I was happy to see the Times chime in with an editorial on Vieth this
morning, but then disappointed to see they clearly hadn't thought the
issue through very well.

In particular, they first decry the rise of partisan gerrymandering via
powerful computer programs, then they bemoan the lack of competitive
races. *But these work in opposite directions!* Partisan gerrymanders
mean that the majority party plans to win a lot of districts by a few
votes; i.e., these will be competitive. And if they misjudge, then they
stand to lose a lot of seats. 

Contrast this with a (more typical) bipartisan gerrymander, where
everyone is safe and voters are fairly well separated into different
districts depending on their partisan affiliation. It's this latter case
that leads to lazy representatives, since they won't get significant
opposition from the other party, and to polarization within Congress,
since the electoral bases of the different representatives are getting
relatively more extreme.

Ah, well. Redistricting is tricky, and even very smart people sometimes
make very elementary mistakes when thinking about it.


David Epstein