Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Flynn’s research found that IQ scores rose by 3 to 5 points per decade, a finding that implied humans were getting gradually smarter. Cognitive researchers spent decades debating the reasons for the Great Smartening.   
“Some people thought it was nutrition, some thought it was schooling, some thought it was better parenting,” Sternberg said. Over the course of the 20th century, Americans generally ate better, stayed in school longer and refined brutalist parenting techniques.  
Flynn himself believed rising IQs reflected the growing complexity of human affairs. As farms gave way to factories, horses to cars, typewriters to computers, “it became more complicated to live in the world,” Sternberg said. “And so, IQs went up.” 

I think another factor could be lead exposure, and exposure to other brain poisons back in the day from patent medicine and the like.

Districts that don't give either party an advantage/is representative of the population

It still isn't that simple and there are nonpartisan political factors as well.

I'll use Ohio as my example because I obviously know it better than others.

For more than a century up until very recently, Ohio was THE purple state. Specifically, Ohio voted for the winner in every Presidential election from 1964-2020. Kennedy did win without Ohio in 1960 but note:

• That was an EXTREMELY close election nationally with Kennedy beating Nixon 49.72% to 49.55%
• It was also fairly close in Ohio with Nixon winning 53.28% to 46.72%

Ohio also voted for the winner in the 1956, 1952, and 1948 elections.

Ohio did not vote for Roosevelt in 1944 but note that:

• That was the only of Roosevelt's four elections in which he did not carry Ohio, and
• 1944 was, BY FAR, Roosevelt's closest election.

In addition to voting for Roosevelt in his first three (successful) campaigns, Ohio also voted for the winner in the Presidential elections in 1928, 1924, 1920, 1916, 1912, 1908, 1904, 1900, and 1896.

The point being that from 1896-2020 Ohio was about as close to the center of US politics as a state could be.

During that time, Ohio had between 16 and 24 Congressional Districts.

So, what would be "fair"?
I assume that most would say as close as possible to a 50/50 split.

Even taking that as a given there are many ways to get there. Here are two extremes:

• Say Ohio has 18 Districts (2003-2013): Draw 18 highly competitive Districts.
• Say Ohio has 18 Districts: Draw nine strongly Republican and nine strongly Democratic Districts.

Now you might say that #1 is the obvious answer because we want highly competitive Districts. Ok, but that would be catastrophically bad for Ohio. None of Ohio's Representatives would ever have much seniority (in the HoR, seniority = power). Every time there was even a minor Blue wave it would wipe out Ohio's Republican Representatives and conversely every minor red wave would wipe out Ohio's Democratic Representatives.

Thus, for reasons that are neither partisan nor ideological it would absolutely make sense for Ohio's Republican and Democratic leaders to instead agree to option #2 with nine each strongly Republican and strongly Democratic Districts.

One reason given for gerrymandering is to ensure some black representation in Congress.  Of course, this also concentrates the black population in one or two districts leaving the others much more white.  Illinois #4 is a nice example of Democratic Party controlled gerrymandering.

I'd have it done by commission with some "rules" laying out some geographic limits in terms of simple geometry.

One reason given for gerrymandering is to ensure some black representation in Congress.  Of course, this also concentrates the black population in one or two districts leaving the others much more white.  Illinois #4 is a nice example of Democratic Party controlled gerrymandering.

I'd have it done by commission with some "rules" laying out some geographic limits in terms of simple geometry.

Heh.

Russian Colonel Dmitry Lisitsky, who was responsible for war crimes in Ukraine, was found dead with a gunshot wound in his home city.

The cause of his death is disputed, with conflicting reports from the Ukrainian and Russian sides – one side claims it was an elimination while the other is calling it suicide, respectively.

Yuri Butusov, who was the first to report the news to the Western world, claimed that Lisitsky was “liquidated” as retribution for the 2014 ‘Ilovaisk cauldron’ massacre in the Donetsk region, where more than 350 Ukrainian servicemen were killed after pro-Russian troops mowed down retreating Ukrainians during a ceasefire. The man responsible for the carnage was Lisitsky.

Heh.

That whole project was an incredible bit of shooting one’s self in the foot.

It's a hard question.

• Do you want districts that split as close to 50/50 R/D?
• Or do you want districts that are split along demographic lines where most of the inhabitants will have similar concerns/desires?

Option two also inherently benefits Republicans at least as things are today.  Allow me to explain:

I mentioned upthread that in the 2020 election Biden got almost 50% in Ohio despite carrying only seven of Ohio's 88 counties.  

A key reality that most people do not realize can be neatly summarized as this:

• Republicans generally win small majorities of large groups.  
• Democrats generally win large majorities of small groups.  

This is only a rule of thumb so it isn't exact but you would be surprised how often it is true, by education:

• The majority of Americans have at least a HS diploma but less than a PHD.  These people vote Republican but it is fairly close.  
• Small minorities of Americans either do NOT have a HS diploma or have a PHD or beyond.  These people vote Democratic and it is not close at all.  

Race:

• A majority of Americans are white and whites vote Republican but generally by less than a 2:1 margin
• Minorities of Americans are hispanic, black, asian, and other.  These groups vote Democratic by 2:1 or greater margins.  

For this reason, if you create demographically homogenous districts you'll end up with a relatively small number of STRONGLY Democratic districts (no chance at all for a Republican) and a much larger number of "lean" Republican districts.  Democrats will pick up a few of these in any given election for local reasons but overall Republicans will win almost all of them and have a majority of the seats.  

Back to Ohio:
The six most populous counties are:

• 1.3M Franklin (Columbus):  65-33 for Biden in 2020
• 1.3M Cuyahoga (Cleveland):  66-32 for Biden in 2020
• 830k Hamilton (Cincinnati):  57-41 for Biden in 2020
• 540k Summit (Akron):  54-44 for Biden in 2020
• 540k Montgomery (Dayton):  50-48 for Biden in 2020
• 430k Lucas (Toledo):  57-41 for Biden in 2020

Even that doesn't really show the disparity though because Ohio's counties are generally large enough to encompass not just the urban core of the parenthetically named cities but also a large number of suburbs.  In the City of Cleveland proper, Biden won 80-19 and that wasn't even his strongest community within Cuyahoga County.  Biden won Warrensville Heights, East Cleveland, Highland Hills, and Bedford Heights with 96%, 95%, 94%, and 90%.  

Nationally it is exceedingly rare to find an area even as large as a single precinct let alone an entire city where Republicans win more than about two-thirds to three-quarters of the vote.  

The City of Cleveland proper along with the aforementioned four suburbs where Biden won 90%+ have a combined population approximately equal to one Congressional District.  Ohio currently has 15 Congressional Districts.  If you assumed that Ohio was 50/50 split and lumped Cleveland and those four suburbs into one 85-15 Democratic District what you would be left with fourteen districts to draw in an area that was 52.5% R and 47.5% D.  

So Ohio could have one very strongly Democratic District (85-15) and fourteen competitive but Republican leaning Districts (52.5-47.5).  Democrats couldn't do the same thing in reverse because Republican voters are more dispersed so it is nearly impossible to create a Congressional District that is any more than about 2:1 Republican.  

Mathematically, about the best the Democrats could do would be to create two 67-33 Republican Districts and 13 52.5-47.5 Democratic Districts.  

Realistically, neither party generally wants "their" districts to be "only" 52.5-47.5 because that is too close for comfort.  They'll still lose elections in "their" districts from time to time.  So you get a set-up like Ohio now.  Republicans drew the most recent maps and in the 2022 Congressional Elections Republicans carried the popular vote by 56-44 but took two thirds of the seats.  The breakdown from most R to most D was:

• 74-25 R in District2
• 69-30 R in District4
• 69-30 R in District12
• 67-33 R in District5
• 67-32 R in District6
• 64-35 R in District8
• 61-38 R in District10
• 61-38 R in District14
• 57-43 R in District15
• 55-44 R in District7
• 52-47 D in District1 - Democratic Gain
• 52-47 D in District13
• 56-43 D in District9
• 70-30 D in District3
• 77-22 D in District11

There is a lot of noise in individual races.  Although all of them were contested by both parties, most were not seriously contested with the "out" party simply running some sacrificial lamb who had no money, no support from their party, and no chance.  The 2020 Presidential Election results by Congressional District are a better barometer but back then Ohio Still had 16 Districts so they don't line up exactly with the 15 from 2022.  Here are the 2020 US Presidential Election results in each of Ohio's then 16 Districts again sorted R->D:

• 72-27 R in D6
• 67-31 R in D4
• 66-32 R in D8
• 65-33 R in D7
• 62-37 R in D5
• 57-42 R in D16
• 56-43 R in D2
• 56-42 R in D15
• 54-45 R in D14
• 52-46 R in D12
• 51-47 R in D10
• 51-48 R in D1
• 51-48 D in D13
• 59-31 D in D9
• 70-28 D in D3
• 80-19 D in D11

It was only this way because this occurred ten years after the maps were drawn.  D6 got a lot more Republican during that time while D1 and D13 got a lot more Democratic.  

D3 (Columbus) and D11 (Cleveland) were what is called "packed" districts where the Republicans stuffed as many Democrats as possible into just one district.  D9 (Toledo) and D13 (Youngstown) were intended to be but things changed over time.  Mahoning County (Youngstown) hadn't voted Republican in a Presidential Election since Nixon's landslide in 1972 but backed Trump in a losing effort in 2020 which tells you how dramatic the swing has been in Youngstown.  Tim Ryan represented Youngstown in Congress for many years and ran for Senator in 2022.  Part of the reason was that his district trended so far Republican that the Republicans were able to draw him a REALLY tough race had he stayed in the House.  

Packing and Cracking:
A lot of people seem to think that heavily Republican Districts are drawn by Republicans and heavily Democratic Districts are drawn by Democrats but it is actually the opposite.  The goal is to pack your opponent's voters into a small number of overwhelmingly opposition Districts and then give yourself a large number of slightly pro Districts.  Ie, Ohio's 15 Districts currently (drawn by Republicans) are 10 R and 5 D.  Note, however, that Republicans missed slightly.  Two of the five Democratic Districts are only barely Democratic (both 52-47).  They were obviously intended as "lean R" districts but things changed.  


Note also that this isn't done in a vacuum.  The names of the existing Representatives are known to everyone.  If you are a Republican on the committee that draws the maps you are going to be lobbied by your fellow Republicans that hold districts to make their districts more safe.  Conversely, if you are a Republican on the committee that draws the maps and you want to redraw a district to take out a sitting Democratic Representative, making their District 51-49 R isn't going to be enough.  Incumbent Representatives have lots of money and name recognition so a sitting Representative is usually going to win a race in a District that is only 51-49 against them.  If you want to take somebody out you are going to have to stick them in something like a 60-40 District.  Frankly, it usually isn't worth it.  Rather than trying to take out an opposition Representative the party drawing the maps usually just gives that sitting Representative an easier election by packing as many of their voters into their district as possible.  When there is an opportunity to take out an opponent it is usually done by combining two opposition Districts.  This happened in Ohio with the 2012 maps.  Longtime Cleveland Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich and longtime Toledo Democratic Representative Marcy Kaptur got stuck in a single District and fought it out in the Democratic Primary where Kaptur won.  

Life is also obviously a lot easier when you are growing than when you are shrinking.  Ohio has been shrinking (relative to the US as a whole) since long before I was born, Congressional Delegation size:

• 15 2023-2033 down one
• 16 2013-2023 down two
• 18 2003-2013 down one
• 19 1993-2003 down two
• 21 1983-1993 down two
• 23 1973-1983 down one
• 24 1963-1973 UP one
• 23 1953-1963 even
• 23 1943-1953 down one
• 24 1933-1943  UP two
• 22 1923-1933 even
• 22 1913-1923 UP one
• 21 1903-1913 even
• 21 1893-1903 even
• 21 1883-1893 UP one
• 20 1873-1883 UP one
• 19 1863-1873 down two
• 21 1853-1863 even
• 21 1843-1853 UP two
• 19 1833-1843 UP five
• 14 1823-1833 UP eight
• 6 1813-1823 UP five
• 1 1803-1813 Ohio became a State in 1803 so was not included in the census of 1800 and had just one seat until the first census as a state in 1810.  

I was born in the mid 1970's when Ohio had 23 Representatives, close to their peak of 24.  Now Ohio is down to 15.  Ohio hadn't had that small of a Congressional Delegation since prior to the 1840 census when they had just 14.