Fair redistricting: Illinois

[ilikeverin]

That was why I came up with a plan B back then.

Yes, your Plan B is much more acceptable   To reiterate Muon's point, counties do matter quite a bit in Minnesota, including around the Cities.  Although I know the objective metrics rightly can't force it, folks around the Cities would breathe a lot easier if (1) Hennepin only had two districts (Minneapolis vs. suburbs + random other suburban county bits) and (2) Ramsay was kept whole... although AustralianSwingVoter's Map 1 split isn't a bad split if you must go three ways (save for the random Savage jaunt in District 2).

It's interesting to note that when Ramsey stays together it packs the Dems and makes the remaining suburban seats more Pub. It shows that the county can be more important than partisan fairness. The Hennepin-Ramsey rivalry reflected the suburban counterpart of the Minneapolis-St Paul rivalry, which is a real thing, not to mention the library and park services provided by the counties to areas outside of Mpls and St Paul proper (at least when I was living there).

That's true.  But, in an alternate universe, Pubs could also try to pack Minneapolis and St. Paul into one district, which would be absolute anathema to most everyone (although it would also push the new MN-03 to the left, and possibly whatever Ramsay-based district depending which direction it extended in).  Local preferences giveth and taketh away!

[cvparty]

MINNESOTA ENTRIES

1: R+4
2: R+2
3: D+1
4: D+12
5: D+26
6: R+13
7: R+14
8: R+3

plan A



CD 1: (-1015) R+5.0
CD 2: (+513) R+3.3
CD 3: (+126) D+0.1
CD 4: (-1169) D+12
CD 5: (+632) D+25
CD 6: (+944) R+7.6
CD 7: (+191) R+13
CD 8: (-225) R+3.5

plan B




CD 1: (-2899) R+5.6
CD 2: (+3555) R+2.5
CD 3: (-432) R+1.6
CD 4: (-62) D+14
CD 5: (+632) D+25
CD 6: (-16) R+8.6
CD 7: (-2689) R+13
CD 8: (+1908) R+2.7

1. R+6
2. R+1
3. R+2
4. D+14
5. D+26
6. R+10
7. R+12
8. R+3

Minnesota Non-Partisan plan 1 (4 MSP districts).
District 1 R+05.14 - 50.2 - 47.5
District 2 D+01.98 - 52.6 - 45.5
District 3 R+03.32 - 48.2 - 50.0
District 4 D+13.78 - 62.6 - 35.5
District 5 D+25.28 - 72.7 - 25.4
District 6 R+11.83 - 45.2 - 52.4
District 7 R+13.12 - 45.8 - 51.9
District 8 R+03.30 - 53.8 - 43.8






Minnesota Non-Partisan plan 2 (5 MSP districts).
District 1 R+03.59 - 51.9 - 45.7
District 2 R+00.58 - 50.9 - 47.1
District 3 R+01.54 - 49.6 - 48.6
District 4 D+13.73 - 62.6 - 35.6
District 5 D+24.57 - 72.3 - 25.8
District 6 R+12.42 - 42.9 - 54.9
District 7 R+12.43 - 47.1 - 50.4
District 8 R+03.50 - 53.8 - 43.8

[cvparty]

I took a different approach by making the 2nd centered around the urban eastern cities
1: R+4
2: D+5
3: D+1
4: R+14

[DINGO Joe]

I took a different approach by making the 2nd centered around the urban eastern cities
1: R+4
2: D+5
3: D+1
4: R+14

Does Iowa permit splitting counties?  What would it be if Delaware was fully in the 2nd?

This map does seem vastly superior to the current map.

[cvparty]

I took a different approach by making the 2nd centered around the urban eastern cities
1: R+4
2: D+5
3: D+1
4: R+14

Does Iowa permit splitting counties?  What would it be if Delaware was fully in the 2nd?

This map does seem vastly superior to the current map.

The 2nd would be overpopulated by 7000. You could swap Delaware for Louisa for whole counties, but I don't think Delaware being in 2 different districts is a big deal

[DINGO Joe]

I took a different approach by making the 2nd centered around the urban eastern cities
1: R+4
2: D+5
3: D+1
4: R+14

Does Iowa permit splitting counties?  What would it be if Delaware was fully in the 2nd?

This map does seem vastly superior to the current map.

The 2nd would be overpopulated by 7000. You could swap Delaware for Louisa for whole counties, but I don't think Delaware being in 2 different districts is a big deal

I don't think it's a big deal either, but I believe Iowa does

[muon2]

It's not against the rules here, but IA does not permit county splits for CDs. It's interesting that IA, WV, and AR (no splits before 2010) are all up at once, all states that avoided county splits can do so reasonably.

Polk+Dallas make up the only UCC in IA.

My dad's family is from Cedar Rapids, and as someone with roots there, Cedar Rapids fits better with Waterloo than with the Quad Cities on the Mississippi.

[Sol]

WI:
singletx>Gass>tim>muon2-A>cvparty>muon2-B

I rejected maps that split the Oneida reservation. I also rejected maps which didn't have a Milwaukee county-only district as that is a clear community of interest.

[Strudelcutie4427]

1. R+2
2. D+5
3. EVEN
4. R+14

[muon2]

Since IA is generally considered to be the gold standard for fair redistricting, it seems only right that one of the submissions should be the official plan. I'll make that my submission. There are no split counties, the UCC is intact, and the population range is a mere 76 or 0.01%.



CD 1: (-41) D+1.0
CD 2: (+35) D+0.7
CD 3: (+23) R+1.4
CD 4: (-18) R+11

[cvparty]

IOWA ENTRIES

I took a different approach by making the 2nd centered around the urban eastern cities
1: R+4
2: D+5
3: D+1
4: R+14

1. R+2
2. D+5
3. EVEN
4. R+14

CD 1: (-41) D+1.0
CD 2: (+35) D+0.7
CD 3: (+23) R+1.4
CD 4: (-18) R+11

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Nebraska is among the easiest states to draw in an objectively correct way, and the people who drew it somehow messed that up big time.

plan 1:



Green: R+09.74, +666 Deviation
Red  : R+03.66, +059 Deviation
Blue : R+28.56, -724 Deviation

plan 2:

Simply switch Polk and Nuckolls County between the Green and Blue Districts, while leaving the Red District unchanged; this lowers deviation, but makes the shape look worse:

Green: R+09.69, -240 Deviation
Blue : R+28.59, +182 Deviation

[cvparty]

Nebraska is among the easiest states to draw in an objectively correct way, and the people who drew it somehow messed that up big time.

plan 1:



Green: R+09.74, +666 Deviation
Red  : R+03.66, +059 Deviation
Blue : R+28.56, -724 Deviation

plan 2:

Simply switch Polk and Nuckolls County between the Green and Blue Districts, while leaving the Red District unchanged; this lowers deviation, but makes the shape look worse:

Green: R+09.69, -240 Deviation
Blue : R+28.59, +182 Deviation

no trolling pls

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Nebraska is among the easiest states to draw in an objectively correct way, and the people who drew it somehow messed that up big time.

plan 1:



Green: R+09.74, +666 Deviation
Red  : R+03.66, +059 Deviation
Blue : R+28.56, -724 Deviation

plan 2:

Simply switch Polk and Nuckolls County between the Green and Blue Districts, while leaving the Red District unchanged; this lowers deviation, but makes the shape look worse:

Green: R+09.69, -240 Deviation
Blue : R+28.59, +182 Deviation

no trolling pls

you are the troll.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Iowa Non-Partisan plan.

My nonpartisan redistricting plan for Iowa keeps De Moines within one district and the eastern cities within another.

District 1 D+05.43 - 60.6 - 37.9
District 2 R+04.15 - 55.0 - 43.2
District 3 D+01.33 - 54.0 - 44.1
District 4 R+14.06 - 45.6 - 52.8

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Nebraska Non-Partisan plan.

My nonpartisan redistricting plan for Nebraska splits only one county.

District 1 R+10.71 - 45.1 - 53.3
District 2 R+02.96 - 50.5 - 48.2
District 3 R+28.23 - 29.7 - 68.6

[Strudelcutie4427]

1. R+11 (+10)
2. R+3 (+109)
3. R+28 (-118)

[cvparty]

NEBRASKA ENTRIES

Nebraska is among the easiest states to draw in an objectively correct way, and the people who drew it somehow messed that up big time.

plan 1:



Green: R+09.74, +666 Deviation
Red  : R+03.66, +059 Deviation
Blue : R+28.56, -724 Deviation

plan 2:

Simply switch Polk and Nuckolls County between the Green and Blue Districts, while leaving the Red District unchanged; this lowers deviation, but makes the shape look worse:

Green: R+09.69, -240 Deviation
Blue : R+28.59, +182 Deviation

Nebraska Non-Partisan plan.

My nonpartisan redistricting plan for Nebraska splits only one county.

District 1 R+10.71 - 45.1 - 53.3
District 2 R+02.96 - 50.5 - 48.2
District 3 R+28.23 - 29.7 - 68.6

1. R+11 (+10)
2. R+3 (+109)
3. R+28 (-118)

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Hmm, we have 2 plans that respect the integrity of County boundaries, and 2 plans that ignore the integrity of County boundaries.

[cvparty]

Hmm, we have 2 plans that respect the integrity of County boundaries, and 2 plans that ignore the integrity of County boundaries.

the world ain't gonna end if a county's in two different congressional districts

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Hmm, we have 2 plans that respect the integrity of County boundaries, and 2 plans that ignore the integrity of County boundaries.

the world ain't gonna end if a county's in two different congressional districts

There is no reason not to have a whole County plan if it can be done without high deviation, or really ugly shapes.

Such is in fact possible to do in Nebraska, so it should be required.

[Strudelcutie4427]

Hmm, we have 2 plans that respect the integrity of County boundaries, and 2 plans that ignore the integrity of County boundaries.

the world ain't gonna end if a county's in two different congressional districts

There is no reason not to have a whole County plan if it can be done without high deviation, or really ugly shapes.

Such is in fact possible to do in Nebraska, so it should be required.

Dude just chill. There’s a reason Nebraska is drawn as it is

[muon2]

Hmm, we have 2 plans that respect the integrity of County boundaries, and 2 plans that ignore the integrity of County boundaries.

the world ain't gonna end if a county's in two different congressional districts

There is no reason not to have a whole County plan if it can be done without high deviation, or really ugly shapes.

Such is in fact possible to do in Nebraska, so it should be required.

This debate is why we started looking at a scoring UCC integrity. The Omaha UCC is Douglas and Sarpy and is larger than one CD. If the UCC is kept whole there is a county chop. If counties are kept whole there is a penalty for the UCC chop. The chop score is the same either way. By recognizing the metro area as a community of interest like counties it equalizes the two plans.

BTW, if you really wanted a whole county plan with low deviations (like IA), this one has deviations of -34, +59 and -24. It does chop the UCC of course.



If you didn't care about compactness you can get the deviations down to -8, +12 and -3. The shape of the CDs in this plan show why erosity is an important measure to consider beyond the population with whole counties.



However, the advantage of maintaining the UCC is that it tends to produce less erose plans as seen in the two submissions, especially singletxguyforfun. What I can't tell is whether either of the UCC plans preserves the municipal boundaries, since there is no detail. If they don't then they would have more chops than the whole county plans.

[muon2]

1. R+11 (+10)
2. R+3 (+109)
3. R+28 (-118)

I think there is a misplaced precinct. I get that the deviation for your CD 3 is +1962.

[muon2]

Nebraska Non-Partisan plan.

My nonpartisan redistricting plan for Nebraska splits only one county.

District 1 R+10.71 - 45.1 - 53.3
District 2 R+02.96 - 50.5 - 48.2
District 3 R+28.23 - 29.7 - 68.6

If I'm guessing correctly at your Sarpy chop, you preserve city lines, but chop two townships.

I would note that if you wanted to reduce erosity by two points with a slight increase in inequality (though no change in the inequality score) you could swap the following counties.

CD 1 to CD 3: Dixon, Dakota, Thurston, Stanton, Colfax, Cuming, Burt
CD 3 to CD 1: Saline, Jefferson, York, Fillmore, Thayer, Hamilton, Clay, Nuckolls

The deviations would be +149, +87, -235