-
States of Disarray: Cleaning Data for Gerrymandering Analysis
Authors:
Ananya Agarwal,
Fnu Alusi,
Arbie Hsu,
Arif Syraj,
Ellen Veomett
Abstract:
The mathematics of redistricting is an area of study that has exploded in recent years. In particular, many different research groups and expert witnesses in court cases have used outlier analysis to argue that a proposed map is a gerrymander. This outlier analysis relies on having an ensemble of potential redistricting maps against which the proposed map is compared. Arguably the most widely-acce…
▽ More
The mathematics of redistricting is an area of study that has exploded in recent years. In particular, many different research groups and expert witnesses in court cases have used outlier analysis to argue that a proposed map is a gerrymander. This outlier analysis relies on having an ensemble of potential redistricting maps against which the proposed map is compared. Arguably the most widely-accepted method of creating such an ensemble is to use a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) process. This process requires that various pieces of data be gathered, cleaned, and coalesced into a single file that can be used as the seed of the MCMC process.
In this article, we describe how we have begun this cleaning process for each state, and made the resulting data available for the public at https://github.com/eveomett-states . At the time of submission, we have data for 22 states available for researchers, students, and the general public to easily access and analyze. We will continue the data cleaning process for each state, and we hope that the availability of these datasets will both further research in this area, and increase the public's interest in and understanding of modern techniques to detect gerrymandering.
△ Less
Submitted 14 March, 2025;
originally announced March 2025.
-
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.
-
Bounds and Bugs: The Limits of Symmetry Metrics to Detect Partisan Gerrymandering
Authors:
Daryl DeFord,
Ellen Veomett
Abstract:
We consider two symmetry metrics commonly used to analyze partisan gerrymandering: the Mean-Median Difference (MM) and Partisan Bias (PB). Our main results compare, for combinations of seats and votes achievable in districted elections, the number of districts won by each party to the extent of potential deviation from the ideal metric values, taking into account the political geography of the sta…
▽ More
We consider two symmetry metrics commonly used to analyze partisan gerrymandering: the Mean-Median Difference (MM) and Partisan Bias (PB). Our main results compare, for combinations of seats and votes achievable in districted elections, the number of districts won by each party to the extent of potential deviation from the ideal metric values, taking into account the political geography of the state. These comparisons are motivated by examples where the MM and PB have been used in efforts to detect when a districting plan awards extreme number of districts won by some party. These examples include expert testimony, public-facing apps, recommendations by experts to redistricting commissions, and public policy proposals.
To achieve this goal we perform both theoretical and empirical analyses of the MM and PB. In our theoretical analysis, we consider vote-share, seat-share pairs (V, S) for which one can construct election data having vote share V and seat share S, and turnout is equal in each district. We calculate the range of values that MM and PB can achieve on that constructed election data. In the process, we find the range of (V,S) pairs that achieve MM = 0, and see that the corresponding range for PB is the same set of (V,S) pairs. We show how the set of such (V,S) pairs allowing for MM = 0 (and PB = 0) changes when turnout in each district is allowed to vary. By observing the results of this theoretical analysis, we can show that the values taken on by these metrics do not necessarily attain more extreme values in plans with more extreme numbers of districts won. We also analyze specific example elections, showing how these metrics can return unintuitive results. We follow this with an empirical study, where we show that on 18 different U.S. maps these metrics can fail to detect extreme seats outcomes.
△ Less
Submitted 16 January, 2025; v1 submitted 17 June, 2024;
originally announced June 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.
-
Declination as a Metric to Detect Partisan Gerrymandering
Authors:
Marion Campisi,
Andrea Padilla,
Thomas C. Ratliff,
Ellen Veomett
Abstract:
We explore the Declination, a new metric intended to detect partisan gerrymandering. We consider instances in which each district has equal turnout, the maximum turnout to minimum turnout is bounded, and turnout is unrestricted. For each of these cases, we show exactly which vote-share, seat-share pairs $(V,S)$ have an election outcome with Declination equal to 0. We also show how our analyses can…
▽ More
We explore the Declination, a new metric intended to detect partisan gerrymandering. We consider instances in which each district has equal turnout, the maximum turnout to minimum turnout is bounded, and turnout is unrestricted. For each of these cases, we show exactly which vote-share, seat-share pairs $(V,S)$ have an election outcome with Declination equal to 0. We also show how our analyses can be applied to finding vote-share, seat-share pairs that are possible for nonzero Declination.
Within our analyses, we show that Declination cannot detect all forms of packing and cracking, and we compare the Declination to the Efficiency Gap. We show that these two metrics can behave quite differently, and give explicit examples of that occurring.
△ Less
Submitted 14 December, 2018; v1 submitted 12 December, 2018;
originally announced December 2018.
-
The Efficiency Gap, Voter Turnout, and the Efficiency Principle
Authors:
Ellen Veomett
Abstract:
Recently, scholars from law and political science have introduced metrics which use only election outcomes (and not district geometry) to assess the presence of partisan gerrymandering. The most high-profile example of such a tool is the efficiency gap. Some scholars have suggested that such tools should be sensitive enough to alert us when two election outcomes have the same percentage of votes g…
▽ More
Recently, scholars from law and political science have introduced metrics which use only election outcomes (and not district geometry) to assess the presence of partisan gerrymandering. The most high-profile example of such a tool is the efficiency gap. Some scholars have suggested that such tools should be sensitive enough to alert us when two election outcomes have the same percentage of votes going to political party $A$, but one of the two awards party $A$ more seats. When a metric is able to distinguish election outcomes in this way, that metric is said to satisfy the efficiency principle.
In this article, we show that the efficiency gap fails to satisfy the efficiency principle. We show precisely how the efficiency principle breaks down in the presence of unequal voter turnout. To do this, we first present a construction that, given any rationals $1/4< V<3/4$ and $0<S<1$, constructs an election outcome with vote share $V$, seat share $S$, and EG = 0. (For instance, one party can get 26% of the vote and anywhere from 1% to 99% of the seats while the efficiency gap remains zero.) Then, for any election with vote share $1/4<V<3/4$, seat share $S$, and EG= 0, we express the ratio $ρ$ of average turnout in districts party $A$ lost to average turnout in districts party $A$ won as a function in only $V$ and $S$. It is well known that when all districts have equal turnout, EG can be expressed as a simple formula in $V$ and $S$; we express the efficiency gap of any election as an equation only in $V, S,$ and $ρ$. We also report on the values of $ρ$ that can be observed in actual elections.
△ Less
Submitted 14 March, 2018; v1 submitted 13 January, 2018;
originally announced January 2018.
