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

61–70 of 178 posts

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

#61

Post by SapphireSun »

crdoconnor wrote: post #51
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…

>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.

This is a fair criticism. I agree that they would be more sensitive to constituent concerns, but isn't it still perverse if half the population has no voice in government because the other side was tactically better? Also, it is still possible to discipline an egregiously bad rep even though they're technically in a "safe" district, so it's not like you've totally lost control.

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

#64

Post by tadfisher »

vpeters25 wrote: post #43
specialist wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So splitline-partition the country.

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

#65

Post by dragonwriter »

ClayShentrup wrote: post #46
dragonwriter wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

No line drawing method on single member districts does that, and the best way to get laws which represents e people effectively is by assuring better proportionality. This had, in fact, been studied quite a bit, see, e.g., Arend Lijphart's Patterns of Democracy. Mucking around with variations on how our by whom lines are drawn for single-member, plurality or majority runoff districts and thinking that that had some how of meaningful improvement is self-delusion. It doesn't work, it can't work, we know why it can't work, and we know what does work, all from actual experience in real representative democracies.

Playing around with how district lives are drawn isn't democratic reform, it's democracy theater, a means of diverting attention without changing anything meaningful.

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

#66

Post by teslaberry »

gerry mandering is a symptom of democracy not the problem.

democracy is the problem, or rather it is a form of self governance which presents many dillemas.

historically , we know the bigger and more mature a democracy gets , the more it ages into socially defunct patterns of corruption , lowest common denominator, the decay of ethics, and embedded social passivity.

the solution to 'gerrymandering' is the end of our current democratic system, not some 2 bit claim that an algorithm is a solution to a symptom of a bigger problem .

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

#67

Post by saryant »

teslaberry wrote: post #66

gerry mandering is a symptom of democracy not the problem. democracy is the problem, or rather it is a form of self governance which presents many dillemas. historically , we know the bigger and more mature a democracy gets , the more it ages into socially defunct patterns of corruption , lowest common denominator, the decay of ethics, and embedded social passivity. the solution to 'gerrymandering' is the end of our…

And replace it with what?

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

#68

Post by Frondo »

caf wrote: post #56
ClayShentrup wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The link also gives unsatisfying reasons for why it says they don't work, e.g. incumbents keep winning elections.

I haven't studied the matter really closely, but from what little I do know of the issue, it makes me wonder--are Arizona, Washington, and NJ examples of the hyper-gerrymandered states that citizen redistricting is supposed to prevent?

Could it be that, in those states, they're already starting out from a pretty equitable district layout, such that when the citizenry gets to redraw the layout, it doesn't actually matter much?

Or, put another way, how would a citizen redistricting panel work in Florida or North Carolina or Texas?

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

#69

Post by Turing_Machine »

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…

"Among modern, established democracies, proportionality of representation is pretty closely linked to public satisfaction with government"

When one of these "modern, established democracies" manages to maintain a stable government (or even survive) for as long as the United States has, perhaps that statement could be made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#Li...

Other than perhaps the Scandinavian countries, that's not exactly a list that makes one optimistic about stability.

Edit: "Constitutional provisions for Presidential rule-by-decree had a lot to do with that, PR -- or even the particular form of PR used by the Weimar Republic -- well, if you want to argue that that was responsible for something, then go ahead and make that argument."

See my response to the other poster below. The PR system (and the myriad of squabbling parties produced by it) led to there being no effective government for two subsequent parliamentary elections.

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

#70

Post by Turing_Machine »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #30
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). Already the case. It also privileges party over individual candidates Distinction without a difference. Even if the focus is on the candidates, they're all firmly partisan with little variation. Most (in)famously, the Weimar Republic used PR. That didn't end well. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar

"http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar"

No, that is not the point. Hitler eating sugar had nothing to do with his government. Proportional representation did. That's how he came to power. Look it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Appointment_as_ch...

"Hindenburg reluctantly agreed to appoint Hitler as chancellor after two further parliamentary elections—in July and November 1932—had not resulted in the formation of a majority government."

They had large number of splinter parties, all of whom hated each other's guts, and which were unable to form an effective government. The Nazis were not a majority (no one was), but were a large, well-disciplined bloc. The rest is, as they say, history.

Post reply on HN