{"id":38356,"date":"2026-05-04T14:50:55","date_gmt":"2026-05-04T19:50:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lincolndemocrat.com\/?p=38356"},"modified":"2026-05-04T15:22:52","modified_gmt":"2026-05-04T20:22:52","slug":"solving-dupicitous-gerrymandering-according-to-chatgpt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lincolndemocrat.com\/?p=38356","title":{"rendered":"Solving Dupicitous Gerrymandering according to ChatGPT"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Last Post: <a href=\"https:\/\/lincolndemocrat.com\/?p=38348\">4 Days past May Day<\/a><br \/>\nNext Post: <a href=\"https:\/\/lincolndemocrat.com\/?p=38367\">My response to ChatGPT reply on the History of Gerymandering<\/a><\/p>\n<p><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/live.staticflickr.com\/65535\/55099597489_cd28819125_t.jpg\" alt=\"\" \/> <strong>Donate to, Support or learn about the last lincoln republican. Click here:<\/strong> <a href=\"http:\/\/weltyforcongress.com\">Weltyforcongress.com<\/a><\/p>\n<p>FIRST LET ME BE CLEAR:<\/p>\n<p>This is not the solution. Looking for a solution I asked ChatGPT the following question:<\/p>\n<p><em>I am interested in finding a solution to future gerrymandering on a state-by-state basis. What particularly interests me is looking at some of the old policies in the 50 states that dealt with redistricting and rules that they had in place in the past to make sure that legislative districts were not strange shapes but held fairly true to existing lines, municipal lines, and county boundary lines. Can you give me some insights into how different states managed to keep gerrymandering from becoming excessive in the past that might be applied in the future by federal, state statute that would punish states by limiting resources for states that did not adhere to fair standards of redistricting?<\/em><\/p>\n<p>As I post this I have only read the first paragraph. I will read this carefully the moment I have successfully posted the reply here.<\/p>\n<p>What you\u2019re reaching for actually has deep historical roots\u2014both in older federal law and in state-level practices that, at times, did constrain gerrymandering more than today. The problem isn\u2019t that we don\u2019t know what \u201cfair\u201d districts look like; it\u2019s that enforcement and incentives have weakened over time.<\/p>\n<p>Let me walk you through (1) what worked in the past, (2) how specific states handled it, and (3) what kinds of future reforms\u2014especially federal\/state hybrid ideas like the one you\u2019re proposing\u2014could realistically draw from that history.<\/p>\n<p>1. The U.S. already had stronger anti-gerrymandering rules (and lost them)<\/p>\n<p>In the 19th and early 20th centuries, Congress explicitly required districts to be:<\/p>\n<p>Contiguous<br \/>\nCompact<br \/>\nEqual in population<\/p>\n<p>Those rules were written into federal apportionment laws from 1842 through 1911 .<\/p>\n<p>? The key turning point:<\/p>\n<p>In 1929, Congress dropped those standards\u2014and never replaced them with enforceable ones.<\/p>\n<p>So historically, your instinct is correct:<br \/>\nThere used to be a federal baseline for \u201cnormal-looking districts.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>2. Traditional state-level constraints that limited excess gerrymandering<\/p>\n<p>Even today, many of these older principles survive in state constitutions or statutes:<\/p>\n<p>A. Compactness (anti-weird shapes)<br \/>\nRequired in 30+ states in some form<br \/>\nIntended to prevent \u201csnake-like\u201d districts<\/p>\n<p>Limitation:<br \/>\nCompactness alone can be gamed\u2014mathematically compact maps can still be partisan .<\/p>\n<p>B. Respect for political boundaries (counties, cities)<br \/>\nAbout 34 states require consideration of county\/municipal lines<br \/>\nHistorically very important in rural states<\/p>\n<p>Why this mattered historically:<\/p>\n<p>It prevented slicing cities into pieces<br \/>\nIt anchored districts in real communities<\/p>\n<p>But:<\/p>\n<p>After \u201cone person, one vote,\u201d strict county-based systems became unconstitutional if they distorted population equality<br \/>\nC. Contiguity (no disconnected districts)<br \/>\nNearly universal requirement<br \/>\nPrevents \u201cislands\u201d of voters stitched together artificially<br \/>\nD. Communities of interest<br \/>\nKeep culturally or economically linked areas together<br \/>\nOften vague\u2014but powerful if enforced<br \/>\nE. Stability \/ continuity<br \/>\nSome states historically tried to preserve prior district cores<br \/>\nThis reduced extreme redraws every decade<br \/>\n3. States that actually did a better job (models worth studying)<\/p>\n<p>Here are a few real-world approaches that worked better than average:<\/p>\n<p>Iowa (the gold standard procedural model)<br \/>\nMaps drawn by a nonpartisan legislative agency<br \/>\nStrict rules:<br \/>\nNo partisan data allowed<br \/>\nStrong emphasis on:<br \/>\ncompactness<br \/>\ncounty boundaries<br \/>\nLegislature can reject\u2014but not alter\u2014maps<\/p>\n<p>? Key insight:<br \/>\nProcess matters more than criteria.<\/p>\n<p>Arizona &#038; California (independent commissions)<br \/>\nRemove legislators from direct control<br \/>\nUse ranked criteria:<br \/>\nEqual population<br \/>\nVoting Rights Act<br \/>\nCommunities of interest<br \/>\nCompactness<\/p>\n<p>? Key insight:<br \/>\nWho draws the map is as important as how.<\/p>\n<p>North Carolina (judicial enforcement of county rules)<br \/>\nCourts have enforced limits on splitting counties<br \/>\nCreated structured constraints on mapmakers<\/p>\n<p>? Key insight:<br \/>\nCourts can enforce geographic integrity\u2014if empowered.<\/p>\n<p>New York (constitutional language\u2014but weak enforcement)<br \/>\nRequires compactness and respect for boundaries<br \/>\nBut courts historically defer to legislature<\/p>\n<p>? Key insight:<br \/>\nRules without enforcement don\u2019t work.<\/p>\n<p>4. Why those older systems broke down<\/p>\n<p>Three big structural shifts:<\/p>\n<p>1. Courts stepped back<br \/>\nThe Supreme Court (2019) said partisan gerrymandering is not justiciable<br \/>\nRecent rulings have also weakened racial protections (2026 decision)<br \/>\n2. Technology improved<br \/>\nModern mapping software allows precise voter targeting<br \/>\n3. Incentives hardened<br \/>\nControl of maps = control of legislatures for a decade<br \/>\n5. Your idea: federal penalties for unfair redistricting<\/p>\n<p>This is interesting\u2014and not crazy\u2014but it runs into constitutional design issues.<\/p>\n<p>A. What Congress can do<\/p>\n<p>Under Article I:<\/p>\n<p>Congress may regulate the \u201cTimes, Places and Manner\u201d of elections<\/p>\n<p>So Congress can:<\/p>\n<p>Set national redistricting standards<br \/>\nRequire commissions<br \/>\nDefine criteria (compactness, boundaries, etc.)<br \/>\nB. What\u2019s harder: punishing states by withholding funds<\/p>\n<p>Your idea resembles:<\/p>\n<p>Federal highway funding conditions<br \/>\nMedicaid expansion incentives<\/p>\n<p>This is legally possible if structured carefully, but:<\/p>\n<p>Risks:<br \/>\nMust not be \u201ccoercive\u201d (per Supreme Court doctrine)<br \/>\nMust relate to the program being funded<\/p>\n<p>? Example:<\/p>\n<p>Easier: tie compliance to election-related funding<br \/>\nHarder: broadly punish unrelated funding<br \/>\n6. What actually works (based on history)<\/p>\n<p>If you combine the lessons, the most effective system would include:<\/p>\n<p>1. Ranked criteria (with priority order)<\/p>\n<p>Example:<\/p>\n<p>Equal population<br \/>\nVoting Rights protections<br \/>\nCounty\/municipal boundaries<br \/>\nCompactness<br \/>\nCommunities of interest<\/p>\n<p>? Priority matters because criteria conflict.<\/p>\n<p>2. Independent or constrained map-drawing process<br \/>\nIowa-style nonpartisan staff or<br \/>\nIndependent commissions<br \/>\n3. Objective metrics (but not alone)<br \/>\nCompactness scores<br \/>\nCounty splits<br \/>\nEfficiency gap (vote-seat distortion)<\/p>\n<p>? But: no single metric is sufficient.<\/p>\n<p>4. Judicial enforceability<br \/>\nClear standards courts can apply<br \/>\nNot vague language like \u201creasonable compactness\u201d<br \/>\n5. Federal baseline (reviving pre-1929 ideas)<\/p>\n<p>Congress could:<\/p>\n<p>Reinstate:<br \/>\ncompactness<br \/>\ncontiguity<br \/>\nsubdivision respect<br \/>\nRequire transparency and public maps<br \/>\n6. Conditional incentives (your idea, refined)<\/p>\n<p>Instead of punishment alone:<\/p>\n<p>Offer election funding bonuses for compliance<br \/>\nRequire compliance for:<br \/>\nfederal election administration grants<br \/>\nredistricting support funds<\/p>\n<p>This avoids constitutional overreach while still applying pressure.<\/p>\n<p>7. A key insight you\u2019re circling<\/p>\n<p>The historical lesson is subtle but important:<\/p>\n<p>Bad maps don\u2019t happen because we lack rules.<br \/>\nThey happen because rule-makers control the process and enforcement is weak.<\/p>\n<p>That\u2019s why:<\/p>\n<p>Iowa works (process constraint)<br \/>\nNew York struggles (rules without teeth)<br \/>\nIf you want to go further<\/p>\n<p>We could:<\/p>\n<p>Compare 3\u20134 states in detail (Iowa vs California vs Texas)<br \/>\nOr<br \/>\ndesign a model federal law based on these principles<br \/>\nOr<br \/>\nexplore mathematical redistricting (algorithmic maps) as a solution<\/p>\n<p>Just tell me which direction you want to push.<\/p>\n<p><strong>NOTE: I will offer my thoughts on this comprehensive reply in the next post.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Last Post: 4 Days past May Day Next Post: My response to ChatGPT reply on the History of Gerymandering Donate to, Support or learn&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[166,146,168],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lincolndemocrat.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38356"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lincolndemocrat.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lincolndemocrat.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lincolndemocrat.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lincolndemocrat.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=38356"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/lincolndemocrat.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38356\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":38378,"href":"https:\/\/lincolndemocrat.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38356\/revisions\/38378"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lincolndemocrat.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=38356"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lincolndemocrat.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=38356"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lincolndemocrat.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=38356"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}