"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.
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.
But what about states which use gerrymandering? These are enough to shift the balance of power in the House of Representatives. Computer programs are guaranteed to end gerrymandering. Peer-review of the winning program will ensure that. How will a computer program which is required to be used by all states make gerrymandering worse?
Computer programs are guaranteed to end gerrymandering.
No they’re fucking not!
How will a computer program which is required to be used by all states make gerrymandering worse?
Because according to the Constitution, the federal government cannot dictate how states run elections.
How fucking many times do I need to repeat that?
University CS departments don’t write government policy, either, and would not be the ones to write that algorithms. There would be no “peer review” like you’re imagining. Realistically, you’d be putting a lot of trust in whomever the sitting congress decides to commission for that computer program. If it were this one, it would probably go to one of their buddies to ensure the continued ratfucking of democracy by the republican party.
So it’s a good fucking thing the Constitution doesn’t allow that!
Yes, gerrymandering is a problem. But that’s up to the states to fix. Some states refuse to, because they’re already gerrymandered and it benefits the party with legislative majorities in those states (usually republicans) to continue gerrymandering. That’s why it’s such a stubborn problem that hasn’t been fixed yet.
A solution already exists though, it’s called an independent redistricting commission, which most states already use anyway. It’s just that some continue to refuse to change so that they can keep gerrymandering. That’s the problem, and a computer program won’t fix it.
States have limits on what they can do. They cannot disenfranchise voters which is what gerrymandering does. The US government would have companies bid on a computer districting program. The winning program would be subject to peer review by university computer science professors to ensure the integrity of the program. All states would be required to use the program. In contrast, you have no solution to forcing states to adopt independent redistricting commission. Also, these states would probably fill the commission with biased people.
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.
But what about states which use gerrymandering? These are enough to shift the balance of power in the House of Representatives. Computer programs are guaranteed to end gerrymandering. Peer-review of the winning program will ensure that. How will a computer program which is required to be used by all states make gerrymandering worse?
No they’re fucking not!
Because according to the Constitution, the federal government cannot dictate how states run elections.
How fucking many times do I need to repeat that?
University CS departments don’t write government policy, either, and would not be the ones to write that algorithms. There would be no “peer review” like you’re imagining. Realistically, you’d be putting a lot of trust in whomever the sitting congress decides to commission for that computer program. If it were this one, it would probably go to one of their buddies to ensure the continued ratfucking of democracy by the republican party.
So it’s a good fucking thing the Constitution doesn’t allow that!
Yes, gerrymandering is a problem. But that’s up to the states to fix. Some states refuse to, because they’re already gerrymandered and it benefits the party with legislative majorities in those states (usually republicans) to continue gerrymandering. That’s why it’s such a stubborn problem that hasn’t been fixed yet.
A solution already exists though, it’s called an independent redistricting commission, which most states already use anyway. It’s just that some continue to refuse to change so that they can keep gerrymandering. That’s the problem, and a computer program won’t fix it.
States have limits on what they can do. They cannot disenfranchise voters which is what gerrymandering does. The US government would have companies bid on a computer districting program. The winning program would be subject to peer review by university computer science professors to ensure the integrity of the program. All states would be required to use the program. In contrast, you have no solution to forcing states to adopt independent redistricting commission. Also, these states would probably fill the commission with biased people.