you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

In order to do that, we need a rigorous definition of gerrymandering that isn't just "I know it when I see it." Even if we try to adopt some sort of strict mathematical criteria and algorithm for redistricting (such as optimizing for "compactness" using a Voronoi algorithm), there would always still be some amount of arbitrary human input that could be gamed (such as the location of seeds, in this example). Even if we went so far as to make a rule that everything must be randomized (which would possibly be bad for things like continuity of representation, by the way), we could still end up with people trying to influence the outcome by re-rolling the dice until they got a result they liked.

It's a hard (in both the computational sense and political sense) problem to solve.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I heard of a test that makes sense, minimally. If you reverse the vote of every single person, the opposite party should win. Apparently there are ways of organizing it where that isn't the case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I wonder if "I know it when I see it" would be good enough if it had to pass a public vote. Do you think the regular people on the street would vote to support gerrymandering? Getting good voter turnout and education is its own set of problems, admittedly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Do you think the regular people on the street would vote to support gerrymandering?

    If their side gets more representation, then yes. Unfortunately people are too focused on the output and not the process.

  • source
  • parent