Closed taransamarth closed 1 year ago
Flagging that the 2010 reference plan used here is the plan that was in force from 2011 to 2018 + struck down by the PA high court -- should that be updated to the 2018-21 plan?
I think we can use the 2010 reference plan since our goal is to see how the plan changed between the last two decades. But, it would also be good to include both plans so that we can readily compare if needed to be.
The simulations and code look great. One small thing: can you remove the if(interactive()) ...
in the 3rd file?
I wouldn't worry about adding the other plan. We have other states with similar problems, which we are going to deal with automatically later. We have BAFs for all old plans, which makes that easy to do at the analysis stage.
Redistricting requirements
In Pennsylvania, districts must generally:
We use a (pseudo-)county constraint to preserve boundaries as much as possible.
Algorithmic Constraints
We enforce a maximum population deviation of 0.5%.
Data Sources
Data for Pennsylvania comes from the ALARM Project's 2010 Redistricting Data Files.
Pre-processing Notes
No manual pre-processing decisions were necessary.
Simulation Notes
We sample 10,000 districting plans for Pennsylvania over two independent runs of the SMC algorithm, and thin the total 20,000 plans down to 5,000. Pseudo-counties for the county constraint are generated for Allegheny, Montgomery, and Philadelphia counties, as they have more residents than a district's population.
No special techniques were needed to produce the sample.
Validation (20,000 plans)
Validation (thinned 5,000 plans)
Checklist
TODO
lines from the template code have been removedenforce_style()
to format my coderedist_map
andredist_plans
objects, and summary statistics) have been edited@christopherkenny