Readit News logoReadit News
maxpalmer commented on A Partisan Solution to Partisan Gerrymandering: The Define–Combine Procedure   cambridge.org/core/journa... · Posted by u/headalgorithm
vitus · 2 years ago
Hm. This doesn't seem like it does much if there's a sufficiently high concentration of cracked districts, relative to packed districts.

I gerrymandered during the define phase using classic packing / cracking strategies, such that I had 8 majority-B districts (2:3) and 2 majority-A districts (4:1 and 5:0), and unsurprisingly, the only districts I was able to combine that were majority-A were those that included the packed districts.

If the overall split was, say, 27:23 instead of 25:25 such that we could define 9 majority-B districts in the define phase, then I would only have been able to define a single majority-A district in the combine phase.

(And yes, all of these gerrymandered districts would be considered safe B seats, as one would expect with a 20% margin)

There are also potentially issues if the packed districts are geographically clustered -- we see this a lot in states with a single predominant urban center (e.g. Kansas, Minnesota, Kentucky). In those cases, you might be forced to combine multiple packed districts due to pathological maps. For instance, consider a map where a Democratic bastion is districted into concentric rings -- that satisfies the contiguity requirement, yet only the outermost district abuts any Democratic-minority districts.

maxpalmer · 2 years ago
Suppose you're defining as Party B, and you draw 8 majority-B districts (2:3) and 2 majority-A districts. Then, when Party A is combining, they would pair each of the majority-A districts with a majority-B district with a smaller margin, resulting in 2 A districts and 3 B districts. This is an improvement compared to if B drew 5 districts unilaterally, where it could draw 4 majority-B districts.
maxpalmer commented on A Partisan Solution to Partisan Gerrymandering: The Define–Combine Procedure   cambridge.org/core/journa... · Posted by u/headalgorithm
stephencanon · 2 years ago
Biggest potential weakness seems like the ability for the merging party to strategically collapse districts such that two legislators from the opposing party are made to reside in the same district, creating a new district with no incumbent. Not all legislatures require that representatives live in the district, and there would be real trade-offs to doing so, but it would be a pretty powerful hammer to wield against up-and-coming opposition candidates.

It doesn't matter at the abstraction of proportional representation, but it potentially matters quite a bit when you get into the nitty-gritty of actual elections.

maxpalmer · 2 years ago
You're right that this method doesn't protect incumbents. However, protecting incumbency and avoiding open-seat elections isn't necessarily a bad thing, and could increase electoral competition in some places. Some states don't allow incumbency to be taken into account when redistricting already.
maxpalmer commented on A Partisan Solution to Partisan Gerrymandering: The Define–Combine Procedure   cambridge.org/core/journa... · Posted by u/headalgorithm
colonwqbang · 2 years ago
Can't you just draw the N districts that you want, then break out N new districts from those by extracting a "ring" from each. Then you have N districts each fully surrounded by another district. The only way to merge pairs of adjacent districts is to restore the original layout.

Seems like a pretty trivial way to break the algorithm. But I probably misunderstood something.

maxpalmer · 2 years ago
Yes, that would work. The paper has a note about excluding districts like this:

> "Valid districts are contiguous and have equal population. Strict constraints on compactness, geographic splits, or other restrictions are not necessary, but such limitations could be included. However, valid districts may not include “donuts,” where one district entirely encircles another."

maxpalmer commented on A Partisan Solution to Partisan Gerrymandering: The Define–Combine Procedure   cambridge.org/core/journa... · Posted by u/headalgorithm
consumer451 · 2 years ago
Is this actual political science?

If so, where I can I find more?

maxpalmer · 2 years ago
Yes! A lot of modern political science research uses computational methods, big data, etc. Here are some interesting papers on redistricting, by the research group that wrote the package we use in this paper. https://alarm-redist.org/applications.html
maxpalmer commented on A Partisan Solution to Partisan Gerrymandering: The Define–Combine Procedure   cambridge.org/core/journa... · Posted by u/headalgorithm
mfrieswyk · 2 years ago
Would it scale to beyond 2 parties?
maxpalmer · 2 years ago
Potentially in some form, but we haven't investigated it. The utility functions for each party would be very different. Instead of trying to maximize the seats that they win, parties would also need to think about the coalitions that could form if no party won a majority of the seats.
maxpalmer commented on A Partisan Solution to Partisan Gerrymandering: The Define–Combine Procedure   cambridge.org/core/journa... · Posted by u/headalgorithm
crotchfire · 2 years ago
You cut, I choose becomes I choose, you un-cut.

Note that this paper contains no optimality proofs.

There's a lot of mathy-looking stuff, but then instead of a proof we get "yeah we took this one particular Markov-chain algorithm and had it play against itself and it failed to generate a gerrymander".

If deployed in real life, an immense amount of power -- and therefore money -- will be at stake: certainly more than enough money to hire persons with intelligence equal to or greater than the creator of "the ShotBurst Algorithm" as consultants.

If an optimality proof is not possible, the only alternative is to test using real humans and (very substantial) real rewards.

maxpalmer · 2 years ago
We have an analytic solution in the supplementary materials [1]. One of the biggest challenges to optimality proofs is how to capture the importance of geography as a constraint. I don't believe there are any papers on redistricting that include geographic constraints in analytic/formal solutions. That's why we prefer simulations for our main results.

[1]: https://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%...

maxpalmer commented on A Partisan Solution to Partisan Gerrymandering: The Define–Combine Procedure   cambridge.org/core/journa... · Posted by u/headalgorithm
maxpalmer · 2 years ago
I'm one of the authors. Thanks for reading our paper. Happy to answer any questions.

If you're interested, here is a (still in-progress) simulator I wrote where you can try out Define-Combine on a simple grid. https://mpalmer.shinyapps.io/DefineCombine/

u/maxpalmer

KarmaCake day31February 2, 2024View Original