On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Juho <juho4...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > My thinking is that it might be easier to agree about the targets rather > than the whole procedure. The targets can be simpler to define. Following > Raph Franks model it would be thus enough to say that any N points and the > kn values and then derive the border lines and the jointly agreed value of > the solution from this data. That would not leave much space for strategies > and gerrymandering. The proposed solutions would be evaluated and the one > with best value would be declared the winner.
Well, ideally the method should be a well defined process rather than an optimisation method. It would take as its input a set of points and output a map. Splitline also requires a description of the State boundary. However, it would be perfectly valid to give a measure and then allow anyone submit a map districting. I think that if the block boundaries are decided before the census and the number of blocks is large enough (say 100-300 people per block on average), then it would be hard to gerrymander using block boundaries. The process could be something like - based on the old census, define the blocks for the new census -- A group of contiguous old blocks with population < 500 may be combined into a new block -- Old blocks may be split into pieces ---- (if > 1000*N, it must be split into N+1 parts) -- otherwise, the blocks shall remain the same as previously - Geographic data is released - Hold census - Population data is released - Format for maps is published - Anyone can submit a map - best map after 6 months wins. Ofc, that requires that the SC is able to determine which map wins based on the description of the measure in the legislation. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info