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

Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

rangevoting.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 178 posts

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#41

Post by chadzawistowski »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #39
kevinpet wrote: post #33

I think this is fascinating even if it will never happen. It's important to keep in mind the nominal and actual result of human drawn district boundaries ("gerrymandering" is a pejorative). In theory, human drawn district boundaries can create districts which are more homogenous so that, for example, a state with a few representatives and a few defined geographic or political divisions can divide things up in a way t…

Contrary to one popular misconception about the practice, the point of gerrymandering isn't to draw yourself a collection of overwhelmingly safe seats. Rather, it's to give your opponents a small number of safe seats, while drawing yourself a larger number of seats that are not quite as safe, but that you can expect to win comfortably. That almost sounds like a tautology.

What's tautological about it?

Here's the same sentiment expressed in image form: http://i.imgur.com/bRPcQ7O.jpg

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#42

Post by vacri »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #28
specialist wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. But even when the USA sees the light on proportional representation, there will continue to be winner takes all elections. Executive positions (president, governor, mayor), senators, judges, ballot issues, etc. In those cases, approval voting is the correct answer. Easy to explain, easy to tabulate, most mathematically fair, hardest to game. Per Duvenger's Law, approval voting would probably also help replace…

"But even when the USA sees the light on proportional representation" "Sees the light"? Proportional representation is far from a panacea. It tends to lead to a fragmented government (which is usually bad). It also privileges party over individual candidates (which can be good or bad, but those who dislike partisanship would certainly disapprove). There are other factors at play as well. Most (in)famously, the Weimar…

> It tends to lead to a fragmented government (which is usually bad)

The stalemate of the past two terms in the US doesn't say much for winner-takes-all.

> It also privileges party over individual candidates

Only depending on the proportional rep type. But again, in the US, there are only two parties. Very rarely you might glimpse an independent, but they mean nothing in the overall political landscape. There is no functional way for another party to rise in the current political system in the US - so party is inherently privileged over individuals.

> Most (in)famously, the Weimar Republic used PR. That didn't end well.

Ah, you're just trolling.

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#43

Post by vpeters25 »

specialist wrote: post #15
powera wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, you can't gerrymander Senate seats. (it's not representative now, but it's not changing either)

I'm totally on board with starting over with new state boundaries.

Unlike the House, which represents the people, the Senate represents the states. That's why each state has 2 senators regardless of its size and population: I think the idea was to prevent oppression by large states.

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#44

Post by ClayShentrup »

tunesmith wrote: post #2

Isn't gerrymandering a much more complex problem than that makes it out to be? I've always thought the problem was that it's actually difficult to even come up with a definition of what fair is. For instance, do you want each district to be as representative of the population as possible? Or do you want the house of representatives to be as representative of the population as possible? I suspect that you can't have b…

That site already acknowledges that there is enormous complexity in the issue.

http://scorevoting.net/TheorDistrict.html

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#45

Post by vezzy-fnord »

chadzawistowski wrote: post #41
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contrary to one popular misconception about the practice, the point of gerrymandering isn't to draw yourself a collection of overwhelmingly safe seats. Rather, it's to give your opponents a small number of safe seats, while drawing yourself a larger number of seats that are not quite as safe, but that you can expect to win comfortably. That almost sounds like a tautology.

What's tautological about it? Here's the same sentiment expressed in image form: http://i.imgur.com/bRPcQ7O.jpg

In the original statement, the latter is just a slightly more detailed strategy for achieving the former.

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#46

Post by ClayShentrup »

dragonwriter wrote: post #3
tunesmith wrote: post #2

Isn't gerrymandering a much more complex problem than that makes it out to be? I've always thought the problem was that it's actually difficult to even come up with a definition of what fair is. For instance, do you want each district to be as representative of the population as possible? Or do you want the house of representatives to be as representative of the population as possible? I suspect that you can't have b…

> Isn't gerrymandering a much more complex problem than that makes it out to be? No, its vastly simpler: the problem with gerrymandering is that there is no good way to draw single-member winner-take-all districts, and the solution is just don't do that . Multimember districts with a system that provides proportional representation within each district (e.g., five-member districts with STV) solve the problem pretty m…

> Algorithmic line-drawing of single-member winner-take-all district pretty much guarantees poorly-representative districts

A) The status quo is massive Gerrymandering, so something like the Shortest Splitline Algorithm would be a massive improvement.

B) The point is not to make quasi-proportional-representation with districts. The point is to make a legislature whose laws are representative. To that end, it does not matter if the constituents of a given district happen to have a lot in common.

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#47

Post by ClayShentrup »

vacri wrote: post #42
Turing_Machine wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But even when the USA sees the light on proportional representation" "Sees the light"? Proportional representation is far from a panacea. It tends to lead to a fragmented government (which is usually bad). It also privileges party over individual candidates (which can be good or bad, but those who dislike partisanship would certainly disapprove). There are other factors at play as well. Most (in)famously, the Weimar…

> It tends to lead to a fragmented government (which is usually bad) The stalemate of the past two terms in the US doesn't say much for winner-takes-all. > It also privileges party over individual candidates Only depending on the proportional rep type. But again, in the US, there are only two parties. Very rarely you might glimpse an independent, but they mean nothing in the overall political landscape. There is no f…

Or more sophisticated analysis of the pros and cons of PR.

http://scorevoting.net/PropRep.html

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#48

Post by ClayShentrup »

specialist wrote: post #6

The goal isn't pretty lines. The goal is maximal competitiveness. Which boosts voter participation. Which gives legitimacy to the results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Citizens_Redistrict... "While the long-term results will bear out over time, independent studies by the Public Policy Institute of California, the National Journal, and Ballotpedia have shown that California now has some of the most competi…

Independent redistricting commissions don't work.

http://scorevoting.net/GerryComm.html

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#50

Post by Retra »

SapphireSun wrote: post #21
specialist wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gerrymandering is simply incumbency protection. Fairness is simply maximal competitiveness.

It's not clear to me that maximum competitiveness is "fair". Suppose you do in fact have a state that is perfectly divided into a red district and a blue district, but instead of drawing a representative from each side, you split it on the orthogonal side to create maximum competitiveness. Then, by essentially random chance, you might end up with two blue reps or two red reps when fair representation would probably b…

I really don't know enough to have an opinion on this matter, but I also don't see the substance of your argument. If you flip a fair coin twice, you might get two heads. That doesn't mean the coin isn't fair; fairness is a property gleaned of repeating the trial many times.

So over many elections, the aggregate result would be fair.

Post reply on HN