From: Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Agreed that redistricting should be based only on the decennial census - what was done in Texas needs forbidding.
Btw, what is your opinion on having districts setup so that a minority group can get a reasonable number of seats ? > Likewise what they were doing about safe seats. Still, any formula based on parties is dangerous, for there is > too much temptation to make it favor the formula writers. I agree, the rules generally shouldn't refer to parties. However, I couldn't see how you would figure out what the expected vote would be in each district as the computer balances them. > What happens if Frisco is heavily Dem and LA is heavily Rep? In both places, alot of the districts would be balanced 50/50 and also the party with the most support would have a few districts where it has higher support. For example, if there was 10 seats, 5 might be "safe" and the other 5 would be optimised to be reasonably close to 50/50. > So I favor neutrality, based on the formulas not being allowed to KNOW anything about registration or voting. > BUT, I would expand "contiguous" - some initial thoughts: > Hudson River: Lower Hudson is not crossable, so should be considered a solid wall > when measuring distances. It is crossable at bridges, so consider them an expense to cross. > Other boundaries such as lakes, railroads, and expressways - consider crossability. > Manhattan - count most of the bridges and tunnels a solid wall. > Staten Island - water around it is mostly a solid wall except, if it is worth 2.5 districts, count > the bridge to Brooklyn as connecting two half districts. > County boundaries: > Need a bit of porosity, for some counties cannot hold whole districts. > Need some resistance, to discourage excessive crossing. > Other boundaries such as towns and cities - still trying to favor keeping communities > together - and having districts share boundaries. What about - the centre is the point inside the district that minimises the total distance from residents to the centre - distances are calculated as travelled by road - 1 mile (or some distance) is added to the distance for every boundary passed through (county/city) This would mean that the all else being equal, the district boundaries would not cross county boundaries. I would still like a way to make it so that all districts are reasonably competitive. What about the following: Voters are also asked who they would have voted for if they were to vote in the nearest neighbouring district. This would mean that information would be available on what would happen if a specific polling booth was to be swapped from one district to that neighbour. This could allow the districts to be updated after each election, keeping them as close to un-safe as possible. This would make the government very dependant on "swing" since the previous election. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info