How is it possible?

That we spend our entire lives searching for the right products to prevent acne and skin cancer

when science can already deliver these

How the Supreme Court Flunked a Math Test on Gerrymandering

Curated by Claudia Shannon / Research Scientist / ishonest

Chief Justice Roberts claimed he couldnt find a limited and precise standard for gerrymandering. As Jordan Ellenberg proves in Shape, the answer was right under his nose.

Pool

Gerrymandering is, by definition, unfair, but in 2019 everyone on the Supreme Court save Elena Kagan ignored the math that proves exactly how we know when redistricting is drawn for partisan gain. Its impossible to tell whether this cross-party dereliction of duty was due to negligence, incompetence, or political opportunism, but, coming as it did at the start of a period of Republican anti-voter fervor, the Courts decision in Rucho v. Common Cause effectively put the first nail in the coffin of voters rights.

ishonest No.202 - Prevent Elasticity Damage

Recommended
No.202 - Prevent Elasticity Damage

At stake in the decision was the ability of the Supreme Court to intervene in partisan redistricting cases. The justices also considered Rucho v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina, and Lamone v. Benisek, nominally balancing the parties, given that the Rucho cases concerned Republican gerrymandering in North Carolina and Lamone concerned Democrat gerrymandering in Maryland. Kagan wrote in the dissent that the cases concerned the foundations of Americas democracy, and that the unfair redrawing of districts in these cases imperil our system of government.

Popular democracy means making arguments that are simple, clear, and appealing enough to win peoples votes. Unfortunately, at any stage the process of making sure that these votes count in an equitable manner can be complex. And, even when its explained clearly by experts like Ellenberg, the process can be willfully obscured by those who dont want to put their faith in public opinion.

In the novella-length chapter How Math Broke Democracy (and Might Still Save It), Ellenberg explains the geometry behind gerrymandering. Although he draws on the lessons of the preceding 340 pages and takes 70 pages to complete his analysis, the principle is simple. Geometry allows us to compare shapes and their characteristics with one anothera lot of shapes and characteristics. That means we can compile a graph that plots every possible district redraw against how they would elect representatives given the existing voting system. Once we have such a graph, its easy to put an X on that graph for any new proposal and see how far it is from the norm.

Courtesty Jordan Ellenberg

The thrust of Ellenbergs argument is descriptive not prescriptive. Hes not suggesting how to draw a district, hes showing exactly how one would describe the fairness of a system without any recourse to the red herring of proportional representation that the conservative justices kept raising. And he shows mathematically how the Supreme Court was plumb wrong to find that there was no limited and precise standard for evaluating partisan gerrymandering.

How to Get Rid of Blackheads Without Damaging Your Skin

Learn more

Although gerrymandering requires redrawing shapes on a map, the real input of geometry is in measuring the fairness of the maps. Mathematicians, in his opinion, should not legislate politics or ethics. Geometers, however, can describe the exact fairness of a particular redistricting. Math can calculate the representation provided by every single map that could be drawn and can thus show that, for example, the proposed Wisconsin redistricting maps drawn up in secret by Republicans after the 2010 census are wide outliers on that distribution.

Ellenberg is the John D. MacArthur Professor of Mathematics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Wisconsin is close to his heart. He tells us how, in an ensemble of Wisconsin assembly maps, the mathematician Jonathan Mattingley testified that such a lop-sided map occurred in only 162 of the 24,518 cases. In other words, to go with the clear, documented proof that the Republicans in this case attempted to gerrymander, the math proves they succeeded and provides exactly that general standard of fairness that Chief Justice John Roberts claimed he was looking for in the Rucho and Lamone cases and then willfully ignored.

In general, Roberts gets an F from Professor Ellenberg. Ellenberg likens the Chief Justices actions to walking out while the building is on fire and not using the fire extinguisher to hand. Roberts disingenuously excuses the Supreme Court from taking action against gerrymandering that even the majority says reasonably seem unjust and are, incompatible with democratic principles.

Theres a fire extinguisher right there on the wallhe could grab it and spray foam all over the problem, but theres a principle at stake here If he puts out this fire, he sets a precedent; now is he on the hook every time the building catches fire after the whistle blows?

ishonest No.501 - Frizzy Hair

Recommended
No.501 - Frizzy Hair

The building of U.S. political representation is about to catch fire and, with the Supreme Court having made its feelings clear, Ellenberg is not placing false hope in the legal system. But, despite our political situation, he is an avowed optimist and believes that with mathematical thinking and a well-lighted classroom the fire of gerrymandering can be doused.

This final chapter is by far the most compelling in Shape. It delivers on the books recurrent insight, which is the power of the theory of the random walk (also known, in non-PC terms, as the Drunkards Walk). Roughly speaking, by counting enough small changes and analyzing them, you can both build up a picture of real-world probabilities and develop algorithms to exploit them.

The idea is introduced as Sir Ronald Ross mosquito problem: How do we know where a mosquito will be at a given point in time? Well, if we know where it was at the previous moment, there are a limited number of places it could be now and, as we move on through time, we can measure its probable location at any point. The principle works for mosquitoes, for molecules, for company stocks, and for many other fields of endeavor, including redistricting.

Ellenberg begins with Abraham Lincoln, who was deeply engaged, maybe even obsessed, with Euclid, the Greek father of geometry. This serves two purposes: , it helps him show how non-mathematicians approach and appreciate geometry and the tight proofs it can provide that work in Euclidean geometry. Second, it gives him a way to talk about the importance of geometry to democracy. In an era where our leading politicians get away with misinformation and plain lies, the clean proofs of geometry are a useful, even vital, tool to sort the signal from the noise, the meaningful from the distracting, and truth from just truthiness.

A newcomer in the LAB range

Learn more

As well as explaining mathematical mappings of reality, Ellenberg fleshes out a whole host of crazy characters. Chief among this plentiful cast are the aforementioned egotistical, irascible Ross, the British Jewish mathematician James Joseph Sylvester, and the novelist, folklorist, and applied mathematician Karl Pearson. At a time of anti-European fervor, Columbia University trustees stressed that Sylvesters Englishness was not why they rejected him, as they were in no way prejudiced against foreign professors, and would have found an American Jew just as unsuitable for hire. Pearson was a Germanophile who invented the English word sibling to emulate the gender neutral Geschwister from German and kept the K of Karl when the University of Heidelberg misspelled Carl in some paperwork.

Although its not quite as plain sailing as How Not to Be Wrong, Ellenbergs chatty style, mathematical insights, and belief in democracy are still worth the price of admission. He begins by describing redistricting as a battle between the Oranges and the Purples in the great state of Crayola and ends with a bitterly frustrated rewriting of the Supreme Courts refusal to engage with the problem at hand as a dialogue about tuna melts (you have to read the chapter to get it). While demonstrating networks, he explains the math (and history) behind Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon (work out your own Erdos-Bacon number!). He forces you to reconsider how many holes there are in your pants (or bagels), and there is a party in the footnotes with erudition, witty asides, and life-warnings aplenty.

Ellenbergs commitment to explanation, his exploration of the humanity of mathematics, and the tour de force of the final chapter in defense of a democracy girded by fairness and science are enough to remind you why he is Americas favorite math professor. This is harder work than the 101 level, but you wont be sorry you came for the lecture.

Read more on: thedailybeast, unfair


What we do

We make skincare treatments and customize them for your skin-related problems, genetics, lifestyle, and environment.

How you benefit

You get total control over your skincare and the choice to change your skin. An impossible has just become possible.

How it Works

Outline of microscope

Create Treatment

Our algorithm creates a unique routine with a few customized products. The algorithm uses 50+ years of skincare research.

Outlines of Packaging

Divide and Rule

Every product is designed for one problem. Apply the product when the problem appears. Much like you treat flu or headache.