Metaculus Help: Spread the word
If you like Metaculus, tell your friends! Share this question via Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.
Will the Supreme Court set clear limits on partisan gerrymandering in 2018?
One of the 50 predictions made by Fortune magazine in November 2017 runs as follows: "The court’s key swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, has a flair for the dramatic. He will cast the deciding vote in a 5–4 ruling in Gill v. Whitford that will declare the serpentine redrawing of election districts for political purposes to be unconstitutional."
Gill v. Whitford is concerned with Wisconsin's 2011 redistricting, which in the 2012 elections gave the Republicans 60% of the seats from 49% of the votes. A District Court decision ruled that the redistricting was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution on the grounds that it deprived everyone but Republicans of "equal protection". The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which is expected to decide it in mid-2018. The plaintiffs' case is based in part on various measures of gerrymandering, such as the so-called efficiency gap, and if the District Court's decision stands then it will likely make it easier for future gerrymandering cases to be brought on the basis of such measures.
The question resolves negative if, by the end of 2018, the Supreme Court upholds the appeal by Gill et al, and positive if, by the end of 2018, the repeal is rejected. In other cases, it resolves ambiguous.
Note on resolution conditions and title: In principle the Supreme Court could reject the appeal but deliberately not endorse any particular way of measuring gerrymandering, or could endorse some clear way of measuring gerrymandering that somehow doesn't reckon the Wisconsin redistricting to be a case of gerrymandering. I don't think these are likely enough outcomes for the slight divergence between title and resolution conditions to be a problem, but I'm willing to be persuaded.
(edited 12/21/17 plaintiffs -> defendants for consistency with rest of question.)
(edited 1/10/17 for further clarifying wording.)
Metaculus help: Predicting
Predictions are the heart of Metaculus. Predicting is how you contribute to the wisdom of the crowd, and how you earn points and build up your personal Metaculus track record.
The basics of predicting are very simple: move the slider to best match the likelihood of the outcome, and click predict. You can predict as often as you want, and you're encouraged to change your mind when new information becomes available. With tachyons you'll even be able to go back in time and backdate your prediction to maximize your points.
The displayed score is split into current points and total points. Current points show how much your prediction is worth now, whereas total points show the combined worth of all of your predictions over the lifetime of the question. The scoring details are available on the FAQ.
Note: this question resolved before its original close time. All of your predictions came after the resolution, so you did not gain (or lose) any points for it.
Note: this question resolved before its original close time. You earned points up until the question resolution, but not afterwards.
This question is not yet open for predictions.
Metaculus help: Community Stats
Use the community stats to get a better sense of the community consensus (or lack thereof) for this question. Sometimes people have wildly different ideas about the likely outcomes, and sometimes people are in close agreement. There are even times when the community seems very certain of uncertainty, like when everyone agrees that event is only 50% likely to happen.
When you make a prediction, check the community stats to see where you land. If your prediction is an outlier, might there be something you're overlooking that others have seen? Or do you have special insight that others are lacking? Either way, it might be a good idea to join the discussion in the comments.