Arxiv:1712.09440V3 [Physics.Soc-Ph] 4 Jul 2021

The Census and the Second Law: An Entropic Approach to Optimal Apportionment for the U.S. House of Representatives A.E. Charman∗ Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720, USAy (Dated: July 4, 2021 [version 2.1]) The Constitutionally mandated task of assigning Congressional seats to the various U.S. States proportional to their represented populations (\according to their numbers") has engendered much contention, but rather less consensus. Using the same principles of entropic inference that underlie the foundations of information theory and statistical thermodynamics, and also enjoy fruitful application in image processing, spectral analysis, machine learning, econometrics, bioinformatics, and a growing number of other fields, we motivate and explore a method for Congressional apportionment based on minimizing relative entropy (also known as Kullback-Leibler divergence), or, equivalently, maximizing Shannon entropy. The ideal apportionment of seats to states is that which minimizes (subject to prescribed constraints on the total number of representatives, as well as on the minimum and maximum number of representatives per state) the relative entropy or discrimination information, arising as the natural measure of divergence between two probability distributions|in this case a uniform distribution of representational weight, or polling probability, across all represented individuals, as in an ideal or direct democracy, and a Congress-mediated distribution of representational weight, where individuals receive political representation indirectly, through their elected representatives. Equivalently, the optimal apportionment maximizes (subject to said constraints) the Shannon entropy, which is the natural measure of uncertainty or missing information associated with the indirect distribution. Statistically speaking, the optimal apportionment maximizes the uniformity of the sampling distribution induced by the division of seats, consistent with states receiving a whole number of representatives (between allowed lower and upper bounds). In terms of communication theory, we might say that the entropic apportionment gives each constituent as equal a voice as possible. If we view representational weight as a finite resource to be distributed amongst the represented population, the entropic measure is identical with the Theil index long employed in economics to measure inequality in the distribution of wealth or income, or in ecology to measure the distribution of biomass, species abundance, genetic information, or reproductive fitness. In actual application to U.S. Census data, entropic apportionment tends to perform similarly to the well-known Huntington-Hill and Webster-Willcox methods, but enjoys a more fundamental motivation and more natural mathematical properties than either. In fact, both of these traditional methods can be viewed as approximations to the entropic apportionment method. Besides Con- gressional apportionment, the method is also directly applicable to other multi-regional or multi- constituency legislatures, to party-list proportional voting systems used in various parliamentary elections, and similar settings, where the task is to allocate a finite, discrete number of seats or other resources, and the primary goal is one of maximal proportionality or equity. In addition, the same entropic figure-of-merit can be used in parallel to compare different choices for the total number of representatives, and then subsequently to assess different Congressional district sizes, after seats are assigned and proposed district boundaries drawn. arXiv:1712.09440v3 [physics.soc-ph] 4 Jul 2021 ∗ This work is dedicated to the memory of an ever inquisitive and congenial teacher, Professor Harold Lecar, who took time from studying how the brain works in order to try to ensure that elections work they way they should. I shall certainly miss what undoubtedly would have been his insights (and outrage) regarding the 2016 Presidential contest, and the unprecedented events surrounding the certification of the 2020 election results. y [email protected] 2 It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. Winston Churchill \The world isn't fair, Calvin." \I know Dad, but why isn't it ever unfair in my favor?" Bill Watterson You should call it entropy, for two reasons. In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, no one really knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage. John von Neumann, to Claude Shannon 1. INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION With each U.S. Census arrives a burst of renewed interest in the associated political, legal, philosophical, and mathematical issues surrounding the subsequent apportionment of Representatives to the various states \according to their respective numbers," as required by the U.S. Constitution. With much at stake in terms of legislative influence, the loss or gain of districts, and as we have recently seen, votes in the Electoral College, debate periodically percolates through courtrooms and the Capitol, in law reviews and even scientific journals [1{55]. In intervening years, attention tends to wane, but such lacunae actually provide us with opportunities to reconsider more dispassionately goals and methods for this consistently contentious Constitutional obligation. Both the periodic apportionment of representatives across states, and subsequent redistricting within states, have struck many commentators as curious inversions in the usual democratic dynamic: instead of voters choosing their representatives, elected representatives in effect choose their constituencies. Certainly circumspection is called for as we confront questions of some complexity, controversy, and con- sequence. But as suggested by \I cut/you choose" fair-division principles familiar to game theorists and suspicious siblings everywhere, evaluating apportionment algorithms before knowing actual census counts might serve to encourage better debate, and possibly even better legislation, based on methodological merits, and not particular political consequences.1 Here we explore, from an information-theoretic perspective, the fundamental questions posed by apportionment: what does it mean, or should it mean, to distribute seats proportionally? How should we round rational numbers to integers, and thereby [46] \convert census data into congressional seats?" Also, we touch on certain related questions: how many representatives should represent the people, and exactly which people2 should each of these representatives represent? Tentative answers to the questions raised may be considered from various perspectives, including the legal, the political, the moral, and the mathematical, leading to still more questions. What do we under- stand to be the ultimate goals and evaluative criteria for census, choice of House size, apportionment, or districting, and what technical procedures or algorithms best achieve these goals? Are the intent and application of these various methods consistent on their face with the U.S. Constitution, and, if so, would they otherwise require modification of relevant court decisions or federal laws and regulations? Finally, would they stand any reasonable chance of being accepted by a majority of Congress, or would they otherwise be likely to be enacted if within the discretion of the existing executive branch, and could they withstand any subsequent challenges in federal courts or the Supreme Court? 1 After all, one could hardly expect Representatives to be so broad-minded as to vote their own districts out of existence. 2 We will end up addressing here the question of the size of districts, or variations in the sizes of districts, but not the nature of their geographic boundaries or other determinants of their constituencies That is, we will speak to the question of how many people each Representative represents, but not the thornier political questions of exactly who is to be represented by whom, a problem receiving much deserved attention of late, but left for another day. 3 After exploring the Constitutional ground rules and basic features of the problem, we shall here focus primarily on technical issues at the level of allocating representatives to states, along with some subsequent discussion of the optimal choice of the overall House size and determination of sizes for districts, if not their exact make-up. We will mostly set aside various issues of political feasibility3 4, and attempt to avoid wading too deeply into the related if tangential quagmires such as districting and gerrymandering.5 Despite the plethora of suggestions and algorithms for apportionment made over the last 225 years or so, the criterion argued for here|which might immediately come to the mind of many modern physicists, chemists, electrical engineers, and statisticians|has received surprisingly little serious attention or con- sideration.6 Our aim is therefore to argue for the merits of a method for apportioning representatives by borrowing key ideas about entropy from the fields of statistical mechanics and information theory. The actual algorithm advocated can determine the \optimal" apportionment of representatives to states for a fixed total House size. If desired it can also be used concurrently to choose the optimal size of the House of Representatives within some allowed range, as

Load more