Bob McLellan / Plymouth
Helman’s judgment that the new legislative districts are “fair” seems to be based solely on the fact that the number of “majority-minority” districts has increased from 10 to 20. The use of this criterion orients the redistricting process away from what it should be, indeed what all political decisions should be, which is colorblind. The means to achieve this goal are readily available and are, in fact, referenced in the article, when Helman writes about computer software used to draw maps. Districts can be drawn this way and evaluated by two purely numerical criteria: the minimum value of the sum of the perimeter distances of the districts and the minimum value of the population differences among districts. Using these “colorblind” criteria will assure that the districts are as compact and contiguous as possible and as close as possible to containing the same number of persons. This would not only provide equitable districts but would also show the rest of the country that the very state that gave the term “gerrymandering” to the political lexicon can also lead the way in eliminating the process forever.
John G. Northgraves / Millis
Helman’s article about gerrymandering was informative and enjoyable.
In my opinion, the quote by state Representative Michael Moran about how “communicating with everybody at all levels” should be standard spoke volumes about what is lacking these days in legislatures including our own: too little communication among lawmakers, especially across party lines. I would like to get rid of “the aisle” and force our legislators to sit in alphabetical order beside one another in session. Then maybe – just maybe – they might each discover that it is possible to openly share ideas and work together.
Allan Schubert / Mattapoisett
Notes on a wedding
