1 / 7

BACK TO: COMPETITIVE PLANS

This presentation to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission on February 9, 2004, outlines strategies to adjust the district grid for maximum electoral competitiveness. The focus was on achieving contiguity and equal population while utilizing the AQD spread to measure effectiveness. It emphasizes initial changes rooted in competitiveness, complying with judicial findings. Two primary plans, developed in collaboration with Dr. McDonald, were presented, targeting districts with varying spreads to ensure fair representation. This effort prioritizes city splits and compactness in redistricting.

callia
Télécharger la présentation

BACK TO: COMPETITIVE PLANS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. BACK TO: COMPETITIVE PLANS A Presentation to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission February 9, 2004

  2. Summary of Test (s) GOAL:Adjust the Grid to improve competitiveness • The only criteria were competitiveness, contiguity, and equal population. AQD spread was used in-progress, with frequent pauses to run JudgeIt on the work. • Cities, Counties, Communities, Reservations, visible borders, and public input not taken into account for this step in the process. • Complies with Judge’s findings and order: favor competitiveness by using competitiveness in the very first changes to the grid. • Exceed Competitiveness of the Hall-Minkoff test Process:NDC did preliminary work, reviewed and revised with Dr. McDonald on Feb. 5 and 6 to develop two plans: • A: Target: districts with 7 % spread • B: Target: districts with nearly 0 % spread, then others with 7 % spread

  3. Plans to present • Grid • A1: NDC initial test “A” • A2: test A developed with Dr. McDonald • B1: NDC initial test “B” • B2: test B developed with Dr. McDonald

  4. Competitiveness

  5. City Splits

  6. Compactness

  7. BACK TO: COMPETITIVE PLANS A Presentation to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission February 9, 2004

More Related