Polsby–Popper test
mathematical compactness measure of a shape developed to quantify the degree of gerrymandering of political districts
The Polsby–Popper test is a mathematical compactness measure of a shape developed to quantify the degree of gerrymandering of political districts. The method was developed by lawyers Daniel D. Polsby and Robert Popper, though it had earlier been introduced in the field of paleontology by E.P. Cox. The method was chosen by Arizona's redistricting commission in 2000.
Definition
The formula for calculating a district's Polsby–Popper score is
P
P
(
D
)
=
4
π
A
(
D
)
P
(
D
)
2
{\displaystyle PP(D)={\frac {4\pi A(D)}{P(D)^{2}}}}
, where
D
{\displaystyle D}
is the district,
P
(
D
)
{\displaystyle P(D)}
is the perimeter of the district, and
A
(
D
)
{\displaystyle A(D)}
is the area of the district. A district's Polsby–Popper score will always fall within the interval of
[
0
,
1
]
{\displaystyle [0,1]}
, with a score of
0
{\displaystyle 0}
indicating complete lack of compactness and a score of
1
{\displaystyle 1}
indicating maximal compactness. Only a perfectly round district will reach a Polsby–Popper score of 1.
Compared to other measures that use dispersion to measure gerrymandering, the Polsby–Popper test is very sensitive to both physical geography (for instance, convoluted coastal borders) and map resolution.
Contradiction to other measures
Fairness criteria for gerrymandering can stand in contradiction to each other. For example, in some cases to sufficiently fulfill the One man, one vote criterion and low efficiency gap would result in low Polsby–Popper compactness.
“Polsby–Popper test” enters the record as mathematical compactness measure of a shape developed to quantify the degree of gerrymandering of political districts. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Polsby, Popper and test can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Polsby–Popper test” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Polsby, Popper and test provides the most credible route into that argument.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Feb 20, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q30592740. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2000.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Polsby–Popper test”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Polsby–Popper test primary sources, Polsby–Popper test archive and Polsby research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Polsby–Popper test”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Polsby–Popper test” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.