The majority decision has a few claims to test with math: "

The fact that the Court can adjudicate one-person, one-vote claims does not mean that partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable. This Court’s one-person, one-vote cases recognize that each person is entitled to an equal say in the election of representatives. It hardly follows from that principle that a person is entitled to have his political party achieve representation commensurate to its share of statewide support. Vote dilution in the one-person, one-vote cases refers to the idea that each vote must carry equal weight. That requirement does not extend to political parties; it does not mean that each party must be influential in proportion to the number of its supporters. The racial gerrymandering cases are also inapposite: They call for the elimination of a racial classification, but a partisan gerrymandering claim cannot ask for the elimination of partisanship. Pp. 15–21.

and

(c) None of the proposed “tests” for evaluating partisan gerrymandering claims meets the need for a limited and precise standard that is judicially discernible and manageable. Pp. 22–30.

In particular (c) reminds me of the 538 evaluation on how the SCOTUS is not willing to use math: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-court-is-allergic-to-math/ Justice Kagan leads her dissent with "For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities.” This to me points to their unwillingness to understand the mathematics involved. The violations she cites are the 1st and 14th amendment. Later: "

For the first time in this Nation’s history, the majority declares that it can do nothing about an acknowledged constitutional violation because it has searched high and low and cannot find a workable legal standard to apply.The majority gives two reasons for thinking that the adjudication of partisan gerrymandering claims is beyond judicial capabilities. First and foremost, the majority says, it cannot find a neutral baseline—one not based on contestable notions of political fairness—from which to measure injury. ...And second, the majority argues that even after establishing a baseline, a court would have no way to answer “the determinative question: ‘How much is too much?’”

So if we’re going to discuss on math-fun, I’d love to hear your thoughts on how to measure, what is neutral and how much is too much. Cheers, John ps Decision at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf

On Jun 28, 2019, at 10:23 AM, math-fun-request@mailman.xmission.com wrote:

Message: 1 Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:59:34 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> To: math-fun@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [math-fun] How are the five justices voting against any remedy for partisan gerrymandering not "the enemy of the people" Message-ID: <188820833.15200.1561679974743@wamui-fatboy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I'm curious how voting against any remedy for partisan gerrymandering does not make the five justices who voted in the majority "the enemy of the people".

(Reasoning: Democracy means government responsive to the will of the people, as determined by their vote. If expressing that will is thwarted or misrepresented, then Democracy is thwarted.)

Anticipating some possible responses to this question, I will say this:

1) This question is not political, but rather scholarly.

2) If I am censured or banned from math-fun for asking this question,

?OR? is this topic is banned from further discussion,

then I will have nothing further to do with math-fun, as of immediately.

Cf. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Meet-the-Math-Professor/239260

?Dan