Yesterday was so fun, but hectic! I gave a talk on http://redistrict.science [preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.04640 ] and it was also coincidentally #GISday. I was focussing on how I did what I did using Javascript, Cython, C, Python, GIS, etc. Today I'd like to talk about the science.
-
-
that should have been "and I"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Finally got to it. I agree with the general “human set parameters, computers compute” concept but disagree with your assertions on partisanship esp. in a two party system like the US. However I think the right solution isn’t solved by districting, it’s increasing # of reps.
-
Correction: with single member districts the solution is increasing # of districts as it’ll lead to a more proportional result. Better: some form of proportional voting.
-
Right, so you want to have a reform of the system in terms of the type of voting (from FPTP to PR) and the way states are allocated congresspeople. A more dramatic constitutional change then. Thanks for the feedback.
-
Maybe what I’m grappling with is the presentation of the work (not necessarily by you): “solve gerrymandering!” vs. what seems like your conclusion “you can solve human problems with
!” Your conclusions are pretty divorced from the outcomes, but that’s the focus of others -
Yes, you are correct that our point is “you can solve human problems with
!” And you are also IMHO on the right track when you say others see it rhetorically and practically in a different way.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.