54 ms·
I've long wondered how much you could reduce (obviously not eliminate) gerrymandering with a minimum compactness requirement for the shape of each district. Or
by dangerlibrary 12y ago
I've long wondered how much you could reduce (obviously not eliminate) gerrymandering with a minimum compactness requirement for the shape of each district. Or maybe a requirement that all districts must be convex polygons (with allowances for concave state borders)? I think convex polygons map pretty closely to what most people expect districts to look like, and it prevents compact but still problematic "fat horseshoe" shaped districts.
I have a hard time figuring out if this is just a case of me reaching for my mathematical hammer, or if this would actually help.
- maxerickson 12y agoIt's probably an overcorrection to never take into account whether the people represented by a seat have something in common. A cartoon example would be 4 counties arranged in a square, where one of the counties has a city that is roughly equal in population to the 3 other counties combined (or so). 2 equal shaped districts, with the city chopped in half, is not obviously a better arrangement than a district mostly comprised of the city and one mostly comprised of the outlying areas. I agree that "voting history" isn't a great thing to be considering as something people have in common (at a minimum, it shouldn't be a high priority).
- dangerlibrary 12y agoI was thinking more that compactness and/or convex polygon-ness could just be necessary constraints, not sufficient. You'd still get to draw the lines in ways that split the state's population according to shifting population and demographics, but you wouldn't be able to draw districts that are quite so crazy looking.