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

71–80 of 178 posts

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

#71

Post by nickff »

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

I am not sure what to make of your first point, as it is not clear that we (HN) have a common understanding of what is meant by "fragmented". Is it a government which does not pass laws or spend money on specific programs which different groups oppose for varying reasons, or would that be a unified opposition? Would fragmented government pass a great many laws and spending programs with no unified goal, to appease disparate interest groups, or would this be a coalition?

>Distinction without a difference. Even if the focus is on the candidates, they're all firmly partisan with little variation.

Does it matter whether the politicians are partisans unified in party goals? It seems that in the USA, politicians frequently go against their own parties, relative to other countries. Is partisanship in favour of non-party aligned interest groups part of what you perceive as a problem? Please describe a non-partisan politician, party, or system.

Lastly, I think we can all agree that a single anecdote does not make the case for or against the PR system, though it does show that PR is not a sufficient condition for stable and everlasting democracy.

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

#72

Post by _ak »

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…

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

Just look at the fixes the German Federal Republic put into place in 1949. That turns out to work quite well, allowing party plurality while still maintaining effective coalitions.

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

#73

Post by Turing_Machine »

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…

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

You think it's bad with two parties who can't agree on anything? Try twenty parties who can't agree on anything.

"Ah, you're just trolling."

No, I certainly am not trolling. The multitude of parties in the Weimar Republic, which could not form an effective government for two entire election cycles, were directly responsible for Hitler's rise to power.

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

#75

Post by nickff »

tadfisher wrote: post #64
vpeters25 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The intent of the Senate was to preserve the independence and influence of the states. If you splitline-partition the country, you are eliminating the means of achieving this goal, and it would be simpler to abolish the Senate. It can be argued that the current system of directly electing Senators has already made the institution unrepresentative of the interests of the state governments, but your proposal would further alienate Senators from their home states.

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

#76

Post by vacri »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #73
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…

"The stalemate of the past two terms in the US doesn't say much for winner-takes-all." You think it's bad with two parties who can't agree on anything? Try twenty parties who can't agree on anything. "Ah, you're just trolling." No, I certainly am not trolling. The multitude of parties in the Weimar Republic, which could not form an effective government for two entire election cycles, were directly responsible for Hit…

> Try twenty parties who can't agree on anything.

What, multipolar politics, like modern Germany or Sweden or Australia? Wealthy, socially progressive countries with high standards of living?

You're just spreading FUD. PR was one of a great many factors involved in the rise of Hitler, but keep in mind that the US system also let a president get elected that didn't win the popular vote, who then went on to destroy a foreign country to drum up domestic political support. Literally hundreds of thousands of people died in Iraq to make Bush more popular in the US, despite Iraq having nothing to do with threats to the US. But it would be stupid to say that the US electoral system was directly responsible for the Iraqi bloodbath.

And as I say in the other comment, there are a shitload of countries using PR that aren't fascists.

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

#77

Post by JDDunn9 »

Gerrymandering gets attention because it is malicious misrepresentation, but unintentional misrepresentation is just as bad. Voting is a flawed system that will always give some voters more voice than others.

- The people who voted for the loser will not be represented (one of the reasons minorities are underrepresented).

- The need of local representation is illusory. Make a list of all the political issues you care about. How many of them are local?

- The effect of a bi-cameral legislature means that in the Senate, voters in Wyoming have over 60x the voting power of voters in California.

- Voting itself is irrational under a cost/benefit analysis. So by definition, the least rational citizens are picking candidates.

- Name recognition is huge for elections, meaning money will always effect elections.

- Candidates suffer self-selection bias (as well as others). To run, you need to be good at public speaking (fear of public speaking is one of the most common fear in America), look a certain way (no tattoos or piercings allowed), and have a lust for power.

Representation is a math problem. The only solution is random sampling. Replace Congress with 1 house made up of 1,000 randomly sampled citizens and we will have true representation.

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

#78

Post by nickff »

curun1r wrote: post #29
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…

I don't think the point is to make the result fair, I think the point is to make the process fair. The US ideal has always been about equality opportunity rather than equal outcome. By agreeing on an algorithm for drawing lines, you remove any bias from the process, which is probably as good as we're going to get. I do think the algorithm presented here is too simplistic. It's likely to create situations where people…

Why is voter turn-out the relevant metric? You are implicitly assuming that increasing voter turn-out is a worthy goal in and of itself, and I am not sure why. Is it important to you that each voter feel involved, or that they are responsible for their representatives, or do you believe that an increase in the number of voters would improve policies and outcomes? I would support an attempt to increase voter turn-out if it would improve policies and outcomes, but there is little evidence of this; in fact, the current evidence shows that current voters are better informed and more intelligent than eligible non-voters.[1] Before you accuse me of being an anti-democratic autocrat or something of that sort, please keep in mind that I am not advocating the abolishment of elections, that I used to agree with you (but was persuaded to change my mind), and have voted at every election I am eligible for since reaching the age of majority.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter

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

#79

Post by WildUtah »

powera wrote: post #12
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…

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

North and South Dakota are two states instead of one so that Republicans could have an extra two senators. Hawai'i and Alaska were admitted to the Union together so that neither party would gain an advantage in the Senate from the addition.

So yes, you can gerrymander Senate seats. It's just harder and less reliable than House seats.

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

#80

Post by WildUtah »

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.

The Senate representing the states was abolished a century ago when the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted. Today senators are chosen by popular election the same as congressmen, they just have wildly disproportionate electorates with some elected by half a million and some by tens of millions.
Post reply on HN