Because delimitation, or redistricting, practices vary greatly around the world, there are few universal principles to guide the delimitation process. Countries disagree on fundamental issues, such as how impartial and independent the process can and should be from the legislative and political concerns. But there are several generally accepted principles:
Representativeness
Electoral district boundaries should be drawn such that constituents have an opportunity to elect candidates they feel truly represent them. This usually means that district boundaries should coincide with communities of interest as much as possible. Communities of interest can be defined in a variety of ways. For example, they can be geographically defined communities delineated by administrative boundaries or physical features such as mountains or islands, or they can be “communities” that share a common race, ethnic or tribal background, or the same religion or language. If districts are not composed of communities of interest, however defined, it may be difficult for representatives to serve the constituency well.
Equality of Voting Strength
Electoral district boundaries should be drawn so that districts are relatively equal in population. Equally populous districts allow voters to have an equally weighted vote in the election of representatives. If, for example, a representative is elected from a district that has twice as many voters as another district, voters in the larger district will have half the influence of voters in the smaller district. Electoral districts that vary greatly in population--a condition referred to as "malapportionment"--violate a central tenet of democracy, namely, that all voters should be able to cast a vote of equal weight.
The following are two standards developed to reflect this principle, one offered by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and one by the UN Committee on Human Rights (UNCHR):
Independent, Impartial Boundary Authority
Ideally, the legal framework for boundary delimitation should provide that the persons or institution responsible for drawing electoral boundaries be independent and impartial. In addition, the recommendations of the boundary authority should not be subject to modification or veto by the government or by the legislature.
Failing this, the procedure for delimiting electoral districts should be clearly spelled out in legislation so that the rules regulating the process are the same, regardless of who is drawing the district boundaries – that is, the process should offer reciprocity. If political concerns are permitted to play a role in the process, then all political parties must be given access to the process. These rules must be clearly understood and must be acceptable to all major political parties and participants in the districting process.
Transparency
Because electoral systems that feature districts often produce disproportional election outcomes, it is essential that the delimitation process be considered fair if the result is to be deemed legitimate by stakeholders and voters. This means that the delimitation process should be as transparent as possible, with the methodology and guidelines clearly established and publicised in advance. Incorporating public hearings into the process to allow stakeholders to offer comments for the boundary authority to consider is also important.
Non-Discrimination
Electoral boundaries should not be drawn in a manner that discriminates against any particular minority group. For example, dividing a geographically-concentrated minority group among several electoral districts so that the group constitutes a minority of the voters in every single electoral district should be prohibited. Of course, electoral systems that rely exclusively on single-member districts cannot guarantee even some minimal percentage of seats for minority groups or minority political parties in the population. However, this fact should not open the door to active discrimination against a given minority group.