Rejoinder to “Considering the Prospects for Establishing a Packing Gerrymandering Standard”

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW
McGheeEric
{"title":"Rejoinder to “Considering the Prospects for Establishing a Packing Gerrymandering Standard”","authors":"McGheeEric","doi":"10.1089/ELJ.2017.0461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this volume, Best and coauthors evaluate a series of measures of gerrymandering and conclude that some should be preferred over others. In this rejoinder, I suggest that their conclusions are premature because they do not offer a clear idea of what unfairness in redistricting means nor a sophisticated discussion of the mechanics of each measure. As such, their evaluations are inconsistent and sometimes factually inaccurate. Their analysis probably obscures more than it clarifies.","PeriodicalId":45644,"journal":{"name":"Election Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/ELJ.2017.0461","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Election Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/ELJ.2017.0461","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Abstract In this volume, Best and coauthors evaluate a series of measures of gerrymandering and conclude that some should be preferred over others. In this rejoinder, I suggest that their conclusions are premature because they do not offer a clear idea of what unfairness in redistricting means nor a sophisticated discussion of the mechanics of each measure. As such, their evaluations are inconsistent and sometimes factually inaccurate. Their analysis probably obscures more than it clarifies.
对“考虑建立包装选区划分标准的前景”的复辩
摘要在本卷中,贝斯特和合著者评估了一系列不公正选区划分的措施,并得出结论,其中一些措施应该优先于其他措施。在这篇反驳中,我认为他们的结论为时过早,因为他们既没有清楚地了解重新划分选区的不公平意味着什么,也没有对每项措施的机制进行复杂的讨论。因此,他们的评价不一致,有时事实上也不准确。他们的分析可能模糊多于澄清。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
13
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信