Thanks!

I can't wait to try it out. I have a few questions: When should you have partisan data in at least one state and will you focus on California next? Thanks.

for more election analysis, visit  http://frogandturtle.blogspot....

17, CA-06,  

---

by: Alibguy @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 00:21:25 AM UTC

Partisan data

I'm going to attempt to do partisan data for 1 state next, so I can figure out what form to put it in and such. Then I hope DavidNYC and Jeff and maybe some of you can transform data for different states, which I can then upload to the server. (The data form that David and Jeff collected for each state varies a lot.)

Regarding California, I will try to get to this soon (mid to late September), but it does not supply the census bureau with voting districts, so I'm not sure if we'll be able to get partisan data for that one.

---

by: dgb @ Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 16:31:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Excellent, thanks Dave.

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 00:39:26 AM UTC

Awesome job

Thank you so much for your work on this.

---

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 01:54:18 AM UTC

Thank you very much Dave!

Let me ask a question for clarity, the new states have only voting districts and not block groups, correct?

---

by: JSmith @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 02:48:00 AM UTC

Correct

My plan is to do everything now with voting districts, unless they don't exist (which is the case with 8 states).

I'll keep block groups for states that don't have voting districts and for those already supported, since you may have saved files you want to keep using. It's possible I'll support both for all states over time, if it appears useful.

Thanks.

---

by: dgb @ Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 16:42:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Am I the only one who gets an error

with the new states?  The error says that "Unable to load all necessary data"

---

by: JSmith @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 02:53:37 AM UTC

I saw it too

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 04:19:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Do you use a Mac

and have you upgraded to Silverlight 3.0?

I'm wondering if one or both of these reasons are the cause.

---

by: JSmith @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 04:20:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes and yes

Plus a Snow Leopard upgrade a few hours ago (I wasn't even sure that Silverlight would work at all).

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 04:31:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bug

Someone sent me email on this and I've looked into it, but I have no clue at this point. He was using Firefox on Vista and got the problem with the new states. IE worked for him, but not always.

I've now tried Firefox on Vista and it works fine for me.

For this change I added some functions to the web service, leaving the old functions in place. The new client (chich you should get whenever you access the page) calls a new function to determine if a state is supported and now with what data (voting districts or block groups). Even if you had a cached client, it should still work, but simply say those new states are not supported.

If you have any more info on this (browers, OS, tried rebooting), please let me know, either here or by email (redistricting@gardow.com).

Thanks.

---

by: dgb @ Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 16:40:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

New Firefox?

The person who emailed me about this bug now says that with the latest Firefox the problem goes away. Please let me know if you're not able make it go away with similar measures.

Thanks.

---

by: dgb @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 01:58:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Using Safari

the problem seemed to clear itself up without any trouble. I think I saw it only when I tried to open a second state in the same session.

---

by: andgarden @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:09:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Best Contributor to Amateur Gerrymandering Evar!

No but seriously, this app is awesome and you are awesome for creating it.

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.

---

by: arealmlc @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 23:21:02 PM UTC

Thanks!

I love the addition of even more southern states!

---

by: fitchfan28 @ Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 04:46:59 AM UTC

No offense

but I'd rather have California.  A realistic map for many of the Southern states are too depressing.

---

by: JSmith @ Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 04:58:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

California

Understood. California is so big it's daunting. The others were easier to knock off and had all been requested by someone. But with this change I have a better method for getting and processing the data, which makes doing all of them easier.  California -- soon.

---

by: dgb @ Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 16:33:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks much

I know that California is really really big and will take much time.  And I think we all appreciate this great tool you have provided for this community.

---

by: JSmith @ Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 20:26:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes. Thank you, Dave.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)

---

by: californianintexas @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 06:19:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

One great addition

would be the ability to highlight VTDs by demographic info (%black, hispanic) and eventually political data (%D, %R).

Beyond that, filling in current districts is still a very hit-or-miss affair, with some spaces being left blank for no apparent reason.

However, it should go without says (but I'll say it anyway) that I'm very impressed with what you've done so far, and I can wait to see what you come up with in the future.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 18:45:59 PM UTC

Indeed....Dave Rules

I concur with Dave's awesomeness.

The absolute best improvement for me would be the ability to highlight plurality/majority African American/Hispanic districts to help with making VRA districts. Keep up the awesome work dave. I will totally help with any data stuff you ask the community for an assist on.

---

by: MinnesotaMan @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:31:22 AM UTC