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.
-
-
Not all ideas have to be totally realistic to still be important and worth publicizing. Nice work!
-
Anything to shift that Overton window, I guess.

-
But — to be fair to
@ProfData and I and the preprint, we're saying that gerrymandering/non-optimal districting is inevitable if done by humans. Ergo it should be done by machines. They make the maps. Then the debate is about which algorithmic criteria the machines should use. -
The crux of our point, that humans are inherently unable to draw maps even if they intend to make unbiased districts is not inherently unrealistic given Mexico does use computational redistricting and does debate the maps the machines create and then selects which to make real.
-
That is a big sentence. Sorry to make you all parse it.

-
Also super props to Mexico for being so cool [in many ways of course not just for computationally redistricting].


-
Yeah every once in a while theres something to be proud about haha. Usually theres very little on the politics front, at least. Haha.
-
Yeah, I was surprised the most at how little it's talked about in the (US) media. Like, excuse me, the Mexicans have solved it and nobody bangs on about it 24/7? They have literally solved it for you all.
- 4 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.
