It’s time for Iowa!

8 thoughts on “It’s time for Iowa!”

1. Iowa doesn’t split counties (best as I can tell they get away with minor population disparities because no one there objects).

   Also, Iowa isn’t redistricted by the politicans. The state legislature can reject the plan a few (a couple?) times, but ultimately the bureaucrats are in charge. Iowa’s map will be much more conventionally “prettier” in terms of compactness, without regard (by the district-drawers) for incumbents or partisan outcomes.

2. (img src=”http://www.yoururl.com/yourfilename.jpg”)

   Except replace the parenthesis () with carets <>.

   

3. Back then, Iowa had 11 Congressional districts–the same as California.

4. As noted, the gerrymandering won’t happen, and the county splitting won’t happen (these are still estimates, but it makes it even harder to maintain a gerrymander).

   Also, this seems like it’s a map that could easily elect a lot of Republicans.  I’m not sure that 4th district was even won by Obama, and a 50% Obama district certainly isn’t safe D or even likely D.  I can imagine the 2nd and 3rd flipping pretty easily with decent R candidates as well (and although it isn’t that much of the gerrymander, I think Latham wins that 3rd against Boswell).

5. I think this map would fail Iowa’s compactness standard:

   Compactness is a very controversial issue, with over thirty standards in the literature. The software used by the LSB features twelve optional measures. The Iowa Code specifies two standards for use in Iowa redistricting: the average of the absolute differences between district lengths/widths (smaller score is better) per plan in conjunction with a plan perimeter score, the total amount of perimeter used to construct districts in a map (smaller is better).

   If this seems puzzling, consider the following. The most compact district is a circle, the shape that uniquely minimizes a perimeter for any given area. Creating circular districts is near-impossible, of course, so regular n-sided polygons are considered next. While the Code mentions hexagons, realistically, the shape of Iowa’s counties and the contiguity requirement makes the square the natural model for compactness. So, the absolute value of a district’s length minus width is the deviation from squareness.

   As an example, arrange nine “counties” in a 3×3 matrix, assigning each county unit length. Now, remove each corner county and assign one to each remaining branch. The two shapes, a square and a cross, possess identical |L-W| values, but the cross generates greater perimeter, hence the inclusion of a test to reward parsimonious usage/penalize for excess.

   Thanks for drawing an interesting Iowa map, though!

Comments are closed.