Gerrymandering and Compactness: Implementation Flexibility and Abuse (1803.02857v2)
Abstract: Political districts may be drawn to favor one group or political party over another, or gerrymandered. A number of measurements have been suggested as ways to detect and prevent such behavior. These measures give concrete axes along which districts and districting plans can be compared. However, measurement values are affected by both noise and the compounding effects of seemingly innocuous implementation decisions. Such issues will arise for any measure. As a case study demonstrating the effect, we show that commonly-used measures of geometric compactness for district boundaries are affected by several factors irrelevant to fairness or compliance with civil rights law. We further show that an adversary could manipulate measurements to affect the assessment of a given plan. This instability complicates using these measurements as legislative or judicial standards to counteract unfair redistricting practices. This paper accompanies the release of packages in C++, Python, and R that correctly, efficiently, and reproducibly calculate a variety of compactness scores.
- “An impossibility theorem for gerrymandering” In ArXiv e-prints, 2017 arXiv:1710.04193 [math.CO]
- Micah Altman “Chapter 2: The Consistency and Effectiveness of Mandatory District Compactness Rules” In PhD Thesis: Districting principles and democratic representation California Institute of Technology, 1998 URL: http://thesis.library.caltech.edu/1871/
- Micah Altman and Michael P McDonald “BARD: Better automated redistricting” In Journal of Statistical Software. Forthcoming, URL http://www. jstatsoft. org 42.4, 2011, pp. 1–28
- “A two-hundred year statistical history of the gerrymander” In Ohio State Law Journal 77, 2016, pp. 741–762
- “qgis-compactness”, https://github.com/gerrymandr/qgis-compactness, 2017
- Azavea “The Gerrymandering Index”, 2006 URL: https://cdn.azavea.com/com.redistrictingthenation/pdfs/Gerrymandering_Index_Whitepaper.pdf
- Nick Barnes “Publish your computer code: it is good enough” In Nature 467, 2010, pp. 753
- Richard Barnes “RichDEM: Terrain Analysis Software”, 2016 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1295618
- Richard Barnes “compactnesslib”, https://github.com/gerrymandr/compactnesslib, 2018
- “mandeR: Compactness Measures”, https://github.com/gerrymandr/mandeR, 2018
- “A formula goes to court: Partisan gerrymandering and the efficiency gap” In Notices of the AMS 64.9, 2017, pp. 1020–1024
- “A Measure of Bizarreness” In Quarterly Journal of Political Science 5.1, 2010, pp. 27–44 URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1023260
- Christopher P Chambers, Alan D Miller and Joel Sobel “Flaws in the efficiency gap” In Journal of Law & Politics 33 HeinOnline, 2017, pp. 1
- Charles Henry Deetz and Oscar Sherman Adams “Elements of map projection with applications to map and chart construction” US Gov Printing Office for Department of Commerce’s CoastGeodetic Survey, 1934
- “Total variation isoperimetric profiles” In arXiv:1809.07943, 2018
- Moon Duchin and Bridget Eileen Tenner “Discrete geometry for electoral geography” In arXiv e-prints, 2018, pp. arXiv:1808.05860 arXiv:1808.05860 [physics.soc-ph]
- Larry M Eig and Michael V Seitzinger “State Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Concerning Congressional and State Legislative Redistricting”, 1981 Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service
- Bernd Gärtner “Fast and robust smallest enclosing balls” In Algorithms-ESA 1999 Springer, 1999, pp. 693–693
- “The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no “fishing expedition” or “p-hacking” and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time” In Department of Statistics, Columbia University, 2013
- Sean Gillies “Shapely: manipulation and analysis of geometric objects”, 2007 toblerity.org URL: https://github.com/Toblerity/Shapely
- David Goldberg “What every computer scientist should know about floating-point arithmetic” In ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 23.1, 1991, pp. 5–48 URL: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=103163
- Ian J Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens and Christian Szegedy “Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples” In arXiv e-prints arXiv:1412.6572, 2014
- Darrel C. Ince, Leslie Hatton and John Graham-Cumming “The case for open computer programs” In Nature 482, 2012, pp. 485–488 DOI: doi:10.1038/nature10836
- John PA Ioannidis “Why most published research findings are false” In PLoS medicine 2.8 Public Library of Science, 2005, pp. e124
- Jeff S. Jenness “Calculating landscape surface area from digital elevation models” In Wildlife Society Bulletin 32.3, 2004, pp. 829–839 DOI: 10.2193/0091-7648(2004)032[0829:CLSAFD]2.0.CO;2
- Legislative Technology Services Bureau “Wisconsin State Assembly Districts”, https://data-ltsb.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/a907d137f96b49289d83172db8cf96f0_0 acquired 02017-08-28, 2017
- Zeeya Merali “Why scientific programming does not compute” In Nature 467, 2010, pp. 775–777
- “python-mander”, https://github.com/gerrymandr/python-mander, 2018
- “Measuring Compactness and the Role of a Compactness Standard in a Test for Partisan and Racial Gerrymandering” In The Journal of Politics 52.4, 1990, pp. 1155–1181 DOI: 10.2307/2131686
- OSGeo “GEOS — Geometry Engine, Open Source”, https://trac.osgeo.org/geos, 2017
- Daniel D Polsby and Robert D Popper “The third criterion: Compactness as a procedural safeguard against partisan gerrymandering” In Yale Law & Policy Review 9.2 JSTOR, 1991, pp. 301–353
- QGIS Development Team “QGIS Geographic Information System”, 2017 Open Source Geospatial Foundation URL: http://qgis.osgeo.org
- “Using Outlier Analysis to Detect Partisan Gerrymanders: A Survey of Current Approaches and Future Directions” In Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 17.4, 2018, pp. 286–301 DOI: 10.1089/elj.2018.0503
- Ernest C Reock “A note: Measuring compactness as a requirement of legislative apportionment” In Midwest Journal of Political Science 5.1 JSTOR, 1961, pp. 70–74
- John P Snyder “A low-error conformal map projection for the 50 states” In The American Cartographer 11.1 Taylor & Francis, 1984, pp. 27–39
- Nicholas O Stephanopoulos and Eric M McGhee “Partisan Gerrymandering and the Efficiency Gap” In The University of Chicago Law Review 82, 2014
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania “League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth, No. 159 MM 2017, 2018 Pa. LEXIS 438 (January 22, 2018) supplemental opinion at League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth, 2018 Pa. LEXIS 771 (February 7, 2018)”, 2018
- Supreme Court of the United States “Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986)”, 1986
- Supreme Court of the United States “Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004)”, 2004
- Wendy K Tam Cho and Yan Y Liu “Toward a talismanic redistricting tool: A computational method for identifying extreme redistricting plans” In Election Law Journal 15.4 Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 140 Huguenot Street, 3rd Floor New Rochelle, NY 10801 USA, 2016, pp. 351–366
- “XSEDE: accelerating scientific discovery” In Computing in Science & Engineering 16.5 AIP Publishing, 2014, pp. 62–74
- U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) “USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED) 30m version”, https://prd-tnm.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html?prefix=StagedProducts/Elevation/1/IMG/ accessed 02017-08-26, 2016
- United States Census Bureau “Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles”, https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/cbf/cbf_cds.html access on 2017-08-26, 2016
- United States Federal Courts “Whitford v. Gill, 218 F. Supp. 3d 837 (W.D.Wis. 2016), stayed pending appeal 137 S. Ct. 2289 (June 19, 2017)”, 2016
- Ellen Veomett “Efficiency gap, voter turnout, and the efficiency principle” In Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 17.4 Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., 2018, pp. 249–263
- Helge Von Koch “Sur une courbe continue sans tangente obtenue par une construction géométrique élémentaire” In Arkiv för matematik, astronomi och fysik utgifvet af Kungl Svenska vetenskapsakademien 1 Norstedt & Soner, 1904, pp. 681–702
- “The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship” In Scientific Data 3.1, 2016, pp. 160018 DOI: 10.1038/sdata.2016.18