5 ms·

Gerrymandering is a political process; it can't be "solved" with math. I think that's a little too defeatist. It's like saying "tactical voting is a political

Gerrymandering is a political process; it can't be "solved" with math. I think that's a little too defeatist. It's like saying "tactical voting is a political process" and can't be "solved". But you can adopt voting mechanisms that reduce the effect of tactical voting, and many countries have! It doesn't completely solve the problem, sure, but it helps.

thechao 3y ago
Let me drill down to Texas, where I am quite active. I have been privy to a conversation[1] with Governor Abbot where he described in detail his horse-trading to swap precincts between Congressional representatives in order to: (1) maximize the number of GOP seats; and, (2) ensure the 'safety' of the win of preferred US reps. Secondary goals include trying to pass (Texas) constitutional amendments to make the following things illegal in Texas: any voting system that's not first-past-the-post; at large proposition mechanisms; independent citizens redistricting committees; etc. [1] This occurred while I waited in line to vote.
oglop 3y ago
I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree. Maybe I spent too much time in Ohio. You should read up on the maps there and the supreme court fight. Think about human motivations and desires more, and less about a math proof or abstract papers which literally has gone out the window now. People won't follow what a state supreme court jugde tells them, you think a proof will convince them or solve a very deep psychological problem? I don't, I used to, but Ohio cured me of that.
- iainmerrick 3y ago
  Oh, sure, a math proof alone won't make any of the entrenched players change, it would have to be accompanied by new legislation (good luck with that) or a supreme court ruling. I'm just saying, if you did somehow legislate for change, what should the change look like? "Stop gerrymandering", sure, but how? This paper offers a potential solution, or at least a path towards one.

thechao 3y ago

Let me drill down to Texas, where I am quite active. I have been privy to a conversation[1] with Governor Abbot where he described in detail his horse-trading to swap precincts between Congressional representatives in order to: (1) maximize the number of GOP seats; and, (2) ensure the 'safety' of the win of preferred US reps. Secondary goals include trying to pass (Texas) constitutional amendments to make the following things illegal in Texas: any voting system that's not first-past-the-post; at large proposition mechanisms; independent citizens redistricting committees; etc. [1] This occurred while I waited in line to vote.

oglop 3y ago

I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree. Maybe I spent too much time in Ohio. You should read up on the maps there and the supreme court fight. Think about human motivations and desires more, and less about a math proof or abstract papers which literally has gone out the window now. People won't follow what a state supreme court jugde tells them, you think a proof will convince them or solve a very deep psychological problem? I don't, I used to, but Ohio cured me of that.

iainmerrick 3y ago
Oh, sure, a math proof alone won't make any of the entrenched players change, it would have to be accompanied by new legislation (good luck with that) or a supreme court ruling. I'm just saying, if you did somehow legislate for change, what should the change look like? "Stop gerrymandering", sure, but how? This paper offers a potential solution, or at least a path towards one.