ShareThis Page
Carnegie Mellon professor will discuss ‘anti-gerrymandering’ at AAUW meeting |

Carnegie Mellon professor will discuss ‘anti-gerrymandering’ at AAUW meeting

Patrick Varine
| Wednesday, January 2, 2019 11:43 p.m
Submitted photo
Above, Carnegie Mellon University professor John Nagle.

If state lawmakers want a truly politically unbiased map of voting districts in Pennsylvania, they will need to look beyond the traditional map-making criteria, according to Carnegie Mellon professor John Nagle.

“Traditional” criteria include best efforts to keep voting districts compact, and to not split existing political boundaries.

“Why should Pennsylvania (election) reformers wish to prevent an independent commission from trying to achieve fairer and more responsive redistricting plans by constraining it to adhere to the traditional criteria?” Nagle asked in “What Criteria Should Be Used for Redistricting Reform,” which he will discuss Jan. 10 at the American Association of University Women’s meeting in Murrysville.

The paper examines whether the redrawn 2018 Pennsylvania congressional map and other redistricting efforts are fair and responsive for state voters — essentially, whether the map can expect to result in consistently competitive voting districts.

Nagle’s talk will include his analysis of Pennsylvania voting maps and the complexity of trying to create a fair and responsive set of voting districts.

There is no cost to attend the meeting, which will be at 9:30 a.m. at the Murrysville Community Library, 4130 Sardis Road in Murrysville.

Click here to read Nagle’s paper.

Patrick Varine is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Patrick at 724-850-2862, or via Twitter @MurrysvilleStar.

Patrick Varine is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Patrick at 724-850-2862, or via Twitter .

Categories: Local | Murrysville
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.