Districting that minimizes partisan bias

Author:

Brick Aaron,Brick CameronORCID

Abstract

AbstractThe shapes of electoral districts determine how votes translate into seats. When districts favor certain political parties, electoral results can be disproportionate and the public may lose faith in the political process. Disagreement about appropriate district shapes is subjective, rarely resolved, and often leads to lawsuits. Previously, many authors have called for objective districting criteria. We offer a novel synthesis of models that enables the proactive comparison of district maps, by relating a planar graph partition, the single-member plurality rule, the maximin decision rule, and any agreed measure of partisan bias with a territorial map and historical vote results. Historical vote totals avoid the complexity and uncertainty associated with counterfactual models of vote swing. Districting plans could be objectively compared on such criteria as party proportionality or compact shape to reject plans with worse bias. Objective tools to reduce partisan bias in district maps could boost collaborative participation, increase perceptions of fairness and justice, and reduce costs.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

General Economics, Econometrics and Finance,General Psychology,General Social Sciences,General Arts and Humanities,General Business, Management and Accounting

Reference50 articles.

1. Altman M (1997) Is automation the answer: the computational complexity of automated redistricting. Rutgers Comput Law Technol J 23:81–141

2. Altman M, McDonald M (2010) The promise and perils of computers in redistricting. Duke J Const L Pub Pol’y 5:69

3. Altman M, McDonald MP (2014) Public participation GIS: the case of redistricting. In: Ralph HS, Jr. (ed.) System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on IEEE. IEEE, pp. 2063–2072

4. Arnold C (2017) The mathematicians who want to save democracy. Nat News 546(7657):200

5. Blader SL, Tyler TR (2013) How can theories of organizational justice explain the effects of fairness? In: Jerald G, Jason AC (eds) Handbook of organizational Justice. Vol. 329. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 329–354

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3