Yep, I'm excited to see how AI can transform the math research workflow!

Wow, I was already impressed with the new comment feature on erdosproblems.com and how it's already been used to solve some of the problems. Excited to see if AI can make a meaningful contribution here.

So you're cool having a party with 49% of the vote but none of the seats? Is that representative democracy?

49% of each district? Yeah, didn't win the majority. The squares have equal population not size,so rural places get large squares and cities get smaller squares but each are nearly equal in population. This helps the majority of any square, but right now being a majority of your district has no meaning at all because they use race and predicting who will vote how. I ask you back, is that not rigged? Does it make sense for states with more than 50% of people voting for one party to remain in contril of another party because they drew the lines to suit them?

The Supreme Court has already stated that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional, we just don't have a mechanism to systematically detect it after the fact. That's why it's so hard to fight in the courts. If possible, I think it's a good idea to prevent unconstitutional gerrymandering, even if it doesn't solve all of our problems.

A switch to PR would require a change to federal law. Meanwhile, in the absence of PR, any state is free to adopt its own redistricting policy. The latter approach seems much more feasible.

A State changing how it runs its State Legislature is a change to the State Constitution either way, whether taking away the map drawing authority from the Legislature itself or changing the structure of the Legislature to be non-districted or multi-member districted.

What is more likely, a change to federal law, or the existence of one of 50 states that changes state law?

It’s a single statute that requires single member districts. It wouldn’t be difficult to change. Hell, it may even be unconstitutional.

> It’s a single statute that requires single member districts. It wouldn’t be difficult to change.

Yes, it would, politically. The reason it exists will produce vet strong resistance to a straight repeal, and any replacement with an alternate approach to preventing the original problem while allowing multimember districts will, in addition to resistance from those in Congress whose opposition is driven by opposing undermining the existing dominant parties, resistance around the details of any alternative scheme (which will have predictable winners and losers.)