4 ms·
I only read the abstract and very briefly skimmed the article, but... So it claims that it doesn't require bipartisan agreement to reach 'optimality'. Fine, I
by jabl 3y ago
I only read the abstract and very briefly skimmed the article, but...
So it claims that it doesn't require bipartisan agreement to reach 'optimality'. Fine, I won't argue that point as I haven't looked that deeply into it.
But it still requires the parties to agree to adopt this Define-Combine procedure in the first place! And why would they do that? They're not, when the rubber hits the road, interested in "optimality" (however you define it), but power. Power at the expense of the other party, to be precise.
- BurningFrog 3y agoAre you just saying that any redistricting method needs to become law?
- cwmma 3y agoThere are a few ways it could happen 1. it's imposed on them by an outside force like through a voter referendum or court order 2. the party is currently in power but thinks it might lose power soon, they could adopt this on the way out to limit the ability of the opposition to get a supermajority but in a way that will be harder for opponents to object to compared to other things they could try.
- Jensson 3y ago> Power at the expense of the other party, to be precise. Power at the expense of the people, that is the most important part by far. Gerrymandering corrupts the democracy by devaluing votes, giving more power to current politicians regardless of side. Giving power back to the people almost never happens.