search

alarm-redist / fifty-states

Redistricting analysis for all 50 U.S. states
https://alarm-redist.github.io/fifty-states/
Other
9 stars 7 forks source link

2010 Nevada Congressional Districts #133

Closed taransamarth closed 1 year ago

taransamarth commented 2 years ago

2010 Nevada Congressional Districts

Redistricting requirements

In Nevada, districts must (per judicial order for the 2010 cycle):

  1. be contiguous
  2. have equal populations
  3. be geographically compact
  4. preserve county and municipality boundaries as much as possible
  5. preserve communities of interest
  6. avoid pairing incumbents "to the extent practicable"

Algorithmic Constraints

  1. We enforce a maximum population deviation of 0.5%.
  2. We use a county constraint (with pseudo-counties in Clark County) to preserve communities of interests, municipalities, and counties.
  3. We do not include a restriction for avoiding incumbent pairings.

Data Sources

Data for Nevada comes from the ALARM Project's 2010 Redistricting Data Files.

Pre-processing Notes

No manual pre-processing decisions were necessary.

Simulation Notes

We sample 5,000 districting plans for Nevada across 2 independent runs of the sequential Markov Chain algorithm. No special techniques were needed to produce the sample.

Validation

image 
SMC: 10,000 sampled plans of 4 districts on 2,126 units
`adapt_k_thresh`=0.985 • `seq_alpha`=0.5
`est_label_mult`=1 • `pop_temper`=0
Plan diversity 80% range: 0.40 to 0.71
R-hat values for summary statistics:
   pop_overlap      total_vap       plan_dev      comp_edge    comp_polsby      pop_white      pop_black 
     1.0002063      1.0002810      1.0006149      0.9999139      0.9999444      1.0001142      1.0012686 
      pop_hisp       pop_aian      pop_asian       pop_nhpi      pop_other        pop_two      vap_white 
     1.0001121      1.0014044      1.0004709      1.0020534      1.0002993      0.9999197      1.0001148 
     vap_black       vap_hisp       vap_aian      vap_asian       vap_nhpi      vap_other        vap_two 
     1.0011788      1.0000836      1.0012117      1.0005095      1.0003058      1.0003143      0.9999955 
pre_16_dem_cli pre_16_rep_tru pre_20_dem_bid pre_20_rep_tru uss_16_dem_cor uss_16_rep_hec uss_18_dem_ros 
     1.0007432      1.0000296      1.0010173      0.9999957      1.0007206      1.0000501      1.0011719 
uss_18_rep_hel gov_18_dem_sis gov_18_rep_lax atg_18_dem_for atg_18_rep_dun sos_18_dem_ara sos_18_rep_ceg 
     0.9999978      1.0011318      1.0000111      1.0013835      0.9999975      1.0014605      1.0000070 
        adv_16         adv_18         adv_20         arv_16         arv_18         arv_20  county_splits 
     1.0007363      1.0013704      1.0010173      1.0000381      0.9999974      0.9999957      0.9999254 
   muni_splits            ndv            nrv        ndshare          e_dvs         pr_dem          e_dem 
     1.0003447      1.0012976      0.9999940      1.0004781      1.0004698      1.0011042      1.0009030 
         pbias           egap 
     1.0004456      1.0014816 

Sampling diagnostics for SMC run 1 of 2 (5,000 samples)
         Eff. samples (%) Acc. rate Log wgt. sd  Max. unique Est. k 
Split 1     4,248 (85.0%)     12.6%        0.83 3,178 (101%)      7 
Split 2     4,615 (92.3%)     13.5%        0.47 3,057 ( 97%)      5 
Split 3     4,665 (93.3%)      7.3%        0.48 2,892 ( 92%)      3 
Resample    3,681 (73.6%)       NA%        0.48 2,941 ( 93%)     NA 

Sampling diagnostics for SMC run 2 of 2 (5,000 samples)
         Eff. samples (%) Acc. rate Log wgt. sd  Max. unique Est. k 
Split 1     4,256 (85.1%)     10.7%        0.82 3,143 ( 99%)      8 
Split 2     4,617 (92.3%)     13.4%        0.47 3,037 ( 96%)      5 
Split 3     4,672 (93.4%)      7.3%        0.48 2,902 ( 92%)      3 
Resample    3,696 (73.9%)       NA%        0.48 2,916 ( 92%)     NA

Checklist

@christopherkenny (sorry if you weren't the one who volunteered, I couldn't actually tell who was speaking, haha)

christopherkenny commented 1 year ago

Looks good, thanks Taran!