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

41–50 of 80 posts

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#41

Post by alex_young »

LordKano wrote: post #28
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…

This logic confounds me. Is there some inherent reason to disproportionately focus our national choices on the areas of the country with the fewest people (rural areas)?

I've lived in both the most rural and urban parts of the US, and it's clear that the current system massively discounts the will of people in urban areas in this stated endeavor of providing some kind of rural / urban "balance".

Depending on what you consider urban, the US is roughly split 80% urban, 20% rural.

To me, it seems unlikely that a ground effort in rural America would be completely neglected in a proportional system. If a party did neglect the ~20% of rural voters, it would seem to put itself at a disadvantage to other parties, especially given the lower relative cost of rural media markets.

We see the same problem with the Senate, where populous states such as Texas and California stand at a remarkable disadvantage to Montana and Wyoming in terms of representation. The voice of a constituent in Wyoming is 66 times that of one in California.

How can we call this system representative?

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#42

Post by Karunamon »

aidos wrote: post #33
Karunamon wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Really? I'm in an area where one of the seats was hotly contested. I, like thousands of others swapped votes on a website where we pledged to vote on behalf of other people. My local candidate narrowly won (the one I voted for, not the one I chose) – had a number of us not swapped votes, maybe that wouldn't have happened. For me that's a bit of a win of tactical voting - at least people were able to have some influen…

Out of curiosity - usually party candidates deeply reflect their party platform. Under what circumstances would you want to vote for a party but not their representative candidate?

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#43

Post by ergothus »

gortok wrote: post #10

This is a great way to teach gerrymandering. It also illustrates the problem with 'Party X is evil, Party Y is not.' Political parties (stripping away all else) are groups of people who identify with one another. Take that one step further, and they're groups of people that identify with one another and believe their group is the best one to represent the whole . Or, if you are less idealistic, they want to win (I su…

One slight correction to your "less idealistic view": It's not just (or at all) that one party believes they are the best to represent the whole, it's that they believe the other(s) are HARMFUL.

Ergo, disempowering that other voice is in everyones best interests.

While people can often do "evil" things (manipulative, etc), they usually do them for "good" reasons, at least according to their internal rationalizations. [citation needed :) ]

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#44

Post by twoodfin »

dzdt wrote: post #31
emehrkay wrote: post #22

I haven't read the article yet, but I was halfway expecting to see this picture: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Ho...

That picture is great: by basically eliminating the geography it makes the math clear. If someone understands this picture, it will be easy to get a good idea about the more complicated real-world cases.

It's not a great picture. For one thing, it's unnecessarily provocative (Title: "How to Steal an Election") and not-so-subtly partisan: The use of blue for the 'natural' winner and red for the 'thief' is clearly meant to echo (and comment on) contemporary U.S. politics.

Yes, gerrymandering happens, and yes, it currently disproportionately benefits the GOP: Some lucky wave election timing put them in charge of more states during the post-2000 and post-2010 Census redistricting. But the benefit they get over their popular vote share is on par with the benefit the Democrats saw in the '90's[1].

And the benefit isn't that great. It's good for maybe 8 seats[2], far short of the 30 seats Democrats would need to swing to regain the majority.

The problem for Democrats in the House is that their districts are too natural: It makes sense to put urban voters with similar needs and issues into Congressional districts with each other, rather than diluting their influence with very different suburban areas. The Voting Rights Act even made concentrating minority votes to create majority-minority districts mandatory in some areas. But the result is winning Chicago wards 95-5 while losing out in the 'burbs 55-45. To have a chance at consistently winning the House, Democrats need to draw districts that look an awful lot like the 5-0 image in that picture. Practically and politically, that's a non-starter. That's why ITT and elsewhere you see calls for multicandidate districts, proportional statewide representation, etc. It's not to "fix" gerrymandering, it's to fix the "problem" of concentrated Democratic votes.

[1] http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/gerrym...

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/upshot/why-democrats-cant-...

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#45

Post by ergothus »

LordKano wrote: post #28
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…

Your response only makes sense if people identify on a state level.

Do voters in Ithaca, NY feel like they got attention when candidates visit New York City? How about Spokane, WA vs Seattle, WA?

When the US could tightly tie state views to voters, the electoral college MIGHT have made some sense, but now the issues are regional at best (coal belt, bible belt, etc), and not based on states. Now we're allowing a minority of the country to disproportionally influence elections (and legislation via the Senate).

To use your counterexample - Why stop in Boston indeed if you can hit Columbus? What difference does that make? I'm less worried about candidates _visiting_ places (because what good does that do?) and more about them being accountable to voters.

You are right about the consequences, but there are consequences to the system now.

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#46

Post by LordKano »

alex_young wrote: post #41
LordKano wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This logic confounds me. Is there some inherent reason to disproportionately focus our national choices on the areas of the country with the fewest people (rural areas)? I've lived in both the most rural and urban parts of the US, and it's clear that the current system massively discounts the will of people in urban areas in this stated endeavor of providing some kind of rural / urban "balance". Depending on what you…

I don't see the composition of the Senate as a problem. I see it as balance. More populous states get greater representation in the House. The Senate serves to prevent more populous states from steamrolling less populous states.

It's a feature, not a bug.

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#48

Post by philwelch »

LordKano wrote: post #28
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…

> 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.

As opposed to the current system, where...why waste time on a campaign stop in Boston when you can hit Columbus? Ohio is a swing state and MA has voted Democratic for decades.

The point of a democracy is to represent actual human beings, not shapes on a map.

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#49

Post by TheCoelacanth »

LordKano wrote: post #46
alex_young wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This logic confounds me. Is there some inherent reason to disproportionately focus our national choices on the areas of the country with the fewest people (rural areas)? I've lived in both the most rural and urban parts of the US, and it's clear that the current system massively discounts the will of people in urban areas in this stated endeavor of providing some kind of rural / urban "balance". Depending on what you…

I don't see the composition of the Senate as a problem. I see it as balance. More populous states get greater representation in the House. The Senate serves to prevent more populous states from steamrolling less populous states. It's a feature, not a bug.

Since the passage of the 17th amendment, Senators don't represent states, they represent people. And some of those people have vastly disproportionate representation by Senators.

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#50

Post by gohrt »

twoodfin wrote: post #44
dzdt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That picture is great: by basically eliminating the geography it makes the math clear. If someone understands this picture, it will be easy to get a good idea about the more complicated real-world cases.

It's not a great picture. For one thing, it's unnecessarily provocative (Title: "How to Steal an Election") and not-so-subtly partisan: The use of blue for the 'natural' winner and red for the 'thief' is clearly meant to echo (and comment on) contemporary U.S. politics. Yes, gerrymandering happens, and yes, it currently disproportionately benefits the GOP: Some lucky wave election timing put them in charge of more st…

Furhtermore, the unit is "precinct", not "voter", so the starting input is already subject to gerrymandering.

And the chart ignores the reality that districting serves an important purpose: to give minorities (however defined) a non-zero voice in the representative body.

Post reply on HN