Is it possible to ban gerrymandering?

[BigSkyBob]

The main thing is to take redistricting out of the hands of partisan legislatures and into the hands of procedurally neutral commissions of some sort. It's a basic democratic principle: the management of the election shouldn't be in the hands of one of the parties competing in it. I think this is much more important than developing an exact mathematical definition of a "fair" map.

I can understand the existence of criticisms of the various commission-drawn maps, but these criticisms only make sense against the background of a much higher expectation of fairness for the commissions. Any of AZ, WA or NJ would be considered at most a very mild gerrymander if they were instituted by a legislature of the party on whom they are supposed to confer advantage.

Better still is to have the commission sort from publicly generated maps. The MN contest drew 500 submissions after the OH contest had 100 entries. The public can draw good maps, and with some guidelines as to the goals from the commission then the effects of any commission bias can be reduced.

Better still to have the public determine the maps.  It is legitimate for the public to have a bias and act upon that bias.

Agreed, but there is a role for an outside group to set clear standards so that public maps can be compared. A commission can perform that task.

The standards set by the commission will depend in large part on whom is seated on the commission. Every politician will know that fact, and, act to seat people whom are friendly to their preferred standards. Politicians will still set the standards, only, the process will be indirect, rather than direct.

[TJ in Oregon]

Of course not.

You can craft an expansive set of rules restricting what maps are legal and what maps are not, but as long as there is more than one possible legal map that can be drawn, the politicians will choose that which they deem most beneficial. You can outsource the entire process to a commission, but in the end the commission will also draw the map they find most pleasing for whatever reason. Often this will result in a swing-seat gerrymander or some sort of bargain they deem "fair". But either way it's still drawn with a purpose of achieving some end. Gerrymandering is an unavoidable evil within our system.

[muon2]

Of course not.

You can craft an expansive set of rules restricting what maps are legal and what maps are not, but as long as there is more than one possible legal map that can be drawn, the politicians will choose that which they deem most beneficial. You can outsource the entire process to a commission, but in the end the commission will also draw the map they find most pleasing for whatever reason. Often this will result in a swing-seat gerrymander or some sort of bargain they deem "fair". But either way it's still drawn with a purpose of achieving some end. Gerrymandering is an unavoidable evil within our system.

I would not consider that to be gerrymandering with the usual definition. Gerrymandering means to manipulate the boundaries to favor one party or group (such as race). Drawing maps with rules such as county and municipality integrity and compactness are not gerrymandering. Is is possible to gerrymander given a set of rules - certainly and it happens all the time. However, the more specific the rules the less one can manipulate boundaries at will.

Furthermore if one sets rules in advance, then provide for a different map maker than ruler maker, it creates additional constraints on gerrymandering. It's like the classic solution to splitting a cupcake between two children; let one divide the cupcake and the other have first pick of the halves.

[Хahar 🤔]

Of course not.

You can craft an expansive set of rules restricting what maps are legal and what maps are not, but as long as there is more than one possible legal map that can be drawn, the politicians will choose that which they deem most beneficial. You can outsource the entire process to a commission, but in the end the commission will also draw the map they find most pleasing for whatever reason. Often this will result in a swing-seat gerrymander or some sort of bargain they deem "fair". But either way it's still drawn with a purpose of achieving some end. Gerrymandering is an unavoidable evil within our system.

It's certainly possible to draw a map without regard to political concerns. Look at Canada; the electoral districts of Saskatchewan are awful, but in the other nine provinces the boundaries are quite satisfactory and generally aesthetically pleasing.

[jimrtex]

The main thing is to take redistricting out of the hands of partisan legislatures and into the hands of procedurally neutral commissions of some sort. It's a basic democratic principle: the management of the election shouldn't be in the hands of one of the parties competing in it. I think this is much more important than developing an exact mathematical definition of a "fair" map.

I can understand the existence of criticisms of the various commission-drawn maps, but these criticisms only make sense against the background of a much higher expectation of fairness for the commissions. Any of AZ, WA or NJ would be considered at most a very mild gerrymander if they were instituted by a legislature of the party on whom they are supposed to confer advantage.

Better still is to have the commission sort from publicly generated maps. The MN contest drew 500 submissions after the OH contest had 100 entries. The public can draw good maps, and with some guidelines as to the goals from the commission then the effects of any commission bias can be reduced.

Better still to have the public determine the maps.  It is legitimate for the public to have a bias and act upon that bias.

Agreed, but there is a role for an outside group to set clear standards so that public maps can be compared. A commission can perform that task.

An administrator can ensure that maps submitted by individuals are compare-able.

[YL]

Of course not.

You can craft an expansive set of rules restricting what maps are legal and what maps are not, but as long as there is more than one possible legal map that can be drawn, the politicians will choose that which they deem most beneficial. You can outsource the entire process to a commission, but in the end the commission will also draw the map they find most pleasing for whatever reason. Often this will result in a swing-seat gerrymander or some sort of bargain they deem "fair". But either way it's still drawn with a purpose of achieving some end. Gerrymandering is an unavoidable evil within our system.

It's hard to get rid of gerrymandering altogether, but if you look at the process in almost any other country with single member electoral districts you'll see that it's possible to do a lot better than in the US.  Even the worst seats proposed by the Boundary Commission for England in their recent provisional proposals are nothing compared with some American districts (which, given Mersey Banks, is saying something).  Even some US states - like Iowa and, now, California - seem to show that it's possible to do much better within the US system.

[republicanism]

It's hard to get rid of gerrymandering altogether, but if you look at the process in almost any other country with single member electoral districts you'll see that it's possible to do a lot better than in the US.

This.
It is impossible to abolish all kinds of gerrymandering all together, but not a big problem to reduce it to a level that is acceptable.

[Platypus]

It depends on what you call gerrymandering, as already noted, but I certainly think you can aim towards neutral seats. In some US states, they even do so.