True, unless we dissolve such irrelevant boundaries! ;-) If we had fair congressional districting in every state I might be happy enough to spend a few minutes ignoring the even more gross misrepresentation apportioned in the US Senate.
Ideally a good algorithm for solving districting problems will scale well. Congressional districts (within a state). State legislature districts. County board districts. City council districts, and so on wherever districted representation happens. On Nov 8, 2006, at 7:16 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote: > At 6:50 PM -0800 11/8/06, Brian Olson wrote: >> 0.5% is readily achievable by my solver. A US House district is >> 300000000/435 = 689655 people. 1% of that is of course a 6897 person >> variability from district to district. I think people might whine >> about this; it affects the degree to which they are represented. It >> won't necessarily be a logical argument. >> >> Also the wider the margin the greater possibility for distortion to >> malicious ends (depending on the exact method of picking within the >> constraint). Of course current districts are equal population to >> within 100 people according to Census data and are still distorted in >> some extreme ways. > > Wyoming and Montana each have one district, and 509,294 & 935,670 > people respectively. Rhode Island has two districts and 1,076,189 > people. > > The 1% rule (or whatever) must be intra-state only. > -- > /Jonathan Lundell. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
