Shallow Thoughts : tags : transparency

Writing a Bill

I've been super busy this month. The New Mexico Legislature was in session, and in addition to other projects, I've had a chance to be involved in the process of writing a new bill and helping it move through the legislature. It's been interesting, educational, and sometimes frustrating.

The bill is SB304: Voting District Geographic Data. It's an "open data" bill: it mandates that election district boundary data for all voting districts, down to the county and municipal level, be publicly available at no charge on the Secretary of State's website.

Read more ...

Tags: politics, government, open data, mapping, GIS, transparency
[ 13:28 Mar 23, 2021    More politics | permalink to this entry | ]

Plotting Shapes with Python Basemap wwithout Shapefiles

In my article on Plotting election (and other county-level) data with Python Basemap, I used ESRI shapefiles for both states and counties.

But one of the election data files I found, OpenDataSoft's USA 2016 Presidential Election by county had embedded county shapes, available either as CSV or as GeoJSON. (I used the CSV version, but inside the CSV the geo data are encoded as JSON so you'll need JSON decoding either way. But that's no problem.)

Just about all the documentation I found on coloring shapes in Basemap assumed that the shapes were defined as ESRI shapefiles. How do you draw shapes if you have latitude/longitude data in a more open format?

As it turns out, it's quite easy, but it took a fair amount of poking around inside Basemap to figure out how it worked.

In the loop over counties in the US in the previous article, the end goal was to create a matplotlib Polygon and use that to add a Basemap patch. But matplotlib's Polygon wants map coordinates, not latitude/longitude.

If m is your basemap (i.e. you created the map with m = Basemap( ... ), you can translate coordinates like this:

    (mapx, mapy) = m(longitude, latitude)

So once you have a region as a list of (longitude, latitude) coordinate pairs, you can create a colored, shaped patch like this:

    for coord_pair in region:
        coord_pair[0], coord_pair[1] = m(coord_pair[0], coord_pair[1])
    poly = Polygon(region, facecolor=color, edgecolor=color)
    ax.add_patch(poly)

Working with the OpenDataSoft data file was actually a little harder than that, because the list of coordinates was JSON-encoded inside the CSV file, so I had to decode it with json.loads(county["Geo Shape"]). Once decoded, it had some counties as a Polygonlist of lists (allowing for discontiguous outlines), and others as a MultiPolygonlist of list of lists (I'm not sure why, since the Polygon format already allows for discontiguous boundaries)

And a few counties were missing, so there were blanks on the map, which show up as white patches in this screenshot. The counties missing data either have inconsistent formatting in their coordinate lists, or they have only one coordinate pair, and they include Washington, Virginia; Roane, Tennessee; Schley, Georgia; Terrell, Georgia; Marshall, Alabama; Williamsburg, Virginia; and Pike Georgia; plus Oglala Lakota (which is clearly meant to be Oglala, South Dakota), and all of Alaska.

One thing about crunching data files from the internet is that there are always a few special cases you have to code around. And I could have gotten those coordinates from the census shapefiles; but as long as I needed the census shapefile anyway, why use the CSV shapes at all? In this particular case, it makes more sense to use the shapefiles from the Census.

Still, I'm glad to have learned how to use arbitrary coordinates as shapes, freeing me from the proprietary and annoying ESRI shapefile format.

The code: Blue-red map using CSV with embedded county shapes

Tags: elections, politics, visualization, programming, data, open data, data, matplotlib, government, transparency
[ 09:36 Jan 19, 2017    More programming | permalink to this entry | ]

Plotting election (and other county-level) data with Python Basemap

After my arduous search for open 2016 election data by county, as a first test I wanted one of those red-blue-purple charts of how Democratic or Republican each county's vote was.

I used the Basemap package for plotting. It used to be part of matplotlib, but it's been split off into its own toolkit, grouped under mpl_toolkits: on Debian, it's available as python-mpltoolkits.basemap, or you can find Basemap on GitHub.

It's easiest to start with the fillstates.py example that shows how to draw a US map with different states colored differently. You'll need the three shapefiles (because of ESRI's silly shapefile format): st99_d00.dbf, st99_d00.shp and st99_d00.shx, available in the same examples directory.

Of course, to plot counties, you need county shapefiles as well. The US Census has county shapefiles at several different resolutions (I used the 500k version). Then you can plot state and counties outlines like this:

from mpl_toolkits.basemap import Basemap
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

def draw_us_map():
    # Set the lower left and upper right limits of the bounding box:
    lllon = -119
    urlon = -64
    lllat = 22.0
    urlat = 50.5
    # and calculate a centerpoint, needed for the projection:
    centerlon = float(lllon + urlon) / 2.0
    centerlat = float(lllat + urlat) / 2.0

    m = Basemap(resolution='i',  # crude, low, intermediate, high, full
                llcrnrlon = lllon, urcrnrlon = urlon,
                lon_0 = centerlon,
                llcrnrlat = lllat, urcrnrlat = urlat,
                lat_0 = centerlat,
                projection='tmerc')

    # Read state boundaries.
    shp_info = m.readshapefile('st99_d00', 'states',
                               drawbounds=True, color='lightgrey')

    # Read county boundaries
    shp_info = m.readshapefile('cb_2015_us_county_500k',
                               'counties',
                               drawbounds=True)

if __name__ == "__main__":
    draw_us_map()
    plt.title('US Counties')
    # Get rid of some of the extraneous whitespace matplotlib loves to use.
    plt.tight_layout(pad=0, w_pad=0, h_pad=0)
    plt.show()

Accessing the state and county data after reading shapefiles

Great. Now that we've plotted all the states and counties, how do we get a list of them, so that when I read out "Santa Clara, CA" from the data I'm trying to plot, I know which map object to color?

After calling readshapefile('st99_d00', 'states'), m has two new members, both lists: m.states and m.states_info.

m.states_info[] is a list of dicts mirroring what was in the shapefile. For the Census state list, the useful keys are NAME, AREA, and PERIMETER. There's also STATE, which is an integer (not restricted to 1 through 50) but I'll get to that.

If you want the shape for, say, California, iterate through m.states_info[] looking for the one where m.states_info[i]["NAME"] == "California". Note i; the shape coordinates will be in m.states[i]n (in basemap map coordinates, not latitude/longitude).

Correlating states and counties in Census shapefiles

County data is similar, with county names in m.counties_info[i]["NAME"]. Remember that STATE integer? Each county has a STATEFP, m.counties_info[i]["STATEFP"] that matches some state's m.states_info[i]["STATE"].

But doing that search every time would be slow. So right after calling readshapefile for the states, I make a table of states. Empirically, STATE in the state list goes up to 72. Why 72? Shrug.

    MAXSTATEFP = 73
    states = [None] * MAXSTATEFP
    for state in m.states_info:
        statefp = int(state["STATE"])
        # Many states have multiple entries in m.states (because of islands).
        # Only add it once.
        if not states[statefp]:
            states[statefp] = state["NAME"]

That'll make it easy to look up a county's state name quickly when we're looping through all the counties.

Calculating colors for each county

Time to figure out the colors from the Deleetdk election results CSV file. Reading lines from the CSV file into a dictionary is superficially easy enough:

    fp = open("tidy_data.csv")
    reader = csv.DictReader(fp)

    # Make a dictionary of all "county, state" and their colors.
    county_colors = {}
    for county in reader:
        # What color is this county?
        pop = float(county["votes"])
        blue = float(county["results.clintonh"])/pop
        red = float(county["Total.Population"])/pop
        county_colors["%s, %s" % (county["name"], county["State"])] \
            = (red, 0, blue)

But in practice, that wasn't good enough, because the county names in the Deleetdk names didn't always match the official Census county names.

Fuzzy matches

For instance, the CSV file had no results for Alaska or Puerto Rico, so I had to skip those. Non-ASCII characters were a problem: "Doña Ana" county in the census data was "Dona Ana" in the CSV. I had to strip off " County", " Borough" and similar terms: "St Louis" in the census data was "St. Louis County" in the CSV. Some names were capitalized differently, like PLYMOUTH vs. Plymouth, or Lac Qui Parle vs. Lac qui Parle. And some names were just different, like "Jeff Davis" vs. "Jefferson Davis".

To get around that I used SequenceMatcher to look for fuzzy matches when I couldn't find an exact match:

def fuzzy_find(s, slist):
    '''Try to find a fuzzy match for s in slist.
    '''
    best_ratio = -1
    best_match = None

    ls = s.lower()
    for ss in slist:
        r = SequenceMatcher(None, ls, ss.lower()).ratio()
        if r > best_ratio:
            best_ratio = r
            best_match = ss
    if best_ratio > .75:
        return best_match
    return None

Correlate the county names from the two datasets

It's finally time to loop through the counties in the map to color and plot them.

Remember STATE vs. STATEFP? It turns out there are a few counties in the census county shapefile with a STATEFP that doesn't match any STATE in the state shapefile. Mostly they're in the Virgin Islands and I don't have election data for them anyway, so I skipped them for now. I also skipped Puerto Rico and Alaska (no results in the election data) and counties that had no corresponding state: I'll omit that code here, but you can see it in the final script, linked at the end.

    for i, county in enumerate(m.counties_info):
        countyname = county["NAME"]
        try:
            statename = states[int(county["STATEFP"])]
        except IndexError:
            print countyname, "has out-of-index statefp of", county["STATEFP"]
            continue

        countystate = "%s, %s" % (countyname, statename)
        try:
            ccolor = county_colors[countystate]
        except KeyError:
            # No exact match; try for a fuzzy match
            fuzzyname = fuzzy_find(countystate, county_colors.keys())
            if fuzzyname:
                ccolor = county_colors[fuzzyname]
                county_colors[countystate] = ccolor
            else:
                print "No match for", countystate
                continue

        countyseg = m.counties[i]
        poly = Polygon(countyseg, facecolor=ccolor)  # edgecolor="white"
        ax.add_patch(poly)

Moving Hawaii

Finally, although the CSV didn't have results for Alaska, it did have Hawaii. To display it, you can move it when creating the patches:

    countyseg = m.counties[i]
    if statename == 'Hawaii':
        countyseg = list(map(lambda (x,y): (x + 5750000, y-1400000), countyseg))
    poly = Polygon(countyseg, facecolor=countycolor)
    ax.add_patch(poly)

The offsets are in map coordinates and are empirical; I fiddled with them until Hawaii showed up at a reasonable place.

Well, that was a much longer article than I intended. Turns out it takes a fair amount of code to correlate several datasets and turn them into a map. But a lot of the work will be applicable to other datasets.

Full script on GitHub: Blue-red map using Census county shapefile

Tags: elections, politics, visualization, programming, python, mapping, GIS, data, open data, matplotlib, government, transparency
[ 15:10 Jan 14, 2017    More programming | permalink to this entry | ]

Getting Election Data, and Why Open Data is Important

Back in 2012, I got interested in fiddling around with election data as a way to learn about data analysis in Python. So I went searching for results data on the presidential election. And got a surprise: it wasn't available anywhere in the US. After many hours of searching, the only source I ever found was at the UK newspaper, The Guardian.

Surely in 2016, we're better off, right? But when I went looking, I found otherwise. There's still no official source for US election results data; there isn't even a source as reliable as The Guardian this time.

You might think Data.gov would be the place to go for official election results, but no: searching for 2016 election on Data.gov yields nothing remotely useful.

The Federal Election Commission has an election results page, but it only goes up to 2014 and only includes the Senate and House, not presidential elections. Archives.gov has popular vote totals for the 2012 election but not the current one. Maybe in four years, they'll have some data.

After striking out on official US government sites, I searched the web. I found a few sources, none of them even remotely official.

Early on I found Simon Rogers, How to Download County-Level Results Data, which leads to GitHub user tonmcg's County Level Election Results 12-16. It's a comparison of Democratic vs. Republican votes in the 2012 and 2016 elections (I assume that means votes for that party's presidential candidate, though the field names don't make that entirely clear), with no information on third-party candidates.

KidPixo's Presidential Election USA 2016 on GitHub is a little better: the fields make it clear that it's recording votes for Trump and Clinton, but still no third party information. It's also scraped from the New York Times, and it includes the scraping code so you can check it and have some confidence on the source of the data.

Kaggle claims to have election data, but you can't download their datasets or even see what they have without signing up for an account. Ben Hamner has some publically available Kaggle data on GitHub, but only for the primary. I also found several companies selling election data, and several universities that had datasets available for researchers with accounts at that university.

The most complete dataset I found, and the only open one that included third party candidates, was through OpenDataSoft. Like the other two, this data is scraped from the NYT. It has data for all the minor party candidates as well as the majors, plus lots of demographic data for each county in the lower 48, plus Hawaii, but not the territories, and the election data for all the Alaska counties is missing.

You can get it either from a GitHub repo, Deleetdk's USA.county.data (look in inst/ext/tidy_data.csv. If you want a larger version with geographic shape data included, clicking through several other opendatasoft pages eventually gets you to an export page, USA 2016 Presidential Election by county, where you can download CSV, JSON, GeoJSON and other formats.

The OpenDataSoft data file was pretty useful, though it had gaps (for instance, there's no data for Alaska). I was able to make my own red-blue-purple plot of county voting results (I'll write separately about how to do that with python-basemap), and to play around with statistics.

Implications of the lack of open data

But the point my search really brought home: By the time I finally found a workable dataset, I was so sick of the search, and so relieved to find anything at all, that I'd stopped being picky about where the data came from. I had long since given up on finding anything from a known source, like a government site or even a newspaper, and was just looking for data, any data.

And that's not good. It means that a lot of the people doing statistics on elections are using data from unverified sources, probably copied from someone else who claimed to have scraped it, using unknown code, from some post-election web page that likely no longer exists. Is it accurate? There's no way of knowing.

What if someone wanted to spread news and misinformation? There's a hunger for data, particularly on something as important as a US Presidential election. Looking at Google's suggested results and "Searches related to" made it clear that it wasn't just me: there are a lot of people searching for this information and not being able to find it through official sources.

If I were a foreign power wanting to spread disinformation, providing easily available data files -- to fill the gap left by the US Government's refusal to do so -- would be a great way to mislead people. I could put anything I wanted in those files: there's no way of checking them against official results since there are no official results. Just make sure the totals add up to what people expect to see. You could easily set up an official-looking site and put made-up data there, and it would look a lot more real than all the people scraping from the NYT.

If our government -- or newspapers, or anyone else -- really wanted to combat "fake news", they should take open data seriously. They should make datasets for important issues like the presidential election publically available, as soon as possible after the election -- not four years later when nobody but historians care any more. Without that, we're leaving ourselves open to fake news and fake data.

Tags: elections, politics, programming, data, open data, fake news, government, transparency
[ 16:41 Jan 12, 2017    More politics | permalink to this entry | ]

Votes on the Warrantless Wiretapping Act

All the news media carried stories on how our (US) legislators voted in a bill on Friday night that greatly eased the rules on wiretapping. The House followed through and passed the bill on Saturday.

The new updates to FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, will allow the NSA or the attorney general to authorize monitoring of telephones or email, without a warrant, if the comunications involve people "reasonably believed to be outside the United States".

The story reported in most of the papers is that Democrats were against the bill and wanted a version which required warrants in more cases. But the President threatened to hold Congress in session into its scheduled summer recess if it did not approve the changes he wanted -- and that was enough, apparently, for the Senate to vote for warrantless surveillance of Americans. (I confess I don't quite understand why the president can hold Congress in session indefinitely until he gets the vote he wants. Can't they just vote No?)

What I couldn't find in any of the stories was a breakdown of the votes. What about our presidential candidates? Did they support warrantless wiretapping -- or, perhaps worse, just not care about the ramifications of a bill if further consideration of it might cut into their vacation time?

Finding out

Finding Senate votes is very easy. Googling for senate votes takes you right to the Senate.gov breakdown of recent votes by Senator name or by state. Here are the results for S.1927.

The House is harder. They don't seem to have a nice "recent votes" page like the Senate does, or any obvious way to find bills (I had little luck with their site search), though a pressec.com story gave a link to the bill on Thomas.loc.gov, which links to an official House.gov vote count.

In the absence of pressec.com's help, the easiest way to find House voting records is to use the Washington Post Votes Database.

How did they vote?

I was happy to see that all the major Democratic candidates in Congress voted against the smarmily named "Protect America Act", including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Christopher Dodd, and (in the House) Dennis Kucinich. John Kerry (who is not an official candidate) didn't vote.

On the Republican side, candidate Sam Brownback voted for the bill, while candidates John McCain, Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul didn't vote.

Of course, I was also interested in my local legislators. California Senator Dianne Feinstein voted for passage (why do people keep voting her back in?) while our other senator, Barbara Boxer didn't vote. In the House, my representative, the always sensible Zoe Lofgren, voted against the bill. In fact, she spoke out against it, saying "This bill would grant the attorney general the ability to wiretap anybody, any place, any time without court review, without any checks and balances. I think this unwarranted, unprecedented measure would simply eviscerate the 4th Amendment." Hurray, Zoe! House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also voted against.

How did your legislators vote?

Tags: politics, government, transparency
[ 14:20 Aug 06, 2007    More politics | permalink to this entry | ]