Closed Aneetej closed 1 year ago
@CoryMcCartan Here is the adjacency plot
@Aneetej I think Cory is asking you to zoom in and check whether there is discontinuity. Why don't you check that?
@kosukeimai @CoryMcCartan Ah, my apologies! I zoomed in and do not see any discontinuity that would lead to the discontinuity in Plan #754, but I do see some precincts that don't seem connected properly (contact points are precinct edges and not in the middle of the precinct). Here is the zoomed in image for reference.
Thanks for that. A bit hard to read with the pixelation (not your fault).
Maybe after you run the code to make that plot, you could run ggsave("adj.pdf", width=20, height=15)
? That would create a PDF locally that won't have any pixelation. Then you can post that here.
@CoryMcCartan Here is the adj graph with (hopefully) no pixelation. The zoom isn't set but it's doesn't pixilate when zooming in. I'm not seeing any disconnected precincts though...
A bit hard to see but I think a precinct in the upper left is getting connected to one in the lower right here?
That would explain the issue we see in the example plan above.
Can you check if this edge (which is crossing diagonally top-left to bottom-right) is accidentally created in your manual adjacency graph edits? I.e. does it show up on the adjacency graph before you make those edits?
@CoryMcCartan, to your point about the manual connection, it appears that that connection was a manual error (from me adding the adjacency graph edits). Is there any recommendation on how to fix this error?
You should look for an add_edge()
line in your code which deals with this county (Clark, FIPS 53011). Somehow that line is connecting the wrong precincts to each other
Alright, so I was looking at Clark and I made one manual connection which appears to have the correct connection. I'm not sure why that connection appears as it does in the adj graph but I'm fairly certain Clark is correct.
@Aneetej let's make sure that it's absolutely correct. Take a close look at those precincts and double check everything.
2010 Washington Congressional Districts
Redistricting requirements
In Washington, districts must:
Interpretation of requirements
We enforce a maximum population deviation of 0.05%. We applied a constraint to limit county and municipality splits (see 02_setup_WA_cd_2010 file). We also used ferry routes in order to create districts linking precincts that are offshore.
Data Sources
Data for Washington comes from the ALARM Project's 2020 Redistricting Data Files.
Pre-processing Notes
As described above, the adjacency graph was modified by hand to reflect Washington's contiguity requirements. The full list of these changes can be found in the 01_prep_WA_cd_2010.R file.
Simulation Notes
We sample 8,000 districting plans for Washington using the SMC algorithm and thinned the samples down to 5,000. To comply with the federal VRA and to respect communities of interest, we add a weak VRA constraint targeting one majority-minority district (currently WA-09).
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 edited@CoryMcCartan