The document discusses crowd-sourced mapping for open government, emphasizing the importance of transparency and public participation in electoral boundary delimitation. It outlines the development and features of a platform that enables the public to create and evaluate redistricting plans while providing guidelines for transparency in the redistricting process. The document also highlights the successful application of these concepts in various states and the impact of student involvement in generating legal districting plans.

1. Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

2. Prepared for
MIT Libraries Informatics Program Brown Bag Talk
December 2013
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for
Open Government
Dr. Micah Altman
<escience@mit.edu>
Director of Research, MIT Libraries

3. DISCLAIMER
These opinions are my own, they are not the opinions
of MIT, Brookings, any of the project funders, nor (with
the exception of co-authored previously published
work) my collaborators
Secondary disclaimer:
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the
future!”
-- Attributed to Woody Allen, Yogi Berra, Niels Bohr, Vint Cerf, Winston
Churchill, Confucius, Disreali [sic], Freeman Dyson, Cecil B. Demille, Albert
Einstein, Enrico Fermi, Edgar R. Fiedler, Bob Fourer, Sam Goldwyn, Allan
Lamport, Groucho Marx, Dan Quayle, George Bernard Shaw, Casey Stengel, Will
Rogers, M. Taub, Mark Twain, Kerr L. White, etc.
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

4. Collaborators & Co-Conspirators
• Michael P. McDonald, George Mason
University
• Research Support
Thanks to the the Sloan Foundation, the Joyce
Foundation, the Judy Ford Watson Center for
Public Policy, Amazon Corporation
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

5. Related Work
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Altman, Micah, and Michael P McDonald (2014) ―Paradoxes of Political Reform:
Congressional Redistricting in Florida‖, in Jigsaw Politics in the Sunshine
State, University Press of Florida. Forthcoming.
Altman, Micah, and Michael P McDonald. (2014) ―Public Participation GIS : The Case
of Redistricting.‖ Proceedings of the 47th Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences. Computer Society Press (IEEE).
Micah Altman, Michael P McDonald (2013) ―A Half-Century of Virginia Redistricting
Battles: Shifting from Rural Malapportionment to Voting Rights to Public
Participation‖. Richmond Law Review.
Micah Altman, Michael P McDonald (2012) Redistricting Principles for the TwentyFirst Century, 1-26. In Case-Western Law Review 62 (4).
Micah Altman, Michael P. McDonald (2012) Technology for Public Participation in
Redistricting. In Redistricting and Reapportionment in the West, Lexington Press.
Altman, M., & McDonald, M. P. (2011). The Dawn of Do-It-Yourself Redistricting ?
Campaigns & Elections, (January), 38-42
Michael Altman, Michael P McDonald (2011) BARD: Better automated redistricting, 128. In Journal Of Statistical Software 42 (4).
Micah Altman, M MCDONALD (2010) The Promise and Perils of Computers in
Redistricting, 69–159. In Duke J Const Law Pub Policy
Most reprints available from:
informatics.mit.edu
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

6. This Talk
• Political Boundary Mapping
& Open Government
• Building a Platform for Crowd-Sourced
Political Boundary Mapping
• Are Publicly Created Maps Different?
• Future R&D
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

7. Political Boundary
Mapping
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

8. Definitions?
Electoral Boundary Delimitation. The
aim of electoral boundary delimitation
is to assign people to equipopulous
geographical districts from which they
will elect representatives, in order to
reflect communities of interest and to
improve representation.
Gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is a
form of political boundary delimitation,
or redistricting, in which the boundaries
are selected to produce an outcome
that is improperly favorable to some
group. The name “gerrymander” was
first used by the Boston Gazette in 1812
to describe the shape of Massachusetts
Governor Elbridge Ger- ry’s redistricting
plan, in which one district was said to
have resembled a salamander.
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

9. Maybe Use a Computer?
only
had
manpower and
―In ―Until recentlyof thispolitical partiesequalthepopulation. Nowthe tools to redrawthis
summary, keeping districtstechnology and educationpolitically play
eliminationdescribe a — feedandanybody can last
ofingerrymandering the
―The rapid advancesway to do reapportionment simple into the computer
―There is only one in computer to
during would
boundaries while Article is …
―The purpose
two decadesrequire thewhich canasdraw contiguousan analysis firm Caliper
all the to least as aitkibitzer. Forsimple toreapportion aof districts of equal
game, computer relatively as little $3,500 the legislature or other
feasibleat make program registration.‖
seem factors except politicalestablishmentgeographicautomatic
population Reagan havesame time to and census data you need to redistricting
- Ronald [and] at the the software further whatever secondary goalsnovel
Corp. will let you [Goff 1973]
body of people who represent geo- graphical districts. …The try out the
and impersonaldesigned to implement carrying outothers have put
“Let a computer do it”
State has.”proposed is procedure for the value judgments of
geometries on a PC screen. Harvard researcher Micah Altman and a
program
- -Washington Post,in that
Justice Brennan, appears to districts. at all difficult
together a program Karcher v. Daggett [Nagel
those responsible for reapportionment‖–(1983) 1965]
redistricting. It2003 draws compactbe notHis software is free. to
( And many, many blogs)
devise rules for doing this which a census, a commission in each
Democratic redistricting could work like this. After will produce
state entertains proposals from the political parties and any do-gooder group or
results not markedly inferior to those which would
individual willing to compete. The commission picks the most compact
be solution, according to some simple criterion. (Say, add up the miles of boundary
arrived at by a genuinely disinterested
lines, giving any segments that track 1961]
a 50% discount, and go for
commission.‖ -- [Vickrey municipal bordersinspire some gifted amateurs
the shortest total.) The mathematical challenge might
to weigh in.” – William Baldwin, Forbes 2008

10. Two Challenges
It’s hard.
(Optimal delimitation
with simple criteria is
NP-hard [Altman 1997])
Neutral criteria, aren’t.
(Parker 1990)
1 r é
r! ù
r
n
S( n,r) = å ê( -1) ( r - i)
ú=
r! i=0 ë
( r - i)!i!û
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

11. Trends in computing use for
boundary delimitation?
2000
1990
1980
• First
production use
1960-70
• Research
systems, de
mos
• Common use
of GIS for
congressional
boundaries
• GIS = Decision
Support
• Professional
Only
• Bespoke
systems
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government
• Web –
disseminate
government
information
• Ubiquitous
GIS on
desktop
Source:
Altman, MacDonald, McDonald
2005

12. What’s next?
2020
2010
• Web/GIS “2.0”
• Transparency
• Public Engagement
• ???
• AI tools for
computer-aided
boundary
• Public Government
Collaboration?
• Social collaboration?
• “CAD” tools?
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

13. Building a Platform
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

14. Public Mapping Project Goals
• Identify principles for transparency and public
participation in redistricting
• Enable the public to draw maps of the
communities and redistricting plans for their
states
– Facilitate public input to process
– Inform the public debate
– Provide maps for courts where litigation occurs
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

15. Principles for Transparency
 All redistricting plans should include sufficient
information such that the public can
verify, reproduce, and evaluate a plan

Proposed redistricting plans should be publicly available in non-proprietary formats.
 Public redistricting services should provide the public with the ability to make available all
published redistricting plans and community boundaries in non-proprietary formats.


Public redistricting services must provide documentation of any organizations providing significant contributions to their
operation.
All demographic, electoral and geographic data necessary to create legal redistricting plans and define community
boundaries should be publicly available, under a license allowing reuse of these data for non-commercial purposes.
 The criteria used to evaluate plans and districts
should be documented.



Software used to automatically create or improve redistricting plans should be either open-source or provide
documentation sufficient for the public to replicate the results using independent software.
Software used to generate reports that analyze redistricting plans should be accompanied by documentation of
data, methods, and procedures sufficient for the reports to be verified by the public.
Software necessary to replicate the creation or analysis of redistricting plans and community boundaries produced by the
service must be publicly available.

16. Supporting a Public Mapping
Workflow -- Initial Features
• Create
– Create districts and plans
• Evaluate
– Visualize
– Summarize
• Population balance
• Geographic compactness
• Completeness and contiguity
– Report in depth
• Share
– Import & export plans
– Publish a plan
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

17. Added Features in 2010-13
•
•
•
•
•
Shapefile import/export
PDF ―printing‖
Open data – link to original data
Throttling
Data administration – add new data through administrative
web interface
• Community layers – add your own community, publish, and
check for splits
• Scoreboards, contest submission workflows
• Internationalization
– Localization in French, English, Spanish, Japanese
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

18. Builds on Best-of-Class
Open Source Software
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

19. (Also Award Winning)




Named one of the top ten political
innovations of 2011
by Politico
Winner of the 2012 data innovation
award, for data used for social
impact,
by Strata
Winner of the 2012 award for
outstanding software development,
by American Political Science
Association
Winner of the 2013 Tides Pizzigati
Prize
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

20. Platform Interface Example
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

21. Sign in – Or just View
Open Data
Open Access
Prepared for 2011 CGA Conference at Harvard University
Open Source
21

22. Choose Your Legislature
Prepared for 2011 CGA Conference at Harvard University
22

23. Get the Picture – Visualize Successful
Prepared for 2011 CGA Conference at Harvard University
23

24. Drill Down – Get The Facts
Prepared for 2011 CGA Conference at Harvard University
24

25. Make A Plan
Prepared for 2011 CGA Conference at Harvard University
25

26. Get the Details
Prepared for 2011 CGA Conference at Harvard University
26

27. Run The Numbers
Prepared for 2011 CGA Conference at Harvard University
27

28. Is it legal? How Well Are You Doing?
Who’s Doing Better?
Prepared for 2011 CGA Conference at Harvard University
28

29. Spread the Word
 Share
your plans with others in the
system
 Publish links
 Have a contest
Prepared for 2011 CGA Conference at Harvard University
29

30. Intervention Part 1 - Platform
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

31. Are Public Maps
Different?
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

32. Our Solution:
Increase Public Participation
Draw the Lines?
Evaluate maps?
Watch the
News
Interest
Get the data
Information
Seeking
Debate &
Commentary
Propose
Alternatives
Consultative
Government
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

33. How has DistrictBuilder been used?

For Transparency:


Public understanding


Dissemination
Evaluation/comparison
For Education:


Classroom teaching


Staff training
Student competitions
For Participation:



Integrated into official decision process
Non-partisan public organizations
For Election Administration:

Internal collaboration/analysis sharing

Support for commission
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

34. Where has DistrictBuilder been used?
 Used
in 10 states
 More than 1000
legal plans
created by the
public
 Thousands of
public participants
 Millions of
viewers
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

35. Intervention - Redistricting Competitions



Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, New
York, Virginia, City of Philadelphia
Inspire participation
Transform the redistricting story
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

36. Virginia Redistricting Competition
• Participants
– Eligible: Any student from Virginia College/University
• Incentives
– Potential media attention
– Honorarium: $200
– Prizes: $500-$2000
• Criteria
– Legally required redistricting criteria: equal
population, contiguity, voting rights, completeness
– Good government criteria: communities of interest, county & city
boundaries, competitiveness, partisan balance
– Explanatory narrative
• Timeline
– Nov 2010 (recruitment) -March 2011 (awards)
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

37. Plan Evaluation Criteria
Majority-Minority
Representation
Number of districts in which minority population > 50% of the
district
Population Equality percentage deviation from ideal district population
County Integrity
Number of times counties & independent cities are split by
districts
Compactness
Normalized ratio of (perimeter of district)/(area of district)^2
Partisan Balance
Number of Republican leaning districts minus
Number of Democratic-leaning districts
Competitiveness
Number of districts with normal Democratic vote share in [45%55%]
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

38. Data
Domain: Virginia Redistricting Proposals
- All redistricting plans submitted by members of the
public
- All redistricting plans proposed by legislature
- All plans proposed by redistricting commission
Exclusions:
- Proposals that did not meet minimum legal criteria
- Plans developed internally by legislature, but never
proposed publicly
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

39. Examples: Winning Plans
!
!
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

40. Results: VA Congress
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

41. Results: VA Senate
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

42. Results: VA House
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

43. Results from Virginia
• Students can create legal districting plans.
• The “best” plan, as ranked by each individual
criterion, was a student plan.
• Student plans
– demonstrated a wider range of possibilities than other
entities.
– covered a larger set of possible tradeoffs among each
criterion.
– were generally better on pairs of criteria.
• Student plans were more competitive and had more
partisan balance than any of the adopted plans.
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

44. Preview of Florida
• Yes, Virginia, the
public can draw
districts
• Revealed
preferences of the
legislature –
stick it to the
Democrats
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

45. Observations
• There is likely a tension, particularly among state
legislative districts, among greater population
equality, compactness, and respect for local
political boundaries.
• Political reform goals may be more reliably
implemented by including them explicitly in
redistricting criteria, not subsuming them in
other administrative criteria.
• Effective redistricting reform will include a role
for the on-line public participation in line-drawing
and evaluation.
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

46. Lessons for Future Engagement
•
What works
–
–
–
•
Technology barriers
–
–
•
Technology is an enabler … many more plans created by public than in previous decades
Engagement of good-government groups, or other advocates is also critical to public participation
Permeability of government authorities (legislature, courts) to public input needed to have significant effect
Tools for collaborative construction
Tools for web-based visualization and analytics
Government resistance through data availability
–
–
Not providing election results merged with census geography
Redistricting authorities may purposefully restrict the scope of the information they make available.
•
–
–
•
For example, a number of states chose to make available boundaries and information related to the approved plan only.
Non-machine readable formats
No API or automatable way to retrieve plans/data
Forms of government impermeability
–
–
–
Authorities blatantly resist public input by providing no recognized channel for it; or
Create a nominal channel, but leaving it devoid of funding or process;or
Procedurally accept input, but substantively ignore it
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

47. Future R&D
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

48. Future Research
• Analyze results from other states
– over a dozen states had public processes
•
•
•
•
Randomized interventions
Evaluate effect on participants
Computer-aided automated redistricting
Characterizing plans
– semantic fingerprints for maps
• General methods and tools for eliciting geospatially based
preferences and opinions
– Combine: What’s your community?; What’s your opinion?;
What’s your location
– Integrate: Data collection & management and distribution
– Sustain: Reintegrate editing workflows into core open-source
GIStools
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open Government

49. Additional References
•
•
Altman, Micah. "Is automation the answer: the computational complexity of
automated redistricting." Rutgers Computer and Law Technology Journal 23
(1997).Altman, Micah, Karin MacDonald, and Michael McDonald. "From
Crayons to Computers The Evolution of Computer Use in Redistricting."
Social Science Computer Review 23.3 (2005): 334-346.
Parker, Frank R. Black votes count: Political empowerment in Mississippi
after 1965. UNC Press, 1990.
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open
Government

50. Questions?
E-mail:
Web:
escience@mit.edu
informatics.mit.edu
Crowd-Sourced Mapping for Open
Government