Don't Trust A Single Gerrymandering Metric
Authors:
Thomas Ratliff,
Stephanie Somersille,
Ellen Veomett
Abstract:
In recent years, in an effort to promote fairness in the election process, a wide variety of techniques and metrics have been proposed to determine whether a map is a partisan gerrymander. The most accessible measures, requiring easily obtained data, are metrics such as the Mean-Median Difference, Efficiency Gap, Declination, and GEO metric. But for most of these metrics, researchers have struggle…
▽ More
In recent years, in an effort to promote fairness in the election process, a wide variety of techniques and metrics have been proposed to determine whether a map is a partisan gerrymander. The most accessible measures, requiring easily obtained data, are metrics such as the Mean-Median Difference, Efficiency Gap, Declination, and GEO metric. But for most of these metrics, researchers have struggled to describe, given no additional information, how a value of that metric on a single map indicates the presence or absence of gerrymandering.
Our main result is that each of these metrics is gameable when used as a single, isolated quantity to detect gerrymandering (or the lack thereof). That is, for each of the four metrics, we can find district plans for a given state with an extremely large number of Democratic-won (or Republican-won) districts while the metric value of that plan falls within a reasonable, predetermined bound. We do this by using a hill-climbing method to generate district plans that are constrained by the bounds on the metric but also maximize or nearly maximize the number of districts won by a party.
In addition, extreme values of the Mean-Median Difference do not necessarily correspond to maps with an extreme number of districts won. Thus, the Mean- Median Difference metric is particularly misleading, as it cannot distinguish more extreme maps from less extreme maps. The other metrics are more nuanced, but when assessed on an ensemble, none perform substantially differently from simply measuring number of districts won by a fixed party.
One clear consequence of these results is that they demonstrate the folly of specifying a priori bounds on a metric that a redistricting commission must meet in order to avoid gerrymandering.
△ Less
Submitted 24 September, 2024;
originally announced September 2024.
The Geography and Election Outcome (GEO) Metric: An Introduction
Authors:
Marion Campisi,
Thomas Ratliff,
Stephanie Somersille,
Ellen Veomett
Abstract:
We introduce the Geography and Election Outcome (GEO) metric, a new method for identifying potential partisan gerrymanders. In contrast with currently popular methods, the GEO metric uses both geographic information about a districting plan as well as district-level partisan data, rather than just one or the other. We motivate and define the GEO metric, which gives a count (a non-negative integer)…
▽ More
We introduce the Geography and Election Outcome (GEO) metric, a new method for identifying potential partisan gerrymanders. In contrast with currently popular methods, the GEO metric uses both geographic information about a districting plan as well as district-level partisan data, rather than just one or the other. We motivate and define the GEO metric, which gives a count (a non-negative integer) to each political party. The count indicates the number of previously lost districts which that party potentially could have had a 50% chance of winning, without risking any currently won districts, by making reasonable changes to the input map. We then analyze GEO metric scores for each party in several recent elections. We show that this relatively easy to understand and compute metric can encapsulate the results from more elaborate analyses.
△ Less
Submitted 26 April, 2022; v1 submitted 23 March, 2021;
originally announced March 2021.
