[EM] More on Gerrymander prevention
josh.narins at lehman.com
Wed Mar 20 10:43:37 PST 2002
Jurij writes, tantalizingly...
> Altman is saying that automated redistricting is not practical and
> but I am saying that it is possible and I also developed a method and used
> it on a practical example - my country.
And did your country adopt said redistricting???
From: Jurij Toplak [mailto:jure.toplak at uni-mb.si]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 1:01 PM
To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [EM] More on Gerrymander prevention
What you are refering at is called "automated redistricting process" -
getting the districting plan by following certain mathematical formula and
not involving in the process any human bias.
There has been quite some literature written on such procedures. I have
written a master thesis on the topic "Protection of equal voting right by
redistricting process rules". I wrote about automated redistricting. It has
not been published anywhere, but if anybody is interested, I can send it to
you by email.
You can also check Micah Altman's Harvard Ph.D. thesis "Districting
Principles and Democratic Representation" and its 5th chapter "Is Automation
the Answer? -- The Computational Complexity of Automated Redistricting". It
is at http://data.fas.harvard.edu/micah_altman/disab.shtml
Altman is saying that automated redistricitng is not practical and possible,
but I am saying that it is possible and I also developed a method and used
it on a practical example - my country.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Rouse <mrouse at cdsnet.net>
To: <election-methods-list at eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 6:28 PM
Subject: [EM] More on Gerrymander prevention
> Note: this is more of a thought experiment than a serious suggestion --
> number of states and districts is not a power of two for one thing, and
> there are problems with long, skinny districts -- but it does show an
> automated way of coming up with a single apportionment answer, and it
> point to a method we can agree on.
> To illustrate, assume we want to break up the United States into 64
> or perhaps Canada and Mexico have combined with the United States to form
> North Americal Union and we want to divide the Union into 64 regions. Find
> the population centroid for the country, then find the geographic
> Draw the great circle that runs between them and continue until the line
> reaches both borders. You now how two clearly defined sections of roughly
> equal population. Find the population and geographic centroids for each of
> these sections, draw another great circle line for each set, and continue
> until you have 64 states (regions). Each "state" should have *roughly*
> area and population. (I say "roughly" because of the teeter-totter
> a small group of people far away will balance a larger group nearby --
> is why I have it going through the geographic centroid as well.) As an
> alternative, you could use the point where the north-south population
> crosses the east-west population median, then take the line between that
> the geographic centroid. In either case, everyone who followed the
> definition accurately would end up with the same result, regardless of
> Instead of a power of two, we could redo the lower 48 contiguous states.
> Ignoring Alask and Hawaii, cut the country in thirds -- Pacific, Atlantic,
> and Central -- with equal populations, and the borders defined by
> lines (in other words, find the line of longitude where one third of the
> population of the country is west of the line, and then find another where
> one third of the population is east of the line. Those two lines will
> the country cleanly). Within these three regions, find the population and
> geographic centroids, draw lines through them, and repeat until each
> has 16 "states," giving a total of 48 states. We can keep going within
> states until each state has 8 districts, or 384 districts plus Alaska and
> Hawaii, as opposed to 435 districts we have now. (We could of course do
> same thing with lines of latitude -- north, middle, and south -- and
> each region into 16 parts, but lines of latitude are not great circles,
> the regions would be more elongated to begin with).
> As mentioned above, one of the problems is that you could easily end up
> long, skinny, not-at-all-compact districts. Another problem is the
> would completely ignore present political, historical, racial, and
> geographic groupings -- it might take a thin sliver out of the center of a
> city but extend far out into rural areas, and across our present state
> boundries. On the other hand, each district would be a simple, closed, and
> convex figure, with a near-minimum of jaggedness, and there would be only
> one result possible for each census. The tesselations would also make a
> mosaic (grin).
> If the results were too strange -- districts stretching acrossed time
> or shaped like slivers of glass -- the population centroid of each
> could be used as a "seed" result, with an algorithm moving census blocks
> between districts to make each each district more compact. This would
> some variability, but the "seeds" would limit the amount of gerrymandering
> Michael Rouse
> mrouse at cdsnet.net
This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. This communication is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial product, an official confirmation of any transaction, or as an official statement of Lehman Brothers. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. Therefore, we do not represent that this information is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as such. All information is subject to change without notice.
More information about the Election-Methods