Thanks for explanation :) No, Slovenia did not apply my method in the law yet. I just applied it to our territory in my thesis. However, if the Constitutional Court sais that I am right, we will see what will happen. What I expect is that they will say that the present district plan is malapportioned and the parliament will form a commission to develop a new plan. Since I am he only person researching malapportionment and gerrymandering issues in Slovenia (remember, we are a small country) probably I will be one of the members of this commission and then I will try to force through my method.
Presently Slovenia is divided into 8 11-member districts. The deviation is about 6% from the average district. That means that the largest district is about 12% larger than the smallest district. Since districts are 11-member the deviation 10% means that a deviation of one whole representative. In US the permitted deviation at state-level and at local-level is about 10%. However, your districts are singlemember. 10% in a singlemember district means 10% of a representative while in an 11-member district 10% means one whole representative. Therefore I think our redistricting scheme is malapportioned. Jure ps. If my English was fluent you would not misunderstand me, right? And if my English was fluent I would not misanderstand Josh either :))) ----- Original Message ----- From: Alex Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 8:41 PM Subject: re: [EM] More on Gerrymander prevention > Jurij- > > "Tantalizingly" means "very interestingly, in a manner that makes one want > to know more." (my definition, not a dictionary). > > You wrote in a previous message that you had applied your study of > redistricting to your country. I thought (and I assume Josh did too) that > you were suggesting that you had in fact actually persuaded the government > to implement your proposed redistricting method. To hear that somebody on > the list had actually reformed an entire country's redistricting laws would > be very exciting. Because you didn't actually say that, but it sounded > like that might be the case, it was very "tantalizing", we wanted to know > more. > > The ambiguity had nothing to do with your English, of course (I've never > noticed any language errors in your posts, I assume you are very fluent). > The ambiguity was solely from lack of detail. > > The fact that you contributed to a case before your country's > Constitutional Court is very interesting, and inspiring to those of us who > want to see election reforms in our own countries. Even though the truth > is not quite as grand as one might have guessed from the original message, > it's still very impressive. > > Alex >
