The mailbag
Gerrymandering makes for interesting mail! Here are some excerpts from activists, a journalist, political scientist, and a few redistricters. ...
Job opportunity – Computational Research Analyst, Gerrymandering and Redistricting
The Gill v. Whitford oral argument gives new importance to this announcement. -Sam, 10/4/2017
The Princeton Gerrymandering Project is hiring! We’re looking for a computational research analyst to do geography-intensive calculations, test our simple statistical standards, and close loopholes in proposed reform efforts. It’s a full-time position, available immediately. Computational skills and an interest in U.S. election law are essential. The job ad is here.
Topics:
For the record, not an endorsement of the contents:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/06/supreme-court-gerrymandering-democrats-obsession-215686
Put into physics speak the article says “gerrymandering creates hysteresis in representation, but the republicans still flipped the polarity in 2010”.
But Sam’s argument is that post-2010 gerrymandering is far, far more powerful than the gerrymandering of old, because of technical advancements.
Nevertheless, Greenfield’s point that the Dems lost Senate seats and governorships, where gerrymandering is not an issue, is a good one. (It could have second-order effects, though state-legislative gerrymandering enabling Republican majorities that enact other vote-suppression measures. But there was no direct effect.)
I have my own ideas about what drove that, and they’re not pretty or encouraging, but that’s for elsewhere.
Sam should mention that regardless of how the court decides Gill v. Whitford, the successful candidate for this job will have excellent career prospects 😉