Measuring and mitigating voting access disparities: a study of race and polling locations in Florida and North Carolina

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.14867v1
• Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 06:13:19 GMT
• Title: Measuring and mitigating voting access disparities: a study of race and polling locations in Florida and North Carolina
• Authors: Mohsen Abbasi, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, Sorelle A. Friedler, Kristian Lum, Calvin Barrett
• Abstract summary: Voter suppression and associated racial disparities in access to voting are long-standing civil rights concerns in the U.S. We quantify access to polling locations, developing a methodology for the calibrated measurement of racial disparities in polling location "load" and distance to polling locations. Applying these algorithms on the 2020 election location data helps to expose and explore tradeoffs between the cost of allocating more polling locations and the potential impact on access disparities.
• Score: 6.236769041115903
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Voter suppression and associated racial disparities in access to voting are long-standing civil rights concerns in the United States. Barriers to voting have taken many forms over the decades. A history of violent explicit discouragement has shifted to more subtle access limitations that can include long lines and wait times, long travel times to reach a polling station, and other logistical barriers to voting. Our focus in this work is on quantifying disparities in voting access pertaining to the overall time-to-vote, and how they could be remedied via a better choice of polling location or provisioning more sites where voters can cast ballots. However, appropriately calibrating access disparities is difficult because of the need to account for factors such as population density and different community expectations for reasonable travel times. In this paper, we quantify access to polling locations, developing a methodology for the calibrated measurement of racial disparities in polling location "load" and distance to polling locations. We apply this methodology to a study of real-world data from Florida and North Carolina to identify disparities in voting access from the 2020 election. We also introduce algorithms, with modifications to handle scale, that can reduce these disparities by suggesting new polling locations from a given list of identified public locations (including schools and libraries). Applying these algorithms on the 2020 election location data also helps to expose and explore tradeoffs between the cost of allocating more polling locations and the potential impact on access disparities. The developed voting access measurement methodology and algorithmic remediation technique is a first step in better polling location assignment.

Related papers

• Auditing for Racial Discrimination in the Delivery of Education Ads [50.37313459134418]
  We propose a new third-party auditing method that can evaluate racial bias in the delivery of ads for education opportunities. We find evidence of racial discrimination in Meta's algorithmic delivery of ads for education opportunities, posing legal and ethical concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-02T02:00:55Z)
• Rank, Pack, or Approve: Voting Methods in Participatory Budgeting [2.326556516716391]
  The Stanford Participatory Budgeting platform has been used to engage residents in more than 150 budgeting processes. We present a data set with anonymized budget opinions from these processes with K-approval, K-ranking or knapsack primary ballots. We use vote pairs with different voting methods to analyze the effect of voting methods on the cost of selected projects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-23T01:19:44Z)
• Adaptively Weighted Audits of Instant-Runoff Voting Elections: AWAIRE [61.872917066847855]
  Methods for auditing instant-runoff voting (IRV) elections are either not risk-limiting or require cast vote records (CVRs), the voting system's electronic record of the votes on each ballot. We develop an RLA method that uses adaptively weighted averages of test supermartingales to efficiently audit IRV elections when CVRs are not available.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T15:55:34Z)
• New Algorithms and Applications for Risk-Limiting Audits [4.375873233252245]
  Risk-limiting audits (RLAs) are a significant tool in increasing confidence in the accuracy of elections. This work suggests a new generic method, called Batchcomp", for converting classical (ballot-level) RLAs into ones that operate on batches. We present an adaptation of ALPHA, an existing RLA method, to a method which applies to censuses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-06T13:34:39Z)
• Design and analysis of tweet-based election models for the 2021 Mexican legislative election [55.41644538483948]
  We use a dataset of 15 million election-related tweets in the six months preceding election day. We find that models using data with geographical attributes determine the results of the election with better precision and accuracy than conventional polling methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-02T12:40:05Z)
• Comparing Voting Districts with Uncertain Data Envelopment Analysis [0.0]
  Gerrymandering voting districts is one of the most salient concerns of contemporary American society. We show how to use uncertain data envelopment analysis to assess maps on a variety of metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-02T20:12:27Z)
• Expected Frequency Matrices of Elections: Computation, Geometry, and Preference Learning [58.23459346724491]
  We use the "map of elections" approach of Szufa et al. (AAMAS 2020) to analyze several well-known vote distributions. We draw the "skeleton map" of distributions, evaluate its robustness, and analyze its properties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-16T17:40:22Z)
• Census TopDown: The Impacts of Differential Privacy on Redistricting [0.3746889836344765]
  We consider several key applications of Census data in redistricting. We find reassuring evidence that TopDown will not threaten the ability to produce districts with tolerable population balance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-09T23:28:53Z)
• Anomaly Detection and Automated Labeling for Voter Registration File Changes [0.0]
  Voter eligibility in United States elections is determined by a patchwork of state databases containing information about which citizens are eligible to vote. Monitoring changes to Voter Registration Files (VRFs) is crucial, given that a malicious actor wishing to disrupt the democratic process in the US would be well-advised to manipulate the contents of these files in order to achieve their goals. We present a set of methods that make use of machine learning to ease the burden on analysts and administrators in protecting voter rolls.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-16T21:48:31Z)
• Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur: Visual Communication of Uncertainty in Election Polls [56.8172499765118]
  We discuss potential sources of bias in nowcasting and forecasting. Concepts are presented to attenuate the issue of falsely perceived accuracy. One key idea is the use of Probabilities of Events instead of party shares.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-28T07:02:24Z)
• Leveraging Administrative Data for Bias Audits: Assessing Disparate Coverage with Mobility Data for COVID-19 Policy [61.60099467888073]
  We show how linking administrative data can enable auditing mobility data for bias. We show that older and non-white voters are less likely to be captured by mobility data. We show that allocating public health resources based on such mobility data could disproportionately harm high-risk elderly and minority groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-14T02:04:14Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.