Ernie--
I'd said:
Hexagons sounds good, till you consider that they won't work at the borders
of the state being districted. Since district shapes can't be hexagons at
the state's borders, why bother making hexagons in the interior?
You wrote:
For the record, I wasn't suggesting an explicit m
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Bart Ingles wrote:
> Bart Ingles wrote:
> > The main reason is that, while we have no information about the voters'
> > utilities for each candidate, the voters themselves surely would.
> >
> MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
> > They don't. That's the assumption. All I said was that, if a
Ernest Prabhakar wrote:
So, why not always choose the generic unit "census tracts"? Does
anyone know exactly how those are defined? They should be small enough
to be immune from gerrymandering, but easier to manage than block-level
data (which I don't think is always well-defined, anyway).
Mat
Hi Matt,
On Jan 10, 2004, at 10:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For this to be a generally applicable approach I think we need a
reasonably objective procedure for dividing large municipalities into
smaller units and some reasonably objective procedure for identifying
when a municipality should
On Jan 9, 2004, at 6:53 AM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
The method that you described is Schwartz PC.
Ah, okay. After experimenting with all these advanced proposals, I end
up "rediscovering" Plain Condorcet. :-)
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2000/debian-vote-22/
msg00014.html
Of course Pl
Toplak Jurij wrote"
Matemathically there are many ways we can arrange these 50 municipalities in 4
districts, but there is only one under which the population variance is smallest
possible. This procedure does not involve decisions of human factor, except for =
the decision on the procedure use
