{"title":"对“考虑建立包装选区划分标准的前景”的复辩","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":" ","pages":""},"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":"{\"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\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"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}","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}
Rejoinder to “Considering the Prospects for Establishing a Packing Gerrymandering Standard”
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.