# Drawn Together: Can Math Nerds Beat Gerrymandering?

## How to spot a gerrymandered congressional district.

Illinois map: National Atlas, Texas map: Center for Range Voting

Read also: Can one Democrat hell-bent on revenge reverse Tom DeLay’s redistricting power grab?

The art of drawing congressional districts to benefit one party or another goes back to the earliest days of the republic. Detailed census and election data have made it even easier to construct electorates with an all-but-guaranteed political leaning. You can usually spot a gerrymandered district by its wacky boundaries. Or you can use this formula (PDF), developed by John Mackenzie, a professor of resource economics and geographic information systems at the University of Delaware:

Mackenzie’s formula gives lower gerrymandering scores to districts with a low perimeter-to-area ratio (like the entire state of Wyoming). Higher scores go to irregularly shaped districts, like Illinois’ pincer-like 4th district (above).

The formula doesn’t take into account how a district got its odd contours. Take North Carolina’s 12th, which has the country’s third-highest gerrymandering score. Drawn as a majority-black district in 1992, the snaking “I-85 district” used to be barely wider than the interstate in some places. After being found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, it was redrawn in 1997 with a slight white plurality. But it’s kept its meandering shape, and its representative—Rep. Mel Watt, a black Democrat.

So what might an ungerrymandered nation look like? Mathematician Warren D. Smith, cofounder of RangeVoting.org, has used an algorithm to redraw every state’s districts in a geometrically precise manner that ignores party lines (left). Would his solution shake up the partisan or racial composition of Congress? Who knows. But it sure would look pretty.

### WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about \$45,000 short of our \$300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of \$350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

### WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about \$45,000 short of our \$300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of \$350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.