Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
167 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Drawing Competitive Districts in Redistricting (2404.10964v1)

Published 17 Apr 2024 in cs.DS and cs.CY

Abstract: In the process of redistricting, one important metric is the number of competitive districts, that is, districts where both parties have a reasonable chance of winning a majority of votes. Competitive districts are important for achieving proportionality, responsiveness, and other desirable qualities; some states even directly list competitiveness in their legally-codified districting requirements. In this work, we discuss the problem of drawing plans with at least a fixed number of competitive districts. In addition to the standard, vote-band'' measure of competitivenesss (i.e., how close was the last election?), we propose a measure that explicitly considersswing voters'' - the segment of the population that may choose to vote either way, or not vote at all, in a given election. We present two main, contrasting results. First, from a computational complexity perspective, we show that the task of drawing plans with competitive districts is NP-hard, even on very natural instances where the districting task itself is easy (e.g., small rectangular grids of population-balanced cells). Second, however, we show that a simple hill-climbing procedure can in practice find districtings on real states in which all the districts are competitive. We present the results of the latter on the precinct-level graphs of the U.S. states of North Carolina and Arizona, and discuss trade-offs between competitiveness and other desirable qualities.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (33)
  1. GerryChain — GerryChain documentation. https://gerrychain.readthedocs.io/en/latest/.
  2. MGGG States. https://github.com/mggg-states.
  3. Redistricting Data Hub. https://redistrictingdatahub.org/.
  4. Dubious Democracy. Technical report, Voting and Democracy Research Center, 2003.
  5. K. Andreev. Balanced Graph Partitioning.
  6. Multi-Scale Merge-Split Markov Chain Monte Carlo for Redistricting, Aug. 2020.
  7. Metropolized Multiscale Forest Recombination for Redistricting. Multiscale Modeling & Simulation, 19(4):1885–1914, Jan. 2021.
  8. Redistricting: Drawing the Line, May 2017.
  9. P. Berman. A d/2 Approximation for Maximum Weight Independent Set in d-Claw Free Graphs. In G. Goos, J. Hartmanis, and J. Van Leeuwen, editors, Algorithm Theory - SWAT 2000, volume 1851, pages 214–219. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2000.
  10. Declination as a Metric to Detect Partisan Gerrymandering. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 18(4):371–387, Dec. 2019.
  11. Geography and Election Outcome Metric: An Introduction. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 21(3):200–219, Sept. 2022.
  12. Alleviating partisan gerrymandering: Can math and computers help to eliminate wasted votes?, Apr. 2018.
  13. Separating Effect From Significance in Markov Chain Tests. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2330443X.2020.1806763.
  14. Assessing significance in a Markov chain without mixing | PNAS. PNAS.
  15. Colorado in context: Congressional redistricting and competing fairness criteria in Colorado. Journal of Computational Social Science, 5(1):189–226, May 2022.
  16. A Computational Approach to Measuring Vote Elasticity and Competitiveness. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2330443X.2020.1777915, Sept. 2020.
  17. Locating the Representational Baseline: Republicans in Massachusetts. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy.
  18. The (homological) persistence of gerrymandering, July 2020.
  19. M. Duchin and G. Schoenbach. Redistricting for Proportionality. The Forum, 20(3-4):371–393, Dec. 2022.
  20. Estimating the Electoral Effects of Voter Turnout. American Political Science Review, 104(2):268–288, May 2010.
  21. Gerrymandering Incumbency: Does Nonpartisan Redistricting Increase Electoral Competition? The Journal of Politics, 80(3):1011–1016, July 2018.
  22. Algorithms for gerrymandering over graphs. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304397521001894, May 2021.
  23. J. Kleinberg and E. Tardos. Algorithm Design. 2006.
  24. Estimation of voter transitions based on ecological inference: An empirical assessment of different approaches. AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, 100(2):133–159, Apr. 2016.
  25. All Politics is Local: Redistricting via Local Fairness. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:17443–17455, Dec. 2022.
  26. Fair redistricting is hard. Theoretical Computer Science, 791:28–35, Oct. 2019.
  27. J. F. Nagle. What Criteria Should Be Used for Redistricting Reform? Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 18(1):63–77, Mar. 2019.
  28. J. M. Pavía and R. Romero. Improving Estimates Accuracy of Voter Transitions. Two New Algorithms for Ecological Inference Based on Linear Programming. Sociological Methods & Research, page 00491241221092725, May 2022.
  29. J. D. Smith. On Democracy’s Doorstep: The Inside Story of How the Supreme Court Brought ”One Person, One Vote” to the United States. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, June 2014.
  30. Minimizing Margin of Victory for Fair Political and Educational Districting, Sept. 2019.
  31. S. S.-H. Wang. Three Tests for Practical Evaluation of Partisan Gerrymandering. Stanford Law Review, 68(6):1263–1322, 2016.
  32. G. S. Warrington. A Comparison of Partisan-Gerrymandering Measures. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 18(3):262–281, Sept. 2019.
  33. D. Wasserman. Realignment, More Than Redistricting, Has Decimated Swing House Seats. https://www.cookpolitical.com/cook-pvi/realignment-more-redistricting-has-decimated-swing-house-seats, Apr. 2023.
Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com