Computers vs Gerrymandering

I’m no good at math, as readers have constantly had to point out. But among the many suggestions I’ve received on how to ameliorate the gerry-mandering problen, the tantalizing possibility of redistricting by a neutral computer program seems to me to be among the most promising. Here’s a web-page that presents various options that would take the process of redistricting out of the hands of partisans and into a completely neutral computer algorithm. The criteria used can be debated on a state by state level. But geographical contiguity, equality in population, and compactness are the top three. Avoiding gratuitous racial discrimination should also play a role. But the point is: you fight over the criteria and the weight given to them; then you let the computer do the rest with census data.

To see what might happen, here’s a map of North Carolina’s districts:

Ncnow

Now, here’s a new electoral map drawn by a computer, with a particular set of algorithms plugged in:

Ncalgorithm

I know which one I prefer. There are still some vagaries. Given certain criteria, computers can come up with a variety of solutions, and there’s a danger that one political party in power might keep running the computer to get their preferred result. One way of dealing with this might be to require a super-majority in state legislatures to approve the new computer-driven districts to ensure that both parties have some buy-in leverage. Another way is to do what Iowa does and hand over redistricting power to a neutral body, separate from but answerable to the legislature.

We’ve come to accept the census-mandated, computer-driven reapportionment every ten years or so. Why not let computers do the other heavy-lifting to define the boundaries of the actual districts? This is the twenty-first century. There’s no reason we shouldn’t use computer power to improve democracy.

Malkin Award Nominee

"And I want to tell you something, and I’m going to say it to you loud and clear. The radical homosexual agenda will not stop until religion is outlawed in this country. Make no mistake about it. They’re all not nice decorators. You better get it through your head before it’s too late. They threaten your very survival. They went after the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is now caving into the homosexual mafia. They will not stop until they force their agenda down your throats. Gay marriage is just the tip of the iceberg. They want full and total subjugation of this society to their agenda. Now, if you want that and if you don’t think it’s a threat — believe me, that is what’s going to occur in this country," – radio talk-show host, Michael Savage, with 8 million listeners daily.

Substitute the word "Jew" for "homosexual" and see how it reads.

The Question of Doubt

A reader makes a salient point:

There is a very simple point, central to your argument about doubt, that escapes Mr. Goldberg. Even if people are certain something is right or wrong or good or bad, people can be humble about their ability to achieve that vision. The utopian impulse is the result not only of delusions of omniscience but also delusions of omnipotence.

One might be sure illegal immigration is harmful but unsure about how to solve the problem in a way that doesn’t involve incredibly high costs – costs one is unwilling to pay. One might be certain Saddam is evil but still question our abilities to affect positive change in the Middle East and Iraq. Bush is not only sure that torture isn’t irreparably harmful to liberal values; he is sure that he can use torture effectively.

Omniscience plus omnipotence: the conservative nightmare, but today’s Republicans’ dream.