the Dem primary.



CD 1: -285; R+3.8
CD 2: +2103; R+1.0
CD 3: -3159; R+18
CD 4: -2152; R+19
CD 5: +454; R+14
CD 6: +312; D+6.4
CD 7: +2729; R+7.3

[muon2]

I showed that it was possible to draw two CDs with majority BVAP. Though the VRA is not a consideration, communities of interest are. The black population in southern SC would qualify as a community of interest.

The goal is also fair maps, and that can mean partisan fairness; certainly that's what's being litigated in the courts. SC is an R+8 PVI and that projects to an ideal delegation of 4R, 2D, and 1 even seat in PVI to have now skew. My submission had a delegation of 5R, 1D, and 1 even.

As an alternate plan B, I can add 3 county chops for a total of 6 and lose the Charleston UCC pack. The new CD 2 is D+4.7 with a 43.7% BVAP, so it moves the plan closer to partisan fairness (5D 2R) while providing an opportunity to elect the black candidate of choice.

Here's the original map and a zoom showing the modified CD 1 and CD 2. The Charleston chop follows I-26 into central Charleston. The Aiken chop is shifted and there is a minor adjustment of the Anderson chop to balance population. Revised stats follow the map.





CD 1: -647; R+7.9
CD 2: -858; D+4.7
CD 3: -1374; R+18
CD 4: -614; R+19
CD 5: +454; R+14
CD 6: +312; D+6.4
CD 7: +2729; R+7.3

[muon2]

Here's my real entry for SC. The main goal was to keep the CDs as close to whole county as possible while preserving UCC covers. CDs 5,6,7 are whole county. Only three counties are chopped between the other CDs and if the chops were removed to make them whole county, CDs 1,2,3,4 are each within 5% of the quota.

A nice try, but that CD 6 of yours looks good only on a map that ignores roads.  Calhoun is not at all well-connected to Richland County thanks to the Congaree National Swamp. In my opinion, county government (and county borders) are just not important enough in this State to subordinate all other considerations to the holy grail of no county chops.

US 601 meets my definition of a connection between Richland and Calhoun. Even if it is indirect it provides a path go go between county seats on numbered highways without going into a third county. You'll see in my alternate version I'm willing to trade county chops for representational fairness. I just want a defined metric to justify the chops.

[muon2]

Since SKEW predicts an ideal delegation of 4R, 2D, and 1e, I wanted to see what that might look like. This modification of my submitted plan has only 5 county chops, and all populations are within 1000 of the quota. (There is a small chop of CD 7 into Charleston that is hard to see.) CD 2 is D+2.0 (BVAP 37.5%), CD 6 is D+6.4 (BVAP 38.7%), and CD 7 is R+0.1 (BVAP 39.1%), giving the desired partisan division for a SKEW of 0.



SC poses some interesting questions about what makes a map fair. Is it geography alone in terms of definitions like chops and erosity? Is it adequate opportunity for minority representation? Is it partisan fairness? If they are all significant, what's the right balance between them?

If I knew whether partisan fairness or minority representation was more important, I'd know which of my alternate plans to submit as a second choice. More importantly, I'd have a sense of how to weight the variables in upcoming states.

[muon2]

I'll try to get the SPICE scores for the finalists here:

Plan	-S-	-P-	-I-	-C-	-E-
cvparty A	1	11	5	15	38
cvparty B	1	11	5	13	36
Aussie A	3	13	4	12	42
Single A	3	13	5	15	45
Single B	3	13	5	13	35
MB	2	11	10	12	39
True A	3	13	3	16	39
muon2 A	2	11	11	5	34
jimrtex A	4	10	5	7	39
jimrtex B	4	10	12	3	38

nb. The SPICE rules reward plans that when they chop as little as possible into a county. This proves to be very valuable in urban areas that have dense populations: the chop may look small in area, but has a large impact in population. A macrochop is a chop that includes more than 5% of a district's quota. When a county is macrochopped in SC I will treat the school districts in that county as the subunits, since there are no townships as there are in the northeastern US. When a macrochop occurs, the school districts in that county act is if they were the counties in terms of chops and erosity.

nb2. When a small chop goes into a county it is best to place it along the road that connects the county seats, or at least along a state or federal highway. The idea is that the fragments of a chopped county should be well connected to the other counties in the same district.

[muon2]

I'm having trouble scoring the jimrtex plans here. They both seem to violate the 0.5% maximum deviation rule. I know earlier in the thread there were versions of his that did not, but I'm not sure what then is plan A and what is plan B.

jimrtex A



jimrtex B

[muon2]

I'm also having trouble scoring cvparty A. It appears that the Beaufort county part of CD 1 is only contiguous to the rest of the district by water contiguity without a bridge or ferry. That violates one of the map requirements.

Criteria for maps
★ REQUIRED ★
1) All maps are to be made with DRA
2) PVI data must be provided, and you must have your drf file ready 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%

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[muon2]

I'll try to get the SPICE scores for the finalists here:

Plan	-S-	-P-	-I-	-C-	-E-
cvparty A
cvparty B
Aussie A
Single A
Single B
MB	2	11	10	12	39
True A	3	13	3	16	39
muon2 A	2	11	11	5	34
jimrtex A
jimrtex B

nb. The SPICE rules reward plans that when they chop as little as possible into a county. This proves to be very valuable in urban areas that have dense populations: the chop may look small in area, but has a large impact in population. A macrochop is a chop that includes more than 5% of a district's quota. When a county is macrochopped in SC I will treat the school districts in that county as the subunits, since there are no townships as there are in the northeastern US. When a macrochop occurs, the school districts in that county act is if they were the counties in terms of chops and erosity.

Question: do these SPICE rules penalize my chop of Edisto Beach from Colleton County which I did because it only has a road connection to Charleston County?

Whole contiguous counties are assumed to be self-connected even when they are not. The chop of Edisto beach does count as a county chop. Normally when a chop occurs there is a point of erosity for the connection between the two parts of the chop. However, since there is no road connecting across the chop boundary to Edisto there is no erosity there. So the answer is yes on the C score but no on the E score.

[muon2]

I'm having trouble scoring the jimrtex plans here. They both seem to violate the 0.5% maximum deviation rule. I know earlier in the thread there were versions of his that did not, but I'm not sure what then is plan A and what is plan B.

I believe his first two maps were his submissions

I was responding to the plans he copied on the post that had all ten. With changes along the way and plans spread over many pages it is extremely helpful to have a list of links or maps in a single post for reference.

[muon2]

jimrtex raises a point that becomes even more important in GA. This exercise imposes a rule of a maximum deviation of 0.5% that may or not be what the court would impose, but it's a rule here. In some ways it's no different than saying that the VRA doesn't strictly apply. Panelists may consider it or not as they wish, even though the courts would absolutely require VRA compliance. In population SCOTUS often considers the range, not the maximum deviation (see Tennant v Jefferson county for a recent example).

In GA, Dekalb and Cobb counties are close to the quota for 1 CD. DeKalb county is no problem, but Cobb is 0.563% under the quota. A 0.5% maximum deviation guarantees a 1% range, but if no GA district exceeds 0.437% of the quota then a 1% range would still be maintained. A better rule might be a 1% range than a 0.5% maximum deviation. The alternative will be plans that tack one precinct onto Cobb just to bring its district up to quota.

The question for the panel is: Are plans that keep the population range within 1% acceptable, especially if they are used to avoid a chop?

[muon2]

jimrtex raises a point that becomes even more important in GA. This exercise imposes a rule of a maximum deviation of 0.5% that may or not be what the court would impose, but it's a rule here. In some ways it's no different than saying that the VRA doesn't strictly apply. Panelists may consider it or not as they wish, even though the courts would absolutely require VRA compliance. In population SCOTUS often considers the range, not the maximum deviation (see Tennant v Jefferson county for a recent example).

In GA, Dekalb and Cobb counties are close to the quota for 1 CD. DeKalb county is no problem, but Cobb is 0.563% under the quota. A 0.5% maximum deviation guarantees a 1% range, but if no GA district exceeds 0.437% of the quota then a 1% range would still be maintained. A better rule might be a 1% range than a 0.5% maximum deviation. The alternative will be plans that tack one precinct onto Cobb just to bring its district up to quota.

The question for the panel is: Are plans that keep the population range within 1% acceptable, especially if they are used to avoid a chop?

In that case use the simple jimrtex B which has a standard deviation of 0.37% and only splits Greenwood. For jimrtex A, use the version with Darlington, Lexington, and Dorchester splits, and a standard deviation of 0.07%.

If we are splitting counties, shouldn't we able to assume a perfect split, with the whole precinct version merely indicative?

Since we don't have political data I wouldn't assume a perfect split, though I suspect that would rarely if ever have a material effect on the partisan measures. It would matter if the chop is a macrochop and the county subunits come into play. In that case I could assume that the chops follow the subunit boundaries.

For jimrtex B I am reading the chops in a Anderson and Greenwood such that they keep the range within 1%.

[muon2]

I've completed scoring for the 10 SC plans. I've lined out plans that would be eliminated in all SPICE scenarios. If just geography (C, E) are considered then muon2 A and jimrtex B are the only two plans that survive elimination and are highlighted in green (jimrtex B is using the 1% range rule in lieu of the 0.5% max deviation rule). Since population is used as a final tie breaker, it shouldn't be used to eliminate plans, so INEQUALITY should not be considered in an elimination round, and plans that only survive by double counting population are in red. cvparty B would survive only if the political scores (S, P) are also used since it provide less skew.

I'll try to get the SPICE scores for the finalists here:

Plan	-S-	-P-	-I-	-C-	-E-
cvparty A	1	11	5	15	38
cvparty B	1	11	5	13	36
Aussie A	3	13	4	12	42
Single A	3	13	5	15	45
Single B	3	13	5	13	35
MB	2	11	10	12	39
True A	3	13	3	16	39
muon2 A	2	11	11	5	34
jimrtex A	4	10	5	7	39
jimrtex B	4	10	12	3	38

nb. The SPICE rules reward plans that when they chop as little as possible into a county. This proves to be very valuable in urban areas that have dense populations: the chop may look small in area, but has a large impact in population. A macrochop is a chop that includes more than 5% of a district's quota. When a county is macrochopped in SC I will treat the school districts in that county as the subunits, since there are no townships as there are in the northeastern US. When a macrochop occurs, the school districts in that county act is if they were the counties in terms of chops and erosity.

nb2. When a small chop goes into a county it is best to place it along the road that connects the county seats, or at least along a state or federal highway. The idea is that the fragments of a chopped county should be well connected to the other counties in the same district.

[muon2]

The problem that I see it, is that in moving the typical (one standard) deviation district from a range of 0.9943 to 1.0057, to 0.9993 to 1.0007 it will be seen as being eight times as good, rather 1/2 of 1% better. If someone maintained their weight within 1/2% of some target, they likely have an eating disorder.

Oh oh. My weight is actually very stable and usually sits within a pound of a slowly moving average. A pound is only slightly more than 0.5% of my weight. Should I see someone?

[muon2]

Considering how convoluted and arbitrary our county borders are, giving preeminence to avoiding county chops might work in a mathematical sense, but not when it comes to putting reasonable districts together. Of the ten SC finalists, muon2 A was the worst in my opinion, not one of the two best. That second district was particularly heinous even tho it resulted from having the whole county districts 5, 6, and 7.

What metrics would you use in lieu of county chops?

In general avoiding county chops are a good idea, but South Carolina is a State that helps show that generalities don't always work.  A number of our smaller counties were carved out specifically as gerrymanders back in the days when our General Assembly was apportioned by county. McCormick is the most egregious case of that, but far from the only one.  We've also got several non-contiguous counties as far as road networks are concerned. (Colleton, Georgetown, and Lexington all have bits you can only get to by car if you drive through another county. I'm not even going to count that small smidgen of Charleston County that's like that because I believe no one actually lives in the cut-off section.

I would say that metrics can help weed out bad districts, but they aren't that useful when it comes to deciding which district is the best.  For instance, I'm certainly not upset by my B-plan not even making the finals.  It was purposefully intended to be a reasonable-looking gerrymander rather than a "fair" plan.

This is one of the reasons I spent a lot of time scoring the SC maps - it does provide some interesting tests of the metrics. One observation I would make is that the problem isn't about the chops, but the size of the chops. The recommended factors for the exercise include "County and especially town splits are kept small and reasonable". This matches the muon rule distinguishing ordinary chops from deep macrochops into a county (I use 5% as a threshold). Yet none of the plans except jimrtex's and mine strove to make chops small and reasonable, and the scores reflect that.

A scoring element that used to exist was a microchop, a chop less than 0.5% of the quota, and when it existed it added an extra reward for keeping shops so small. It seems like this would be useful in cases like Edisto. The danger was that microchops could potentially be gamed, so it would take some investigation to see if there were situations where they were warranted.

[muon2]

Here's my entry A for GA. It strives for low erosity CDs that chop the minimum number of counties, but did not consider racial or political data. The range is 0.996%, just under a 1% limit. Though the VRA was not considered here, at least 2 CDs would likely elect the candidate of choice for the black population, and three other CDs provide crossover opportunities for the minority.

Only Fulton and Gwinnett are chopped. In Fulton, Atlanta, Sandy Springs, Johns Creek, Roswell, Mountain Park, East Point and Hapeville make up one CD with no chops. A small chop into unincorporated south Fulton is used to equalize population in CD 6. The Gwinnett chop keeps cities whole to the extent permitted by the voting districts. The Atlanta UCC is 7.08 times the quota, and this plan covers it with the minimum of 8 CDs and nests 6 CDs entirely within the UCC. No other UCC is chopped.



CD 1: +2025; R+5.9; BVAP 30.4%
CD 2: -3520; R+1.4; BVAP 41.8%
CD 3: +1547; R+7.6; BVAP 35.3%
CD 4: -82; D+29; BVAP 51.5%
CD 5: -216; D+16; BVAP 38.7%
CD 6: -383; R+3.9; BVAP 23.5%
CD 7: +2403; D+0.5; BVAP 23.1%
CD 8: +3373; R+20; BVAP 26.4%
CD 9: -19; R+31
CD 10: -223; R+4.9; BVAP 27.7%
CD 11: -804; R+26
CD 12: -1366; R+15; BVAP 24.6%
CD 13: +500; D+11; BVAP 48.3%
CD 14: -3232; R+18; BVAP 20.2%

[muon2]

Here is my plan B. It is designed to provide the black minority 4 CDs where they would be likely to elec the candidate of choice. The range is within 1%. Only three counties are chopped, and Fulton is chopped by three CDs (including small parts from CD 10 and 13) for a total of 5 county chops. In addition there are two cover penalties for the Atlanta UCC.



CD 1: -1299; R+8.3; BVAP 29.3%
CD 2: +314; D+6.8; BVAP 47.3%
CD 3: +1218; R+23
CD 4: -82; D+29; BVAP 51.5%
CD 5: -1358; D+24; BVAP 51.2%
CD 6: -3897; R+4.1; BVAP 23.1%
CD 7: -2703; R+0.3; BVAP 21.3%
CD 8: -803; R+18; BVAP 25.8%
CD 9: +2543; R+26
CD 10: +962; R+15; BVAP 27.5%
CD 11: +2351; R+21
CD 12: +1510; R+2.3; BVAP 33.8%
CD 13: -699; D+14; BVAP 49.7%
CD 14: +1946; R+31