The mathematicians who want to save democracy

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

With algorithms in hand, scientists are looking to make elections in the United States more representative.

• Carrie Arnold

07 June 2017

 

Leaning back in his chair, Jonathan Mattingly swings his legs up onto his desk, presses a key on his laptop and changes the results of the 2012 elections in North Carolina. On the screen, flickering lines and dots outline a map of the state’s 13 congressional districts, each of which chooses one person to send to the US House of Representatives. By tweaking the borders of those election districts, but not changing a single vote, Mattingly’s maps show candidates from the Democratic Party winning six, seven or even eight seats in the race. In reality, they won only four — despite earning a majority of votes overall.

Mattingly’s election simulations can’t rewrite history, but he hopes they will help to support democracy in the future — in his state and the nation as a whole. The mathematician, at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, has designed an algorithm that pumps out random alternative versions of the state’s election maps — he’s created more than 24,000 so far — as part of an attempt to quantify the extent and impact of gerrymandering: when voting districts are drawn to favour or disfavour certain candidates or political parties.

 

Gerrymandering has a long and unpopular history in the United States. It is the main reason that the country ranked 55th of 158 nations — last among Western democracies — in a 2017 index of voting fairness run by the Electoral Integrity Project, an academic collaboration between the University of Sydney, Australia, and Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Although gerrymandering played no part in the tumultuous 2016 presidential election, it seems to have influenced who won seats in the US House of Representatives that year.

“Even if gerrymandering affected just 5 seats out of 435, that’s often enough to sway crucial votes,” Mattingly says.

The courts intervene when gerrymandering is driven by race. Last month, for example, the Supreme Court upheld a verdict that two North Carolina districts were drawn with racial composition in mind (see ‘Battleground state’). But the courts have been much less keen to weigh in on partisan gerrymandering — when one political party is favoured over another. One reason is that there has never been a clear and reliable metric to determine when this type of gerrymandering crosses the line from acceptable politicking to a violation of the US Constitution.

 

 

****** http://www.nature.com/news/the-mathematicians-who-want-to-save-democracy-1.22113?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews&sf86804843=1

Solution in sight

US legislators have been reluctant to embrace a mathematical solution to gerrymandering. But current court cases show that pressure to do so is mounting, Gall says. In the Wisconsin case Whitford v. Gill, federal judges used the efficiency gap to rule that the state’s voting districts represented an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The case could end up before the Supreme Court later this year.

If judges are to accept a mathematical test for gerrymandering, they will need testimony from expert witnesses such as Mattingly to explain how and why these tests work. But the handful of mathematicians researching the subject will not be enough for the country’s pending lawsuits. Even if the courts settle on a standard metric, judges might need an expert in each case. That’s why Duchin is organizing a week-long summer camp to help mathematicians learn the underlying subtleties of the various gerrymandering models and how to apply and explain them. Duchin expected 50 people to sign up; more than 1,000 have applied. “The response blew us out of the water,” she says, and several camps will now be held.

Mattingly and his model will have their day in court this summer. Even if his algorithms don’t become the standard, Mattingly hopes that the judicial system will find a way to curb gerrymandering and restore his faith in the electoral system. “I’m a citizen, too,” he says.

 

[IAMX 3,055]

Gerrymandering has been part of the US since day one, and the country hasn't been any less democratic because of it. No reason to dump it.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

57 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Gerrymandering has been part of the US since day one, and the country hasn't been any less democratic because of it. No reason to dump it.

More of that critical thinking again.

[CaliCat 3,957]

5 minutes ago, ccneat said:

More of that critical thinking again.

 

LOL. Can you smell the acorns?

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

13 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

LOL. Can you smell the acorns?

I am not sure what that means but you can explain it to me next time we have a special session of "the left"

[CaliCat 3,957]

50 minutes ago, ccneat said:

I am not sure what that means but you can explain it to me next time we have a special session of "the left"

 

 

There is a whole deck on the subject. There's a preso on the internet. LOL.