From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   The Horny Goat  wrote:   
   >Thu, 5 Feb 2026 04:11:19 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman :   
      
   >>>Am I correct in understanding that the main impetus for changing   
   >>>electoral boundaries is to ensure that each electoral district has   
   >>>approximately the same population as every other so that each person has   
   >>>approximately the same amount of influence in terms of selecting   
   >>>representatives? It seems to me that is the "prime mover": if that   
   >>>weren't necessary, there'd be no justification at all for changing   
   >>>electoral boundaries.   
      
   >>Computers can draw districts so that there is a single person population   
   >>difference.   
      
   >Which in an urban area would be ludicrous since it could put residents   
   >in a single high rise apartment building in different districts. And   
   >simply equalizing the population of each district wouldn't prevent   
   >gerrymandering.   
      
   Lines are drawn through buildings. For instance, Chicago Union Station   
   has different ZIP Codes depending on which building entrance is used.   
      
   I didn't say equalizing population prevents gerrymandering. There is a   
   right to districts that are substantially equal in population but no   
   right to boundaries drawn for other reasons. A map will be presented   
   that is substantially equal, off by a single person, so it is not   
   rejected for unequal population.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)