Partisan gain vs. communities of interest

[Napoleon]

Obviously, what is and is not a CoI is debatable, so go by your personal definition.

[Napoleon]

This is a giant example of the false alternative fallacy. The notion that each state has exactly the same number of "communities of interest," whatever that means, as districts that are equally populated is a joke.

Genius, that wasn't stated or even implied.

[Napoleon]

This is a giant example of the false alternative fallacy. The notion that each state has exactly the same number of "communities of interest," whatever that means, as districts that are equally populated is a joke.

Genius, that wasn't stated or even implied.

It was certainly was implied. Absent that implication, you question makes absolutely no sense. You are asserting a dichotomy between objectively fair, and objectively unfair, redistricting. For you to assert objective COI-based redistricting exists there has to be an objectively "fair" way to redistrict any particular state based on "communities of interest," whatever that means.

"Communities of interest" is a buzz word with no particular meaning. It could mean racial gerrymandering: lumping each race into own districts so those voters share the values and outlooks of that race. It could mean bipartisan gerrymandering: create as many uncompetitive districts as possible so that most voters live in districts were their party's candidate wins. It could mean segregation by income. In the real world a "community of interest" is an ex post facto rationalization for taking a favored redistricting choice.

Read the first post, genius.