Dr.Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
This brings us back to the question of automated redistricting. We've often discussed how the 'fairest' algorithm would use a measure such as "minimizing lanes of traffic cut by the circumference" by combining census tracts while ensuring equal-population districts. Its easy to get an approximate answer from this criteria using various statistical means, but is there any computationally feasible way to get a *deterministic" answer that is at least near-optimal? Otherwise, I fear that people will either create pseudo-statistical results, or challenge truly random results due to their fear of (random) biases.
Well, it's not really deterministic (in the sense that the results are repeatable), but one could could put the districting maps on the ballot along with the candidate. Each candidate could provide their own districting map (or use their party's map), and have the voters decide which one they liked the best. They could then use that map in the election to count the votes for various offices.
Of course, there are some potential drawbacks. A candidate might not know exactly where he should be campaigning (that auditorium that so warmly received him might end up in someone else's district), he might not live in the district he represents, and it's even conceivable that a person could win in more than one district. I like the fact that it puts a bit of uncertainty in an incumbant's mind, though one could always have the map go into effect for the *next* election, which would remove such concerns.
If you preferred an automated, repeatable method, you might look up Voronoi diagrams and Dirichlet tessellations, which are pretty useful for breaking a map into simple, compact spaces.
Mike Rouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
