One of the books I read this week was Jeremy Bentham's Principles of Morals and Legislation. In it, Bentham describes the principle of Utilitarianism. To him, this principle is all about the balance of pleasures and pains.
The idea is that an action should be measured by both the intentions and consequences of it. A good action is one that attempts to increase the pleasures or decrease the pains of a person it affects. The overall value of that action, then, can be measured by summing the outcomes it has for every affected person.
So how does this apply to redistricting? Adhering to Bentham's principles of utility necessitates majority-favoring districts. These districts would have to be drawn with maximum compactness, and with no regard for communities of interest. Bentham's ideas would strongly oppose both racial, and partisan gerrymandering, because both types work to strengthen the political power of certain groups beyond what their population figures would prescribe.
Hi Giacomo,
ReplyDeleteThis theory seems like a very equal way to approach redistricting. However, there may be a trade-off in accounting for minority groups in some districts. Do you think this would be an effective way to deal with gerrymandering if it was applied in real life situations?
This theory alone would not allow redistricting to even consider the unique representation needs of minority groups. It could be effective in real life, but at the expense of minority voices. As you will soon see, the best framework for a fair redistricting system will be a matter of debate, and may include a balance of different philosophies.
ReplyDelete