mathfan2's comments

> something close to algorithmic probably ends up the least controversial and most comprehensible in the long run

One suggestion in this direction is the shortest split line algorithm: http://www.rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html

(The OP also uses split lines, but they are optimized for maximum partisan effect rather than minimum length.)

One proposed implementation of your suggestion is the shortest split line algorithm: http://www.rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html

The OP also uses split lines, but they are optimized for maximum partisan effect.

> the example on the webpage is pretty contrived

That's true, but the point of the demonstration is simply that the snaky, salamander-looking shapes are not necessary.

There's every reason to believe that you can achieve stunning examples of partisan gerrymandering under various "nice shape" criteria. You are correct that the "n-1 split lines" is simply very easy to state mathematically.

The main takeaway from the article is that sometimes there is a trade-off between nice geometrical shapes and proportional district results.

If a machine gave you a crazy-shaped district map because that's the only way to get "low efficiency gap", would you agree to them?

> blue is a majority of every 3x3 square

Blue is indeed a slight majority of every "3x lattice"-aligned square. But if you take the top left square and shift one down and one right, you'll see that in fact red wins that 3x3 square decisively: 8 to 1.

> why shouldn't it win every district?

Maybe you think it should, but whoever drew the districts would run afoul of the newish gerrymandering measure the Supreme Court is considering.