3 ms·
The are several algorithms which could fairly and objectively divide up a region, like by minimizing the surface area of a number of equal population squares. S
by akvadrako 5y ago
The are several algorithms which could fairly and objectively divide up a region, like by minimizing the surface area of a number of equal population squares. So technically it's easy to solve.
The problem the courts have identified is that there are multiple ways to do it and each will benefit one side over another. So the court has no way to say which is correct and force a place to use a single algorithm.
But this is something the legislature could easily do - any algorithm is better than what we have now, it just needs to be fixed once and put into the constitution so it's hard to change.
- kqr 5y agoThe problem of picking one thing is that obviously if the thing getting picked isn't in your favour you generally have a legitimate case in calling bias. ...unless there's a random element to it, so that at the time of picking a method the pickers have no way of knowing what party it will swing in favour of. Then there's no way to claim they made a biased choice, as long as the expectation of the randomness is zero.
- sneak 5y ago> So technically it's easy to solve. The problem is not the assignment of the dividing lines. The problem is getting millions of people to agree to a new and different system: the tyranny of the installed base. Writing and releasing the patch is trivial. "Solving" also means deployment.
- kuang_eleven 5y agoAn even bigger issue is that most algorithmic districting would violate the Voting Rights Act, strangely! There are many, many requirements to designing what seems like a "good" set of district boundaries, but several of them are contradictory! An excellent source to see such a algorithm in action is https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/#Compact https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/#Com...