3 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoIt 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 agoSure, 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.