Rethinking redistricting

One only has to look at a map of Oklahoma showing the counties and one showing the districts to see the way they are drawn up makes no sense. All they have to do is insert a little common sense into the mix and things would sort themselves out. Reckon there is a chance they will do that?

There are a number of people who have proposed different ways of doing redistricting, but most of them fail, ultimately, because they involve some "judgment," which ends up being the camel's nose in the tent.

Perhaps a better solution, all in, is to move to a mathematical solution which removes all decision-making from the politicians, their assistants, and their consultants. Here is a link to an article (of which there are many) about a mathematical solution:

http://rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html

Here's a simplified version of the algorithm:

1. Start with the boundary outline of the state.

2. Let N=A+B where A and B are as nearly equal whole numbers as possible.
(For example, 7=4+3. More precisely, A = ⌈N/2⌉, B=⌊N/2⌋.)

3. Among all possible dividing lines that split the state into two parts with population ratio A:B, choose the shortest.

4. We now have two hemi-states, each to contain a specified number (namely A and B) of districts. Handle them recursively via the same splitting procedure.

And here's the rationale:

"The advantage of having a purely mathematical definition of the district shapes is that there is absolutely no room whatsoever for bias or any freedom of choice at all by district drawers. That shuts the gerrymanderers down. Period."

Hmmmm. I dig the math. I especially relish the goal of "no room for...the district drawers". But further reflection suggested at least one means of the 'law of unintended consequences' to strike. Since the algorithm depends on population, what's to keep the 'powers that be' from doing stuff to make people move?

Douglas, thanks for stopping by, and thanks for that link. Very interesting approach, and generally I like the idea of computer generated maps. I have one major qualm with this particular method: I think it's important for a district lines to correspond (as closely as possible with equal-population districts) to communities of interest, and for that reason, redistricting ought to take jurisdictional, educational, and topographical boundaries into account. Rather than use arbitrary straight lines, you could have an algorithm follow county, municipal, school district, and (where fine precision is required) precinct boundaries. When even finer boundaries are needed to get closer to equal population, the algorithm could prefer major rivers, expressways, and major arterial streets. In fact, this is the approach Iowa used in their 2001 redistricting. Congressional districts embraced whole counties; legislative districts went down to municipal, township, and (within large cities) precinct boundaries.

But Iowa has an advantage that southern tier states don't have: Iowa isn't under the scrutiny of the Voting Rights Act. Many of the states with the worst gerrymanders are effectively required (under threat of lawsuit) to ensure no more than a 1 person variance between congressional districts. They are also required to create "majority-minority" districts, and often the only way to put enough members of a minority group to constitute a majority in a district is to connect geographically distant concentrations of minority groups with narrow strips of land. It's an absurd outcome, but it's linked to federal jurisprudence over redistricting plans, particularly in the years leading up to the 1990 census.

I favor redistricting by computer, where the computer knows where people live, city or even neighborhood boundaries, major streets, rivers, and other geographical elements, but absolutely no knowledge of how they voted, and having the computer programmed to make districts as compact as possible