3 ms·
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 yo
by 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 agoIn 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.