"The Supreme Court’s attacks on voting rights are about rigging elections for Republicans," said Rep. Greg Casar, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
If you mean an independent commission, some states already use those for redistricting. There’s no need for a computer program.
Or do you mean by state legislatures, that’s already what the most heavily gerrymandered states already use for redistricting. It would make no difference if they were simply “approving” a computer-generated district map (made with algorithms designed by whom?).
The computer program you suggest is entirely unnecessary and superfluous.
Have you ever met a comp sci professor? They’re so cloistered, with no practical understanding of the world beyond the digital. They shouldn’t have anything to do with electoral reform.
Since gerrymandering exists, a computer program is quite necessary.
Gerrymandering has already been solved in most states by utilizing independent redistricting commissions. Only the most backward states still give that task to their legislatures.
That’s what’s desired. Someone who isn’t interested in politics just whether a computer program is biased. All states would have to use the winning computer program.
So now you’re saying the federal government should impose this computer algorithm on the states? Don’t you realize the constitution explicitly gives electoral power to the states?
Your idea just gets worse and worse the more you try to defend it.
Of course there are limits to state powers, and I never claimed otherwise. However, there are also limits to federal powers. And elections are the purview of the states, not the federal government. This is made explicitly clear in the constitution and it’s the way elections have been run for 250 years now.
Of course gerrymandering is disenfranchising voters. That’s what gerrymandering is. But redistricting is not the same thing as gerrymandering.
Plenty of states have protocols for redistricting without gerrymandering. It’s called an independent redistricting commission. It’s non-partisan.
Contrast this with gerrymandered states, where the legislatures handle redistricting, which is partisan by nature.
I lost count of how many times I’ve already explained this to you.
With control of Congress dependent on just a few changes in party affiliation, gerrymandering makes a huge difference. A computer program will completely end gerrymandering.
You continue to ignore what I’m saying. The argument isn’t about whether or not gerrymandering is bad for democracy. Of course it is.
I’m telling you, that gerrymandering has already been solved in many states by using independent redistricting commissions instead of having partisan state legislatures redraw maps.
Computer programs are not guaranteed to end gerrymandering, and instead are more likely to make gerrymandering worse in states that still have gerrymandering.
Peer review by whom?
If you mean an independent commission, some states already use those for redistricting. There’s no need for a computer program.
Or do you mean by state legislatures, that’s already what the most heavily gerrymandered states already use for redistricting. It would make no difference if they were simply “approving” a computer-generated district map (made with algorithms designed by whom?).
The computer program you suggest is entirely unnecessary and superfluous.
Peer-review by university professors of computer science. Since gerrymandering exists, a computer program is quite necessary.
Have you ever met a comp sci professor? They’re so cloistered, with no practical understanding of the world beyond the digital. They shouldn’t have anything to do with electoral reform.
Gerrymandering has already been solved in most states by utilizing independent redistricting commissions. Only the most backward states still give that task to their legislatures.
That’s what’s desired. Someone who isn’t interested in politics just whether a computer program is biased. All states would have to use the winning computer program.
So now you’re saying the federal government should impose this computer algorithm on the states? Don’t you realize the constitution explicitly gives electoral power to the states?
Your idea just gets worse and worse the more you try to defend it.
No, there are limits to state powers. Gerrymandering is essentially disenfranchising some voters.
Of course there are limits to state powers, and I never claimed otherwise. However, there are also limits to federal powers. And elections are the purview of the states, not the federal government. This is made explicitly clear in the constitution and it’s the way elections have been run for 250 years now.
Of course gerrymandering is disenfranchising voters. That’s what gerrymandering is. But redistricting is not the same thing as gerrymandering.
Plenty of states have protocols for redistricting without gerrymandering. It’s called an independent redistricting commission. It’s non-partisan.
Contrast this with gerrymandered states, where the legislatures handle redistricting, which is partisan by nature.
I lost count of how many times I’ve already explained this to you.
With control of Congress dependent on just a few changes in party affiliation, gerrymandering makes a huge difference. A computer program will completely end gerrymandering.
You continue to ignore what I’m saying. The argument isn’t about whether or not gerrymandering is bad for democracy. Of course it is.
I’m telling you, that gerrymandering has already been solved in many states by using independent redistricting commissions instead of having partisan state legislatures redraw maps.
Computer programs are not guaranteed to end gerrymandering, and instead are more likely to make gerrymandering worse in states that still have gerrymandering.