Jfer09
commented
1 year ago Redistricting requirements
In Minnesota, districts must:
- be contiguous
- have equal populations
- comply with VRA section 2
- be geographically compact
- preserve political subdivisions and communities of interest as possible
- avoid pairing incumbents but also cannot give unfair advantage to incumbents (least important criteria)
https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/CIOMediaLibrary/2011Redistricting/A110152Order11-4-11.pdf
Interpretation of requirements
We do not adhere to all criteria in the guidelines. We include the following constraints:
- We enforce a maximum population deviation of 0.5%.
- We use a pseudo-county constraint to help preserve county and municipality boundaries.
Data Sources
Data for Minnesota 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 Minnesota across two independent runs of the SMC algorithm. To balance county and municipality splits, we create pseudocounties for use in the county constraint. These are counties, outside of Dakota County, Hennepin County, Ramsey, which are the counties with populations larger than 60% the target population for districts. Within Allegheny County, Montgomery County, and Philadelphia County, each municipality is its own pseudocounty as well.
Validation
SMC: 5,000 sampled plans of 8 districts on 4,139 units
`adapt_k_thresh`=0.985 • `seq_alpha`=0.5
`est_label_mult`=1 • `pop_temper`=0
Plan diversity 80% range: 0.75 to 0.96
R-hat values for summary statistics:
pop_overlap total_vap plan_dev comp_edge
1.0005790 1.0056396 1.0056415 1.0049476
comp_polsby pop_white pop_black pop_hisp
1.0046960 1.0108363 0.9998412 1.0063150
pop_aian pop_asian pop_nhpi pop_other
1.0104688 1.0001160 1.0035693 1.0027999
pop_two vap_white vap_black vap_hisp
1.0010168 0.9999362 1.0004351 1.0057413
vap_aian vap_asian vap_nhpi vap_other
1.0150546 1.0003509 1.0088918 1.0038647
vap_two pre_16_rep_tru pre_16_dem_cli pre_20_dem_bid
1.0030227 1.0056811 1.0035710 1.0015246
pre_20_rep_tru uss_18_rep_new uss_18_dem_klo uss_20_dem_smi
1.0078803 1.0127675 1.0037961 1.0019473
uss_20_rep_lew gov_18_rep_joh gov_18_dem_wal atg_18_rep_war
1.0245385 1.0107032 1.0064958 1.0110698
atg_18_dem_ell sos_18_rep_how sos_18_dem_sim adv_16
1.0057198 1.0118992 1.0041557 1.0035710
adv_18 adv_20 arv_16 arv_18
1.0051309 1.0012599 1.0056811 1.0117627
arv_20 county_splits muni_splits ndv
1.0109896 1.0090998 1.0011957 1.0032745
nrv ndshare e_dvs pr_dem
1.0271921 1.0006879 1.0005442 1.0011941
e_dem pbias egap
0.9999207 1.0017316 1.0002931
Sampling diagnostics for SMC run 1 of 2 (2,500 samples)
Eff. samples (%) Acc. rate Log wgt. sd Max. unique
Split 1 2,458 (98.3%) 9.8% 0.26 1,585 (100%)
Split 2 2,412 (96.5%) 13.8% 0.35 1,567 ( 99%)
Split 3 2,367 (94.7%) 17.6% 0.45 1,574 (100%)
Split 4 2,326 (93.1%) 19.4% 0.52 1,551 ( 98%)
Split 5 2,267 (90.7%) 17.1% 0.58 1,545 ( 98%)
Split 6 2,242 (89.7%) 7.8% 0.59 1,455 ( 92%)
Split 7 2,280 (91.2%) 4.4% 0.55 1,326 ( 84%)
Resample 1,647 (65.9%) NA% 0.56 1,920 (121%)
Est. k
Split 1 13
Split 2 8
Split 3 5
Split 4 4
Split 5 4
Split 6 7
Split 7 4
Resample NA
Sampling diagnostics for SMC run 2 of 2 (2,500 samples)
Eff. samples (%) Acc. rate Log wgt. sd Max. unique
Split 1 2,459 (98.4%) 11.6% 0.26 1,592 (101%)
Split 2 2,417 (96.7%) 15.8% 0.35 1,560 ( 99%)
Split 3 2,393 (95.7%) 18.5% 0.42 1,571 ( 99%)
Split 4 2,305 (92.2%) 20.0% 0.50 1,533 ( 97%)
Split 5 2,290 (91.6%) 16.4% 0.55 1,535 ( 97%)
Split 6 2,300 (92.0%) 17.4% 0.54 1,439 ( 91%)
Split 7 2,285 (91.4%) 4.5% 0.54 1,364 ( 86%)
Resample 1,583 (63.3%) NA% 0.55 1,907 (121%)
Est. k
Split 1 11
Split 2 7
Split 3 5
Split 4 4
Split 5 4
Split 6 3
Split 7 4
Resample NA Checklist
- [x] I have followed the instructions
- [x] I have updated the tracker
- [x] All
TODOlines from the template code have been removed - [x] I have merged in the master branch and then recalculated summary statistics
- [x] I have run
enforce_style()to format my code - [x] The documentation copied above is up-to-date
- [x] There are no data files in this pull request
- [x] None of the file output paths (for the
redist_mapandredist_plansobjects, and summary statistics) have been edited
@CoryMcCartan @christopherkenny
Redistricting requirements
In Minnesota, districts must:
https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/CIOMediaLibrary/2011Redistricting/A110152Order11-4-11.pdf
Interpretation of requirements
We do not adhere to all criteria in the guidelines. We include the following constraints:
Data Sources
Data for Minnesota 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 Minnesota across two independent runs of the SMC algorithm. We use a pseudo-county constraint to limit the county and municipality splits. Municipality lines used are in , which are all counties with populations larger than 60% the target population for district.
Validation
Checklist
TODOlines from the template code have been removedenforce_style()to format my coderedist_mapandredist_plansobjects, and summary statistics) have been edited@CoryMcCartan @christopherkenny