The shape of an electoral district may suggest whether it was drawn with
political motivations, or gerrymandered. For this reason, quantifying the shape
of districts, in particular their compactness, is a key task in politics and
civil rights. A growing body of literature suggests and analyzes compactness
measures mathematically, but little consideration has been given to how these
scores should be calculated in practice. Here, we consider the effects of a
number of decisions that must be made in interpreting and implementing a set of
popular compactness scores. We show that the choices made in quantifying
compactness may themselves become political tools, with seemingly innocuous
decisions leading to disparate scores. We show that when the full range of
implementation flexibility is used, it can be abused to make clearly
gerrymandered districts appear quantitatively reasonable. This complicates
using compactness as a legislative or judicial standard to counteract unfair
redistricting practices. This paper accompanies the release of packages in C++,
Python, and R which correctly, efficiently, and reproducibly calculate a
variety of compactness scores.Comment: 10 pages, 17 figures, 1 tabl