[IP] Re: Redistricting: Problem and Proposed Solution

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Turner, Jim" <Jim.Turner@mail.house.gov>
Date: February 15, 2007 6:22:06 PM EST
To: "'dave@farber.net'" <dave@farber.net>, ip@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: [IP] Re: Redistricting: Problem and Proposed Solution

Dave,

     Scientists and Engineers for America, www.sefora.org , is going  
to put
together a group later this year to think through this issue in the  
hopes of
being ready with an appropriate mathematical approach for  
redistricting and
court challenges after the 2010 census.  Anyone who wants to participate
could contact me at my home email. jameshturnerjr@gmail.com

Jim Turner

-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 3:25 PM
To: ip@v2.listbox.com
Subject: [IP] Re: Redistricting: Problem and Proposed Solution



Begin forwarded message:

From: Dennis Paull <dpaull@svpal.org>
Date: February 15, 2007 2:50:29 PM EST
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: Re: [IP] Redistricting: Problem and Proposed Solution

Hi David,

This is my response to Stephen Unger's proposal, for IP if you choose.

I agree completely that a simple, unambiguous procedure for
redistricting is very desirable.
However the proposed solution ignores some important additional
considerations. These are
political subdivisions and geography.

I think it very desirable for district boundaries to follow existing
city and county boundaries
wherever possible. And, of course, it needs to follow precinct
boundaries as well. Since
precincts are usually pretty small, that should not be too much of a
problem.

Geography is another matter completely, since there is no nice
definition of a geographically
compact region. Gerrymandering has already created districts that
cross major rivers and
mountain ranges, for example. In general, I propose that districts
should be as compact as
possible and not unnecessarily cross geographic boundaries..

Proportional representation seems like an appropriate solution but
suffers from the fact that
the candidates must be ordered in some way so that if a party gets X%
of the vote, the top
X% of the party's candidates get elected. But who orders the party
list? Is it the party
leaders, the voters, a random number generator or who?

Thanks, Dave, for allowing this topic onto your IP list.

Dennis Paull
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
650-712-0498

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

David Farber wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Stephen Unger <unger@cs.columbia.edu>
> Date: February 15, 2007 11:22:46 AM EST
> To: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>, ip@v2.listbox.com
> Subject: Redistricting: Problem and Proposed Solution
>
> Redistricting is a perennial (used to be every decade, but now
> cropping up more often) problem that significantly distorts the
> political arena. For example, there are a number of states where,
> despite having received many fewer total votes in elections for the
> House,
> the Republicans have won most of the seats as a result of
> gerrymandering.  (Of course BOTH parties have done this sort of thing
> for two centuries.)
>
> Setting rules for redistricting is very difficult, even in
> principle. But there is a very nice mathematical solution that is
> inherently neutral,leaving no room for manipulation.
>
> I have just posted an article describing the problem and solution
> on my
> blog at:
> http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/myBlog/endsandmeansblog.html
>
> (An earlier posting on the blog is a somewhat revised version of my
> e-voting article.)
>
> Steve
> ............
>
>
> -------------------------------------------


-------------------------------------------


-------------------------------------------