On Jan 7, 2004, at 5:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are algebraic process for obtaining an initial feasible solution for a given integer program model. I don't know if it is possible to use initial conditions to significantly change the probability that the outcome will be favorable or unfavorable to a particular political party or candidate. But it is easy enough to formalize the process of obtaining an initial feasible solution so that it is well defined and not subject to politically motivated manipulation.
My point about the integer program model is that, while it may technically be deterministic, such a deterministic would be highly sensitive to algorithm details (e.g., do you start from the top or bottom of the state) and tiny population fluctuations. Minor errors in input would lead to drastic changes in output, and anyone who disliked the results would find ample excuses for challenging it.
While such randomness issues would almost certainly NOT benefit any particular candidate, I think there are other issues involved. People like to think that elected representatives represent a region. A pure "integer program model" would have no respect for communities, drawing boundaries wherever it minimized circumference, even if it meant slicing off small parts of a community at random. District boundaries would also tend to change radically when redistricted.
Now, maybe we on this list like the idea of purely random districts that change dramatically and unpredictably every ten years. However, the politicians surely wouldn't -- and not only for selfish reasons. it makes it harder to build any sort of coherent connection with your district, and the communities that make it up. This in turn would make it much harder to sell to the general public.
Therefore, as a -practical- matter, I think any such computation redistricting has to be done in a way that reflects "natural" community boundaries. This should lead to:
a) more recognizeable and defineable districts
b) greater resistance to small fluctuations
c) greater stability across redistricting events
Of course, such initial conditions do have the potential to benefit one party over another (say, by enhancing the voting weight of cities). Therefore, it would be wise to test this out in simulations before giving it to the politicians. However, I do think computational redistricting needs some sort of 'sensibility' check. Otherwise, you might end up with the sort of public outcry we've seen with the computerized college Bowl Championship Series.
Put another way: there are no unbiased algorithms, only hidden biases; its better to get them out and explicit so that they can be debated and decided upon.
I don't enough about the other optimization methods such as simulated annealing and genetic algorithm to comment on them. I don't care what method is used.
Fair enough. The principle is the main thing. If we could agree on that, implementation is a detail.
-- Ernie P.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
