You're still avoiding my "premise", which, knowing you, I take as a good sign. You're on the run. Accusing my "premise" of an inappropriate relationship with Capricans doesn't cut it. Nor does airily questioning the popular vote numbers listed in wikipedia do anything but make you look lazy: If you think the numbers are fraudulent, prove it. I've already given you the URL to the Michigan SOS's compilation of the vote for each of the 110 seats in Michigan individually; all you have to do is total them up to get the 2010 numbers, and no doubt you can find the official 2012 numbers and do the same thing. Go ahead, Tom, show everybody how I'm just making this up.

I'll tell you for the last time: The degree to which a jurisdiction is gerrymandered exists independently of past elections. Your red herring saying otherwise has begun to putrefy in the hot sun. The concept of a "gimi index" is a measure of the current distribution of political power at a particular point in time. Period.

It's as if you're denying the existence of gerrymandering even as a concept. You must think that that's the only way you can avoid having to concede the reality that a maldistribution of seats won is the whole point of gerrymandering. This is the result it produces, and I'm just pointing out a way to measure it.

You're really threatened by this line of argument, aren't you?