“Our work suggests that a lot of what we view as gerrymandering may instead result from the complexity of the task. It’s beyond human abilities to perfectly group millions of people into fair districts”https://www.seeker.com/tech/an-unbiased-algorithm-could-help-put-an-end-to-partisan-gerrymandering?utm_content=An+Unbiased+Algorithm+Could+Help+Put+an+End+to+Partisan+Gerrymandering&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social-media …
-
-
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
-
Just as in many states, e.g. Texas they've gone way past their cognitive limits and made it even worse
-
I agree it would be great if we could do that. I just don't see how we'll get over the intense partisanship in the US
-
Yeah, I know. But every little helps I suppose.

-
Not all ideas have to be totally realistic to still be important and worth publicizing. Nice work!
- 11 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Exactly - which is what I think would be a small revolution. Not the open debate, but trust though open source in the context of political decisions.
-
A computational algorithm might not have had its trust evaluated under a system of openness (explicit open source checking). But there are many algorithms that aren't explicitly implemented in a programming language that humans trust for political decisions, like voting methods
-
or even democracy as a general algorithm itself. Notwithstanding, as
@jamespjh correctly noted trust in the case of our gerrymandering project would be only able to be directly based on the code if you already are highly educated. So I think it's a stretch to assume the public -
at large can evaluate an algorithm without the right training, something which is not expected of them. So yes, it's a political change, but it doesn't require any constitutional/legal change in the US for it to happen so I'm not sure "revolution" is appropriate.
-
That's exactly my point. My use of "revolution" was more like "scientific revolution" than "French revolution".
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.