I think this is fascinating even if it will never happen. It's important to keep in mind the nominal and actual result of human drawn district boundaries ("gerrymandering" is a pejorative).
In theory, human drawn district boundaries can create districts which are more homogenous so that, for example, a state with a few representatives and a few defined geographic or political divisions can divide things up in a way that makes sense. For example, it would seem odd for Las Vegas to be split into multiple districts in vast barren Nevada (it isn't -- LV is the smallest district).
What happens in practice is: "Contrary to one popular misconception about the practice, the point of gerrymandering isn't to draw yourself a collection of overwhelmingly safe seats. Rather, it's to give your opponents a small number of safe seats, while drawing yourself a larger number of seats that are not quite as safe, but that you can expect to win comfortably." http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/15/am...
Contrary to one popular misconception about the practice, the point of gerrymandering isn't to draw yourself a collection of overwhelmingly safe seats. Rather, it's to give your opponents a small number of safe seats, while drawing yourself a larger number of seats that are not quite as safe, but that you can expect to win comfortably.
I think the ideal strategy in gerrymandering is not immediately obvious (although it may technically be a tautology, it is not obviously tautological). If you asked people which of the two following strategies is ideal, many would give the wrong answer:
1. Begin by drawing the districts such that your opponents win almost 100% of the votes in as many districts as possible.
2. Begin by drawing the districts such that you win almost 100% of the votes in as many districts as possible.
Upon analysis the mathematics of the situation is obvious, but one's gut reaction may be that winning elections handily for yourself seems obviously good.
Not at all. The first thing people think of when they first learn the idea of gerrymandering is "draw districts that my party will never lose". In fact, the opposite is true. You want to concentrate the opposing party in a small number of districts, which then become overwhelmingly safe. But the seeming benefit of overwhelmingly safe seats is outweighed by the benefit of having a small advantage in a larger number of seats.
In theory, human drawn district boundaries can create districts which are more homogenous so that, for example, a state with a few representatives and a few defined geographic or political divisions can divide things up in a way that makes sense. For example, it would seem odd for Las Vegas to be split into multiple districts in vast barren Nevada (it isn't -- LV is the smallest district).
What happens in practice is: "Contrary to one popular misconception about the practice, the point of gerrymandering isn't to draw yourself a collection of overwhelmingly safe seats. Rather, it's to give your opponents a small number of safe seats, while drawing yourself a larger number of seats that are not quite as safe, but that you can expect to win comfortably." http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/15/am...