Bounds and Bugs: The Limits of Symmetry Metrics to Detect Partisan Gerrymandering

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.12167v3
• Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 19:36:55 GMT
• Title: Bounds and Bugs: The Limits of Symmetry Metrics to Detect Partisan Gerrymandering
• Authors: Daryl DeFord, Ellen Veomett,
• Abstract summary: 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. 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• 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 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.

Related papers

• Efficient Lower Bounding of Single Transferable Vote Election Margins [56.12949230611067]
  Single transferable vote (STV) is a system of preferential proportional voting employed in multi-seat elections. The margin of victory, or simply margin, is the smallest number of ballots that, if manipulated, can alter the set of winners. Lower bounds on the margin can also be used for this purpose, in cases where exact margins are difficult to compute.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T13:39:23Z)
• Don't Trust A Single Gerrymandering Metric [0.0]
  We show that each of these metrics is gameable when used as a single, isolated quantity to detect gerrymandering. 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. 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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-25T02:40:09Z)
• Information Capacity Regret Bounds for Bandits with Mediator Feedback [55.269551124587224]
  We introduce the policy set capacity as an information-theoretic measure for the complexity of the policy set. Adopting the classical EXP4 algorithm, we provide new regret bounds depending on the policy set capacity. For a selection of policy set families, we prove nearly-matching lower bounds, scaling similarly with the capacity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T19:18:47Z)
• Multiscale Parallel Tempering for Fast Sampling on Redistricting Plans [1.1233768932957773]
  A persuasive method is to compare the plan with an ensemble of neutrally drawn redistricting plans. To audit the partisan difference between the ensemble and a given plan, one must ensure that the non-partisan criteria are matched. In this work, we generate a multiscale parallel tempering approach that makes local moves at each scale.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T21:33:05Z)
• Agent-based Simulation of District-based Elections [0.5076419064097732]
  In district-based elections, electors cast votes in their respective districts. In each district, the party with maximum votes wins the corresponding seat in the governing body. The election result is based on the number of seats won by different parties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-28T11:19:04Z)
• 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)
• Mathematically Quantifying Non-responsiveness of the 2021 Georgia Congressional Districting Plan [3.097163558730473]
  We use a Metropolized-sampling technique through a parallel tempering method combined with ReCom. We develop these improvements through the first case study of district plans in Georgia. Our analysis projects that any election in Georgia will reliably elect 9 Republicans and 5 Democrats under the enacted plan.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-13T02:58:32Z)
• Measuring Geometric Similarity Across Possible Plans for Automated Redistricting [0.0]
  This paper briefly introduces an interpretive measure of similarity, and a corresponding assignment matrix, that corresponds to the percentage of a state's area or population that stays in the same congressional district between two plans. We then show how to calculate this measure in an intuitive time and briefly demonstrate some potential use-cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-17T03:37:25Z)
• 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)
• Distribution Matching for Crowd Counting [51.90971145453012]
  We show that imposing Gaussians to annotations hurts generalization performance. We propose to use Distribution Matching for crowd COUNTing (DM-Count) In terms of Mean Absolute Error, DM-Count outperforms the previous state-of-the-art methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-28T04:57:23Z)
• Predictive Bandits [68.8204255655161]
  We introduce and study a new class of bandit problems, referred to as predictive bandits. In each round, the decision maker first decides whether to gather information about the rewards of particular arms. The decision maker then selects an arm to be actually played in the round.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-02T17:12:33Z)

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.