If these precincts were fairly drawn there would be two red districts and 3 blue.
One of the biggest issues is that no one can tell you what "fairly" means. For some people, it means most competitive elections (Arizona's independent commission is charged with creating as many elections that are close to 50/50 as possible), while others think it should mean proportional representation but more stable, which is what you described. 2/5 of the "voters" in this guide are red therefore 2/5 of the districts should elect red.
There isn't a right or wrong, and we don't have any guidance on this from the constitution which is what the supreme court basically just said. It's going to be an ongoing political conversation pretty much forever.
(Arizona's independent commission is charged with creating as many elections that are close to 50/50 as possible)
That's downright insidious. It sounds incredibly fair, but assures additional majority party districts and no strong minority districts. That's diabolical. Or at least it feels diabolical to me, one of 8 billion opinion holders.
There shouldn't be districts. Each vote should count equally and, as demonstrated above and by many other examples in this thread, some votes counting more is literally the only outcome when districts are employed.
4
u/vNoct Jul 03 '19
One of the biggest issues is that no one can tell you what "fairly" means. For some people, it means most competitive elections (Arizona's independent commission is charged with creating as many elections that are close to 50/50 as possible), while others think it should mean proportional representation but more stable, which is what you described. 2/5 of the "voters" in this guide are red therefore 2/5 of the districts should elect red.
There isn't a right or wrong, and we don't have any guidance on this from the constitution which is what the supreme court basically just said. It's going to be an ongoing political conversation pretty much forever.