Perhaps we are better off insisting on non-splitting of counties; rather setting overly tight population equality standards. IIUC, you claim to be able to find the best trade-off between erosity and equality. So why set an independent limit on equality.
Why not:
Because 18.3% deviation pretty blatantly spits in the face of "one man, one vote". I could see going up to, say, 3 or so percent deviation in the name of keeping political and natural boundaries together (and no, counties are not the be-all and end-all of boundaries), but when you get to double-digit variation I would hope that gets recognized as obviously unfair in all quarters.
And Pierce County is hacked up in so many districts that it hardly has representation. Derek Kilmer boasts that he lives on the Olympic Peninsula. It is quite possible that under my plan, Washington-Pierce would be considered an open election.
However, without a constitutional amendment OMOV will strongly constrain the maximum deviations. Before
Tennant most observers wouldn't even entertain some of the more modest deviations in plans such as mine for TN.
