Gemini claimed that "The backtracking document (15Nov2025) and the landmark Supreme Court case Baker v. Carr (1962) present a direct and fundamental contradiction on the principle of representation."
Lines 5,16,17,19: On line 5, the two words, "not people" misses the point of the argument.
The goal of representation ought to be to represent the will of the people as a single incorporated body that has the authority for the jurisdiction. This is an Age of Reason standard.
When the process of redistricting concentrates on plots of land where "our" people and "their" people reside, the math objectively and unambiguously says this process is too often worse than random selection (not advocating for random) for achieving the actual goal. It's the insistent on using the geography (the dirt intermediary) that makes the goal unattainable in many situations.
It used to work when people self-organized their official residence around their own congregation. That was more than 330 million people ago.
Line 10,12: Gemini assumes that districts must be drawn geographically before the election. The document contradicts this assumption. It does not contradict the one person, one vote principle.
Line 14: The principle expressed as "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres." would be reworded to say "Legislators as a body represent the persons as a single body, (aka the people of the jurisdiction) not trees or acres.". This is why the geographic focus leads the wrong way. It was a simple way to get equal representation in a simpler time before the 14th amendment. Conversely, they could not understand driving north to get to the airport to go a long way south. The concept for representation is still correct, but the method broke. And then we did not fix before people had a legitimate right to be angry.
Note: Gemini did not understand Figure 16.
Per Gemini
The backtracking document and the landmark Supreme Court case Baker v. Carr (1962) present a direct and fundamental contradiction on the principle of representation.
The backtracking document describes the current U.S. system as one based on representing geographic land ("dirt"), while Baker v. Carr is the very case that abolished this idea and mandated that representation must be based on equal population.
Here is a specific breakdown of the contradiction.
1. The Backtracking Document's Claim
The backtracking document argues that the U.S. system of representation has been misunderstood and is mathematically based on land, not people.
* Core Argument: It claims the system is "load weighting the geographic area aka the dirt being represented based on the population of residents living on that dirt".
* The Author's View: The author sees this as a failed system where "partisanship and the concept of ideological representation are used to optimize the dirt's representation". They argue this system "crippled" the goal of reflecting the people's will.
In short, the document claims the current system is designed to represent geographic areas (parcels of "dirt") that are merely weighted by the number of people on them.
2. The Reality of Baker v. Carr
Baker v. Carr and the subsequent cases it enabled (like Reynolds v. Sims) established the exact opposite legal principle.
* The "One Person, One Vote" Principle: Baker v. Carr was the landmark case that allowed federal courts to rule on legislative reapportionment. It led directly to the principle of "one person, one vote".
* What This Means: This principle mandates that legislative districts must be drawn to be as equal in population as practicable.
* The Ruling's Purpose: The case was specifically filed because states like Tennessee had not redrawn their districts in decades. This meant rural areas with very few people (i.e., lots of "dirt") had the same voting power as dense urban areas with massive populations. The Supreme Court ruled this practice unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
In the Reynolds v. Sims decision, which built on Baker, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the famous line that directly refutes the backtracking document's premise: "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres."
3. The Direct Contradiction
The contradiction is that the backtracking document perfectly describes the exact system that Baker v. Carr struck down.
* Backtracking Document: Describes the system as representing "dirt".
* Baker v. Carr / Reynolds v. Sims: Established that the system must represent "people", not "dirt" or "acres".
The author of the backtracking document is arguing against a system ("load weighting the dirt") that has not been the constitutional standard for over 60 years. The Baker v. Carr ruling explicitly mandates that representation must be based on population equality, the very concept the author claims is being ignored in favor of "dirt."
This video provides an overview of the "one person, one vote" principle that emerged from Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims.
One Person, One Vote: Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims
one person one vote: Baker V Carr from Annenberg Classroom YouTube channel
YouTube video views will be stored in your YouTube History, and your data will be stored and used by YouTube according to its Terms of Service