5 ms·

Mathematicians are deploying algorithms to stop gerrymandering

21 points by furcyd 5y ago

RNCTX 5y ago
They're really not, because it's not an engineering problem.
- ggggtez 5y ago
  They are, because they are releasing open source tools with the goal of stopping gerrymandering. Just because you don't think it will work, doesn't mean it isn't happening.
  - RNCTX 5y ago
    I do think it will work... for its unstated purpose, not it's false stated one. Its unstated purpose is to solicit donations from wealthy New Englanders who want to think they are "right about politics" rather than think they are guilty or complicit in whatever similar scheme as gerrymandering they are party to.
nonameiguess 5y ago
It took a while there to tell what they're hoping to accomplish. It's not like legislators are going to care when you show them evidence the maps are not fairly drawn. They already know that and are doing it on purpose. But apparently at least a few states outlaw gerrymandering and the practice can be challenged in court if you can prove they were drawn unfairly for the explicit purpose of giving one party an advantage. It's notoriously hard to prove that and these people are hoping they've created tools that be convincing to a judge. Of course, not all partisan advantages are the result of gerrymandering. State boundaries aren't gerrymandered, but equal representation in the Senate still results in extremely disproportionate influence of rural people.
- klyrs 5y ago
  From the sound of it, they're hoping to educate the public about how gerrymandering works, and how to identify heavily gerrymandered district maps. In some states, they might get a day in court, in others, the only remedy is informed voters.
- fiftyfifty 5y ago
  What about creating some simple rules like districts can only have a maximum of 6 sides that would effectively make gerrymandering impossible?
  - michaelcampbell 5y ago
    Because as parent mentioned, the people who control this specifically DO NOT WANT rules that take ANY control out of their hands. They want the ability to skew the voters to their party, exclusively.
    - avmich 5y ago
      I thought about such a restriction, and now I think the "extreme outlier" approach is better, as it gets closer to the actual goal. People controlling redistricting will push back all the way, it's not surprising. If courts don't provide a remedy - and with current political structure in USA, courts behavior is depending on which party is long time in power - then theoretically the only reasonable approach would be rebellion, as people need to put in power those who'd redistrict for fair elections, and select judges who'd judge more objectively, and - more importantly - put mechanisms in place which would prevent a party, even the one long time in power, from changing this. That's usually a matter of constitution change, and there is push back, and there is matter of relative urgency - some things which should be there, aren't in a constitution for centuries, so more expedient approaches are needed.
someguydave 5y ago
“neutral map” is just going to be used as cover for “favors democrats in republican states”
- ggggtez 5y ago
  So, you think that if you swapped R and D in the dataset, then the algorithm would always make the D win? Given that they are talking about open source tools, that should be trivial for someone to prove, if they were so inclined. It sounds to me like you just don't like the possibility that "your side" might be doing something politically nefarious. And don't get me wrong, it's likely that both sides are gerrymandering. It just so happens that republicans have more governorships and other state power, and have had much more opportunity to draw districts. You should be happy about the existence of mathematical tools to try to prove when someone in power is choosing their voters, instead of the voters choosing the person in power.
  - CheezeIt 5y ago
    Democrats will want the algorithm that helps them, GOP will want the algorithm that helps them. That doesn’t mean states won’t eventually settle on an algorithmic solution. We’ve been through this before, with competing congressional apportionment algorithms.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      Quite a few states have replaced partisan assignments with more neutral algorithms.
  - someguydave 5y ago
    no, I think in practice academics will claim an algorithm is neutral when it in fact favors democrats
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    > So, you think that if you swapped R and D in the dataset, then the algorithm would always make the D win? Algorithms will fall into two groups: the first will favor Democrats in the real world and Republicans in the counterfactual swapped-dataset world, and the second will favor Republicans in the real world and Democrats in the counterfactual swapped-dataset world. There will be arguments that multiple algorithms, some from each group, are each the "fairest" by varying definitions. GP suspects that it will be mainly algorithms from the first group that end up being used.
abdullahkhalids 5y ago
Pakistan has an algorithm for demarcating constituencies, included in the election law itself. It's not super precise, and there is still quite a bit of subjective human decision making involved in the process, but it reduces gerrymandering to the point where it is mostly a non-issue now.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
NonContro 5y ago
Division of political maps will always be problematic in the USA because it is a multi-racial and two-party country, with a high number of non-citizen irregular migrants. In that scenario, long-term demographic factors (and how they are shaped by Government policy) should also be placed under the same scrutiny as gerrymandering. If one party tweaks the system to give them an advantage in the next election, how does that compare to one party tweaking the system to give them an advantage for the next 100 elections? The worst case scenario is that the USA turns into a one-party state with effectively no opposition - at which point it ceases to be a democracy.
mvaliente2001 5y ago
Gerrymandering is so pointless. The political party in government changes the map to win elections, prolonging its reign. But it eventually loses, and the new party uses gerrymandering to prolong its stay in power... In the long term the result is the same. If only political parties understood. One possible solution would be to agree in objective reproducible rules on when and how draw new lines in the map, but again, that would require common sense from the political parties.
fsn4dN69ey 5y ago
What would "no gerrymandering" even look like? A pure split of 50/50 outcomes in each district? Equal amounts of party split districts but then wins for metro districts for the state in each election? Exact equal amounts of each demographic split in each district across all features? Would this need to be redone continuously? The urban/rural divide is a tale as old as Rome and unless the desired outcomes and side effects for "fair" districting are clearly stated it's just a way for the socially accepted (pushed by the media) team to gain an advantage while seeming "fair" (aka our team wins).
- gjvnq 5y ago
  One option would be a mixed member proportional system.

21 points by furcyd 5y ago

RNCTX 5y ago

They're really not, because it's not an engineering problem.

ggggtez 5y ago
They are, because they are releasing open source tools with the goal of stopping gerrymandering. Just because you don't think it will work, doesn't mean it isn't happening.
- RNCTX 5y ago
  I do think it will work... for its unstated purpose, not it's false stated one. Its unstated purpose is to solicit donations from wealthy New Englanders who want to think they are "right about politics" rather than think they are guilty or complicit in whatever similar scheme as gerrymandering they are party to.

nonameiguess 5y ago

It took a while there to tell what they're hoping to accomplish. It's not like legislators are going to care when you show them evidence the maps are not fairly drawn. They already know that and are doing it on purpose. But apparently at least a few states outlaw gerrymandering and the practice can be challenged in court if you can prove they were drawn unfairly for the explicit purpose of giving one party an advantage. It's notoriously hard to prove that and these people are hoping they've created tools that be convincing to a judge. Of course, not all partisan advantages are the result of gerrymandering. State boundaries aren't gerrymandered, but equal representation in the Senate still results in extremely disproportionate influence of rural people.

klyrs 5y ago
From the sound of it, they're hoping to educate the public about how gerrymandering works, and how to identify heavily gerrymandered district maps. In some states, they might get a day in court, in others, the only remedy is informed voters.
fiftyfifty 5y ago
What about creating some simple rules like districts can only have a maximum of 6 sides that would effectively make gerrymandering impossible?
- michaelcampbell 5y ago
  Because as parent mentioned, the people who control this specifically DO NOT WANT rules that take ANY control out of their hands. They want the ability to skew the voters to their party, exclusively.
  - avmich 5y ago
    I thought about such a restriction, and now I think the "extreme outlier" approach is better, as it gets closer to the actual goal. People controlling redistricting will push back all the way, it's not surprising. If courts don't provide a remedy - and with current political structure in USA, courts behavior is depending on which party is long time in power - then theoretically the only reasonable approach would be rebellion, as people need to put in power those who'd redistrict for fair elections, and select judges who'd judge more objectively, and - more importantly - put mechanisms in place which would prevent a party, even the one long time in power, from changing this. That's usually a matter of constitution change, and there is push back, and there is matter of relative urgency - some things which should be there, aren't in a constitution for centuries, so more expedient approaches are needed.

someguydave 5y ago

“neutral map” is just going to be used as cover for “favors democrats in republican states”

ggggtez 5y ago
So, you think that if you swapped R and D in the dataset, then the algorithm would always make the D win? Given that they are talking about open source tools, that should be trivial for someone to prove, if they were so inclined. It sounds to me like you just don't like the possibility that "your side" might be doing something politically nefarious. And don't get me wrong, it's likely that both sides are gerrymandering. It just so happens that republicans have more governorships and other state power, and have had much more opportunity to draw districts. You should be happy about the existence of mathematical tools to try to prove when someone in power is choosing their voters, instead of the voters choosing the person in power.
- CheezeIt 5y ago
  Democrats will want the algorithm that helps them, GOP will want the algorithm that helps them. That doesn’t mean states won’t eventually settle on an algorithmic solution. We’ve been through this before, with competing congressional apportionment algorithms.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    Quite a few states have replaced partisan assignments with more neutral algorithms.
- someguydave 5y ago
  no, I think in practice academics will claim an algorithm is neutral when it in fact favors democrats
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > So, you think that if you swapped R and D in the dataset, then the algorithm would always make the D win? Algorithms will fall into two groups: the first will favor Democrats in the real world and Republicans in the counterfactual swapped-dataset world, and the second will favor Republicans in the real world and Democrats in the counterfactual swapped-dataset world. There will be arguments that multiple algorithms, some from each group, are each the "fairest" by varying definitions. GP suspects that it will be mainly algorithms from the first group that end up being used.

abdullahkhalids 5y ago

Pakistan has an algorithm for demarcating constituencies, included in the election law itself. It's not super precise, and there is still quite a bit of subjective human decision making involved in the process, but it reduces gerrymandering to the point where it is mostly a non-issue now.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

NonContro 5y ago

Division of political maps will always be problematic in the USA because it is a multi-racial and two-party country, with a high number of non-citizen irregular migrants. In that scenario, long-term demographic factors (and how they are shaped by Government policy) should also be placed under the same scrutiny as gerrymandering. If one party tweaks the system to give them an advantage in the next election, how does that compare to one party tweaking the system to give them an advantage for the next 100 elections? The worst case scenario is that the USA turns into a one-party state with effectively no opposition - at which point it ceases to be a democracy.

mvaliente2001 5y ago

Gerrymandering is so pointless. The political party in government changes the map to win elections, prolonging its reign. But it eventually loses, and the new party uses gerrymandering to prolong its stay in power... In the long term the result is the same. If only political parties understood. One possible solution would be to agree in objective reproducible rules on when and how draw new lines in the map, but again, that would require common sense from the political parties.

fsn4dN69ey 5y ago

What would "no gerrymandering" even look like? A pure split of 50/50 outcomes in each district? Equal amounts of party split districts but then wins for metro districts for the state in each election? Exact equal amounts of each demographic split in each district across all features? Would this need to be redone continuously? The urban/rural divide is a tale as old as Rome and unless the desired outcomes and side effects for "fair" districting are clearly stated it's just a way for the socially accepted (pushed by the media) team to gain an advantage while seeming "fair" (aka our team wins).

gjvnq 5y ago
One option would be a mixed member proportional system.