Papers › 3:1 Nesting Rules in Redistricting
3:1 Nesting Rules in Redistricting
Christopher Donnay
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
In legislative redistricting, most states draw their House and Senate maps separately. Ohio and Wisconsin require that their Senate districts be made with a 3:1 nesting rule, i.e., out of triplets of adjacent House districts. We seek to study the impact of this requirement on redistricting, specifically on the number of seats won by a particular political party. We compare two ensembles generated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods; one which uses the ReCom chain to generate Senate maps without a nesting requirement, and the other which uses a chain that generates Senate maps with a 3:1 nesting requirement. We find that requiring a 3:1 nesting rule has minimal impact on the distribution of seats won. Moreover, we study the impact the chosen House map has on the distribution of nested Senate maps, and find that an extreme seat bias at the House level does not significantly impact the distribution of seats won at the Senate level.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections