-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
index.html
286 lines (284 loc) · 16.6 KB
/
index.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8"/>
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"/>
<title>Gerrymandering and Justice Kennedy's Hackathon Pitch</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="css/bootstrap.min.css"/>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="css/gerry.css"/>
<meta property="og:title" content="Gerrymandering and Justice Kennedy's Hackathon Pitch"/>
<meta property="og:description" content="Interactive on gerrymandering in Pennsylvania"/>
<meta property="og:site_name" content="GeoReactor"/>
<meta property="og:type" content="website"/>
<meta property="og:url" content="https://georeactor.github.io/gerrymandering/"/>
</head>
<body>
<div class="container">
<div class="row">
<div class="desktop-only">
<div class="hover-help">
<strong>What is gerrymandering? 🇺🇸 </strong>
<ul>
<li>
<a href='https://www.wired.com/2017/04/how-math-can-save-democracy/'>Wired Magazine</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-4dIImaodQ'>John Oliver (HBO)</a>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div class="col-sm-12 col-md-9">
<h2>Gerrymandering and Justice Kennedy's Hackathon Pitch</h2>
<p>
<strong>In <i><a href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vieth_v._Jubelirer'>Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004)</a></i></strong>, the Supreme Court decided not to intervene in the redrawing of
Pennsylvania's Congressional districts. Racially discriminatory gerrymandering has been struck down by
judges many times, but the Court could not find a formula for evaluating <em>partisan gerrymandering</em> - disenfranchising voters of a political party.</p>
<p><strong>The 2010 census</strong> then determined new Congressional districts.
Though a slim majority (50.28%) of Pennsylvania's popular vote was for Democratic candidates, Republicans
won thirteen seats to Democrats' five. The parties continued to win the same districts in 2014 and 2016 (mapped below).
</p>
<br/>
</div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="col-sm-12">
<div class="well">
<h4><strong>Lock in</strong>: which districts would flip with a significant shift in support for Democrats?</h4>
<div class="portrait-only">
<h4>View this map widget in landscape mode!</h4>
</div>
<label>
<input type="checkbox" id="contested" checked="checked"/>
<span>Show Uncontested Districts</span>
</label>
<div id="mapshift-container">
<input id="mapshift" type="range" step="0.2" disabled="true"/>
<span class="min">-10%</span>
<span class="change">48.3% (2016)</span>
<span class="max">+10%</span>
</div>
<div id="map">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="col-sm-12 col-md-9">
<h2>Justice Kennedy on technology</h2>
<p>In the same case, a <a href='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1580.ZC.html'>concurring (but optimistic) opinion</a> was written by frequent swing-voter Justice Anthony Kennedy:</p>
<blockquote>
"Technology is both a threat and a promise… On the one hand, if courts refuse to entertain any claims of partisan gerrymandering, the temptation to use partisan favoritism in districting in an unconstitutional manner will grow. On the other hand, <strong>new technologies may produce new methods of analysis that make more evident the precise nature of the burdens gerrymanders impose on the representational rights of voters and parties</strong>. That would facilitate court efforts to identify and remedy the burdens, with judicial intervention limited by the derived standards.
<br/><br/>
If suitable standards with which to measure the burden a gerrymander imposes on representational rights did emerge, hindsight would show that the Court prematurely abandoned the field."
</blockquote>
<p>I like to think of this as Justice Kennedy's "hackathon pitch."</p>
<p>Since then, there's been an ongoing discussion about what might be a good test to
show unconstitutionally unfair districts. There needs to be an objective mathematical formula,
and a solid constitutional argument, for changing the system. <strong>We can expect this to be a major issue</strong> as
we get closer to the 2020 Census.</p>
<p>Let's look at some of the best methods:</p>
<br/>
</div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="col-sm-12 col-md-9">
<h3>Partisan Symmetry</h3>
<hr/>
<p>Partisan symmetry doesn't expect perfectly proportional representation in Congress. It tests whether
if the parties were to switch statewide vote totals, they would also switch seat totals.</p>
<p>In an ideal
system, the parties would have equal representation at 50% and mirror each others achievements as their
vote total rose. Because we have a <i>first past the post</i> system, small increases add seats faster than proportional
representation. Using the same data as the map at the top of the page, we can predict that Democrats would need around 56% of the vote to win just 7 of Pennsylvania's
15 contested Congressional elections.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="col-sm-6">
<h4>In Contested Districts...</h4>
<table class="table table-striped">
<tbody id="results">
<tr>
<th>Dem Popular Vote</th>
<th>Seats Won</th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div class="col-sm-6">
<h4>Trendline</h4>
<svg id="graph">
</svg>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
In a system with partisan symmetry, this graph would look like an <em>S</em> curve
</div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="col-sm-12 col-md-9">
<br class="mobile-only"/>
<br class="mobile-only"/>
<br class="mobile-only"/>
<br class="mobile-only"/>
<br class="mobile-only"/>
<br class="mobile-only"/>
<br class="mobile-only"/>
<h3>Efficiency Gap</h3>
<hr/>
<p>Also called <i>wasted votes</i> - this method counts up votes of a recent election with over-representation in 'packed' districts and lost votes in 'cracked' districts, to show how a popular-vote-majority for one party is being diluted. This expects a model of hyper-proportionality (a party with a 2% lead would have 4% more seats, a 5% lead meaning 10% more seats, etc).</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="col-sm-12">
<div class="well">
<h4><strong>Lost votes</strong>: how much does each vote count?</h4>
<div class="portrait-only">
<h4>View this map widget in landscape mode!</h4>
</div>
<p class="desktop-only">Click or tap a district to see it up-close:</p>
<p class="mobile-only">Use the dropdown menu to select a district:</p>
<div id="sidebar">
<select id="zoomer" class="mobile-only">
<option selected>-select one-</option>
<option value='1'>PA-1 (Dem)</option>
<option value='2'>PA-2 (Dem)</option>
<option value='3'>PA-3 (Rep)</option>
<option value='4'>PA-4 (Rep)</option>
<option value='5'>PA-5 (Rep)</option>
<option value='6'>PA-6 (Rep)</option>
<option value='7'>PA-7 (Rep)</option>
<option value='8'>PA-8 (Rep)</option>
<option value='9'>PA-9 (Rep)</option>
<option value='10'>PA-10 (Rep)</option>
<option value='11'>PA-11 (Rep)</option>
<option value='12'>PA-12 (Rep)</option>
<option value='13'>PA-13 (Dem)</option>
<option value='14'>PA-14 (Dem)</option>
<option value='15'>PA-15 (Rep)</option>
<option value='16'>PA-16 (Rep)</option>
<option value='17'>PA-17 (Dem)</option>
<option value='18'>PA-18 (Rep)</option>
</select>
<div id='stats' class='hide'>
<h4 class="desktop-only">PA-<span id="districtnum"></span></h4>
<table class='table'>
<tr>
<th>Candidate</th>
<th>Votes</th>
<th>Won?</th>
</tr>
<tr class='republican'>
</tr>
<tr class='democrat'>
</tr>
</table>
<strong>Whose votes were 'wasted' ?</strong>
<br/>
<div id='wasted'>
<div class='republican'></div>
<div class='democrat'></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="map2">
</div>
<div class="clearfix">
</div>
</div>
<p>By this metric, the Democrats lost more votes than the Republicans in all but two of the contested districts.
Even districts that they won in Philadelphia count against them, because the Democratic candidates received so much
more than 50% of the vote.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="col-sm-12 col-md-10">
<br/>
<h3>Compactness</h3>
<hr/>
<p>When most people think of gerrymandering, they point to unusually-shaped districts as examples of shady redistricting gone amok. <a href='http://redistricting.lls.edu/where-state.php#compactness'>Multiple states</a> require their districts to be <em>geometrically compact</em>, by comparing the edges or area of the shape to a simplified ideal. You could compare the shape to a circle of the same area, or the smallest circle which encloses the district, or a convex polygon.</p>
<div class="well">
<h4><a href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania%27s_7th_congressional_district'>Pennsylvania's 7th District</a> has been called <a href='http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/our-money/Getting-to-know-the-ridiculous-new-7th-congressional-district.html'>
the eighth-least compact district nationwide.</a></h4>
<div id="compact1">
</div>
<div id="compact2">
</div>
</div>
<p>Many unusually-shaped districts, such as <a href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_4th_congressional_district'>Illinois's 4th District</a>, are created as
majority-minority districts to better represent our population in Congress. These were created and continue
to be protected by the Voting Rights Act (it's a separate section from the rules struck down in
2013 by <i><a href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder'>Shelby County v. Holder</a></i>).</p>
<p>The general consensus is that compactness could be a helpful standard in redistricting, but it can't be the
only factor that's considered. You can read more about <a href='http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jowei/florida.pdf'>how compactness can still cause 'unintentional gerrymandering' [PDF]</a> (because so many Democratic voters live in densely-populated areas) and how <a href='http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/5/12/1384062/-Compactness-is-a-terrible-standard-for-redistricting-and-determining-if-maps-were-gerrymandered'>purely computer-drawn lines can be discriminatory</a>.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="col-sm-12 col-md-10">
<br/>
<h3>Random simulations</h3>
<hr/>
<p>A computer can generate many thousands of redistricting maps, and show that the state's chosen map is multiple
standard deviations more partisan when compared to its alternatives. You can see examples of how this could be applied in <a href='http://mike.teczno.com/notes/redistricting/random-wisconsin-plans.html'>Wisconsin</a> and in <a href='https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/opinion/sunday/its-the-geography-stupid.html?_r=0'>national maps</a>.
</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="col-sm-12 col-md-10">
<br/>
<h3>It hasn't always been this way</h3>
<hr/>
<p>Up until the 1960s, many states would leave their boundaries stagnant to protect incumbents and empower rural voters. <a href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr'>In a case</a> where one district’s population outnumbered another almost 10:1, the Supreme Court began to intervene. Since then, <strong>even a 1% difference</strong> between the most and least-populous districts has been ruled unconstitutional under
<a href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_man,_one_vote#United_States'>“one person, one vote”</a>. Theoretically this guarantees proportional representation within each state (remember that Wyoming’s one district and a district in California have considerably different populations).</p>
<p>After that decision, districts had to be redrawn after every census. This meant more frequent changes, but
politicians found it difficult to design manipulative equal-population districts, until computers got involved.</p>
<p>In studies of redistricting after the 1990 and 2000 census, partisan gerrymandering was not seen as a significant factor - research in <u>Drawing the Lines</u> points to a problem with both partisan and bipartisan legislatures, who would
use gerrymandering to protect incumbents. The 2010 census and 2012 election were a major shift:</p>
<p>From <u>Gerrymandering in America</u>:</p>
<blockquote>…the consensus of the academic literature was that redistricting had only minor political effects. Incidentally, we are not challenging the consensus of this literature — there really does not appear to be much partisan bias in this time period. Rather, what we are arguing is that… the world changed, and it became possible to take partisan gerrymandering to its limits.</blockquote>
<p>But it hasn't always been this way. <strong>And it doesn't have to be.</strong>
<br/>Cases against partisan
gerrymandering in <a href='https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/ongoing-partisan-gerrymandering-cases'>
Wisconsin, Maryland, and North Carolina are moving forward</a> and may set one of these methods as the standard.</p>
<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote>
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/31/the-supreme-court-will-examine-partisan-gerrymandering-in-2017-that-could-change-the-voting-map/?utm_term=.17a84b1cfff3"><big>"The Supreme Court will examine partisan gerrymandering in 2017. That could change the voting map." - Washington Post, Jan 31</big></a>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<div class="row">
<div class="col-sm-12 col-md-9">
<h3>About this page</h3>
<p>The source code for this page <a href='https://github.com/Georeactor/gerrymandering'>is open source</a>.
It uses D3, Walkway.js, and boundaries from <a href='https://github.com/Schwanksta/2016-congressional-districts'>Ken Schwencke's national repo</a>. Vote totals via the New York Times and Wikipedia.</p>
<p>Recommended reading: <u>Gerrymandering in America</u> and <u>Drawing the Lines: Constraints on Partisan Gerrymandering in U.S. Politics</u>.</p>
<!--
If this was cool and informative, please consider sending a few $ on Venmo (@<span>mapmeld</span>)
or ฿ bitcoin (<a href='https://i.imgur.com/00vl9Lj.png'>1E2hWkpTCQu3qSbVz8SCqEUrRTD6EySzjC</a>).
<br/><br/>
If this goes well, I'll try writing an article on other maps, quantum computing, or Unicode language support in the future.
-->
<br/><br/>
</div>
</div>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
</div>
<script src="lib/d3.v4.min.js"></script>
<script src="lib/topojson.v3.min.js"></script>
<script src="lib/walkway.min.js"></script>
<script src="RenderMap.js"></script>
</body>
</html>