> raphfrk> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 1:54 PM > I was trying to think of a reasonable definition of the shape of a > district such that it would be "reasonably contiguous"
I am well aware that we use different dictionaries on the east and west sides of the Atlantic Ocean for our "common language", but here (UK) "contiguous" means touching; in the present context, sharing a common boundary. "Contiguous" tells us nothing about the "compactness" of the shape within the boundary, which is, I think, the attribute you are wanting to measure. I see there are some Wikipedia entries on that, but I assume you are familiar with those mathematical measures (I am not). As I said in an earlier post, I am no fan of any algorithmic approach to drawing district boundaries. Experience in Scotland showed that a human being could make a better job of this than any of the algorithms tested. And it was just waste to time to start with the output from the algorithm and then refine it by manual adjustments. It was quicker to do the whole job manually, with a good GIS and all the relevant data, of course. To ensure effective representation in legislatures, councils, etc, all districts should be multi-member (whatever PR voting system you use). And the multi-member districts should be based on the recognised social, political and economic communities (travel to work, travel to shop, travel to entertainment). "Compactness" will often have to be constrained by the physical geography around the communities you have identified, especially mountain ranges and uncrossable rivers. James Gilmour ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
