"Simple" question What is the goal of a "not-gerrymandered" district?
Gerrymandered seems to have the old "I know it when I see it" definition. But what does Not-Gerrymandered mean? The US states, as a whole, given the age and stability of their borders, probably represent the closest thing to "not gerrymandered" and you can see that most behave as packed districts. *By age and stability, meaning that enough time has passed that the original purpose of the borders placement has faded into the background, and population moves could have conceivably (if not in actuality) changed any "party picking" done in the establishment of the border. Barring Alaska/Hawaii, the youngest states are now over 100 years old. That's alot of time for population shifts to occur.
So, when it comes to re-districting, what does "not Gerrymandered" like?
Another hypothetical purley "not gerrymandered" concept would be to randomly assign each person in the state to a virtual district. There's no borders, and in essence a state would have a number of state-wide elections equal to their rep count, with the voters being randomly assigned. This means each virtual district would have a proportion of voters nearly identical to the statewide distribution. The outcome of which would be, in all likelihood, that virtually all reps would end up with the party that has the majority in the state.
So, from a "pure" not-gerrymandered standpoint, Natural borders and pure randomized, both end up having "gerrymandered-like" impact that is often fought against.
So, when it comes to re-districting, what does "not Gerrymandered" like?
Gerrymandered seems to have the old "I know it when I see it" definition. But what does Not-Gerrymandered mean? The US states, as a whole, given the age and stability of their borders, probably represent the closest thing to "not gerrymandered" and you can see that most behave as packed districts. *By age and stability, meaning that enough time has passed that the original purpose of the borders placement has faded into the background, and population moves could have conceivably (if not in actuality) changed any "party picking" done in the establishment of the border. Barring Alaska/Hawaii, the youngest states are now over 100 years old. That's alot of time for population shifts to occur.
So, when it comes to re-districting, what does "not Gerrymandered" like?
Another hypothetical purley "not gerrymandered" concept would be to randomly assign each person in the state to a virtual district. There's no borders, and in essence a state would have a number of state-wide elections equal to their rep count, with the voters being randomly assigned. This means each virtual district would have a proportion of voters nearly identical to the statewide distribution. The outcome of which would be, in all likelihood, that virtually all reps would end up with the party that has the majority in the state.
So, from a "pure" not-gerrymandered standpoint, Natural borders and pure randomized, both end up having "gerrymandered-like" impact that is often fought against.
So, when it comes to re-districting, what does "not Gerrymandered" like?
Comment