My purpose here is very simple - to try to draw maps "better" or at least as well as those with the power to draw the maps, and have the votes, might draw them - all things considered. If I had time, I would play with gutting the Pubbies in Illinois. But I don't these days, and to do it right takes a lot of work! Ohio took me about 40 hours - yes 40 hours.
And nobody here gerrymanders pretending it is anything else,at least of whom I am aware. And of course it is horrible public policy. How could one argue otherwise? The districts should be drawn the way they are in Britain, and should really be drawn on a national basis to overcome provincialism. But obviously it is dumb for one state to unilaterally "disarm" while others continue to draw erose monsters.
Oh, and one other thing. The VRA sucks, and has long since outlasted its usefulness, and should be repealed.
Does anyone have any questions? 
Simpler to give a representative 0.001 votes for each 700 persons he represents. If he represents 700,000 persons he will have 1.000 votes. If he represents 770,000 persons, then he would have 1.100 votes. If he represents 630,000 persons, then he would have 0.900 votes.
If people didn't like their representative, they could just vote to move to a different district. Their new representative would have more political power, their old representative less. If a district becomes too large, it gets split in half. If it gets too small, it is dissolved and the voters have to choose a new district.
After each census, the districts are re-weighted.
