Why science and math can’t yield fairer voting maps

Ifyou're like alot of other thoughtful citizens, you're already queasy about the big, steaming boatload of hooey —a.k.a. congressional redistricting — that’s been sweeping the country from Texas to California to God knows where.

- JAMES RAINEY

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM discusses his redistricting push. Even fair-minded voters want more than one thing.

You're wondering: Can't we come up with a system that makes sure members of the House of Representatives are elected in closer proportion to their parties’ popularity with the broader public?

We can. But we most likely won't, if history is any guide. More ideologically balanced systems have been proposed many times. Mathematicians have imagined them. Other countries have adopted them. But they haven't gotten any traction in the U.S.

A couple of California's most savvy political scientists Bruce Cain of Stanford and Raphael Sonenshein of the Haynes Foundation — told me that one of the major reasons for lack of reform is that even fair-minded voters want more than one thing.

‘They want a system that grants each party the number of elected representatives it deserves. They also put a premium on keeping their cities and counties intact within single districts. Some demand farmers have a fair say, by grouping them in ag-centric districts. And the federal Voting Rights Act mandates that Latino, Black and Asian American voters not be too widely dispersed, to prevent diluting their voting power.