3 ms·
The real punchline to this article occurs near the end: "But maybe this allergy to statistical evidence is really a smoke screen — a convenient way to make a d
by vannevar 9y ago
The real punchline to this article occurs near the end:
"But maybe this allergy to statistical evidence is really a smoke screen — a convenient way to make a decision based on ideology while couching it in terms of practicality."
As a data scientist and former attorney, I can tell you that these people understand the math. This isn't about understanding, it's about giving up power. Judges do not want the law to act mechanically on important issues---if it did, who would need them? They want subjective terms in the law, subject to interpretation, so that they have some freedom to change outcomes that seem unjust to them. They want that power. And if they start ceding it to algorithms, their role will be diminished.
- peoplewindow 9y agoIt seems more like a structural flaw in how the law is written. Arguably if a case makes it to the SC then it means the law was ambiguous to start with. For something like boundary allocations an algorithm could have been written into the law directly by lawmakers. Why does this even end up in front of the Supremes?
- vannevar 9y agoSwitching to a fair districting algorithm will never benefit the party in power, since by definition the existing law put them there. The only change they're going to want to make is in the direction of further bias.
- peoplewindow 9y agoThe UK is successfully going through a re-districting process at the moment. So I don't think it's impossible.