Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Antimander – Optimize Congressional Districts with Genetic Algorithms

antimander.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 51 posts

Re: Show HN: Antimander – Optimize Congressional Districts with Genetic Algorithms

#41

Post by klyrs »

specialist wrote: post #16
splitrocket wrote: post #11

"I cut, you choose" is really the only politically viable alternative to the current state of affairs. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/how-the-i-cut-yo...

I've been trying to dream up ways to use general purpose strategies like this to mitigate regulatory capture. Applicable to two party systems with no clear obvious third party to forge a balance of powers, a durable trilemma.

There are fair algorithms for multi-way division... but yeah, it's going to be real hard for a third party to break in when the two ruling parties can conspire to block them.

Re: Show HN: Antimander – Optimize Congressional Districts with Genetic Algorithms

#42

Post by VWWHFSfQ »

IgorPartola wrote: post #34
VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why stop there? Why do small states get the same number of Senators as large states? All the Senators should just be from California, Texas, New York, and Florida.

I know you are trying to be sarcastic but you are correct. There is zero reason for the Senate to work the way it does as it is very clearly an unfair system. Instead, Senators should be nationally elected: 100 spots and every voter votes on every one of them.

> 100 spots and every voter votes on every one of them

So then all the Senators should just be from California, Texas, New York, and Florida.

Re: Show HN: Antimander – Optimize Congressional Districts with Genetic Algorithms

#43

Post by VWWHFSfQ »

IgorPartola wrote: post #37
dhosek wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The small states getting the same number of senators as large states is partly a legacy of slavery. Interestingly, the constitution explicitly prohibits the 2-senators-per-state rule from being amended away (Article V).

Can you amend that prohibition?

The short answer is yes. The long answer is that the Supreme Court would have to get involved. And they are very reluctant to make any kind of new interpretation of the Constitution for something like this.

Re: Show HN: Antimander – Optimize Congressional Districts with Genetic Algorithms

#44

Post by dhosek »

IgorPartola wrote: post #37
dhosek wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The small states getting the same number of senators as large states is partly a legacy of slavery. Interestingly, the constitution explicitly prohibits the 2-senators-per-state rule from being amended away (Article V).

Can you amend that prohibition?

I've imagined a workaround where states would be de-stated if they fell below a threshold percentage of the total population or be required to split if they grew above an upper bound percentage. The only reason there are two Dakotas is to give the Republicans two extra senate seats (this is true, you can look it up).

Re: Show HN: Antimander – Optimize Congressional Districts with Genetic Algorithms

#45

Post by pdxandi »

rpedela wrote: post #2

On Android and Chrome, I can't read the page. The graphic takes up half the screen and the text underneath is barely visible.

I had to scroll all the way to the bottom to see if anyone could even read the site on mobile.

Re: Show HN: Antimander – Optimize Congressional Districts with Genetic Algorithms

#46

Post by VWWHFSfQ »

dhosek wrote: post #44
IgorPartola wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you amend that prohibition?

I've imagined a workaround where states would be de-stated if they fell below a threshold percentage of the total population or be required to split if they grew above an upper bound percentage. The only reason there are two Dakotas is to give the Republicans two extra senate seats (this is true, you can look it up).

> The only reason there are two Dakotas is to give the Republicans two extra senate seats

First of all, you have no idea what you're talking about. The two Dakota territories gained statehood in 1889, long before there was any kind of notion of the modern-day Republican party.

Re: Show HN: Antimander – Optimize Congressional Districts with Genetic Algorithms

#47

Post by dragonwriter »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #43
IgorPartola wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you amend that prohibition?

The short answer is yes. The long answer is that the Supreme Court would have to get involved. And they are very reluctant to make any kind of new interpretation of the Constitution for something like this.

Any answer to the question would be a new interpretation, since the clause hasn’t previously been litigated.

But you can clearly amend the powers of the Senate, including abolishing all of them. And/or create a third house of Congress, without equal per-state representation.

Re: Show HN: Antimander – Optimize Congressional Districts with Genetic Algorithms

#48

Post by VWWHFSfQ »

dragonwriter wrote: post #47
VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The short answer is yes. The long answer is that the Supreme Court would have to get involved. And they are very reluctant to make any kind of new interpretation of the Constitution for something like this.

Any answer to the question would be a new interpretation, since the clause hasn’t previously been litigated. But you can clearly amend the powers of the Senate, including abolishing all of them. And/or create a third house of Congress, without equal per-state representation.

I mean, it's fun to think about at a purely theoretical/academic level. But practically speaking, none of this could ever happen.

Re: Show HN: Antimander – Optimize Congressional Districts with Genetic Algorithms

#49

Post by dragonwriter »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #48
dragonwriter wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any answer to the question would be a new interpretation, since the clause hasn’t previously been litigated. But you can clearly amend the powers of the Senate, including abolishing all of them. And/or create a third house of Congress, without equal per-state representation.

I mean, it's fun to think about at a purely theoretical/academic level. But practically speaking, none of this could ever happen.

I wouldn’t be so sure; it would require getting states to vote against their narrow parochial interests, but it's not inconceivable that it could happen. It would probably take a crisis of legitimacy in which the disaffection of the underrepresented states was sufficient to threaten the viability of the union, though.

Re: Show HN: Antimander – Optimize Congressional Districts with Genetic Algorithms

#50

Post by IgorPartola »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #42
IgorPartola wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you are trying to be sarcastic but you are correct. There is zero reason for the Senate to work the way it does as it is very clearly an unfair system. Instead, Senators should be nationally elected: 100 spots and every voter votes on every one of them.

> 100 spots and every voter votes on every one of them So then all the Senators should just be from California, Texas, New York, and Florida.

What would be the problem with that?
Post reply on HN