A New America - 10273 Congressional Districts

A New America
A New America


After my project of 1000 Congressional Districts (which ended up becoming 1005), now I start my new project. A New America, where the population of the districts will be only 30k.

The system of this new America is unicameral, with only House, without Senate. The country's top chief remains the President of the United States for a maximum of two consecutive terms. House members are called Delegates.

The election of Delegates takes place every four years. Months before the election, which takes place in November, delegates from both parties choose one of their own to be the candidate for president of the party in the next election. The President-elect is the one previously chosen by the party with the most delegates elected in November, taking office in January.

There are currently 10273 Delegates, distributed in the following states:

Wyoming - 19
Vermont - 21
North Dakota - 22
Alaska - 24
South Dakota - 27
Delaware - 30
Montana - 33
Rhode Island - 35
New Hampshire - 44
Maine - 44
Hawaii - 45
Idaho - 52
Nebraska - 61
West Virginia - 62
New Mexico - 69
Nevada - 90
Utah - 92
Kansas - 95
Arkansas - 97
Mississippi – 99
Iowa - 102
Connecticut - 119
Oklahoma - 125
Oregon - 128
Kentucky - 145
Louisiana - 151
South Carolina - 154
Alabama - 159
Colorado - 168
Minnesota - 177
Wisconsin - 190
Maryland - 192
Missouri - 200
Tennessee - 212
Arizona - 213
Indiana - 216
Massachusetts - 218
Washington - 224
Virginia - 267
New Jersey - 293
North Carolina - 318
Georgia - 323
Michigan - 329
Ohio - 385
Pennsylvania - 423
Illinois - 428
Florida - 627
New York - 646
Texas - 838
California - 1242


From now on, we will go through the results of the 2016 Elections in all 50 states, where Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, Delegate from New York, faces Marco Rubio, Delegate from Florida. The party with the most seats will gain the right to hold the presidency until 2020, succeeding President John Kerry, Delegate from Massachusetts.

Republicans have not held the presidency since 2008, when the current president defeated first-term President George W. Bush, Delegate from Texas, elected in 2004 to succeed President Bill Clinton, Delegate from Arkansas, elected in 1996 and 2000. The last President of the GOP to be re-elected was George HW Bush, who led his party to victory in 1988 and 1992.

The primaries in both parties were intense in 2016, through televised debates that took place in both parties. But at the time of counting the votes, both Clinton and Rubio were easily chosen by the other delegates of their party to face each other.
From now on, we will show the 10273 Districts and the Delegate elected in each of these districts in 2016.
 
Wyoming (19 Districts)
Wyoming:


Wyoming

District 1 – West Cheyenne
PVI – R+9
Ed Murray (R-Cheyenne)


District 2 – East Cheyenne
PVI – R+13
Cynthia Lummis (R-Cheyenne)



Cheyenne and Laramie

District 3 – Laramie County
PVI – R+24
Anthony Bouchard (R-Carpenter)


District 4 – East Casper and Evansville
PVI – R+25
John Barrasso (R-Casper)


District 5 – West Casper
PVI – R+21
Barbara Cubin (R-Casper)



Casper and Gillette

District 6 – Gillette
PVI – R+39
Mike Enzi (R-Gillette)


District 7 – Laramie
PVI – D+5
Chris Rothfuss (D-Laramie)


District 8 – Northeast Wyoming
PVI – R+41
Ogden Driskill (R-Devils Tower)


District 9 – Rock Springs
PVI – R+25
Clark Stith (R-Rock Springs)


District 10 – East Wyoming
PVI – R+33
Jim Geringer (R-Wheatland)


District 11 – Albany and Carbon
PVI – R+27
Rita Meyer (R-Centennial)


District 12 – Buffalo and Wright
PVI – R+35
Dick Cheney (R-Casper)


District 13 – Sheridan
PVI – R+27
Dave Kinskey (R-Sheridan)


District 14 – Central Wyoming
PVI – R+36
Nathan Winters (R-Thermopolis)


District 15 – Cody and Northern Yellowstone
PVI – R+31
Cynthia Cloud (R-Cody)


District 16 – Jackson and Southern Yellowstone
PVI – D+1
Andy Schwartz (D-Jackson)


District 17 – Southwest Wyoming
PVI – R+34
Dan Dockstader (R-Afton)


District 18 – Riverton
PVI – R+21
David Miller (R-Riverton)


District 19 – Green River and Pinedale
PVI – R+23
Albert Sommers (R-Pinedale)



Wyoming Delegation:
17 Republican Delegates
2 Democratic Delegates

Majority Leader of the Wyoming Delegation:
Dick Cheney (R-WY-12)
Minority Leader of the Wyoming Delegation: Chris Rothfuss (D-WY-7)


2016 Election:
Marco Rubio – 17 Delegates
Hillary Clinton – 2 Delegates
 
Truly a horrible timeline! Good luck on ths new project, you've given yourself quite the undertaking here.
Thank you, it really will be a very ambitious and long project.
As for Dick Cheney, you will see that in this universe some Delegates remain until a very old age in the House.
 
With a project of this scale, maybe you could have some others collaborate with you to ease the burden. If you want a helping hand I could do the New England states.
 
With a project of this scale, maybe you could have some others collaborate with you to ease the burden. If you want a helping hand I could do the New England states.
Love this. I’d be happy to help with some of the states I’ve lived in. GA, WA, and AL.
I will be grateful if you help me by providing names of local politicians, it will be extremely useful when I choose the Delegates. As for maps, it is a pleasure for me to make them, so I will try to keep the same pace that I used in my previous project!
 
I will be grateful if you help me by providing names of local politicians, it will be extremely useful when I choose the Delegates. As for maps, it is a pleasure for me to make them, so I will try to keep the same pace that I used in my previous project!
Should I wait for your map to be created before sending you the names since the district lines will effect the names. I can DM you a draft list based on a probable map.
 
Question: Will the maps be gerrymandered depending on which party controls the state? After all partisan control has a major effect on how the districts are drawn in many states.
 
Should I wait for your map to be created before sending you the names since the district lines will effect the names. I can DM you a draft list based on a probable map.
Well, considering that with 30k people, practically every city will have at least one district, so it's possible to think about it even before the maps. It took me days to find 121 congressmen in California on my last project, so having a list of suggestions could save me days of work, especially in states with more than 100 delegates.

Question: Will the maps be gerrymandered depending on which party controls the state? After all partisan control has a major effect on how the districts are drawn in many states.
My original idea is to avoid gerrymander. However, I intend to try to respect the VRA when possible. Obviously I cannot exclude here that we will have no gerrymandered district. My biggest goals will be to try to respect cities and counties, trying to keep a clean look on the map.
 
You are sticking with FPTP for each small district then?

How do you get these indices of party lean in each district? I suppose you might have access to a database of all the precincts in each state, and either some pundit group has computed these indices based on past electoral behavior plus some sort of demographic evaluation to account for changes since the prior elections, which of course would involve some guesswork as to how the people in the demographics might split. Or you could perhaps have actual 2016 election data, in some huge database precinct by precinct, and if that database includes information on how many people qualified to register to vote, or simply how many registered voters there are, in each district, you could then construct districts by some method.

Unlike actual districts, precincts are not supposed to be equal in population particularly. They are regions formed for the convenience of voters and the electoral tabulation machinery, and quite a few precincts might have just handfuls of people in them while others contain huge numbers of people. As long as the largest precincts contain fewer than 30K people you ought to be able to construct districts by accreting precincts together, but it would be a nightmare I suppose. I speak from the experience of trying to jigsaw existing districts together. If precincts range between practically zero population and some moderate fraction of your 30,000 residents per district target, you'd be constructing all these ten thousand plus districts by hand, using units that have the most bizarre shapes.

So why this precise number by the way? Is it because actually you have stumbled on some pre-sorted districts (Zip Codes? Telephone exchanges?) that already hew closely to 30,000 people per for some systemic reason, and 10273 is what they add up to?

If we could manage a House of Delegates of this size and conduct actual business with such a thing, I would suggest consolidating them by fives into Single Transferable Vote districts, each electing five. That's still 30,000 people per elected delegate but the proportionality of the outcome would be closer than with all five totally separated. Mind, STV has its own shortcomings. But way better than FPTP! I actually would prefer a quite different approach.

So I went ahead and did both.

I have no idea how you arrive at your PVI for each district, but I presume it means percentage above 50 percent for the specified party. As a general thing, American elections even in Presidential elections don't generally involve more than 60 percent of the residents voting--some can't but most of the deficit comes from people who could register to vote, or are registered but don't show up, not voting by choice. Or because they find it tough to make the time, which is quite a hardship for some people in some districts actually.

So I figured a flat 18,000 people voting in each district, and used the PVI you provided to generate a number of votes--if the PVI was +14 R I'd have the spreadsheet write in 18 thousand times (50+14)/100. The two +D districts I handled by treating their pro-D index as a negative Republican index. The Democratic votes would then be the residual from eighteen thousand.

Naturally this makes no attempt to capture any effects third party candidates had.

I then grouped the districts, one using 4 (the southeast, 1-3 plus district 10, that is Cheyenne, the 3rd district surrounding Cheyenne, and neighboring 10) which allowed 3 more groups of 5 each going clockwise, Southwest, Northwest, and Northeast.

Applying Single Transferable Vote rules, I figured I would take the district figures to represent the distribution of first-choice votes for the candidates of the respective parties, with both R and D running 4 in the southeast and 5 in each of the others. We then sum up all ballots cast, and divide by the number of seats plus one to get the Droop Quota--which worked out to be 14,400 ballots in the southeast for 4 seats and 15,000 for the five seat districts. Candidates who exceed the DQ in first choices are marked as having won, and then the DQ is subtracted from each of these, and the remainders distributed evenly to any remaining candidates of their party.

Note that actually STV does not pay attention to party affiliation formally, like FPTP it is in principle a race between individual candidates without reference to party. I just assumed that any D voters in Wyoming would list on their ranked choice ballot all the D candidates, in order of their personal preference for each, before listing any Rs, and vice versa for the Rs. Since I have no way to guess which voters preferring one of the 5 or 4 running for their party would list which alternate in their party next, I just distribute them evenly to the remaining candidates. In real life some voters might mix up the parties, listing say one D first than several R's then another D perhaps. But I suspect that kind of behavior would be rare in this case!

When all quota winners out the gate are elected and their residual votes transferred, elimination begins. Whichever candidate has the lowest first choice votes (including now any redistributed to them by supporters of other candidates who listed them next) is eliminated and all their votes transferred to whomever each ballot lists next. This is like the above bit except we don't subtract the DQ since these candidates are eliminated without being elected; their supporters aren't satisfied with electing anyone yet. This causes the other candidates a voter lists lower down to accumulate votes until one of them pops up above quota.

Doing this with the 4 districts, resulted in one Democrat being elected in each, with 15 instead of 17 Republicans winning the rest. The two eliminated Republicans would be Ed Murray of West Cheyenne, district 1, and Barbara Cubin of District 5, West Casper. Whoever you figured would be the Democrat running there would win instead. Note that this is something of a coincidence; it often happens when I group together OTL districts into larger STV bailiwicks that none of the candidates from some old pre-consolidation districts win and both major party candidates (sometimes a third party candidate too) from another previous district wins; it is all about how many votes they got.

Now when I turn to actual proportionality, I find even this doubling of Wyoming Democrats in the delegation does not fully bring the delegation to proportionality; in fact, taking these numbers of votes inferred as I outlined as real, out of 19 seats, the total statewide Republican vote would entitle that party to 14.21 and Democrats to 4.79 by raw fractions. Applying either Jefferson-d'Hondt or Hamilton's method tells us that to get 19 seats the Republicans would have 14 and Democrats 5--whenever those two methods agree on an exact outcome, one can be sure any method that can call itself "proportional" will give the same answer because these approaches are at opposite extremes, Jefferson's favoring the larger parties more, Hamilton's being most inclusive and favoring smaller parties.

Thus under FPTP the Republicans win 3 more seats out of 19 than the total state vote for them would justify, the Democrats are slashed to 40 percent of their proportioWynal share. The way I would resolve this is to not take any seats away from such an overhanging party, but determine how many seats should be added to make their FPTP gains proportional, then raise up the shortchanged parties by declaring also elected their top also-ran candidates. So here, it turns out if we use Jefferson's method the Republicans are justified in having 17 seats when there are 22 seats altogether; not by accident this is just the number of seats Democrats need to be brought up to proportionality. Therefore, noting Democrats won two seats by majority in the two D+ districts, three more Democrats--in districts 1, 2, and 5 would also be made winners and Wyoming's delegation rises to 22. We've already seen that two of those would win seats under STV, but they'd block two Republicans who won FPTP in your system. Here those three Republicans who won those three districts would be secure in office, but their Democratic rivals would face them in the House.

This system involves counting the votes for candidates in districts three ways--first, it determines who wins the district race, which turns out to be very lopsided.

I presume you didn't gerrymander your districts to make it work that way; it is just in the nature of FPTP voting to be flaky and perverse and deviate far from a proportional outcome. You might think when we go from 20 about seats in a state like Wyoming to 1200 in California, it comes out in the wash then, with numerous districts approximating proportionality, but I am going to predict you will find it otherwise. I do expect a little bit of converging toward overall state PR but only a little.

Then, however the districts turn out, each vote for a candidate counts a second way as a party vote. (We can't meaningfully talk about "proportionality" at all unless we talk about party). This gives us an index to compare the FPTP results to, and thus figure out how much we have to level up the shortchanged parties. Then, having determined how many seats each shortchanged party have earned to be in proportion to the parties that come out ahead, we count the votes a third way, to see which candidates of these upgraded parties ought to be the added representatives--the ones with the most votes have the greatest confidence of voters.

It would also work with STV--after the mechanism operates, we find the R's have won 15 seats instead of 17, and still, taking the first choices of each voter as indication of which party they have most confidence in, the R's are one ahead; we level up to justify their 15 seats, and find this still justifies the D's claim to 5, so we need one extra seat for the D's to make it 20. The highest vote winner, of first choices, for the D's not having already won under STV is again the second district candidate. Now on one hand we have frugally limited the increase to just 5 percent, but on the other, the STV process bumped out two Republicans who won a lot of votes.

The main reason to favor STV in the first place is to allow for an approach to PR without triggering people who think recognizing party in the election mechanism is some kind of abomination, but to level it we have to explicitly recognize that voters often are voting for a party win, and they support these parties for legitimate reasons. Might as well stick with FPTP single member districts and level those then; that way we get the best options for voters who do think community issues are the primary thing.
 
My biggest goals will be to try to respect cities and counties, trying to keep a clean look on the map.
Deliberate partisan gerrymanders are a plague on the nation, but it also happens that structural lopsidedness as bad or worse than any partisan election-rigging guru can come up with happen "naturally" when we draw districts without regard to party.

One major reason I tout the leveling-up approach to proportionality, on the largest scale possible, is that it automatically short-circuits not only gerrymanders, and their accidental identical twins, but also nullifies misapportionment--that is, having some districts have much larger or smaller populations than the average. Before the Civil Rights era took a lot of nasty manipulative toys out of the hands of political map riggers, it used to be common, until a SCOTUS ruling in the 1950s, for states to blatantly underrepresent some populations, usually urban ones, by having them all vote in one district with a huge population while some rural area with equal representation in the legislature would be a district with a much smaller population.

But if we take care to make sure the total body elected is proportional, it doesn't matter if a city ought to be three districts but is actually only one; the triple vote in the underrepresented district will register in the total as one person one vote, and any tendency for one party to be underrepresented because its supporters are in such zones will be brushed aside. If we choose a party's make-up members from the biggest plurality race losers, then underrepresented districts will supply a lot of those since the total votes for all candidates there will be large; vice versa districts privileged with overrepresentation will have small vote totals and so won't often win the extra member sweepstakes.

Similarly if we have a scrupulously drawn map where all districts have the same population (as of some Census date--in fact people don't stay put and a well-apportioned district at the start of a decade might be terribly over or underrepresented at the end of it) but certain potential voting factions have been diced up so they can't win majorities, or vice versa are packed in tight to be the overwhelming majority of some districts and are thus underrepresented for that reason, voters can remedy that by simply voting for the candidates they want. It all comes out in the wash; if they are subdivided they can assert their right to a quota anyway because the districts all get combined together, if a district lopsidedly full of one faction's supporters has been made or people of certain persuasions just naturally tend to cluster there, their overwhelming vote can go beyond winning one district seat to enable their party to win another as well.

The invidious purposes of gerrymandering are thus defeated; if people will vote to support a given movement, they shall get their representatives.

Since we can thus be relaxed about drawing the district lines, we can indeed be more respectful of actual organic communities where they exist, and not worry about meeting some exact population target or whether grouping all the members of some social group together either inflates or dilutes their vote. However they please to vote is what gets representation, not the goofy catch-22s we often face when the district race is the only path to getting representation.

This means for instance we could safely discard all court and legislative mandates to create majority-minority districts. If ethnic and religious and so forth minorities have reason to think they need to band together to get one of their own elected, they don't have to live in the same district to do it; they can just vote wherever they do live for a candidate of their choosing without worrying they have no chance to win the district race; if they have the numbers to merit a representative, or a dozen, those representatives can be elected by them. Vice versa some members of some minorities don't think it is a good idea to prioritize demanding one of their own be in office, and would rather be taken for political purposes as a generic citizen--such persons shouldn't be pigeonholed against their wills either.

But then too, if we have a minority-majority district, perhaps entirely by accident, the persons living there who don't identify with that minority are not effectively disfranchised either. Everyone is free to vote for the representation they want and if enough other people, anywhere, agree with them, get it.

Attempting to draw ideal districts is a vain pursuit I think, much better to just short-circuit their negative potentials, and perhaps voters in some districts have excellent reasons to vote according to genuine community priorities. And minorities there who think priorities are on other scales remain free to focus on that.
 
You are sticking with FPTP for each small district then?
snip
First, thank you and congratulations on your comment and all these calculations. As for your first question, I plan to use FPTP in all districts. As for how I do it, it is not nearly as complicated as it looks, I just use the DRA 2020 app, which greatly facilitates the creation of new districts. And I arrived at number 10273 already calculating how many districts of 30k fit within the population of each state. I assume that using this FPTP system will help Republicans in Safe R states and help Democrats in Safe D states, but I assume that when the number of districts increases, this gap will become smaller and smaller.

I could probably help with Maryland politicians, and DC if you do them.
I could help with NJ politicians
Thank you! Help will be most welcome. I am grateful if you can provide a list of possibilities for Delegates, some names that are difficult for someone outside the state to think about. About DC, even in this universe, we will continue only with the 50 states.
 
Vermont (21 Distritcts)
Vermont:


Vermont

District 1 – West Burlington
PVI – D+32
Howard Dean (D-Burlington)


District 2 – East Burlington and South Burlington
PVI – D+35
Bernie Sanders (D-Burlington)


District 3 - Williston
PVI – D+22
Tim Ashe (D-Burlington)



Burlington

District 4 - Colchester
PVI – D+16
Mitzi Johnson (D-Grand Isle)


District 5 - Essex
PVI – D+18
Linda K. Myers (D-Essex)


District 6 – Caledonia County
PVI – D+2
Jane Kitchel (D-Danville)


District 7 – Northeast Kingdom
PVI – R+3
Vicki Strong (R-Irasburg)


District 8 – Swanton and St. Albans
PVI – EVEN
Randy Brock (R-Swanton)

District 9 – Milton and Richford
PVI – D+1
Charen Fegard (D-Berkshire)


District 10 – Morristown and Stowe
PVI – D+13
Shap Smith (D-Morristown)


District 11 - Montpellier
PVI – D+25
Patrick Leahy (D-Middlesex)


District 12 - Barre
PVI – D+1
Phil Scott (R-Barre)

District 13 – Central Vermont
PVI – D+18
Caleb Elder (D-Starksboro)


District 14 - Hartford
PVI – D+22
Peter Welch (D-Norwich)


District 15 - Middlebury
PVI – D+16
Diane Lanpher (D-Vergennes)


District 16 – Castleton and Manchester
PVI – D+5
Kathleen James (D-Manchester)


District 17 - Rutland
PVI – D+1
Cheryl Hooker (D-Rutland)


District 18 – Royalton and Randolph
PVI – D+10
Richard McCormack (D-Bethel)


District 19 - Bennington
PVI – D+8
Richard W. Sears (D-North Bennington)


District 20 - Springfield
PVI – D+14
Peter Shumlin (D-Putney)


District 21 - Brattleboro
PVI – D+21
Becca Balint (D-Brattleboro)




Vermont Delegation:
3 Republican Delegates
18 Democratic Delegates


Majority Leader of the Vermont Delegation:
Howard Dean (D-VT-1)
Minority Leader of the Vermont Delegation: Phil Scott (R-VT-12)


2016 Election:
Marco Rubio – 20 Delegates
Hillary Clinton – 20 Delegates
 
Last edited:
As for how I do it, it is not nearly as complicated as it looks, I just use the DRA 2020 app, which greatly facilitates the creation of new districts.
I found DRA by Internet search. It looks limited in some ways regarding my interests, which are centered on achieving what I call "positive representation," meaning people can vote for the representative they want, have most confidence in, whom they think will most consider and advocate for their own interests and values. Districting tends to greatly inhibit that. However with the corrective of comparing overall partisan outcomes and leveling up to justify the seats won by the most "overhanging" parties, we retain any advantages districts are supposed to offer (community interests) while also achieving proportionality. I've already outlined how this also takes care of gerrymandering, and misapportionment, thus allowing us to draw the districts to reflect actual existing communities more reasonably, and use lines that have local significance, without advantaging or disadvantaging anyone,

DRA obviously is aimed at a narrow and conservative approach to reform, part of the package is clearly accepting the duopoly D vs R division as a fact of life. Even within that box, I suspect your Wyoming example shows already the limits of fairer districting and smaller districts in achieving proportion just between those two parties, never mind fairness to people who have reasons to want alternatives to either. Indeed with smaller districts we go from zero representation of WY Dems to ten percent of their delegation, but actually they voted (using the PVI DRA generates for you) nearly a third as many as Republicans even in this most lopsidedly Republican state in the Union. Proportionality would be a quarter of the delegation, not a tenth, and this kind of thing adds up across the nation.

In real life I think the WY Democratic vote was under 25 percent in 2016, but definitely over 22 percent--that was the percentage of PV Clinton got in the Presidential race anyway. I have the exact HR race figures semi-handy for 2018, but 2018 was an unusual year with unusually high turnout for a midterm and alvotso unusual national tight focus on voting either D or R--I suspect a substantial third party vote (mostly for the Constitution Party candidate) would perhaps have proportionally earned that party a seat, if not out of 19 than out of 22 anyway.

So the PVI if anything probably overestimates D votes (in Wyoming) at least for 2016, perhaps not for 2018.

Now when we do have both a large number of districts and a closer partisan balance, I noticed, reading through your 1005 seat exercise, that North Carolina at least came out very close to balanced--I did not check because you did not supply the PVI for each district as you do now. As it happens NC voters are unusually tightly focused on the two party race; sometimes some Libertarians get some Congress votes, but the percentage is well below the national average. Consistently, NC Democrats have polled just slightly behind the Republican votes, and yet with the OTL districts, they never win more than 4 of the 13 districts, and more often just 3. My own looks at a proportional balance consistently make it 6 to 7 for 13, and in 2012 it would have been 7 to 6--when it was actually 4 to 9 in real world outcome.

But your 34 districts came out with the balance of wins very close, just one more R than D--I actually suspect that would be a flip in favor of the D's in 2016, but I believe you were displaying 2018 outcomes.

So DRA anyway does not seem to offer any tools to someone looking at multi-party balances, computing those indices as though there are only 2 parties--which to be honest, given the way Americans do currently vote, is nearly true. Very few Americans dare, or want, to "waste" their vote on a candidate who cannot win in their district, and understand frittering away votes on ideal candidates undermines the compromise of the "lesser evil," making what such voters would call the Greater Evil more likely to win. Hence ignoring third party votes completely.

I was pretty excited to try playing with it even so and signed in, but then I found the page I was working on swamped my browser and indeed whole computer with a page demanding something like 30 times the memory space a bloated AH page turns into in my hands with my long comments! I hope if I try a different browser for DRA the other browser (I'd be switching to Google Chrome) would not bog down as much, but I fear that actually it will because evidently the site assumes more powerful modern computers than I have! This is a decade old laptop after all. Less poor people than me presumably have systems that can handle it.

I wanted to create seven districts for Nevada, and then we could continue to elect 42 Assembly members by 6-seat STV within each every two years and also elect 7 state Senators on staggered 6 year terms using the same districts. Minimal modifications to this framework could also yield our House districts, whether they hold at 4 or drop back to 3. (Nevada is currently the smallest 4 Representative state. Our population surged in the past couple decades but I don't have the sense this continued this decade). So I was in the middle of trying to trim down my first of these when the browser jammed.

I can see how DRA presents you with credible data on such things as ethnicity, once you've formed a district, and indeed it does operate on the basis of precinct by precinct data! That's where I jammed up, zooming in close to weed out teeny tiny precincts. I hope that once I get one district, building the neighboring one is made easier so I don't have to hand select each and every precinct!

Here's hoping I can run it in Chrome, but probably I need to shut down this browser first, and anything else using any memory whatsoever!
 
Top