Deleuzean Potato

Jessica complained about Steven's practice of putting his apples in the same bowl she used for her banannas. Her complaint was that his apples were ripening her banannas before she was ready for them to ripen. Steven and I thought this couldn't possibly be actually true. However...

It's so boring trying to feign interst in the world when nothing starts for another hour...

On the other hand, at least I stave off for another hour the sheer terror and general discombobulation that comes with First Week.

I've been meaning to say something about for awhile now, but the post just keeps getting longer and longer in my head. So we'll try what we can for now, and continue to work on it as a series of posts.

We begin with the problem of redistricting. Everyone seems to think it's this huge problem with our democracy that so few House races are actually competitive. I'm not fully convinced that that, in and of itself, is a problem. But that's another issue which I'll come back to. We'll consider how best to fix the current redistricting system so that it's "better," according to some not-well-understood measure.

Kevin Drum has a very intriguing idea, which points to an interesting subset of inventive systems. He suggests simply drawing a set of horizontal lines across the state. This would create a series of bands. The width of each band would be adjusted so that each contains the same (within an acceptable margin) population. Several commenters suggested variations on the purely geometric theme. My favorites:

• Place one dot on a state map for each district. Every voter is then assigned to the dot that they are closest to. Adjust the dots so that each district is the same size.


• Minimize the total length of all the borders between districts.


• For each district, compute the center of mass of the population. For each voter, measure their distance from the center of mass of their district. Square that, and sum over all voters. Minimize that sum.

All of the suggestions along these lines were designed to do two things. They're supposed to be purely mechanical algorithms, which should take any political considerations out of the problem. And they're supposed to favor maps with geographically compact districts.

There were also suggestions to remove redistricting authority from elected officials, and give it to a bipartisan commmittee formed to do only this task. This, of course, is the worst idea. There is the issue of the composition of the committee: will it be 50/50 between the two major parties, or some other composition? If one party is favored, they will redistrict as partisans to favor their faction. This defeats the supposed reason of the committee. But there's no reason for the two parties to have eaqual representation. There is no reason for such a committee in California to look the same as a similar committee in Texas. Of course the Repubilcans should be in charge of redistricting Texas; they have the support of 2/3 of the state. The same goes for Democrats in California. The other major problem I can think of is that a bipartisan committee presupposes a two-party system, and serves to unnaturally restrict the future of the system to two parties.

Math Yglesias' post gets straight at the argument I want to make. He referrences Hare-Clark system. This resulted in a number of comments, many of which seem to be the result of insufficient reflection. Some are insteresting concerns, and worth responding to. I'll flesh out the full argument for the Hare-Clark system in its own post. And yes, it's more elaborate than noting that it's what the University uses for elections to the Council of the University Senate.

I left out a huge step in the argument. I'm sure I'll address it, but in the meanwhile, Bonus Points(tm) to the first reader to point it out.

Our intrepid hero thus ends his summer. He departs Chicago for his country of origin, in Southern California. He will return to his adpoted homeland just in time for the beginning of classes -- the last academic year of his college career.

I'm carrying the bare essentials: CD player, CDs, dirty laundry, and like seven books. And, of course, several pieces from the stock of photography we found in the apartment; nobody back home has seen enough to fully appreciate it all yet. I get to sit on my ass all day and not have to worry about feeding myself and paying bills for a couple of days. And I get to see Nora.

I'm aware that the template looks awful right now. That's mostly because I took the template I disliked the least, and started tweaking it. I will finish tweaking it.

One of my roommates (Jessica) had a great idea last night: apple pie at the Med. So the three of us (Steven, Jessica, me) walked down there. On the way there, we passed some interesting police activity at 56th and Hyde Park. Just now, I was walking from HEP to the Reg to print out my FOIA request for the reports of that activity. There are a couple of kids standing in front of Max West, each with a parent in tow and a pile of personal belongings in front of them. Opening Day isn't until Saturday. But it also seems too late for O-Aides to be arriving. At any rate, someone's invading campus, and it ain't the returning students. The final sign of the end of summer is here. Let academics commence.

But not until I get back from California, of course.

I will, of course, be posting when I hear back regarding the FOIA stuff. It will get its own post, with a link to the scanned copies of the reports.

Steven and I were discussing something having to do with airspace and the property rights thereof. I made some claim about land ownership being from the center of the Earth all the way to the heavens. He disputed that claim. He now forwards me a more full explanation of my being wrong.

The short story is:

In 1926 the U.S. Congress passed the Air Commerce Act, which declared that the "navigable air space" of the U.S. was a public highway, open to all citizens. Navigable air space was defined as the sky above "the minimum safe altitudes of flight" as determined by federal regulators--typically 500 to 1,000 feet above the ground. You see the practical effect of this. One minute you're lord of all you survey; the next you're living under the freaking interstate.

The slightly longer story, as relevant to disputes under the juristiction of the United States, is contained in United States v. Causby.

For those disputes that cross international borders, the situation begins with the 1967 so-called Outer Space Treaty, and proceeds to get more complicated than I'm willing to research in one sitting.

I can't say I've met anyone for whom this is true:

College students may down as many as 24 alcoholic drinks in a row when they party -- far more than any previous studies have indicated, U.S. researchers said Wednesday.

Though this comports more with my experience:

The study found that about 10 percent of the time, the drinkers had 12 or more drinks during a single session.