Closed Aneetej closed 1 year ago
In Massachusetts, districts must:
We enforce a maximum population deviation of 0.05%. We use a pseudo-county constraint to help preserve county and municipality boundaries.
Data for Massachusetts comes from the ALARM Project's 2020 Redistricting Data Files.
No manual pre-processing decisions were necessary.
We sample 5,000 districting plans for Massachusetts over two runs. No special techniques were needed to produce the sample.
SMC: 5,000 sampled plans of 9 districts on 2,165 units `adapt_k_thresh`=0.985 • `seq_alpha`=0.5 `est_label_mult`=1 • `pop_temper`=0 Plan diversity 80% range: 0.48 to 0.76 R-hat values for summary statistics: pop_overlap total_vap plan_dev comp_edge comp_polsby 1.0000487 1.0023960 1.0019437 1.0073902 1.0060788 pop_white pop_black pop_hisp pop_aian pop_asian 1.0028252 1.0008330 1.0031391 1.0119444 1.0076714 pop_nhpi pop_other pop_two vap_white vap_black 1.0047201 1.0005845 1.0007707 1.0006314 1.0011000 vap_hisp vap_aian vap_asian vap_nhpi vap_other 1.0021735 1.0117563 1.0024991 1.0055309 1.0004479 vap_two pre_16_dem_cli pre_16_rep_tru pre_20_dem_bid pre_20_rep_tru 1.0029299 1.0078367 1.0043473 1.0074794 1.0027101 uss_18_dem_war uss_18_rep_die uss_20_dem_mar uss_20_rep_oco gov_18_rep_bak 1.0050153 1.0036246 1.0068421 1.0031245 1.0027185 gov_18_dem_gon atg_18_dem_hea atg_18_rep_mcm adv_16 adv_18 1.0030871 1.0086362 1.0048320 1.0078367 1.0059540 adv_20 arv_16 arv_18 arv_20 county_splits 1.0071927 1.0043473 1.0053729 1.0030743 1.0019480 muni_splits ndv nrv ndshare e_dvs 1.0163033 1.0051055 1.0040678 1.0117118 1.0114710 e_dem pbias egap 0.9998162 1.0099548 1.0043140 Sampling diagnostics for SMC run 1 of 2 (2,500 samples) Eff. samples (%) Acc. rate Log wgt. sd Max. unique Est. k Split 1 2,404 (96.1%) 14.8% 0.42 1,589 (101%) 7 Split 2 2,370 (94.8%) 22.2% 0.44 1,567 ( 99%) 4 Split 3 2,362 (94.5%) 13.5% 0.46 1,567 ( 99%) 6 Split 4 2,361 (94.5%) 17.4% 0.48 1,527 ( 97%) 4 Split 5 2,343 (93.7%) 19.7% 0.49 1,563 ( 99%) 3 Split 6 2,325 (93.0%) 22.9% 0.51 1,533 ( 97%) 2 Split 7 2,352 (94.1%) 16.9% 0.47 1,438 ( 91%) 2 Split 8 2,319 (92.8%) 2.7% 0.51 1,247 ( 79%) 4 Resample 1,780 (71.2%) NA% 0.52 1,971 (125%) NA Sampling diagnostics for SMC run 2 of 2 (2,500 samples) Eff. samples (%) Acc. rate Log wgt. sd Max. unique Est. k Split 1 2,400 (96.0%) 16.9% 0.42 1,582 (100%) 6 Split 2 2,364 (94.6%) 17.8% 0.45 1,559 ( 99%) 5 Split 3 2,363 (94.5%) 20.1% 0.46 1,547 ( 98%) 4 Split 4 2,360 (94.4%) 14.3% 0.47 1,530 ( 97%) 5 Split 5 2,347 (93.9%) 20.6% 0.50 1,542 ( 98%) 3 Split 6 2,325 (93.0%) 23.7% 0.51 1,498 ( 95%) 2 Split 7 2,334 (93.4%) 8.8% 0.48 1,467 ( 93%) 4 Split 8 2,298 (91.9%) 3.7% 0.52 1,217 ( 77%) 3 Resample 1,663 (66.5%) NA% 0.54 1,954 (124%) NA • Watch out for low effective samples, very low acceptance rates (less than 1%), large std. devs. of the log weights (more than 3 or so), and low numbers of unique plans. R-hat values for summary statistics should be between 1 and 1.05.
TODO
enforce_style()
redist_map
redist_plans
delete this line and all the tags except the reviewers you need @CoryMcCartan
merging into this repo's MA branch
Redistricting requirements
In Massachusetts, districts must:
Algorithmic Constraints
We enforce a maximum population deviation of 0.05%. We use a pseudo-county constraint to help preserve county and municipality boundaries.
Data Sources
Data for Massachusetts comes from the ALARM Project's 2020 Redistricting Data Files.
Pre-processing Notes
No manual pre-processing decisions were necessary.
Simulation Notes
We sample 5,000 districting plans for Massachusetts over two runs. No special techniques were needed to produce the sample.
Validation
Checklist
TODO
lines from the template code have been removedenforce_style()
to format my coderedist_map
andredist_plans
objects, and summary statistics) have been editeddelete this line and all the tags except the reviewers you need @CoryMcCartan