In my view, the path forward is coming up with procedures that we think ensure fairer outcomes, whether they be what we have proposed here or other approaches where a fairer process is the key reform.

This is essentially Goodhart's Law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." With modern computing, it is possible to draw maps that meet one single target while still allowing an extreme gerrymander along other dimensions.

One related point to highlight that is not in the Time article, but that I think is an increasingly important one: Any "solution" to gerrymandering that is pinned on reducing a single measure can ultimately be gamed.

We're honored the paper recently won the Miller Prize from the Society for Political Methodology for best paper in Political Analysis in 2025, polmeth.org/miller-prize.

I along with my co-authors @MaxwellBPalmer and @cantstopkevin wrote an academic article (bit.ly/4oABcyb) describing the proposed approach: set the parties against each other in a structured map-drawing process, where each has input. We call it Define-Combine.

Finally, if you are interested in reading an even more in-depth (and more academic) analysis I put one together here: www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-te...

The new map is not only biased for Republicans, but also unresponsive to future swings in the vote. In other work, we have termed this type of map a “durable gerrymander,” and it cuts against an important democratic principle: that the party in power risks losing it if voter preferences change.

#QJE Aug 2025, #14, “‘Descended from Immigrants and Revolutionists:’ How Family History Shapes Immigration Policymaking,” by Feigenbaum (@jamesfeigenbaum.bsky.social), Palmer (@maxwellpalmer.com), and Schneer: doi.org/10.1093/qje/...