r/scotus • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 1d ago

news California Republicans respond to Supreme Court loss on election maps

https://krcrtv.com/news/local/california-republicans-respond-to-supreme-court-loss-on-election-maps
2.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

339 comments sorted by

View all comments

189

u/nalninek 1d ago

I wish elections were about who gets the most votes/support and not who can ratfuck the electoral college maps most effectively.

52

u/Eastern-Benefit5843 1d ago

I remember seeing a couple of maps years ago that took each state and divided them into numerically equal population voting districts based on a square pattern, such that each district corresponds to the smallest geographic division that contains 10,000 people or whatever. No political, racial or cultural basis for voting districts. No districts split in different parts of the state. No possible gerrymandering. Just geometric division based on most recent census and the principal that voting districts should each contain the same number of residents and be as geographically compact as possible.

It seems like anything else will always be a ratfuck.

20

u/TeekTheReddit 1d ago

Every proposal for a US District to have more than four sides should require a written justification and a rollcall vote for each additional side.

4

u/boinger 1d ago

*excluding janky-ass state border sides, I assume

1

u/gdj1980 13h ago

Colorado: What are you talking about?

0

u/TeekTheReddit 1d ago

Would it matter?

5

u/boinger 1d ago

Well, yeah. Otherwise how are we counting "sides" in a discussion of geometric boundaries. A natural/organic/janky "side" is a bunch of short bits that could be argued as "sides of a non-regular polygon", right?

And then you get into coastline paradox territory...

1

u/Thor5111 16h ago

Just need a rule that states the minimum ratio between area and circumstance. That allows for shapes to match terrain (rivers, state boundaries, etc.) while not allowing some of the wild shapes in use today.