Well, for all those wondering if the R rating of 'The Matrix Reloaded' would cause problems for it at the box office, stop worrying!

'Matrix' Sequel Reloads the Box Office! Breaks Opening Day Record

http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/st...-16990,00.html

Well, for all those wondering if the R rating of 'The Matrix Reloaded' would cause problems for it at the box office, stop worrying!

'Matrix' Sequel Reloads the Box Office! Breaks Opening Day Record

http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/st...-16990,00.html

Well, for all those wondering if the R rating of 'The Matrix Reloaded' would cause problems for it at the box office, stop worrying!

'Matrix' Sequel Reloads the Box Office! Breaks Opening Day Record

http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/st...-16990,00.html

http://www.msnbc.com/news/915477.asp?0cv=CB20



Reality TV, the new dirty word
Come fall, the networks won?t be taking chances

NEW YORK, May 19 ? Three months ago, it seemed reality had changed the television world forever. Now, it?s a dirty word. TV executives nearly trampled each other distancing themselves from the genre as ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, UPN and the WB revealed their fall schedules to advertisers last week.

IT WAS A TELLING example of how television does business. No matter how many millions of people watched ?American Idol,? ?Joe Millionaire,? ?Fear Factor,? ?The Bachelor? or ?Survivor? the past few months, the industry still doesn?t trust reality.
The six networks will flood the airwaves with 38 new shows in the fall, including 20 comedies and 17 dramas.
Only one can legitimately be called reality: a talent show with comic Steve Harvey as host. The WB called it a comedy. And a talk show. And a variety show. Anything but reality.
The prevailing mood was summed up by comic Jimmy Kimmel during a short monologue at Radio City Music Hall, where ABC put on its show for the people who will buy commercials.
?We no longer call them reality shows,? Kimmel said. ?That word is taboo around here. From now on, they?ll simply be known as (expletive).?
Reality isn?t absent from the fall schedules; all of the above-named shows will be back. But while networks don?t hesitate to take a chance with an unproven comedy or drama, they won?t do the same with reality to start the season.
The explanation is simple. ?It doesn?t sell very well,? said Lloyd Braun, ABC entertainment chairman.

NO TRACK RECORD, NO SELL
The fall schedule announcements, called upfronts, are glamorous sales presentations. In the next few weeks, advertisers will commit to buying between $8 billion and $9 billion worth of commercials for next season.
Clients are less likely to buy a reality show until it is a proven hit, or they expect the commercial time to be much cheaper.
?We would not give it any kind of significant value or attention because it has no track record,? said Harry Keeshan, executive vice president of national broadcasting for PHD, a firm that buys ad time.
Most people who decide where advertising money is spent have experience judging comedies and dramas and pricing them. They have far less experience for reality shows, which have a greater tendency to be big hits or big failures, said David Poltrack, chief researcher at CBS.

The buyers also have time to judge for themselves. Pilot episodes of next fall?s shows are already circulating on Madison Avenue; reality series rarely are available that far in advance.
Then there?s the ?yuck factor.? Some advertisers don?t want their products shown after a contestant has gagged on horse rectum on ?Fear Factor,? or flexed muscles on ?Are You Hot.?
?A lot of people in management, particularly on the client side, don?t really care for this kind of television,? Poltrack said.
This was all true six months ago, too. But when ?Joe Millionaire,? ?The Bachelor? and ?American Idol? drew eye-popping ratings last winter, many questioned whether the business equation had changed.
Then came ?Are You Hot.? And ?Married By America.? And ?Mr. Personality.? And ?The Family.? And on and on. A steady stream of reality shows, many of them sleazy and virtually all failures, raised suspicions again.

REALITY ?NOT A GREAT BUSINESS?
ABC?s reality binge helped make it a fourth-place network this spring, and CBS chief executive Leslie Moonves this week made sure advertisers didn?t forget.
?When their shows didn?t work in the fall, they quickly stuck you with cheap reality shows,? he said during CBS?s upfront. ?It?s the old bait and switch.?
Sanctioning Kimmel?s joke was ABC?s way of pleading for forgiveness from advertisers.
?It didn?t sell very well and many of the shows didn?t fit our brand,? Braun said. ?Ultimately, having a reality-dominated network isn?t a great business. It certainly can be a potent weapon, but you have to be careful that it does not become a dominant force in the schedule. We?ve been through that.?
Making his sales pitch last week, WB President Jed Petrick also emphasized fictional shows.
?The beauty of scripted programming is it allows you to have a certain level of comfort in the environment in which your brand is presented,? he said.
Same thing at NBC.
?We believe in reality ? you cannot ignore it ? but our strategy is to use it principally in the summer to keep the lights on,? said NBC Entertainment President Jeff Zucker. ?When you buy reality, you often don?t know what you?re going to get. When you buy NBC, you?re buying quality.? (MSNBC is a Microsoft-NBC joint venture.)
CBS, at its presentation, used the cast of the Broadway hit, ?Chicago,? to sing a parody ? to the tune of ?All That Jazz? ? with a mischievous opposing viewpoint.
?ABC, they?re out of gas,? they sang. ?While NBC eats horse?s ass.?
Network executives will be watching the sales performance of one show in particular the next week, Fox?s ?Joe Millionaire.? It was a big hit this past winter, but was based on a premise that would seem difficult to repeat: fooling women into thinking they were dating somebody rich.
Fool them once, but fool them twice? Fox has refused to give details about how a new ?Joe Millionaire? will work, so ad buyers have a tough decision to make.
Fox, the network that has probably used reality most extensively and to greatest effect, stressed the genre?s impact on the rest of its schedule. Both ?24? and ?Bernie Mac? have reached ratings highs this year, primarily because they followed ?American Idol? on the schedule.
?Fox has succeeded in striking the right balance between scripted and unscripted programming,? entertainment president Gail Berman said.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/915477.asp?0cv=CB20



Reality TV, the new dirty word
Come fall, the networks won?t be taking chances

NEW YORK, May 19 ? Three months ago, it seemed reality had changed the television world forever. Now, it?s a dirty word. TV executives nearly trampled each other distancing themselves from the genre as ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, UPN and the WB revealed their fall schedules to advertisers last week.

IT WAS A TELLING example of how television does business. No matter how many millions of people watched ?American Idol,? ?Joe Millionaire,? ?Fear Factor,? ?The Bachelor? or ?Survivor? the past few months, the industry still doesn?t trust reality.
The six networks will flood the airwaves with 38 new shows in the fall, including 20 comedies and 17 dramas.
Only one can legitimately be called reality: a talent show with comic Steve Harvey as host. The WB called it a comedy. And a talk show. And a variety show. Anything but reality.
The prevailing mood was summed up by comic Jimmy Kimmel during a short monologue at Radio City Music Hall, where ABC put on its show for the people who will buy commercials.
?We no longer call them reality shows,? Kimmel said. ?That word is taboo around here. From now on, they?ll simply be known as (expletive).?
Reality isn?t absent from the fall schedules; all of the above-named shows will be back. But while networks don?t hesitate to take a chance with an unproven comedy or drama, they won?t do the same with reality to start the season.
The explanation is simple. ?It doesn?t sell very well,? said Lloyd Braun, ABC entertainment chairman.

NO TRACK RECORD, NO SELL
The fall schedule announcements, called upfronts, are glamorous sales presentations. In the next few weeks, advertisers will commit to buying between $8 billion and $9 billion worth of commercials for next season.
Clients are less likely to buy a reality show until it is a proven hit, or they expect the commercial time to be much cheaper.
?We would not give it any kind of significant value or attention because it has no track record,? said Harry Keeshan, executive vice president of national broadcasting for PHD, a firm that buys ad time.
Most people who decide where advertising money is spent have experience judging comedies and dramas and pricing them. They have far less experience for reality shows, which have a greater tendency to be big hits or big failures, said David Poltrack, chief researcher at CBS.

The buyers also have time to judge for themselves. Pilot episodes of next fall?s shows are already circulating on Madison Avenue; reality series rarely are available that far in advance.
Then there?s the ?yuck factor.? Some advertisers don?t want their products shown after a contestant has gagged on horse rectum on ?Fear Factor,? or flexed muscles on ?Are You Hot.?
?A lot of people in management, particularly on the client side, don?t really care for this kind of television,? Poltrack said.
This was all true six months ago, too. But when ?Joe Millionaire,? ?The Bachelor? and ?American Idol? drew eye-popping ratings last winter, many questioned whether the business equation had changed.
Then came ?Are You Hot.? And ?Married By America.? And ?Mr. Personality.? And ?The Family.? And on and on. A steady stream of reality shows, many of them sleazy and virtually all failures, raised suspicions again.

REALITY ?NOT A GREAT BUSINESS?
ABC?s reality binge helped make it a fourth-place network this spring, and CBS chief executive Leslie Moonves this week made sure advertisers didn?t forget.
?When their shows didn?t work in the fall, they quickly stuck you with cheap reality shows,? he said during CBS?s upfront. ?It?s the old bait and switch.?
Sanctioning Kimmel?s joke was ABC?s way of pleading for forgiveness from advertisers.
?It didn?t sell very well and many of the shows didn?t fit our brand,? Braun said. ?Ultimately, having a reality-dominated network isn?t a great business. It certainly can be a potent weapon, but you have to be careful that it does not become a dominant force in the schedule. We?ve been through that.?
Making his sales pitch last week, WB President Jed Petrick also emphasized fictional shows.
?The beauty of scripted programming is it allows you to have a certain level of comfort in the environment in which your brand is presented,? he said.
Same thing at NBC.
?We believe in reality ? you cannot ignore it ? but our strategy is to use it principally in the summer to keep the lights on,? said NBC Entertainment President Jeff Zucker. ?When you buy reality, you often don?t know what you?re going to get. When you buy NBC, you?re buying quality.? (MSNBC is a Microsoft-NBC joint venture.)
CBS, at its presentation, used the cast of the Broadway hit, ?Chicago,? to sing a parody ? to the tune of ?All That Jazz? ? with a mischievous opposing viewpoint.
?ABC, they?re out of gas,? they sang. ?While NBC eats horse?s ass.?
Network executives will be watching the sales performance of one show in particular the next week, Fox?s ?Joe Millionaire.? It was a big hit this past winter, but was based on a premise that would seem difficult to repeat: fooling women into thinking they were dating somebody rich.
Fool them once, but fool them twice? Fox has refused to give details about how a new ?Joe Millionaire? will work, so ad buyers have a tough decision to make.
Fox, the network that has probably used reality most extensively and to greatest effect, stressed the genre?s impact on the rest of its schedule. Both ?24? and ?Bernie Mac? have reached ratings highs this year, primarily because they followed ?American Idol? on the schedule.
?Fox has succeeded in striking the right balance between scripted and unscripted programming,? entertainment president Gail Berman said.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/915477.asp?0cv=CB20



Reality TV, the new dirty word
Come fall, the networks won?t be taking chances

NEW YORK, May 19 ? Three months ago, it seemed reality had changed the television world forever. Now, it?s a dirty word. TV executives nearly trampled each other distancing themselves from the genre as ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, UPN and the WB revealed their fall schedules to advertisers last week.

IT WAS A TELLING example of how television does business. No matter how many millions of people watched ?American Idol,? ?Joe Millionaire,? ?Fear Factor,? ?The Bachelor? or ?Survivor? the past few months, the industry still doesn?t trust reality.
The six networks will flood the airwaves with 38 new shows in the fall, including 20 comedies and 17 dramas.
Only one can legitimately be called reality: a talent show with comic Steve Harvey as host. The WB called it a comedy. And a talk show. And a variety show. Anything but reality.
The prevailing mood was summed up by comic Jimmy Kimmel during a short monologue at Radio City Music Hall, where ABC put on its show for the people who will buy commercials.
?We no longer call them reality shows,? Kimmel said. ?That word is taboo around here. From now on, they?ll simply be known as (expletive).?
Reality isn?t absent from the fall schedules; all of the above-named shows will be back. But while networks don?t hesitate to take a chance with an unproven comedy or drama, they won?t do the same with reality to start the season.
The explanation is simple. ?It doesn?t sell very well,? said Lloyd Braun, ABC entertainment chairman.

NO TRACK RECORD, NO SELL
The fall schedule announcements, called upfronts, are glamorous sales presentations. In the next few weeks, advertisers will commit to buying between $8 billion and $9 billion worth of commercials for next season.
Clients are less likely to buy a reality show until it is a proven hit, or they expect the commercial time to be much cheaper.
?We would not give it any kind of significant value or attention because it has no track record,? said Harry Keeshan, executive vice president of national broadcasting for PHD, a firm that buys ad time.
Most people who decide where advertising money is spent have experience judging comedies and dramas and pricing them. They have far less experience for reality shows, which have a greater tendency to be big hits or big failures, said David Poltrack, chief researcher at CBS.

The buyers also have time to judge for themselves. Pilot episodes of next fall?s shows are already circulating on Madison Avenue; reality series rarely are available that far in advance.
Then there?s the ?yuck factor.? Some advertisers don?t want their products shown after a contestant has gagged on horse rectum on ?Fear Factor,? or flexed muscles on ?Are You Hot.?
?A lot of people in management, particularly on the client side, don?t really care for this kind of television,? Poltrack said.
This was all true six months ago, too. But when ?Joe Millionaire,? ?The Bachelor? and ?American Idol? drew eye-popping ratings last winter, many questioned whether the business equation had changed.
Then came ?Are You Hot.? And ?Married By America.? And ?Mr. Personality.? And ?The Family.? And on and on. A steady stream of reality shows, many of them sleazy and virtually all failures, raised suspicions again.

REALITY ?NOT A GREAT BUSINESS?
ABC?s reality binge helped make it a fourth-place network this spring, and CBS chief executive Leslie Moonves this week made sure advertisers didn?t forget.
?When their shows didn?t work in the fall, they quickly stuck you with cheap reality shows,? he said during CBS?s upfront. ?It?s the old bait and switch.?
Sanctioning Kimmel?s joke was ABC?s way of pleading for forgiveness from advertisers.
?It didn?t sell very well and many of the shows didn?t fit our brand,? Braun said. ?Ultimately, having a reality-dominated network isn?t a great business. It certainly can be a potent weapon, but you have to be careful that it does not become a dominant force in the schedule. We?ve been through that.?
Making his sales pitch last week, WB President Jed Petrick also emphasized fictional shows.
?The beauty of scripted programming is it allows you to have a certain level of comfort in the environment in which your brand is presented,? he said.
Same thing at NBC.
?We believe in reality ? you cannot ignore it ? but our strategy is to use it principally in the summer to keep the lights on,? said NBC Entertainment President Jeff Zucker. ?When you buy reality, you often don?t know what you?re going to get. When you buy NBC, you?re buying quality.? (MSNBC is a Microsoft-NBC joint venture.)
CBS, at its presentation, used the cast of the Broadway hit, ?Chicago,? to sing a parody ? to the tune of ?All That Jazz? ? with a mischievous opposing viewpoint.
?ABC, they?re out of gas,? they sang. ?While NBC eats horse?s ass.?
Network executives will be watching the sales performance of one show in particular the next week, Fox?s ?Joe Millionaire.? It was a big hit this past winter, but was based on a premise that would seem difficult to repeat: fooling women into thinking they were dating somebody rich.
Fool them once, but fool them twice? Fox has refused to give details about how a new ?Joe Millionaire? will work, so ad buyers have a tough decision to make.
Fox, the network that has probably used reality most extensively and to greatest effect, stressed the genre?s impact on the rest of its schedule. Both ?24? and ?Bernie Mac? have reached ratings highs this year, primarily because they followed ?American Idol? on the schedule.
?Fox has succeeded in striking the right balance between scripted and unscripted programming,? entertainment president Gail Berman said.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/915477.asp?0cv=CB20



Reality TV, the new dirty word
Come fall, the networks won?t be taking chances

NEW YORK, May 19 ? Three months ago, it seemed reality had changed the television world forever. Now, it?s a dirty word. TV executives nearly trampled each other distancing themselves from the genre as ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, UPN and the WB revealed their fall schedules to advertisers last week.

IT WAS A TELLING example of how television does business. No matter how many millions of people watched ?American Idol,? ?Joe Millionaire,? ?Fear Factor,? ?The Bachelor? or ?Survivor? the past few months, the industry still doesn?t trust reality.
The six networks will flood the airwaves with 38 new shows in the fall, including 20 comedies and 17 dramas.
Only one can legitimately be called reality: a talent show with comic Steve Harvey as host. The WB called it a comedy. And a talk show. And a variety show. Anything but reality.
The prevailing mood was summed up by comic Jimmy Kimmel during a short monologue at Radio City Music Hall, where ABC put on its show for the people who will buy commercials.
?We no longer call them reality shows,? Kimmel said. ?That word is taboo around here. From now on, they?ll simply be known as (expletive).?
Reality isn?t absent from the fall schedules; all of the above-named shows will be back. But while networks don?t hesitate to take a chance with an unproven comedy or drama, they won?t do the same with reality to start the season.
The explanation is simple. ?It doesn?t sell very well,? said Lloyd Braun, ABC entertainment chairman.

NO TRACK RECORD, NO SELL
The fall schedule announcements, called upfronts, are glamorous sales presentations. In the next few weeks, advertisers will commit to buying between $8 billion and $9 billion worth of commercials for next season.
Clients are less likely to buy a reality show until it is a proven hit, or they expect the commercial time to be much cheaper.
?We would not give it any kind of significant value or attention because it has no track record,? said Harry Keeshan, executive vice president of national broadcasting for PHD, a firm that buys ad time.
Most people who decide where advertising money is spent have experience judging comedies and dramas and pricing them. They have far less experience for reality shows, which have a greater tendency to be big hits or big failures, said David Poltrack, chief researcher at CBS.

The buyers also have time to judge for themselves. Pilot episodes of next fall?s shows are already circulating on Madison Avenue; reality series rarely are available that far in advance.
Then there?s the ?yuck factor.? Some advertisers don?t want their products shown after a contestant has gagged on horse rectum on ?Fear Factor,? or flexed muscles on ?Are You Hot.?
?A lot of people in management, particularly on the client side, don?t really care for this kind of television,? Poltrack said.
This was all true six months ago, too. But when ?Joe Millionaire,? ?The Bachelor? and ?American Idol? drew eye-popping ratings last winter, many questioned whether the business equation had changed.
Then came ?Are You Hot.? And ?Married By America.? And ?Mr. Personality.? And ?The Family.? And on and on. A steady stream of reality shows, many of them sleazy and virtually all failures, raised suspicions again.

REALITY ?NOT A GREAT BUSINESS?
ABC?s reality binge helped make it a fourth-place network this spring, and CBS chief executive Leslie Moonves this week made sure advertisers didn?t forget.
?When their shows didn?t work in the fall, they quickly stuck you with cheap reality shows,? he said during CBS?s upfront. ?It?s the old bait and switch.?
Sanctioning Kimmel?s joke was ABC?s way of pleading for forgiveness from advertisers.
?It didn?t sell very well and many of the shows didn?t fit our brand,? Braun said. ?Ultimately, having a reality-dominated network isn?t a great business. It certainly can be a potent weapon, but you have to be careful that it does not become a dominant force in the schedule. We?ve been through that.?
Making his sales pitch last week, WB President Jed Petrick also emphasized fictional shows.
?The beauty of scripted programming is it allows you to have a certain level of comfort in the environment in which your brand is presented,? he said.
Same thing at NBC.
?We believe in reality ? you cannot ignore it ? but our strategy is to use it principally in the summer to keep the lights on,? said NBC Entertainment President Jeff Zucker. ?When you buy reality, you often don?t know what you?re going to get. When you buy NBC, you?re buying quality.? (MSNBC is a Microsoft-NBC joint venture.)
CBS, at its presentation, used the cast of the Broadway hit, ?Chicago,? to sing a parody ? to the tune of ?All That Jazz? ? with a mischievous opposing viewpoint.
?ABC, they?re out of gas,? they sang. ?While NBC eats horse?s ass.?
Network executives will be watching the sales performance of one show in particular the next week, Fox?s ?Joe Millionaire.? It was a big hit this past winter, but was based on a premise that would seem difficult to repeat: fooling women into thinking they were dating somebody rich.
Fool them once, but fool them twice? Fox has refused to give details about how a new ?Joe Millionaire? will work, so ad buyers have a tough decision to make.
Fox, the network that has probably used reality most extensively and to greatest effect, stressed the genre?s impact on the rest of its schedule. Both ?24? and ?Bernie Mac? have reached ratings highs this year, primarily because they followed ?American Idol? on the schedule.
?Fox has succeeded in striking the right balance between scripted and unscripted programming,? entertainment president Gail Berman said.

...or, here is another view.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/televis...-reality_x.htm


Reality will rely on old favorites, but new shows could show up fast

By Robert Bianco, USA TODAY
Reality isn't dead. It's just hibernating.

There are no new reality shows on the fall schedule, partly because the networks figure you'll need a break after a summer swarming with the stuff and partly because it's easier to sell advertisers on scripted shows. But wait until the first fall shows fail, and see how fast reality revives.

Until then, you will be seeing new editions of some old reality standbys. On the returning list are Survivor (CBS), Fear Factor (NBC), The Bachelor and Extreme Makeover (ABC) and the second installment of Fox's American Idol spinoff American Juniors, which premieres this summer. Fox also will offer another version of Joe Millionaire. Don't ask how: The details are a closely guarded secret.

Oh, and we're due to get our first date-show wedding as Trista marries Ryan on an ABC prime-time special. Never mind possible romantic roadblocks: That woman seems so determined to get back on TV, he could die, and she'd marry the corpse.

...or, here is another view.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/televis...-reality_x.htm


Reality will rely on old favorites, but new shows could show up fast

By Robert Bianco, USA TODAY
Reality isn't dead. It's just hibernating.

There are no new reality shows on the fall schedule, partly because the networks figure you'll need a break after a summer swarming with the stuff and partly because it's easier to sell advertisers on scripted shows. But wait until the first fall shows fail, and see how fast reality revives.

Until then, you will be seeing new editions of some old reality standbys. On the returning list are Survivor (CBS), Fear Factor (NBC), The Bachelor and Extreme Makeover (ABC) and the second installment of Fox's American Idol spinoff American Juniors, which premieres this summer. Fox also will offer another version of Joe Millionaire. Don't ask how: The details are a closely guarded secret.

Oh, and we're due to get our first date-show wedding as Trista marries Ryan on an ABC prime-time special. Never mind possible romantic roadblocks: That woman seems so determined to get back on TV, he could die, and she'd marry the corpse.

...or, here is another view.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/televis...-reality_x.htm


Reality will rely on old favorites, but new shows could show up fast

By Robert Bianco, USA TODAY
Reality isn't dead. It's just hibernating.

There are no new reality shows on the fall schedule, partly because the networks figure you'll need a break after a summer swarming with the stuff and partly because it's easier to sell advertisers on scripted shows. But wait until the first fall shows fail, and see how fast reality revives.

Until then, you will be seeing new editions of some old reality standbys. On the returning list are Survivor (CBS), Fear Factor (NBC), The Bachelor and Extreme Makeover (ABC) and the second installment of Fox's American Idol spinoff American Juniors, which premieres this summer. Fox also will offer another version of Joe Millionaire. Don't ask how: The details are a closely guarded secret.

Oh, and we're due to get our first date-show wedding as Trista marries Ryan on an ABC prime-time special. Never mind possible romantic roadblocks: That woman seems so determined to get back on TV, he could die, and she'd marry the corpse.

...or, here is another view.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/televis...-reality_x.htm


Reality will rely on old favorites, but new shows could show up fast

By Robert Bianco, USA TODAY
Reality isn't dead. It's just hibernating.

There are no new reality shows on the fall schedule, partly because the networks figure you'll need a break after a summer swarming with the stuff and partly because it's easier to sell advertisers on scripted shows. But wait until the first fall shows fail, and see how fast reality revives.

Until then, you will be seeing new editions of some old reality standbys. On the returning list are Survivor (CBS), Fear Factor (NBC), The Bachelor and Extreme Makeover (ABC) and the second installment of Fox's American Idol spinoff American Juniors, which premieres this summer. Fox also will offer another version of Joe Millionaire. Don't ask how: The details are a closely guarded secret.

Oh, and we're due to get our first date-show wedding as Trista marries Ryan on an ABC prime-time special. Never mind possible romantic roadblocks: That woman seems so determined to get back on TV, he could die, and she'd marry the corpse.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Originally Posted by elilevin

I have always wondered about the feasibility of redistricting.

Does anybody know the history of it? I can imagine that it is the product of the Silent leadership--but I don't know this for sure.

The Americian redistricting system is a joke, never ever put the power of redrawing electoral boundaries to politicans. The establishment of non-political electoral comissions at both a state and federal level, would make the redistricting process and conduct of elections far more fairer.

I totally agree. The task of drawing fair election districts could easily be relegated to a computer algorithm that would be fed information on population density but no information on the voting tendencies or any other characteristics of voters in any areas. The algorithm would seek the optimum districts, where "optimum" would mean most equal in population and most regular in shape.

The algorithm used, and the population data, could be made publically available, such that any organization could test the results and confirm them. Arguments would probably break out about the benefits of this algorithm versus that, and the accuracy of the population data, but at least we all could agree that politicians were unable to draw districts to intentionally give themselves advantages.

Redistricting should not be a political football. Gerrymandering will always result.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Originally Posted by elilevin

I have always wondered about the feasibility of redistricting.

Does anybody know the history of it? I can imagine that it is the product of the Silent leadership--but I don't know this for sure.

The Americian redistricting system is a joke, never ever put the power of redrawing electoral boundaries to politicans. The establishment of non-political electoral comissions at both a state and federal level, would make the redistricting process and conduct of elections far more fairer.

I totally agree. The task of drawing fair election districts could easily be relegated to a computer algorithm that would be fed information on population density but no information on the voting tendencies or any other characteristics of voters in any areas. The algorithm would seek the optimum districts, where "optimum" would mean most equal in population and most regular in shape.

The algorithm used, and the population data, could be made publically available, such that any organization could test the results and confirm them. Arguments would probably break out about the benefits of this algorithm versus that, and the accuracy of the population data, but at least we all could agree that politicians were unable to draw districts to intentionally give themselves advantages.

Redistricting should not be a political football. Gerrymandering will always result.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Originally Posted by elilevin

I have always wondered about the feasibility of redistricting.

Does anybody know the history of it? I can imagine that it is the product of the Silent leadership--but I don't know this for sure.

The Americian redistricting system is a joke, never ever put the power of redrawing electoral boundaries to politicans. The establishment of non-political electoral comissions at both a state and federal level, would make the redistricting process and conduct of elections far more fairer.

I totally agree. The task of drawing fair election districts could easily be relegated to a computer algorithm that would be fed information on population density but no information on the voting tendencies or any other characteristics of voters in any areas. The algorithm would seek the optimum districts, where "optimum" would mean most equal in population and most regular in shape.

The algorithm used, and the population data, could be made publically available, such that any organization could test the results and confirm them. Arguments would probably break out about the benefits of this algorithm versus that, and the accuracy of the population data, but at least we all could agree that politicians were unable to draw districts to intentionally give themselves advantages.

Redistricting should not be a political football. Gerrymandering will always result.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Originally Posted by elilevin

I have always wondered about the feasibility of redistricting.

Does anybody know the history of it? I can imagine that it is the product of the Silent leadership--but I don't know this for sure.

The Americian redistricting system is a joke, never ever put the power of redrawing electoral boundaries to politicans. The establishment of non-political electoral comissions at both a state and federal level, would make the redistricting process and conduct of elections far more fairer.

I totally agree. The task of drawing fair election districts could easily be relegated to a computer algorithm that would be fed information on population density but no information on the voting tendencies or any other characteristics of voters in any areas. The algorithm would seek the optimum districts, where "optimum" would mean most equal in population and most regular in shape.

The algorithm used, and the population data, could be made publically available, such that any organization could test the results and confirm them. Arguments would probably break out about the benefits of this algorithm versus that, and the accuracy of the population data, but at least we all could agree that politicians were unable to draw districts to intentionally give themselves advantages.

Redistricting should not be a political football. Gerrymandering will always result.

Originally Posted by Evan Anderson

I totally agree. The task of drawing fair election districts could easily be relegated to a computer algorithm that would be fed information on population density but no information on the voting tendencies or any other characteristics of voters in any areas. The algorithm would seek the optimum districts, where "optimum" would mean most equal in population and most regular in shape.

Of course, without some sort of public monitoring of the program (open-source code at minimum) all you'd have done is shift the system from one where elected officials tweak boundary lines to their own advantage to one where even less accountable persons wield that power...

Originally Posted by Evan Anderson

I totally agree. The task of drawing fair election districts could easily be relegated to a computer algorithm that would be fed information on population density but no information on the voting tendencies or any other characteristics of voters in any areas. The algorithm would seek the optimum districts, where "optimum" would mean most equal in population and most regular in shape.

Of course, without some sort of public monitoring of the program (open-source code at minimum) all you'd have done is shift the system from one where elected officials tweak boundary lines to their own advantage to one where even less accountable persons wield that power...

Originally Posted by Evan Anderson

I totally agree. The task of drawing fair election districts could easily be relegated to a computer algorithm that would be fed information on population density but no information on the voting tendencies or any other characteristics of voters in any areas. The algorithm would seek the optimum districts, where "optimum" would mean most equal in population and most regular in shape.

Of course, without some sort of public monitoring of the program (open-source code at minimum) all you'd have done is shift the system from one where elected officials tweak boundary lines to their own advantage to one where even less accountable persons wield that power...

Originally Posted by Evan Anderson

I totally agree. The task of drawing fair election districts could easily be relegated to a computer algorithm that would be fed information on population density but no information on the voting tendencies or any other characteristics of voters in any areas. The algorithm would seek the optimum districts, where "optimum" would mean most equal in population and most regular in shape.

Of course, without some sort of public monitoring of the program (open-source code at minimum) all you'd have done is shift the system from one where elected officials tweak boundary lines to their own advantage to one where even less accountable persons wield that power...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Evan Anderson

I totally agree. The task of drawing fair election districts could easily be relegated to a computer algorithm that would be fed information on population density but no information on the voting tendencies or any other characteristics of voters in any areas. The algorithm would seek the optimum districts, where "optimum" would mean most equal in population and most regular in shape.

Of course, without some sort of public monitoring of the program (open-source code at minimum) all you'd have doen is shift the system from one where congressmen tweak boundary lines to their own advantage to one where even less accountable persons wield that power...

I have since added a paragraph addressing that. In the system I envision, any organization (newspapers, individuals, bowling leagues, etc) could confirm the results.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Evan Anderson

I totally agree. The task of drawing fair election districts could easily be relegated to a computer algorithm that would be fed information on population density but no information on the voting tendencies or any other characteristics of voters in any areas. The algorithm would seek the optimum districts, where "optimum" would mean most equal in population and most regular in shape.

Of course, without some sort of public monitoring of the program (open-source code at minimum) all you'd have doen is shift the system from one where congressmen tweak boundary lines to their own advantage to one where even less accountable persons wield that power...

I have since added a paragraph addressing that. In the system I envision, any organization (newspapers, individuals, bowling leagues, etc) could confirm the results.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Evan Anderson

I totally agree. The task of drawing fair election districts could easily be relegated to a computer algorithm that would be fed information on population density but no information on the voting tendencies or any other characteristics of voters in any areas. The algorithm would seek the optimum districts, where "optimum" would mean most equal in population and most regular in shape.

Of course, without some sort of public monitoring of the program (open-source code at minimum) all you'd have doen is shift the system from one where congressmen tweak boundary lines to their own advantage to one where even less accountable persons wield that power...

I have since added a paragraph addressing that. In the system I envision, any organization (newspapers, individuals, bowling leagues, etc) could confirm the results.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Evan Anderson

I totally agree. The task of drawing fair election districts could easily be relegated to a computer algorithm that would be fed information on population density but no information on the voting tendencies or any other characteristics of voters in any areas. The algorithm would seek the optimum districts, where "optimum" would mean most equal in population and most regular in shape.

Of course, without some sort of public monitoring of the program (open-source code at minimum) all you'd have doen is shift the system from one where congressmen tweak boundary lines to their own advantage to one where even less accountable persons wield that power...

I have since added a paragraph addressing that. In the system I envision, any organization (newspapers, individuals, bowling leagues, etc) could confirm the results.

Originally Posted by Evan Anderson

I have since added a paragraph addressing that.

Wow. And you caught me via quoting before I had a chance to correct my typos and phraseing. Now everyone will know my inadequacies!!! :cry:

Originally Posted by Evan Anderson

I have since added a paragraph addressing that.

Wow. And you caught me via quoting before I had a chance to correct my typos and phraseing. Now everyone will know my inadequacies!!! :cry: