Wouldn't that be a small revolution? Are there any precedents for generating public trust in an algorithm (and its implementation)? Today it's more like 1) public trusts experts, 2) experts use algorithms/computers.
-
-
-
I'm not sure that's what we're arguing. I think the preprint clarifies our views: https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.04640
-
I think it's implicit. Much like with electronic voting machines. People agree on what the machines should do but don't trust that they actually do exactly that.
-
The whole point is that we want open source software and an open debate on the results of all redistricting algorithms. See the Discussion section for more details on this.
-
Also see where we mention the State of Mexico (a state within Mexico) which already uses a system exactly like our proposal.
-
Including an open-source implementation? That would then be a precedent.
-
I think you're taking one aspect and neglecting the rest. Even an open source algorithm could create very gerrymandered districts (accidentally or not).
-
Key insight: it would not be accidental
- 15 more replies
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.