• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    In order to do that, we need a rigorous definition of gerrymandering that isn’t just “I know it when I see it.” Even if we try to adopt some sort of strict mathematical criteria and algorithm for redistricting (such as optimizing for “compactness” using a Voronoi algorithm), there would always still be some amount of arbitrary human input that could be gamed (such as the location of seeds, in this example). Even if we went so far as to make a rule that everything must be randomized (which would possibly be bad for things like continuity of representation, by the way), we could still end up with people trying to influence the outcome by re-rolling the dice until they got a result they liked.

    It’s a hard (in both the computational sense and political sense) problem to solve.

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      24 hours ago

      I wonder if “I know it when I see it” would be good enough if it had to pass a public vote. Do you think the regular people on the street would vote to support gerrymandering? Getting good voter turnout and education is its own set of problems, admittedly.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Do you think the regular people on the street would vote to support gerrymandering?

        If their side gets more representation, then yes. Unfortunately people are too focused on the output and not the process.

    • layzerjeyt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      I heard of a test that makes sense, minimally. If you reverse the vote of every single person, the opposite party should win. Apparently there are ways of organizing it where that isn’t the case.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        That only works if there are only two parties. I’d prefer a solution that works with electoral reform, not against it.

        • layzerjeyt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          but since there are 2 parties it complies with your request of

          a rigorous definition of gerrymandering that isn’t just “I know it when I see it.”

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        To make aure I understand, you mean that if you reverse the vote of every district the state should see the opposite party winning?