Good luck getting a fix based on that implemented. Republicans didn't even want to believe in statistical sampling for correcting obvious errors in census data. "The text clearly says Actual Enumeration!! Originalism!!"
I'm sure as soon as we patiently explain the reasoning, they'll come around.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his reelection depends on his not understanding it.
Good timing, for a gerrymandering post. This article has me feeling depressed.
As far as the OP, if I were to nit-pick the listed criteria, I would say (a) that they're all after-the-fact measures. Which means that they wouldn't allow any challenges until after the election and allows for the defense of, "who's to say that these discrepancies will continue; they could have just been coincidental outcomes of this one election."
That is to say, I'm not sure they would be a good basis for a legal challenge to gerrymandering, but they might be a good way to produce a time series tracking how gerrymandering has changed over time.
1. The constitution does say that in those words. I thought that Democrats were arguing to use the corrected figures for various spending purposes and not redistricting.
I thought that Democrats were arguing to use the corrected figures for various spending purposes and not redistricting.
This is basically what I'm in favor of. If you open up the redistricting process to statistical jiggering, it creates a whole new can of worms.
The Republican Party, on the heels of a sweeping loss to Barack Obama in 2008, hatched a scheme it called REDMAP
I hear these are poorly digested by the short intestine.
If you want something not-beautiful there's always this lovely opinion by noted genius Antonin Scalia which concludes (and this really isn't a particularly unfair summary) that because Antonin Scalia can't think of any good standard for figuring out partisan gerrymandering none exist and therefore federal courts can't hear partisan gerrymandering cases.
Talk about scheming, conniving GOP plots to rig elections, this is a doozy. You'd think there's be a simpler way.
Looks like we will have to cancel the election. Like they did in Haiti.
Maybe it's the Russians? Back it the day the Birchers and suchlike Right Thinking Americans believed so. I think even the Reader's Digest bought into the idea, in an "it could happen" way.
Dammit, all my cable channels come out of Miami. I'm going to be pissed if Pitch gets pre-empted for storm coverage.
1: it's kind of amazing that the method of least squares wasn't discovered until 20 years after the Constitution. The founders didn't know statistics from their ass.