He called the ruling a “huge win” over a “horrible gerrymander.” But Trump himself has ordered many GOP states to gerrymander maximally. So here Trump openly declared that Republicans reserve the right to rig elections while Democrats do not. His actual position is that Republicans should play by their own corrupt rules, a declaration of intent to functionally steal the midterms.
The point is, the program doesn’t solve the problem. In your statement, the peer review of the program may solve the problem. Now, who picks the members for the peer review group? The same people who pick the congressional district committee? How does that solve the issue of bias in the committee? At best, the only thing this does is make them write out the criteria for districts, but code can be written to be obtuse, too.
Those doing the peer review would be university professors of computer science randomly chosen from top universities.
So we’re back to legislation and regulations picking people who we have to trust. Which is how it will always end.
How would a professor of computer science cheat? Remember there would be many other professors reviewing it.
They would cheat the same way any other committee would cheat. They would dismiss the biases they’re in favor of and highlight the biases they’re against. Or are you just assuming professors are completely objective and are paragons of virtue?
The computer program will be based on mathematics. Mathematics is not biased. Suppose someone wanted to divide a large piece of land into lots of equal sizes. How would the calculation be biased?
The problem is not really the code. It is writing the specification of what the code should do. What properties the drawn districts should have. Anyone can then run the program and confirm that the results match the spec.
Hell, with a good spec, you can just vibe code that thing.