1. story -part —

   While any district map may give slight benefit to one party or another, the creators of the efficiency gap have argued for outlawing any maps skewed to the point that they regularly result in two or more extra representatives in Congress.

   —
   What hack dreamed up the TWO number ???

   P.R. and APP.V in all regimes before it is too late.

2. The MORONS in the main stream media and the courts can not detect that —

   1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged packed/cracked gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL = OLIGARCHY

   — with much, much, much worse primary math.

   IE TYRANT hacks making THEIR laws since 1776 States / 1789 USA regime

   — genocide of American Indians, slavery, inflation, ecology destruction, undeclared wars, insane govt deficits and debts — STATISM in action.

3. Gerrymandering districts to gain partisan advantage is much like ballot censoring to deny voters maximum possible choice in electing candidates. Gerrymandering can be mitigated by simply allowing voters to swap their ballots across arbitrary district boundaries while preserving one person vote per office per district. If enough voters do not want to swap ballots, then the voters validate the boundaries as acceptable to them for a particular election. OTOH, if enough voters from districts swap ballots to change the partisan numbers, then the voters are invalidating the boundaries as unacceptable to them for that particular election.
   So, the effective partisan distribution could change in every election regardless of gerrymandered boundaries IF the voters want to “emigrate” to the most acceptable candidates in their state regardless of how the dominant parties have used boundaries to entrench themselves.
   In the past this official swapping of ballots would have been an administrative nightmare. Today it is technologically feasible to supply a standard all-write-in ballot that can be used in any election regardless of artificial boundaries. See Federal Absentee Write-in ballot was an example ballot. It is not now difficult for voters to learn which offices are on the ballot for any district without any restrictions on who a voter may choose as a candidate for each office.

4. The plaintiffs assume that the electorate is normally distributed, and thus that the mean is a meaningful statistic. This erroneous assumption leads to an erroneous conclusion.

   In Wisconsin, Trump received 50.4% of the Trump-Clinton vote. According to the Efficiency Gap Magic Formula (EGMF), Trump-backing legislators should have been 50.8% of the legislature.

   But based on ward results, the median voter lived in a ward with nearly 55% support for Trump. That is, if you randomly selected voters from across Wisconsin, more than half could respond, “I don’t believe that Trump only got 50.5% of the vote, I know in my precinct he had 55% of the vote.

   Alternatively, 59.6% of voters live in wards carried by Trump. If each ward elected a representative, with a weighted vote equal to the total votes cast, then Trump-ists would have 59.6% of the weighted vote. And it should be remembered that Trump ran behind Ron Johnson who faced an amply-funded former senator Russ Feingold.

5. Here is a thought experiment:

   Imagine that each voter has their own legislative district. We’ll draw a circle around each voter, and excluding non-voters, or those who voted for someone other than Clinton or Trump.

   The Wisconsin legislature would have 50.41% Trump supporters, the same as the popular vote share for Trump.

   Now imagine that we aggregated the districts, randomly. Each new district is comprised of three voters. Trump would win 50.61% of the districts (either 2:1 or 3:0). We can continue this further. If the new districts had 11 voters each, then Trump would carry 51.10% of the districts:

   1: 50.41%
   3: 50.61%
   11: 51.10%
   101: 53.28%
   1001: 60.19%
   10001: 79.29%
   28159: 91.45%

   28159 is the average number of votes cast in each of Wisconsin’s 99 Assembly district. If the voters were uniformly distributed across Wisconsin, then Trump would win an overwhelming share of the seats, something like a 90:9 or 91:8 majority.

6. Pure proportional representation (PR) is the perfect solution for proper representative democracy.

   The United Coalition has been using PR correctly for more than 23 consecutive years and it works fine.

   Nobody has it as good as the United Coalition.

   http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.