A case study of congressional districting: “Rocks-Pebbles-Sand” approach
Tóm tắt
As a case study into an algorithmic approach to congressional districting, North Carolina provides a lot to explore. Statistical modeling has called into question whether recent North Carolina district plans are unbiased. In particular, the literature suggests that the district plan used in the 2016 U.S. House of Representatives election yields outlier results that are statistically unlikely to be obtained without the application of bias. Therefore, methods for creating strong and fair district plans are needed. Informed by previous districting models and algorithms, we build a model and algorithm to produce an ensemble of viable Congressional district plans. Our work contributes a “Rocks-Pebbles-Sand” concept and procedure facilitating reasonable population equity with a small overall number of county splits among districts. Additionally, our methodology minimizes the initial need for granular, precinct-level data, thereby reducing the risk of covert gerrymandering. This case study indicates plausibility of an approach built upon an easy-to-understand intuition.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Cirincione C, Darling TA, O’Rourke TG. Assessing South Carolina’s 1990s congressional districting. Polit Geogr. 2000;19(2):189–211.
Eckman S. Congressional redistricting criteria and considerations. Congressional Research Service: Tech. rep; 2021.
Apollonio N, Becker RI, Lari I, Ricca F, Simeone B. The sunfish against the octopus: opposing compactness to gerrymandering. In: Mathematics and Democracy. Springer; 2006. p. 19–41.
Geldzahler E. Davis v. Bandemer: remedial difficulties in political gerrymandering. Emory LJ. 1988;37:443.
Grofman B, King G. The future of partisan symmetry as a judicial test for partisan gerrymandering after LULAC v. Perry. Elect Law J. 2007;6(1):2–35.
Godfrey H, Courville C, Nelson JA. Brief of Amici Curiae Professors Gary King, Bernard Grofman, Andrew Gelman, and Jonathan N. Katz, in Support of Neither Party. US Supreme Court in Jackson v Perry. 2006.
Stephanopoulos NO, McGhee EM. The measure of a metric: the debate over quantifying partisan gerrymandering. Stan L Rev. 2018;70:1503.
DeFord D, Dhamankar N, Duchin M, Gupta V, McPike M, Schoenbach G, et al. Implementing partisan symmetry: problems and paradoxes. Polit Anal. 2021; 1–20.
Wang SSH. Three tests for practical evaluation of partisan gerrymandering. Stan L Rev. 2016;68:1263.
Shahmizad M, Buchanan A. Political districting to minimize county splits. Available on Optimization-Online. 2023;.
Waschpress J, Adler WT. Split decisions: guidance for measuring locality preservation in district map. Center for Democracy & Technology. 2021.
Herschlag G, Kang HS, Luo J, Graves CV, Bangia S, Ravier R, et al. Quantifying gerrymandering in North Carolina. Stat Public Policy. 2020;7(1):30–8.
Chen J, Rodden J, et al. Unintentional gerrymandering: political geography and electoral bias in legislatures. Q J Polit Sci. 2013;8(3):239–69.
Chen J, Rodden J. Cutting through the thicket: redistricting simulations and the detection of partisan gerrymanders. Elect Law J. 2015;14(4):331–45.
Macmillan W. Redistricting in a GIS environment: an optimisation algorithm using switching-points. J Geogr Syst. 2001;3(2):167–80.
Mattingly JC, Vaughn C. Redistricting and the will of the people. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.8796. 2014;.
Bangia S, Dou B, Guo S, Vaughn C.: Quantifying Gerrymandering Data+ project. https://services.math.duke.edu/projects/gerrymandering/.
Wu LC, Dou JX, Sleator D, Frieze A, Miller D. Impartial redistricting: a Markov chain approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.03247. 2015;.
Imai K. A new automated redistricting simulator using Markov Chain Monte Carlo. In: American Statistical Association; 2015. .
Mehrotra A, Johnson EL, Nemhauser GL. An optimization based heuristic for political districting. Manag Sci. 1998;44(8):1100–14.
Liu YY, Cho WKT, Wang S. PEAR: a massively parallel evolutionary computation approach for political redistricting optimization and analysis. Swarm Evol Comput. 2016;30:78–92.