東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Evaluating Multiple Criteria for (Re...

Rossiter, Kalyn MacKenzie.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Evaluating Multiple Criteria for (Re)Districting.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Evaluating Multiple Criteria for (Re)Districting./
Author:	Rossiter, Kalyn MacKenzie.
Description:	222 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 77-07(E), Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International77-07A(E).
Subject:	Geography. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10031813
ISBN:	9781339532745

Evaluating Multiple Criteria for (Re)Districting.
Rossiter, Kalyn MacKenzie.

Evaluating Multiple Criteria for (Re)Districting. - 222 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 77-07(E), Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--George Mason University, 2015.

Congressional redistricting is the process of delineating boundaries for districts in which voters elect members to the United States House of Representatives. Congressional districts are often redrawn due to changes in population reflected by the decennial census. A major principle is to draw districts that provide quality representation for a large population. Currently, eight criteria should be considered when determining the boundaries of congressional districts and this dissertation focuses on four of those criteria: maintaining the core of previous district, have equal total population size, respect existing local government boundaries, and maintaining communities of interest. These four were chosen because very little has been done in previous research. The remaining four criteria, racial equity, contiguity, compactness, and protecting the incumbent, are not addressed in this research because they are the focus of much of the existing literature. This research tests whether or not each state complies with the four criteria discussed to determine their usefulness and practicalities. The purpose of this research is not only to evaluate each state's redistricting process, but also to shed light on the process itself in order to simplify the criteria for mapmaking authorities and give the public a better understanding of congressional redistricting. First, I identify a way to define the core of a congressional district and use that definition to examine if all states comply with the criterion. I found that eleven states did not maintain the core of the previous congressional district for all congressional districts and for the remaining states 64% of the core was maintained between the 112th and 113th Congresses. Next, I discuss how eligible voters were defined, and the population size and distribution of those eligible to vote. The results show that the voting eligible population is not evenly distributed among congressional districts in most states and this dissertation argues that the voting eligible population should have a higher priority than the total population in future redistricting. Then, I examine whether states respect existing local government boundaries when delineating congressional districts. The results show that congressional districts often split local boundaries, and school districts and state legislative districts are split most often. Finally, this dissertation evaluates two ways to define a community of interest and then examines the extent that this criterion has been adopted based on each definition. One definition utilizes Thiessen polygons and census designated places, while the other definition uses cluster analysis to group together people with similar demographic characteristics. The results show that the two definitions are suitable for defining a community of interest in most states. Furthermore, the states largely maintain the community of interest boundaries within their congressional districts by only splitting, at most, 17.1% of the communities. On average, both sets of communities of interest were only split about 6% of the time.

ISBN: 9781339532745Subjects--Topical Terms:

524010
Geography.

Evaluating Multiple Criteria for (Re)Districting.
LDR:03991nmm a2200289 4500 001 2072746
005 20160822133511.5
008 170521s2015 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781339532745
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10031813
035 $a AAI10031813
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Rossiter, Kalyn MacKenzie. $3 3187960
245 1 0 $a Evaluating Multiple Criteria for (Re)Districting.
300 $a 222 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 77-07(E), Section: A.
500 $a Adviser: David Wong.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--George Mason University, 2015.
520 $a Congressional redistricting is the process of delineating boundaries for districts in which voters elect members to the United States House of Representatives. Congressional districts are often redrawn due to changes in population reflected by the decennial census. A major principle is to draw districts that provide quality representation for a large population. Currently, eight criteria should be considered when determining the boundaries of congressional districts and this dissertation focuses on four of those criteria: maintaining the core of previous district, have equal total population size, respect existing local government boundaries, and maintaining communities of interest. These four were chosen because very little has been done in previous research. The remaining four criteria, racial equity, contiguity, compactness, and protecting the incumbent, are not addressed in this research because they are the focus of much of the existing literature. This research tests whether or not each state complies with the four criteria discussed to determine their usefulness and practicalities. The purpose of this research is not only to evaluate each state's redistricting process, but also to shed light on the process itself in order to simplify the criteria for mapmaking authorities and give the public a better understanding of congressional redistricting. First, I identify a way to define the core of a congressional district and use that definition to examine if all states comply with the criterion. I found that eleven states did not maintain the core of the previous congressional district for all congressional districts and for the remaining states 64% of the core was maintained between the 112th and 113th Congresses. Next, I discuss how eligible voters were defined, and the population size and distribution of those eligible to vote. The results show that the voting eligible population is not evenly distributed among congressional districts in most states and this dissertation argues that the voting eligible population should have a higher priority than the total population in future redistricting. Then, I examine whether states respect existing local government boundaries when delineating congressional districts. The results show that congressional districts often split local boundaries, and school districts and state legislative districts are split most often. Finally, this dissertation evaluates two ways to define a community of interest and then examines the extent that this criterion has been adopted based on each definition. One definition utilizes Thiessen polygons and census designated places, while the other definition uses cluster analysis to group together people with similar demographic characteristics. The results show that the two definitions are suitable for defining a community of interest in most states. Furthermore, the states largely maintain the community of interest boundaries within their congressional districts by only splitting, at most, 17.1% of the communities. On average, both sets of communities of interest were only split about 6% of the time.
590 $a School code: 0883.
650 4 $a Geography. $3 524010
650 4 $a Political science. $3 528916
650 4 $a Demography. $3 614991
690 $a 0366
690 $a 0615
690 $a 0938
710 2 $a George Mason University. $b Earth Systems and Geoinformation Sciences. $3 2096431
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 77-07A(E).
790 $a 0883
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2015
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10031813