I believe the brute force approach of just solving the NP-hard redistricting problem perfectly, is not feasible. There are probably ten-thousands of census blocks and exponential runtimes with that much input just do not happen, even with all the computer power on the planet on your side.
Occasionally it is possible to reduce the growth constant in the exponential to incredibly small values, but I doubt that is the case here, and even if it were, then we could not be sure it would always work after the census data changed next time. Also, even if exact solve were possible, then there would be a lot of subjective input about "transportation lanes" etc. The CRV web site now proposes a redistricting scheme that totally prevents gerrymandering, is simple, produces nice-shaped districts. Click "Ballot Initiative" or "gerrymandering" on the CRV page http://math.temple.edu/~wds/crv/RangeVoting.html It is in fact an outgrowth of ideas on EM that were brought to my attention by Adam Tarr, but it does not involve subjective input nor does it require doing anything NP-hard. I continue to recommend joining CRV. It is now possible to do so *both* by joining the Range Voting email list at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/ *or* by joining CRV itself to try to help with our action campaigns in the future (click "join/volunteer" on the CRV web page) -wds ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
