> This sounds somewhat promising. Can you cite any sources on the > mathematically unsolvable nature of this problem, or expand on that a > little bit?
This is a technical topic but optimization problems of this type are computationally NP hard to solve. Doing this would be radical departure from current practice because even small shifts in population probably would result in very different districts. I don't think drastic changes to the districts every ten years is bad. Term limits are popular and in my opinion this a better way to implement a type of term limit. It doesn't prevent incumbents from being candidates, so in that sense it is less strict then term limits, but it also doesn't assure a seat for a particular party, and in that sense is more effective than term limits in making elections more competitive. Also, constraints can be placed on optimization models so that other goals, in addition to small perimeter sums, such as minority representation, could be specified, although there is a risk that piling on constraints could make the problem infeasible. A better way to assure racial/ethnic/religious/political minorities can get candidates elected is to use some type of proportional representation system. For example, California could use a system like that used in Peoria, Ill. for municipal elections. Instead of electing 40 state senators from 40 districts, voters in 10 districts could elect four senators each. Candidates who win at least a quarter of the vote would earn a seat (it is more complicated then this since it will often be the case that four candidates do not each receive at least a quarter of the votes but that is another topic). These districts would be far more likely to be bipartisan, even electing some urban Republicans and rural Democrats. ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
