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

Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

autoredistrict.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 151 posts

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#11

Post by manux »

majormajor wrote: post #6
ndiscussion wrote: post #4

These things are all just opinion - there is no such thing as a "fair" district. Or do you not really agree with this concept? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority Voting blocks are how they are... and these kinds of changes will have sweeping, unpredictable consequences. I find it humorous that people have a big enough ego to think that they could get it "right". More generally, what people consider…

You seem to be suggesting that tyranny of the minority would be no less preferable to tyranny of the majority, while it seems strictly worse: it still isn't properly representing everyone, but now the unrepresented population is larger... Don't let an improvement not being perfect prevent any improvements from happening.

> Don't let an improvement not being perfect prevent any improvements from happening.

I strongly agree. I often hear this type of argument and it appears to me as just another kind of Nirvana Fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#12

Post by walshemj »

spankalee wrote: post #2

Districts themselves are the problem. They can be more "fair" than they are currently, but they can't overcome the fact that common interests and voting alignment are not exclusively geographic. Removing districts, or enlarging them so the borders barely matter, and implementing ranked choice voting and proportional representation is a far, far better solution.

PR unfortuetly can give the extremes kingmaking powers which can go against the well being of the majority.

The German greens forcing Angel Merkle into shutting nuclear energy early and having to use more ghastly lignite coal.

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#13

Post by sudosteph »

I'm a North Carolinian - so it's fair to say that "creative" redistricting has harmed my state a bit more than most. However, I disagree with fundamental precepts they are using because they do not take culture into account. The representative system works best when it's able to group people with similar interests and values and lets them elect someone who can share those interests.

I do not think that valuing "compact" districts is necessarily helpful for that. The better approximation here should be to aim for grouping similar population densities together. For example, rural voters should have much larger districts, which are made up of mostly other rural voters and urban voters should have much smaller districts.

Likewise, "minimal county splits" is not especially meaningful either. In NC, Charlotte is in Mecklenburg County - that county probably shouldn't get split. However, the population which lives edges of the counties which surround Mecklenburg (ie, southern Iredell, parts of Cabbarus county, Gaston county - are hugely impacted by Charlotte. Those counties have tons of growth from commuters to Charlotte and have very different needs depending on how close they are to Charlotte. These outer suburbs voters should be represented together, across county lines.

And finally - I don't every district needs to be all that competitive. We shouldn't be pitting people with totally different needs against each other for representation just for the sake of it.

It's a cool idea and interesting to see what a "fair" algorithm says - but the fundamentals here are critical.

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#14

Post by majormajor »

sudosteph wrote: post #13

I'm a North Carolinian - so it's fair to say that "creative" redistricting has harmed my state a bit more than most. However, I disagree with fundamental precepts they are using because they do not take culture into account. The representative system works best when it's able to group people with similar interests and values and lets them elect someone who can share those interests. I do not think that valuing "compa…

> The representative system works best when it's able to group people with similar interests and values and lets them elect someone who can share those interests.

This sounds plausible, but I've been doubting it the past few years. It seems like a big driver in polarization because the most extreme subset of those "shared values" groups can more easily take the driver seat.

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#15

Post by AnthonyMouse »

spankalee wrote: post #2

Districts themselves are the problem. They can be more "fair" than they are currently, but they can't overcome the fact that common interests and voting alignment are not exclusively geographic. Removing districts, or enlarging them so the borders barely matter, and implementing ranked choice voting and proportional representation is a far, far better solution.

What's really needed to fix this is to switch from first the post to range voting:

https://rangevoting.org/

Then where you draw the district lines doesn't matter nearly as much because no matter where you put them, the candidate that pleases more of the voters in their district has the advantage, which makes it hard to disenfranchise anybody.

By removing spoilers from the equation you can have two highly similar candidates running against each other without splitting the vote and both losing, so a candidate that satisfies more of the district defeats one that disregards the concerns of 49% of the voters.

It also makes it much harder to gerrymander for the advantage of a particular party because it would make third party candidates and independents viable, and shifting voters around would have hard to predict results on party balance. Moving some Democrats you "didn't need" from a Democratic district to one that used to go to the Republicans might make the first district go to the Libertarians and the second to the Greens.

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#16

Post by Rebelgecko »

clircle wrote: post #7

The website is down, so I don't have much to say. But I will be very interested in how the authors define 'fairness' for this sort of problem. Algorithms are fair right guys? It can't be biased if it's just math. \s

I can't access the website either, but I'm really curious to see if their definition of fairness creates districts that violate the majority-minority rules in the Voting Rights Act

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#17

Post by obelos »

walshemj wrote: post #12
spankalee wrote: post #2

Districts themselves are the problem. They can be more "fair" than they are currently, but they can't overcome the fact that common interests and voting alignment are not exclusively geographic. Removing districts, or enlarging them so the borders barely matter, and implementing ranked choice voting and proportional representation is a far, far better solution.

PR unfortuetly can give the extremes kingmaking powers which can go against the well being of the majority. The German greens forcing Angel Merkle into shutting nuclear energy early and having to use more ghastly lignite coal.

It depends on the voting system. Some methods like Proportional Approval Voting are less prone to this kind of gaming in PR/MMD settings: https://electionscience.org/problem-solution/

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#18

Post by sudosteph »

majormajor wrote: post #14
sudosteph wrote: post #13

I'm a North Carolinian - so it's fair to say that "creative" redistricting has harmed my state a bit more than most. However, I disagree with fundamental precepts they are using because they do not take culture into account. The representative system works best when it's able to group people with similar interests and values and lets them elect someone who can share those interests. I do not think that valuing "compa…

> The representative system works best when it's able to group people with similar interests and values and lets them elect someone who can share those interests. This sounds plausible, but I've been doubting it the past few years. It seems like a big driver in polarization because the most extreme subset of those "shared values" groups can more easily take the driver seat.

I think there are cases where that happens - but I also think we can't underestimate how much reactionary sentiment has stoked this polarization outcome as well. Politicians have learned that "fear of the other guy" can be just as powerful of a motivator (if not more so) to get turnout. So they know that in some cases running an extreme "anti candidate" improves their chances of winning - if only because it energizes the base that is most afraid, and thus most likely to turn out.

For this issue in particular, I think ranked choice could be a huge help.

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#20

Post by ndiscussion »

majormajor wrote: post #6
ndiscussion wrote: post #4

These things are all just opinion - there is no such thing as a "fair" district. Or do you not really agree with this concept? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority Voting blocks are how they are... and these kinds of changes will have sweeping, unpredictable consequences. I find it humorous that people have a big enough ego to think that they could get it "right". More generally, what people consider…

You seem to be suggesting that tyranny of the minority would be no less preferable to tyranny of the majority, while it seems strictly worse: it still isn't properly representing everyone, but now the unrepresented population is larger... Don't let an improvement not being perfect prevent any improvements from happening.

Tyranny of the minority is a different problem, and I don't think it's a given that this will occur if you take away majority rule.

Think historically - would you really want the tyranny of the majority in the 1960s? 1920s? It's my opinion that minorities deserve a place at the table.

Post reply on HN