TedTest

From the Ted Talk by Brian Olson: How an algorithm can fight election bias so every vote counts

Unscramble the Blue Letters

If you've ever had the suspicion that your vote doesn't really cnuot and the deck might be stacked against you, you might be right. In many places in this country, we don't have a fiotnincung dcaemrocy. People might go to the polls, but they might not have a real choice when they get there. In 2010, the people of Florida were trying to do something about this. They passed a ballot initiative with almost two-thirds of the vote: a new state constitutional amendment requiring that districts be fair and not biased bsaed on race or ptray. It didn't work. The state legislature sued to try and get out of these new requirements, and in subsequent corut bteatls, the maps they made were found to be racially and patasrin besaid. Florida is just one example of our national poerblm with genrymrndareig. Gerrymandering is when you take a few people from one place and a few people from another pcale and draw a line around them on the map to create a district with some siecpifc demographic goal. Here's an example world with 25 people: 60% green people and 40% purple people. If you split that up into five simple districts of five people each, you can preserve that ratio in the outcome and have three districts won by green people and two districts won by purple people. But if you pack enough green people into just two districts, then you can flip that outcome and wind up with three dtctiirss where there's a purple majority. Or you can crack the prlpue people and siplt them up just right so that they don't have a majority anywhere. These sgteitears of packing and cracking are being used in dozens of districts throughout the country. That birhgt blue district in northeast Florida was found to be racially biased because it pakcs too many black people into one drsicitt, diminishing their influence elsewhere. That was Florida in 2012, but gerrymandering has been going on for a long time, since at least 1812, when Massachusetts governor eigrbdle grrey signed into law a map that was drawn into a political crooatn as a monstrous, deunraqgsoe salamander, and thus was born the gerrymander. But it's gotten a lot worse lately. The joke is that instead of voters picking their politicians, plitianicos are picking their vreots. Why is this a problem? When you have too many seats that are gerrymandered to be safe for one party or another, the political process breaks down in some ways. I have one personal example. In 2006, I was a webmaster for a congressional campaign in California. We were in a district that was gerrymandered, say, for the other party. And the inmenubct in that party didn't feel the need to take part in the campaign and wouldn't agree to show up for any debates. He just felt he didn't have to. And our party wouldn't send any help; they figured we were a lost cause. Come eoicteln day, the incumbent got the eeecptxd 60/40 result. In other places, it's even worse. In 2014, there were 32 congressional districts that went unopposed - no one else on the blaolt. That's over 20 million Americans with no effective choice over who their representative in Congress is. In some places, the incumbent faces a more ertmxee challenger from within their own party. And whether you have an extremist upstart or a long incumbent safe seat, that politician might not feel the need to reach out across the aisle and cmoipsmore on anything because they're safe, and the legislative prcesos grinds to a halt, and voters get more cynical. What if we could have impartial districts? What if we defined what a good district was mathematically and didn't let anyone else's agenda interfere? Florida's map might look something like this. About 10 years ago, computers got prefwuol enough to solve for this kind of map that follows the legal riqemurenets of having equal population per district, coouuitngs districts that are each all one piece, and in this case, solving for compact districts that try to tightly renresept one ltcoaoin or region. But I didn't know it would work when I sttraed. Previous work in this area had been on tiny toy maps like the one I showed you earlier, and they didn't think it would sacle up to a full state worth of data. But I figured I was a pterty good engineer and I'd give it a shot, and I think it worked out pretty well. So, when the 2010 census data srtiantg coming out, I set my home computer to work, and over the next six mtnohs, it came up with 137 maps for state legislature and congressional districts all over the country. And I think the results are pretty good. Let's see another one. First, the old way. North Carolina has also been in almost constant legal battles since their maps came out a little over four years ago. Most recently, they were thrown out for racial bias just as prmiary season was spinning up. New maps were hastily drawn up, and the primary had to be pushed back from March until June. Voters and candidates were left in disarray. That red district in the northeast reaches into and around three other districts. That pink district in the mldide pinches down as narrow as possible while reaching out to grab other areas. This is nuts. These are the vsiaul telltales of districts that have been distorted toward some polciaitl end. The opposite of a sprawling, non-local gerrymandered map is a compact map, like this. I hope you can see the difference. You can also measure it. I measure compactness as the aeravge distance per person to the center of their district. In the old North Carolina map, that distance was 38 miles; in my map, it's 25 miles. You can measure how sprawling and non-local a gerrymandered map is and how compact a compact map is. So, it's technically possible. How's the political situation? You might expect that there would be some resistance to this kind of change, and there is, but there is also some demand for it. The republican governor of mnarylad has recently called out for national help in overturning his state's democratic gdmrenaeryr. That is one of the more contorted messes of tentacled horrors of districts I have seen in any map. (lghaetur) I don't know if this is the best map, but I submit that it is a leaglly viable map, without some of the obvious rraunound and drawbacks of the old map. There are a lot of states with dveiidd gmnverenot, with the two patreis fhgiitng over redistricting. But this shouldn't be something to fight about. Redistricting should be a bureaucratic, boring process, where you get in new census data, you turn the crank, and you get out new maps for the next 10 years. In the last few yreas, California, Arizona, Ohio, and fdoilra have passed reform of one kind or another. That sowhs that it's possible. Those reforms might not be perfect, and they might still need some tinkering, but we can do it. This is tehclanicly possible. Open-source software, free and verifiable, running on home computers that anyone can use can solve for these kinds of impartial maps, and the results are pretty good. This is politically possible. People want reform - even some elected officials want it. And the legal mechanisms are achievable. If we could have a change now, we could have a big effect on the future of our political process. If reform comes to enough places, enough states, we might even be able to get a national sntadrad. And a national standard might let us really hold up our core value of equal protection under the law for all. (Applause)

Open Cloze

If you've ever had the suspicion that your vote doesn't really _____ and the deck might be stacked against you, you might be right. In many places in this country, we don't have a ___________ _________. People might go to the polls, but they might not have a real choice when they get there. In 2010, the people of Florida were trying to do something about this. They passed a ballot initiative with almost two-thirds of the vote: a new state constitutional amendment requiring that districts be fair and not biased _____ on race or _____. It didn't work. The state legislature sued to try and get out of these new requirements, and in subsequent _____ _______, the maps they made were found to be racially and ________ ______. Florida is just one example of our national _______ with ______________. Gerrymandering is when you take a few people from one place and a few people from another _____ and draw a line around them on the map to create a district with some ________ demographic goal. Here's an example world with 25 people: 60% green people and 40% purple people. If you split that up into five simple districts of five people each, you can preserve that ratio in the outcome and have three districts won by green people and two districts won by purple people. But if you pack enough green people into just two districts, then you can flip that outcome and wind up with three _________ where there's a purple majority. Or you can crack the ______ people and _____ them up just right so that they don't have a majority anywhere. These __________ of packing and cracking are being used in dozens of districts throughout the country. That ______ blue district in northeast Florida was found to be racially biased because it _____ too many black people into one ________, diminishing their influence elsewhere. That was Florida in 2012, but gerrymandering has been going on for a long time, since at least 1812, when Massachusetts governor ________ _____ signed into law a map that was drawn into a political _______ as a monstrous, ___________ salamander, and thus was born the gerrymander. But it's gotten a lot worse lately. The joke is that instead of voters picking their politicians, ___________ are picking their ______. Why is this a problem? When you have too many seats that are gerrymandered to be safe for one party or another, the political process breaks down in some ways. I have one personal example. In 2006, I was a webmaster for a congressional campaign in California. We were in a district that was gerrymandered, say, for the other party. And the _________ in that party didn't feel the need to take part in the campaign and wouldn't agree to show up for any debates. He just felt he didn't have to. And our party wouldn't send any help; they figured we were a lost cause. Come ________ day, the incumbent got the ________ 60/40 result. In other places, it's even worse. In 2014, there were 32 congressional districts that went unopposed - no one else on the ______. That's over 20 million Americans with no effective choice over who their representative in Congress is. In some places, the incumbent faces a more _______ challenger from within their own party. And whether you have an extremist upstart or a long incumbent safe seat, that politician might not feel the need to reach out across the aisle and __________ on anything because they're safe, and the legislative _______ grinds to a halt, and voters get more cynical. What if we could have impartial districts? What if we defined what a good district was mathematically and didn't let anyone else's agenda interfere? Florida's map might look something like this. About 10 years ago, computers got ________ enough to solve for this kind of map that follows the legal ____________ of having equal population per district, __________ districts that are each all one piece, and in this case, solving for compact districts that try to tightly _________ one ________ or region. But I didn't know it would work when I _______. Previous work in this area had been on tiny toy maps like the one I showed you earlier, and they didn't think it would _____ up to a full state worth of data. But I figured I was a ______ good engineer and I'd give it a shot, and I think it worked out pretty well. So, when the 2010 census data ________ coming out, I set my home computer to work, and over the next six ______, it came up with 137 maps for state legislature and congressional districts all over the country. And I think the results are pretty good. Let's see another one. First, the old way. North Carolina has also been in almost constant legal battles since their maps came out a little over four years ago. Most recently, they were thrown out for racial bias just as _______ season was spinning up. New maps were hastily drawn up, and the primary had to be pushed back from March until June. Voters and candidates were left in disarray. That red district in the northeast reaches into and around three other districts. That pink district in the ______ pinches down as narrow as possible while reaching out to grab other areas. This is nuts. These are the ______ telltales of districts that have been distorted toward some _________ end. The opposite of a sprawling, non-local gerrymandered map is a compact map, like this. I hope you can see the difference. You can also measure it. I measure compactness as the _______ distance per person to the center of their district. In the old North Carolina map, that distance was 38 miles; in my map, it's 25 miles. You can measure how sprawling and non-local a gerrymandered map is and how compact a compact map is. So, it's technically possible. How's the political situation? You might expect that there would be some resistance to this kind of change, and there is, but there is also some demand for it. The republican governor of ________ has recently called out for national help in overturning his state's democratic ___________. That is one of the more contorted messes of tentacled horrors of districts I have seen in any map. (________) I don't know if this is the best map, but I submit that it is a _______ viable map, without some of the obvious _________ and drawbacks of the old map. There are a lot of states with _______ __________, with the two _______ ________ over redistricting. But this shouldn't be something to fight about. Redistricting should be a bureaucratic, boring process, where you get in new census data, you turn the crank, and you get out new maps for the next 10 years. In the last few _____, California, Arizona, Ohio, and _______ have passed reform of one kind or another. That _____ that it's possible. Those reforms might not be perfect, and they might still need some tinkering, but we can do it. This is ___________ possible. Open-source software, free and verifiable, running on home computers that anyone can use can solve for these kinds of impartial maps, and the results are pretty good. This is politically possible. People want reform - even some elected officials want it. And the legal mechanisms are achievable. If we could have a change now, we could have a big effect on the future of our political process. If reform comes to enough places, enough states, we might even be able to get a national ________. And a national standard might let us really hold up our core value of equal protection under the law for all. (Applause)

Solution

specific
powerful
months
functioning
election
court
strategies
average
maryland
bright
districts
purple
process
laughter
political
parties
requirements
government
starting
technically
elbridge
extreme
middle
party
runaround
biased
ballot
count
cartoon
place
started
packs
gerry
based
pretty
politicians
gerrymander
visual
compromise
problem
dragonesque
gerrymandering
voters
primary
location
shows
fighting
contiguous
split
partisan
legally
expected
battles
years
florida
incumbent
represent
district
standard
democracy
divided
scale

Original Text

If you've ever had the suspicion that your vote doesn't really count and the deck might be stacked against you, you might be right. In many places in this country, we don't have a functioning democracy. People might go to the polls, but they might not have a real choice when they get there. In 2010, the people of Florida were trying to do something about this. They passed a ballot initiative with almost two-thirds of the vote: a new state constitutional amendment requiring that districts be fair and not biased based on race or party. It didn't work. The state legislature sued to try and get out of these new requirements, and in subsequent court battles, the maps they made were found to be racially and partisan biased. Florida is just one example of our national problem with gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is when you take a few people from one place and a few people from another place and draw a line around them on the map to create a district with some specific demographic goal. Here's an example world with 25 people: 60% green people and 40% purple people. If you split that up into five simple districts of five people each, you can preserve that ratio in the outcome and have three districts won by green people and two districts won by purple people. But if you pack enough green people into just two districts, then you can flip that outcome and wind up with three districts where there's a purple majority. Or you can crack the purple people and split them up just right so that they don't have a majority anywhere. These strategies of packing and cracking are being used in dozens of districts throughout the country. That bright blue district in northeast Florida was found to be racially biased because it packs too many black people into one district, diminishing their influence elsewhere. That was Florida in 2012, but gerrymandering has been going on for a long time, since at least 1812, when Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry signed into law a map that was drawn into a political cartoon as a monstrous, dragonesque salamander, and thus was born the gerrymander. But it's gotten a lot worse lately. The joke is that instead of voters picking their politicians, politicians are picking their voters. Why is this a problem? When you have too many seats that are gerrymandered to be safe for one party or another, the political process breaks down in some ways. I have one personal example. In 2006, I was a webmaster for a congressional campaign in California. We were in a district that was gerrymandered, say, for the other party. And the incumbent in that party didn't feel the need to take part in the campaign and wouldn't agree to show up for any debates. He just felt he didn't have to. And our party wouldn't send any help; they figured we were a lost cause. Come election day, the incumbent got the expected 60/40 result. In other places, it's even worse. In 2014, there were 32 congressional districts that went unopposed - no one else on the ballot. That's over 20 million Americans with no effective choice over who their representative in Congress is. In some places, the incumbent faces a more extreme challenger from within their own party. And whether you have an extremist upstart or a long incumbent safe seat, that politician might not feel the need to reach out across the aisle and compromise on anything because they're safe, and the legislative process grinds to a halt, and voters get more cynical. What if we could have impartial districts? What if we defined what a good district was mathematically and didn't let anyone else's agenda interfere? Florida's map might look something like this. About 10 years ago, computers got powerful enough to solve for this kind of map that follows the legal requirements of having equal population per district, contiguous districts that are each all one piece, and in this case, solving for compact districts that try to tightly represent one location or region. But I didn't know it would work when I started. Previous work in this area had been on tiny toy maps like the one I showed you earlier, and they didn't think it would scale up to a full state worth of data. But I figured I was a pretty good engineer and I'd give it a shot, and I think it worked out pretty well. So, when the 2010 census data starting coming out, I set my home computer to work, and over the next six months, it came up with 137 maps for state legislature and congressional districts all over the country. And I think the results are pretty good. Let's see another one. First, the old way. North Carolina has also been in almost constant legal battles since their maps came out a little over four years ago. Most recently, they were thrown out for racial bias just as primary season was spinning up. New maps were hastily drawn up, and the primary had to be pushed back from March until June. Voters and candidates were left in disarray. That red district in the northeast reaches into and around three other districts. That pink district in the middle pinches down as narrow as possible while reaching out to grab other areas. This is nuts. These are the visual telltales of districts that have been distorted toward some political end. The opposite of a sprawling, non-local gerrymandered map is a compact map, like this. I hope you can see the difference. You can also measure it. I measure compactness as the average distance per person to the center of their district. In the old North Carolina map, that distance was 38 miles; in my map, it's 25 miles. You can measure how sprawling and non-local a gerrymandered map is and how compact a compact map is. So, it's technically possible. How's the political situation? You might expect that there would be some resistance to this kind of change, and there is, but there is also some demand for it. The republican governor of Maryland has recently called out for national help in overturning his state's democratic gerrymander. That is one of the more contorted messes of tentacled horrors of districts I have seen in any map. (Laughter) I don't know if this is the best map, but I submit that it is a legally viable map, without some of the obvious runaround and drawbacks of the old map. There are a lot of states with divided government, with the two parties fighting over redistricting. But this shouldn't be something to fight about. Redistricting should be a bureaucratic, boring process, where you get in new census data, you turn the crank, and you get out new maps for the next 10 years. In the last few years, California, Arizona, Ohio, and Florida have passed reform of one kind or another. That shows that it's possible. Those reforms might not be perfect, and they might still need some tinkering, but we can do it. This is technically possible. Open-source software, free and verifiable, running on home computers that anyone can use can solve for these kinds of impartial maps, and the results are pretty good. This is politically possible. People want reform - even some elected officials want it. And the legal mechanisms are achievable. If we could have a change now, we could have a big effect on the future of our political process. If reform comes to enough places, enough states, we might even be able to get a national standard. And a national standard might let us really hold up our core value of equal protection under the law for all. (Applause)

Frequently Occurring Word Combinations

ngrams of length 2

collocation	frequency
green people	3
purple people	3
pretty good	3
state legislature	2
districts won	2
political process	2
congressional districts	2
north carolina	2
gerrymandered map	2
national standard	2

Important Words

achievable
agenda
agree
aisle
amendment
americans
applause
area
areas
arizona
average
ballot
based
battles
bias
biased
big
black
blue
boring
born
breaks
bright
bureaucratic
california
called
campaign
candidates
carolina
cartoon
case
census
center
challenger
change
choice
coming
compact
compactness
compromise
computer
computers
congress
congressional
constant
constitutional
contiguous
contorted
core
count
country
court
crack
cracking
crank
create
cynical
data
day
debates
deck
defined
demand
democracy
democratic
demographic
difference
diminishing
disarray
distance
distorted
district
districts
divided
dozens
dragonesque
draw
drawbacks
drawn
earlier
effect
effective
elbridge
elected
election
engineer
equal
expect
expected
extreme
extremist
faces
fair
feel
felt
fight
fighting
figured
flip
florida
free
full
functioning
future
gerry
gerrymander
gerrymandered
gerrymandering
give
goal
good
government
governor
grab
green
grinds
halt
hastily
hold
home
hope
horrors
impartial
incumbent
influence
initiative
interfere
joke
june
kind
kinds
laughter
law
left
legal
legally
legislative
legislature
line
location
long
lost
lot
majority
map
maps
march
maryland
massachusetts
mathematically
measure
mechanisms
messes
middle
miles
million
monstrous
months
narrow
national
north
northeast
nuts
obvious
officials
ohio
outcome
overturning
pack
packing
packs
part
parties
partisan
party
passed
people
perfect
person
personal
picking
piece
pinches
pink
place
places
political
politically
politician
politicians
polls
population
powerful
preserve
pretty
previous
primary
problem
process
protection
purple
pushed
race
racial
racially
ratio
reach
reaches
reaching
real
red
redistricting
reform
reforms
region
represent
representative
republican
requirements
requiring
resistance
result
results
runaround
running
safe
salamander
scale
season
seat
seats
send
set
shot
show
showed
shows
signed
simple
situation
software
solve
solving
specific
spinning
split
sprawling
stacked
standard
started
starting
state
states
strategies
submit
subsequent
sued
suspicion
technically
telltales
tentacled
thrown
tightly
time
tinkering
tiny
toy
turn
unopposed
upstart
verifiable
viable
visual
vote
voters
ways
webmaster
wind
won
work
worked
world
worse
worth
years