3 ms·

There's almost always an efficiency gap. To judge whether an efficiency gap is disqualifying for a map depends on what other maps might be drawn- is this effici

by jpfed 9y ago

There's almost always an efficiency gap. To judge whether an efficiency gap is disqualifying for a map depends on what other maps might be drawn- is this efficiency gap unusual given how the voters are distributed?

trendia 9y ago
> To judge whether an efficiency gap is disqualifying for a map depends on what other maps might be drawn This is false. Efficiency has been applied by the Supreme Court to mean precise mathematical equality, rather than an approximate or relative metric [0]. For instance, if the populations of two districts is not exactly equal according to the most recent census data, then the district must be explicitly justified. Quote [1]: > But in Kirkpatrick v. Preisler,288 a sharply divided Court announced the rule that a State must make a “good-faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality.”289 Therefore, “[u]nless population variances among congressional districts are shown to have resulted despite such [good-faith] effort [to achieve precise mathematical equality], the State must justify each variance, no matter how small.” We would expect that the Supreme Court would apply the same mathematical exactness to the efficiency gap, should they find the efficiency gap a valid measure of gerrymandering. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sanders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sanders [1] http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/05-congressional-districting.html http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/05-congressiona...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jpfed 9y ago
  I don't understand how your first cite says what you say it says. Neither the word "efficiency" nor the notion of [voter] efficiency appear in your link. Do you just mean that SCOTUS has in some cases striven for mathematical precision and this leads you to extrapolate that they will think any non-zero efficiency gap disqualifies a map?
  - trendia 9y ago
    In the population of districts case, there was an objective measurement: the difference in population of two districts. Then, the defendents made a subjective argument that they were "close enough". However, the Supreme Court doesn't like to replace an objective measurement (population) with a subjective one ("close enough"ness). So, in this case we have an objective measurement -- voter efficiency -- and a subjective one -- "what do other maps look like". If we can sometimes reject the objective measurement in favor of the subjective one, then it's not really ready to be applied as the standard by our highest court.

by jpfed 9y ago

trendia 9y ago

> To judge whether an efficiency gap is disqualifying for a map depends on what other maps might be drawn This is false. Efficiency has been applied by the Supreme Court to mean precise mathematical equality, rather than an approximate or relative metric [0]. For instance, if the populations of two districts is not exactly equal according to the most recent census data, then the district must be explicitly justified. Quote [1]: > But in Kirkpatrick v. Preisler,288 a sharply divided Court announced the rule that a State must make a “good-faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality.”289 Therefore, “[u]nless population variances among congressional districts are shown to have resulted despite such [good-faith] effort [to achieve precise mathematical equality], the State must justify each variance, no matter how small.” We would expect that the Supreme Court would apply the same mathematical exactness to the efficiency gap, should they find the efficiency gap a valid measure of gerrymandering. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sanders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sanders [1] http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/05-congressional-districting.html http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/05-congressiona...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jpfed 9y ago
I don't understand how your first cite says what you say it says. Neither the word "efficiency" nor the notion of [voter] efficiency appear in your link. Do you just mean that SCOTUS has in some cases striven for mathematical precision and this leads you to extrapolate that they will think any non-zero efficiency gap disqualifies a map?
- trendia 9y ago
  In the population of districts case, there was an objective measurement: the difference in population of two districts. Then, the defendents made a subjective argument that they were "close enough". However, the Supreme Court doesn't like to replace an objective measurement (population) with a subjective one ("close enough"ness). So, in this case we have an objective measurement -- voter efficiency -- and a subjective one -- "what do other maps look like". If we can sometimes reject the objective measurement in favor of the subjective one, then it's not really ready to be applied as the standard by our highest court.