Fair redistricting: New York

[cvparty]

1: D+6
2: D+11
3: D+39
4: D+1
5: D+27
6: D+2
7: EVEN
8: EVEN
9: R+15
10: R+6
11: R+14
12: R+15
13: R+24
14: R+14
15: R+20
16: R+8
17: R+2
18: D+12

[jimrtex]

1: D+6
2: D+11
3: D+39
4: D+1
5: D+27
6: D+2
7: EVEN
8: EVEN
9: R+15
10: R+6
11: R+14
12: R+15
13: R+24
14: R+14
15: R+20
16: R+8
17: R+2
18: D+12

How do the county and municipality splits compare to the secret Persily Plan?

[cvparty]

i dont know

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Can you attempt to explain why you believe it does not contribute to understanding?

the populations are roughly the same size, so the circles look identical. you could have a district 5% outside the deviation and most people would not be able to see that from the circles. I think plain numbers would work better.

He did state the exact deviation percentages.

PA-18 Southwest -0.12%

PA-17 Allegheny Mountains -0.33%

PA-16 North Allegheny-Butler -0.25%

PA-15 Pittsburgh -0.34%

PA-14 Northwest +0.03%

PA-13 Nittany Central +0.67%

PA-12 Harrisburg-Lebanon +0.28%

PA-11 York-South -0.69%

PA-10 Northeast -0.15%

PA-9 Scranton--Wilkes-Barre -0.07%

PA-8 Allentown-Bethlehem +0.96%

PA-7 Lancaster-North Berks +1.19%

PA-6 Chester-Reading +1.42%

PA-5 Montco +0.66%

PA-4 Bucks +1.29%

PA-3 Delco-Southwest Philadelphia -1.96%

PA-2 North, West, Northwest Philadelphia -0.82%

PA-1 South and Northeast Philadelphia -1.77%

So therefore jimtrex's plan is invalid, as the maximum deviation (PA-3, -1.96%) is far in excess of the maximum deviation as set out under criteria 4: "Populations must be provided; maximum allowed deviation is 0.5%".

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Pennsylvania Non-Partisan plan.

My non-partisan redistricting plan for Pennsylvania. There are 2 black plurality districts, and only 7 counties are split, of which only 4 are not mathematically required.

District 1 D+37.49 - 87.4 - 12.1 - 45.8 African American
District 2 D+35.40 - 84.3 - 15.2 - 45.9 African American
District 3 R+08.40 - 50.7 - 47.8
District 4 R+18.80 - 38.8 - 60.2
District 5 R+16.61 - 43.2 - 55.4
District 6 D+01.52 - 55.7 - 43.4
District 7 D+11.27 - 61.7 - 37.4
District 8 R+00.88 - 53.7 - 45.2
District 9 R+17.10 - 42.6 - 56.1
District 10 R+15.26 - 44.6 - 54.0
District 11 R+09.42 - 45.3 - 53.6
District 12 R+12.94 - 42.2 - 56.6
District 13 D+03.95 - 57.0 - 42.1
District 14 D+15.37 - 65.2 - 33.9
District 15 R+00.68 - 55.8 - 42.9
District 16 R+12.18 - 43.6 - 55.5
District 17 D+00.08 - 57.4 - 41.6
District 18 R+07.43 - 48.5 - 50.5

[jimrtex]

So therefore jimtrex's plan is invalid, as the maximum deviation (PA-3, -1.96%) is far in excess of the maximum deviation as set out under criteria 4: "Populations must be provided; maximum allowed deviation is 0.5%".

Is my plan invalid or are the rules invalid?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

So therefore jimtrex's plan is invalid, as the maximum deviation (PA-3, -1.96%) is far in excess of the maximum deviation as set out under criteria 4: "Populations must be provided; maximum allowed deviation is 0.5%".

Is my plan invalid or are the rules invalid?

Your plan is invalid.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

So therefore jimtrex's plan is invalid, as the maximum deviation (PA-3, -1.96%) is far in excess of the maximum deviation as set out under criteria 4: "Populations must be provided; maximum allowed deviation is 0.5%".

Is my plan invalid or are the rules invalid?

Your plan fails to comply with the four required criteria.

[cvparty]

So therefore jimtrex's plan is invalid, as the maximum deviation (PA-3, -1.96%) is far in excess of the maximum deviation as set out under criteria 4: "Populations must be provided; maximum allowed deviation is 0.5%".

Is my plan invalid or are the rules invalid?

ok i'm sorry you don't like the rules but they are what they are
just split a municipality it's not the end of the world

[jimrtex]

So therefore jimtrex's plan is invalid, as the maximum deviation (PA-3, -1.96%) is far in excess of the maximum deviation as set out under criteria 4: "Populations must be provided; maximum allowed deviation is 0.5%".

Is my plan invalid or are the rules invalid?

Your plan is invalid.

Is there a rational basis for the rules? What is it?

[Torie]

So therefore jimtrex's plan is invalid, as the maximum deviation (PA-3, -1.96%) is far in excess of the maximum deviation as set out under criteria 4: "Populations must be provided; maximum allowed deviation is 0.5%".

Is my plan invalid or are the rules invalid?

Your plan is invalid.

Is there a rational basis for the rules? What is it?

A SCOTUS ruling.

[jimrtex]

So therefore jimtrex's plan is invalid, as the maximum deviation (PA-3, -1.96%) is far in excess of the maximum deviation as set out under criteria 4: "Populations must be provided; maximum allowed deviation is 0.5%".

Is my plan invalid or are the rules invalid?

Your plan is invalid.

Is there a rational basis for the rules? What is it?

A SCOTUS ruling.

My map is not inconsistent with 'Tennant v Jefferson County', 'Karcher v Daggett', 'Kirkpatrick v Priesler', or 'Wesberry v Sanders'

[Torie]

Make your case.

[jimrtex]

Make your case.

Who is going to sue? You will need to recruit some litigants in a so-called overpopulated district.

Avoiding unnecessary splitting of counties and  municipalities and respecting urban county clusters justifies the small amount of deviation.

My plan splits only five counties, including the three counties with a population larger than a district. The only municipality that is split is Philadelphia, which is necessary, and that division is based on whole wards.

There was a contemporaneous record that explained the design choices I made, demonstrating that it was not some post hoc rationalization. The division of Berks, Montgomery, and Philadelphia were made after extensive public hearings chose the particular split. There were not similar hearings for Allegheny and Westmoreland since no alternatives were put forward.

[Torie]

No thanks.

[jimrtex]

No thanks.

In Wesberry v Sanders, the Scotus overturned a congressional district in Georgia, that consisted of Fulton, DeKalb, and Rockdale counties. The district had 823,628 which was more than twice that of the statewide average of 394,312, and more than three times the smallest district with 272,154.

The most populous district was 108% greater than the average and the smallest 31%, for a deviation range of 140%. The opinion mentions rotten boroughs, but it is inane to suggest that a district with 98% of the average is a rotten borough.

As Justice Harlan points out in his dissent, the SCOTUS did not elucidate the meaning of "as nearly as is practicable." (see footnote 2/4).

It should be noted that Congress had used the phrase in previous legislation, but did not define its meaning. The States regularly based districts on whole counties without apparently falling outside the limits of the statute. Congress later deliberately removed the restriction.