for redistricting and for other purposes (e.g., continuously adjusting tax schedules) is that it allows everyone to talk about the underlying principles in a way that the current ad-hoc methodology does not. Furthermore, it allows for the system to have tunable quantitative parameters that can be discussed and altered over time without changing the basic algorithm. I have long believed that it's a general approach whose time has come (years ago) and that should be implemented with all due haste.

Greg Shenaut

Great point. I imagine a lot of the debate would come down to which variables should be allowed. As one of the researchers at the conference pointed out, Ronald Reagan is on the record as saying, “There is only one way to do reapportionment — feed into the computer all the factors except political registration.” Most people would probably want some sort of indication of political distribution. Information like where the incumbents live is much more debatable.

I agree that such an approach would require a discussion and consensus on basic principles and goals. But good luck with that!

Ronald Reagan is on the record as saying, “There is only one way to do reapportionment — feed into the computer all the factors except political registration.”

That seems really brain-dead, even for Reagan. For one thing, there are plenty of proxies for political affiliation that don't involve knowing registration. For another, "feeding it into the computer" is meaningless.

Keep in mind that when Reagan was president, computers in the popular conception were these magical black boxes that could calculate missile trajectories and process over nine tax returns a day. I'll forgive him his digital misconception on the assumption that he meant something closer to 'exclude political affiliation from the reapportionment algorithm.'

Also, demographics are only indicators for political affiliation to the extent that a particular party crafts its own political identity. Case in point: see how quickly the Southern Democrats became the Neo-con Bible-belt Republicans.

Oh I get it...kinda like not being able to explain how pro handicappers have no better percentage picking NFL games than the monkey on the Bob and Tom radio show, right?

The basic principle that all incumbents and party leaders agree on is that safe seats for my party are the best, followed by competitive seats, followed by safe seats for the other party. Thus the goal is to maximize my safe seats and minimize those of the other party.

This is the constitutional intent. All else is obfuscation.

Oh that's a good one! I did not know Reagan didn't know the difference between reapportionment and redistricting! But geez, I'm not surprised!