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

How I Teach Gerrymandering

mitesp.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 80 posts

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#21

Post by Ntrails »

bonzini wrote: post #11
notahacker wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UK election outcomes have nothing to do with gerrymandering and everything to do with being a multi-party democracy using a FPTP electoral system, which tends to boost the representation of leading parties at the expense of smaller parties. Indeed, you'd actually need gerrymandering for such a system to have any hope of returning seats broadly in proportion to vote share. (the conspiracy theory about disenfranchiseme…

> UK election outcomes have nothing to do with gerrymandering and everything to do with > being a multi-party democracy using a FPTP electoral system, which tends to boost > the representation of leading parties at the expense of smaller parties. More precisely, FPTP tends to boost the representation of leading national _and local_ parties (the latter being best exemplified by the SNP) at the expense of smaller natio…

It's also worth remembering that FPTP is designed to encourage strong single party governments over large multi party coalitions.

Whether you think that is a reasonable goal is a case of personal perspective imo. I dislike the position that implies FPTP is a flat out inferior system rather than one which has some advantages and some disadvantages (as do all other systems).

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#23

Post by Karunamon »

aidos wrote: post #13
bonzini wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> UK election outcomes have nothing to do with gerrymandering and everything to do with > being a multi-party democracy using a FPTP electoral system, which tends to boost > the representation of leading parties at the expense of smaller parties. More precisely, FPTP tends to boost the representation of leading national _and local_ parties (the latter being best exemplified by the SNP) at the expense of smaller natio…

FPTP is heavily biased though - you end up in a situation where there's little point voting the way you want, because it won't be effective. Take the Greens, 3.8% of the vote with 0.15% of the final representation. And I bet that 3.8% would actually have been higher if people had felt like they wouldn't be throwing away their vote. I understand your sentiment, but I think "bit meh" is maybe a little uncharitable. Hal…

"you end up in a situation where there's little point voting the way you want, because it won't be effective."

How much of that situation is due precisely to that mindset?

It seems like circular logic to me.

    10 Why not vote for the guy you want to win?
    20 Because he won't get enough votes
    30 Why won't he get enough votes?
    40 Because not enough people will vote for him.
    50 So why don't more people vote for him?
    60 goto 20
FPTP is arguably broken, but people engaging in "tactical voting" isn't helping matters. You're supposed to vote for who you want to win, period.

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#24

Post by twoodfin »

dheera wrote: post #17

Alternatively, by switching to popular vote, this problem, and many other problems could be avoided entirely. Above all things, is it fair that a voter in Massachusetts has exactly zero (and I mean exactly zero, not their fair 1/3.2e8 share) say over the election, while a voter in Ohio carries a lot of weight?

Gerrymandering of Congressional districts could only affect the Presidential election results in two small states, Nebraska and Maine.

Eliminating the Electoral College and moving to a nationwide popular vote for President would have essentially no effect on the motivation to gerrymander.

On the other hand, if all 50 states allowed each Congressional district to choose its own elector (and presumably elected the other two statewide), it would represent a massive shift in favor of the GOP, and gerrymandering would have very little to do with it. Instead, the concentration of Democratic votes in urban areas would be decisive.

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#25

Post by hodwik »

dheera wrote: post #17

Alternatively, by switching to popular vote, this problem, and many other problems could be avoided entirely. Above all things, is it fair that a voter in Massachusetts has exactly zero (and I mean exactly zero, not their fair 1/3.2e8 share) say over the election, while a voter in Ohio carries a lot of weight?

Gerrymandering has more to do with local elections than presidential -- unless you're suggesting that the outlines of the states are 200 year old conspiracies by and against parties that didn't even exist yet.

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#26

Post by username223 »

Karunamon wrote: post #23
aidos wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FPTP is heavily biased though - you end up in a situation where there's little point voting the way you want, because it won't be effective. Take the Greens, 3.8% of the vote with 0.15% of the final representation. And I bet that 3.8% would actually have been higher if people had felt like they wouldn't be throwing away their vote. I understand your sentiment, but I think "bit meh" is maybe a little uncharitable. Hal…

"you end up in a situation where there's little point voting the way you want, because it won't be effective." How much of that situation is due precisely to that mindset? It seems like circular logic to me. 10 Why not vote for the guy you want to win? 20 Because he won't get enough votes 30 Why won't he get enough votes? 40 Because not enough people will vote for him. 50 So why don't more people vote for him? 60 got…

We already have systems like Condorcet voting that make tactical voting unnecessary. As usual, the hard part is getting them implemented; I'm not optimistic.

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#27

Post by gtk40 »

Nilzor wrote: post #3

What's this doing on HN?

The guidelines do say most things about politics don't belong, but I feel like this would not fall into that. Is that your concern? I think the guidelines are broad enough that the opposite question needs to be asked.

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#28

Post by LordKano »

dheera wrote: post #17

Alternatively, by switching to popular vote, this problem, and many other problems could be avoided entirely. Above all things, is it fair that a voter in Massachusetts has exactly zero (and I mean exactly zero, not their fair 1/3.2e8 share) say over the election, while a voter in Ohio carries a lot of weight?

There's a very good reason why we don't use the popular vote for Presidential elections.

It's precisely because without the electoral college, small states would receive zero attention on national politics.

Why would anyone spend time courting votes anywhere north of New York when there's a much bigger payoff to be had working the rest of the eastern seaboard and the west coast?

To use your examples of Massachusetts and Ohio, why waste time on a campaign stop in Boston when you can hit Columbus? Columbus has a much larger population and one can also hit Detroit and Indianapolis in the same day to maximize their face time with the public.

Going to a popular vote will have consequences that people really need to thing about.

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#29

Post by 7952 »

Karunamon wrote: post #23
aidos wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FPTP is heavily biased though - you end up in a situation where there's little point voting the way you want, because it won't be effective. Take the Greens, 3.8% of the vote with 0.15% of the final representation. And I bet that 3.8% would actually have been higher if people had felt like they wouldn't be throwing away their vote. I understand your sentiment, but I think "bit meh" is maybe a little uncharitable. Hal…

"you end up in a situation where there's little point voting the way you want, because it won't be effective." How much of that situation is due precisely to that mindset? It seems like circular logic to me. 10 Why not vote for the guy you want to win? 20 Because he won't get enough votes 30 Why won't he get enough votes? 40 Because not enough people will vote for him. 50 So why don't more people vote for him? 60 got…

It could also have the effect of making the main parties vulnerable to an "insurgency" from activist elements through the leadership elections and candidate selection.

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#30

Post by nshepperd »

Karunamon wrote: post #23
aidos wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FPTP is heavily biased though - you end up in a situation where there's little point voting the way you want, because it won't be effective. Take the Greens, 3.8% of the vote with 0.15% of the final representation. And I bet that 3.8% would actually have been higher if people had felt like they wouldn't be throwing away their vote. I understand your sentiment, but I think "bit meh" is maybe a little uncharitable. Hal…

"you end up in a situation where there's little point voting the way you want, because it won't be effective." How much of that situation is due precisely to that mindset? It seems like circular logic to me. 10 Why not vote for the guy you want to win? 20 Because he won't get enough votes 30 Why won't he get enough votes? 40 Because not enough people will vote for him. 50 So why don't more people vote for him? 60 got…

FPTP is unequivocally broken.

Voting for "who you want to win, period" doesn't help in FPTP. Then you just get vote splitting - the majority of the population would prefer either of parties A and B to party C, but they have different favourites, so A and B each get 30% of the vote, while C gets 40%. So the party most of the population hates wins.

Tactical voting is IMO preferable to this outcome.

Post reply on HN