Republicans are requesting a liberal Wisconsin judge recuse herself from potentially considering reviewing the Badger State’s congressional maps.   Earlier this month, Democrats asked the Wisc…

Republicans are requesting a liberal Wisconsin judge recuse herself from potentially considering reviewing the Badger State’s congressional maps.

Earlier this month, Democrats asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to reconsider the state’s congressional maps, using the high court’s opinion in a separate elections maps lawsuit as reason to consider a redo over Wisconsin’s congressional maps.

But five members of Wisconsin’s GOP congressional delegation filed a motion Tuesday asking Justice Janet Protasiewicz to recuse herself from hearing the case, pointing to comments she made when she was a candidate running for a spot on the court last year as reason to not weigh in.

Among some of the comments Republicans pointed to included her calling the state’s maps “rigged” and saying she “would certainly welcome the opportunity to have a fresh look at our maps.” However, neither she, nor her Republican opponent, detailed how they would vote on a potential case while on the campaign trail.

  • logicbomb@lemmy.world
    2·
    10 months ago

    I’ve been involved in data science research on similar optimization problems, so I know full well how it works and what the shortcomings are.

    …and there’s the missing link that explains why you’re acting this way. I’ve worked with enough data scientists to see what’s going on. I don’t trust data scientists unless they have some other field of expertise in addition. People who’ve been involved with data scientists enough to see what they’re doing are probably going to often have similar outlooks to you.

    You can quit the condescension. It doesn’t impress me.

    I’m not trying to impress you. You may think you’re telling the truth, but you are in fact spreading misinformation. There is a 0% chance that you are correct. You don’t understand the subject and you’re just bloviating. It’s inherently offensive.

    I’ll end this discussion by summarizing it for readers:

    I wasn’t impressed by your summary, so I made my own:

    Me: With a basic understanding of logic and algorithms, there will definitely be a hands-off computer approach to redistricting that will lead to better results than anything a human can make. This is guaranteed. There is no way to dispute this.

    You: I will pretend like I never said anything like “Algorithmically-decided districts will also inherently ignore communities, both historic and demographic, again creating a high cracking likelihood and creating outsized representation to the dominant political groups.” or “These tech-bro-thinking solutions will never be the answer. The answer to redistricting* is to have a controlled political process with checks and balances.” I will now pretend like I had a different, less stupid opinion, than the one I started with and that I have been arguing this entire time. I am doing this because either I was up to this point, completely unable to articulate myself, or because I have secretly realized that I was mistaken, and now I am too stubborn to admit it.