3 ms·

Fun fact: "gerrymander" is a portmanteau of the name "Gerry" and "salamander." Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed the state's initial electoral distr

Fun fact: "gerrymander" is a portmanteau of the name "Gerry" and "salamander." Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed the state's initial electoral districts into law (which his party had drawn in their favor), and one of the districts looked like a salamander.

caf 10y ago
Compared to the utterly indefensible PA-7, the salamander district looks like a model of propriety ( http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Graphic/2007/05/31/1180605109_1489-1.jpg http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Graphic/2007/05/31/... )
- tunesmith 10y ago
  Can PA-7 be deemed indefensible for reasons other than how it looks? Not a leading question, I wonder if there are statistical data about it. You could argue that if you drew proportional representation as districts (basically: pointillism) it'd make PA-7 look wonderful in comparison.
  - caf 10y ago
    It is abundantly clear that that district has been drawn in the way it has for nakedly political reasons, and not to group together contiguous communities of interest. You could argue that if you drew proportional representation as districts (basically: pointillism) it'd make PA-7 look wonderful in comparison. If you argued that, you'd be wrong. Proportional representation districts should group together communities of interest in exactly the same way as single-member districts - the only difference is that PR districts are represented by more than one representative.
    - tunesmith 10y ago
      Sure, if you just completely redefine my point. But if you take a PR "district", like a state, with multiple representatives, and imagine them a a collection of single-representative districts, they're about as far from contiguous as you get. I'm not arguing PA-7 isn't a problem. But I don't think "looks" is a good standard. What's better is something like the standards being argued in the current Wisconsin case that I think might still be going to the Supreme Court.

caf 10y ago

Compared to the utterly indefensible PA-7, the salamander district looks like a model of propriety ( http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Graphic/2007/05/31/1180605109_1489-1.jpg http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Graphic/2007/05/31/... )

tunesmith 10y ago
Can PA-7 be deemed indefensible for reasons other than how it looks? Not a leading question, I wonder if there are statistical data about it. You could argue that if you drew proportional representation as districts (basically: pointillism) it'd make PA-7 look wonderful in comparison.
- caf 10y ago
  It is abundantly clear that that district has been drawn in the way it has for nakedly political reasons, and not to group together contiguous communities of interest. You could argue that if you drew proportional representation as districts (basically: pointillism) it'd make PA-7 look wonderful in comparison. If you argued that, you'd be wrong. Proportional representation districts should group together communities of interest in exactly the same way as single-member districts - the only difference is that PR districts are represented by more than one representative.
  - tunesmith 10y ago
    Sure, if you just completely redefine my point. But if you take a PR "district", like a state, with multiple representatives, and imagine them a a collection of single-representative districts, they're about as far from contiguous as you get. I'm not arguing PA-7 isn't a problem. But I don't think "looks" is a good standard. What's better is something like the standards being argued in the current Wisconsin case that I think might still be going to the Supreme Court.