2010 Ohio Congressional Districts

[Aneetej]

2010 Ohio Congressional Districts

Redistricting requirements

In Ohio, districts must:

1. be contiguous
2. have equal populations
3. be geographically compact
4. preserve political subdivisions

Algorithmic Constraints

We enforce a maximum population deviation of 0.05%. We use a pseudo-county constraint to help preserve county and municipality boundaries. See '02_setup_OH_cd_2010.R' file.

Data Sources

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

Pre-processing Notes

No manual pre-processing decisions were necessary.

Simulation Notes

We sample 13,000 districting plans for Massachusetts over two runs. We then thinned the number of samples to 5,000. No special techniques were needed to produce the sample.

Validation

SMC: 5,000 sampled plans of 16 districts on 11,029 units
`adapt_k_thresh`=0.985 • `seq_alpha`=0.5
`est_label_mult`=1 • `pop_temper`=0

Plan diversity 80% range: 0.65 to 0.87

R-hat values for summary statistics:
   pop_overlap      total_vap       plan_dev      comp_edge    comp_polsby      pop_white      pop_black       pop_hisp       pop_aian      pop_asian 
      1.001379       1.008771       1.014835       1.000004       1.000919       1.003336       1.007803       1.012579       1.005398       1.010660 
      pop_nhpi      pop_other        pop_two      vap_white      vap_black       vap_hisp       vap_aian      vap_asian       vap_nhpi      vap_other 
      1.017784       1.014322       1.014949       1.006788       1.006979       1.013255       1.005950       1.012366       1.011200       1.002364 
       vap_two pre_16_rep_tru pre_16_dem_cli pre_20_rep_tru pre_20_dem_bid uss_16_rep_por uss_16_dem_str uss_18_rep_ren uss_18_dem_bro gov_18_rep_dew 
      1.016253       1.010566       1.026014       1.013723       1.028245       1.012145       1.022183       1.006936       1.029258       1.009850 
gov_18_dem_cor atg_18_rep_yos atg_18_dem_det sos_18_rep_lar sos_18_dem_cly         adv_16         adv_18         adv_20         arv_16         arv_18 
      1.028204       1.010713       1.027422       1.007567       1.026609       1.026538       1.027984       1.028245       1.006625       1.009878 
        arv_20  county_splits    muni_splits            ndv            nrv        ndshare          e_dvs         pr_dem          e_dem          pbias 
      1.013723       1.008425       1.002648       1.026133       1.004794       1.021536       1.019545       1.002001       1.007826       1.011973 
          egap 
      1.011142 

Sampling diagnostics for SMC run 1 of 2 (6,500 samples)
         Eff. samples (%) Acc. rate Log wgt. sd  Max. unique Est. k 
Split 1     6,246 (96.1%)     18.0%        0.37 4,109 (100%)     17 
Split 2     6,182 (95.1%)     27.3%        0.42 4,066 ( 99%)     10 
Split 3     6,159 (94.7%)     38.7%        0.47 4,027 ( 98%)      6 
Split 4     6,120 (94.2%)     33.3%        0.51 4,075 ( 99%)      7 
Split 5     6,083 (93.6%)     29.9%        0.54 4,010 ( 98%)      7 
Split 6     6,023 (92.7%)     28.3%        0.56 3,994 ( 97%)      7 
Split 7     5,960 (91.7%)     22.8%        0.58 3,969 ( 97%)      8 
Split 8     5,900 (90.8%)     31.3%        0.61 3,937 ( 96%)      5 
Split 9     5,891 (90.6%)     21.6%        0.63 3,942 ( 96%)      7 
Split 10    5,833 (89.7%)     22.7%        0.64 3,911 ( 95%)      6 
Split 11    5,773 (88.8%)     28.5%        0.65 3,977 ( 97%)      4 
Split 12    5,673 (87.3%)     20.8%        0.68 3,859 ( 94%)      5 
Split 13    5,716 (87.9%)     17.1%        0.67 3,807 ( 93%)      5 
Split 14    5,450 (83.8%)     20.4%        0.71 3,656 ( 89%)      3 
Split 15    5,662 (87.1%)      9.1%        0.70 3,148 ( 77%)      2 
Resample    3,650 (56.1%)       NA%        0.73 4,648 (113%)     NA 

Sampling diagnostics for SMC run 2 of 2 (6,500 samples)
         Eff. samples (%) Acc. rate Log wgt. sd  Max. unique Est. k 
Split 1     6,232 (95.9%)     21.6%        0.38 4,093 (100%)     14 
Split 2     6,177 (95.0%)     23.3%        0.42 3,985 ( 97%)     12 
Split 3     6,165 (94.9%)     35.8%        0.46 4,074 ( 99%)      7 
Split 4     6,110 (94.0%)     42.0%        0.51 4,063 ( 99%)      5 
Split 5     6,053 (93.1%)     39.5%        0.54 4,003 ( 97%)      5 
Split 6     6,019 (92.6%)     49.1%        0.56 4,002 ( 97%)      3 
Split 7     5,938 (91.3%)     39.3%        0.60 3,994 ( 97%)      4 
Split 8     5,850 (90.0%)     31.4%        0.64 3,950 ( 96%)      5 
Split 9     5,892 (90.6%)     39.9%        0.63 3,996 ( 97%)      3 
Split 10    5,797 (89.2%)     43.3%        0.65 3,974 ( 97%)      2 
Split 11    5,753 (88.5%)     40.2%        0.67 3,916 ( 95%)      2 
Split 12    5,748 (88.4%)     29.3%        0.67 3,868 ( 94%)      3 
Split 13    5,713 (87.9%)     12.6%        0.67 3,856 ( 94%)      7 
Split 14    5,492 (84.5%)     16.9%        0.69 3,666 ( 89%)      4 
Split 15    5,769 (88.8%)      7.3%        0.64 3,291 ( 80%)      3 
Resample    4,017 (61.8%)       NA%        0.69 4,746 (116%)     NA 

Checklist

• [x] I have followed the instructions
• [x] I have updated the tracker
• [x] All TODO lines 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_map and redist_plans objects, and summary statistics) have been edited

@CoryMcCartan