On 02/04/2011 02:04 PM, Justin Levitt wrote:
That's only
by your definition of "fair," Jon. And my point is that I suspect not
everyone agrees with you about what being "fair" means, particularly
when the discussion moves from the abstract to the particular.
I am positing a definition, that it be a process in which there is no
opportunity for humans to draw particular maps with the intent to favor
the victory or defeat of some candidates. A random, impersonal process
does that.
Mind you, I don't disagree that there are flaws in much of the status
quo. I'm only pointing out that an automated solution is not a panacea.
Almost any such process as I describe would be an improvement over what
we do now. A still better solution would be to abandon single-member
districts and go to a system of proxy voting
in which each elected member would cast the number of votes he got in
his election.
-- Jon
----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society http://constitution.org
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 twitter.com/lex_rex
Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 jon.roland@constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------