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

51–60 of 178 posts

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

#51

Post by crdoconnor »

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…

>Then, by essentially random chance

Or instead, red and blue will actually start listening to their constituents because if they do then they could get two and if they don't they could get zero.

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

#52

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

Not really. The congress works the way it does because it's designed to represent a union of nominally sovereign states. Not matching national polling is a feature -- otherwise, the interests of NY, Boston, Chicago, LA, Atlanta would completely and utterly steamroll everything. The nation doesn't work if nobody gives a shit about Kentucky.

Gerrymandering is a different problem made worse by the Supreme Court's decision that every elected body with the exception of the Senate requires proportional representation.

Since districts are drawn by state legislatures, and state legislatures are only driven by districts cut up by population, there's no incentive do to anything but preserve/expand the numbers for your party. In other words, you don't get the "adult supervision" role that the US Senate delivers (for better or for worse), and get the quality of governance that you see in the US House -- that is drivel.

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

#53

Post by eru »

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…

You don't so much need an algorithm that's fair, but one that's seen as unbiased.

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

#55

Post by eru »

ROFISH wrote: post #7

One problem with this: it makes sense that district lines could be along natural (rivers, lakes, mountains) or political (towns, county) lines. Trusting a simple line algorithm may bisect a town down the middle.

The problem with taking into account natural or political lines is that there are so many to choose from.

You don't want to leave anything to choice. That's where gerrymandering comes in.

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

#56

Post by caf »

ClayShentrup wrote: post #48
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

Apparently they don't work in the US.

That link says that they work in Canada, and they work in Australia too.

Without an underlying reason identified, this conclusion is somewhat unsatisfying.

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

#57

Post by igonvalue »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #4

Doesn't gerrymandering mostly carve out a lot of districts for black congressmen who otherwise wouldn't have districts? I think that's kinda what it boils down to in America. There are conservative areas adjacent to and mixed with majority black areas and they want different representation.

I'm not sure how common it is, but the linked site actually has an interesting discussion of this phenomenon, which Wikipedia calls "affirmative racial gerrymandering"[0], and how it would interact with the proposed scheme: http://scorevoting.net/TheorDistrict.html#Minority

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_S...

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

#58

Post by davidw »

dragonwriter wrote: post #40
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…

> Proportional representation is far from a panacea. Among modern, established democracies, proportionality of representation is pretty closely linked to public satisfaction with government, and public participation with government. Its as close to a panacea for effective democracy as you could have -- which isn't surprising, proportionality of representation is a pretty direct measure of the extent to which a govern…

Italy and Israel are two countries that have had very proportional systems in recent time frames.

Having lived in Italy, I am not that impressed by the politics there, and think that proportional representation with party lists is part of the problem.

I think STV is pretty interesting, but producing one winner is no bad thing either. Of course, as per Arrow, nothing is perfect.

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

#59

Post by vacri »

ClayShentrup wrote: post #47
vacri wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

"PR gave you Nazis!" isn't a sophisticated analysis.

Edit: chock full of nazis, apparently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#Li...

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

#60

Post by SapphireSun »

Retra wrote: post #50
SapphireSun wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's true, but every time an individual result is unfair... it's still unfair. If I live on the red side and there are two blue reps, I have literally no representation despite comprising 50% of the population. The fact that I sometimes get to sock it to the blue side with two red reps is unfair to them. This isn't a case of turnabout is fair play, as the promise of representative government is that everyone gets a voice and decisions are generally made by consensus, compromise, and occasionally a smack down vote.

Let me put it another way, which system would you prefer to live in?

Post reply on HN