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 Tennessee Congressional Districts #156

Closed Aneetej closed 1 year ago

Aneetej commented 1 year ago

2010 Tennessee Congressional Districts

Redistricting requirements

In Tennessee, districts should:

  1. Be contiguous
  2. Preserve political subdivisions

Algorithmic Constraints

We enforce a maximum population deviation of 0.5%.

Data Sources

Data for Tennessee comes from the ALARM Project's 2020 Redistricting Data Files.

Pre-processing Notes

In order to prevent the over splitting of larger cities in Tennessee, we concatenated them with counties in order to create a pseudo-counties. These pseudo-counties limited our maximum number of county splits to 8.

Simulation Notes

We sample 5,000 districting plans for Tennessee across two separate runs. No special techniques were needed to produce the sample.

Validation

TN validated analysis 2010

SMC: 5,000 sampled plans of 9 districts on 2,174 units
`adapt_k_thresh`=0.985 • `seq_alpha`=0.5
`est_label_mult`=1 • `pop_temper`=0

Plan diversity 80% range: 0.50 to 0.77

R-hat values for summary statistics:
   pop_overlap      total_vap       plan_dev      comp_edge    comp_polsby      pop_white 
      1.043110       1.009075       1.046101       1.015527       1.041389       1.004086 
     pop_black       pop_hisp       pop_aian      pop_asian       pop_nhpi      pop_other 
      1.005315       1.002230       1.006153       1.005040       1.000066       1.005908 
       pop_two      vap_white      vap_black       vap_hisp       vap_aian      vap_asian 
      1.004145       1.004301       1.003342       1.002786       1.007438       1.002087 
      vap_nhpi      vap_other        vap_two pre_16_rep_tru pre_16_dem_cli pre_20_rep_tru 
      1.023450       1.004269       1.012540       1.015030       1.015899       1.010603 
pre_20_dem_bid uss_18_rep_bla uss_18_dem_bre uss_20_rep_hag uss_20_dem_bra gov_18_rep_lee 
      1.015510       1.010068       1.014633       1.007792       1.019980       1.008483 
gov_18_dem_dea         adv_16         adv_20         arv_16         arv_20  county_splits 
      1.014109       1.015899       1.021937       1.015030       1.008719       1.001774 
   muni_splits            ndv            nrv        ndshare          e_dvs          e_dem 
      1.012209       1.016888       1.007431       1.015233       1.016936       1.012683 
         pbias           egap 
      1.022353       1.011726 

Sampling diagnostics for SMC run 1 of 2 (2,500 samples)
         Eff. samples (%) Acc. rate Log wgt. sd  Max. unique Est. k 
Split 1     2,411 (96.4%)     16.8%        0.38 1,561 ( 99%)      6 
Split 2     2,389 (95.5%)      9.0%        0.44 1,581 (100%)     11 
Split 3     2,368 (94.7%)     13.7%        0.47 1,554 ( 98%)      7 
Split 4     2,354 (94.1%)     20.7%        0.47 1,516 ( 96%)      4 
Split 5     2,347 (93.9%)     17.8%        0.46 1,551 ( 98%)      4 
Split 6     2,287 (91.5%)     19.7%        0.51 1,521 ( 96%)      3 
Split 7     2,228 (89.1%)      7.0%        0.58 1,448 ( 92%)      7 
Split 8     2,205 (88.2%)      4.4%        0.60 1,314 ( 83%)      4 
Resample    1,290 (51.6%)       NA%        0.60 1,823 (115%)     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     2,410 (96.4%)     14.5%        0.39 1,580 (100%)      7 
Split 2     2,394 (95.8%)     11.1%        0.43 1,537 ( 97%)      9 
Split 3     2,363 (94.5%)     15.3%        0.48 1,566 ( 99%)      6 
Split 4     2,331 (93.2%)     20.5%        0.49 1,522 ( 96%)      4 
Split 5     2,321 (92.8%)     23.2%        0.49 1,522 ( 96%)      3 
Split 6     2,307 (92.3%)     12.3%        0.51 1,514 ( 96%)      5 
Split 7     2,313 (92.5%)     15.3%        0.52 1,457 ( 92%)      3 
Split 8     2,330 (93.2%)      4.1%        0.49 1,293 ( 82%)      4 
Resample    1,805 (72.2%)       NA%        0.50 1,982 (125%)     NA 

Checklist

@CoryMcCartan