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

31–40 of 151 posts

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#31

Post by tshaddox »

ndiscussion wrote: post #20
majormajor wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This might be controversial, but how about no tyranny at all?

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#32

Post by sudosteph »

jandrese wrote: post #23
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…

I'm not sure I agree with this. It seems to create a lot of safe seats but with just one single token representative for the entire group who doesn't have enough power to get an agenda passed. If those voters were spread across all of the state's representatives then they would have to care what the group thinks, but when they're all crammed into a single token rep they can be more easily ignored.

That sounds bad, but it's really not. First of all, sometimes groups should be ignored. For example, the pig farming agriculture industry of NC is causing huge environmental destruction. If the rest of the state doesn't like the precedent it sets to let these companies contaminate our water supply - then we shouldn't have to all compromise our values just because people in that industry want special treatment and command a lot of money / swing votes in multiple districts. Secondly, it incentivizes disticts to elect representatives who are good at coaltion building and who are capable of compromising and winning over allies to actually get stuff done.

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#33

Post by dane-pgp »

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.

A voting system which leads to more proportional outcomes is probably the correct solution here, but there is a "hack" which could fix gerrymandering specifically (if implemented) without changing the ballots, the size of districts, or the counting process.

The idea is to look, after an election, at the proportion of seats won by each party, and the proportion of votes won (in aggregate) by each party, and ask "Could these two sets of proportions be brought more into line by appointing a different winner in one of the districts?".

If a change to some winner could improve the proportionality, then a rule would say that this change to the results should be imposed (on the district where the losing party came closest to winning).

Of course, overriding the true result in a district would be hugely controversial, but the idea is that the rule would act as a deterrent and never need to be invoked, because the districts would be drawn in a proportional way to begin with.

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#34

Post by majormajor »

ndiscussion wrote: post #20
majormajor wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

Do you think we didn't have that? It took a LOT of protesting and lobbying and effort to get changes made in the US, more than in many other nations which, say, didn't need civil wars to end slavery.

We had to change the majority to get those things, and while it's sad that the majority didn't move faster (and that's a different problem), now we have problems created by groups that can't even command a majority of the population being able to set policy.

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#35

Post by chalst »

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.

The Greens actually had little parliamentary influence then: the CDU could have counted on the support of their coalition partners, the pro-nuclear FDP, at the time. Merkel went with massive anti-nuclear sentiment post-Fukushima to pass legislation with over 80% Bundestag support to phase out nuclear power.

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#36

Post by andrewla »

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.

You have to be very cautious with this approach. The intent is not that you are nominating a faceless member of a party to the office, but an individual that you hold personally accountable for their political actions.

Removing districts means that you are moving to statewide elections, and then it becomes a statewide office rather than a local office, which is not the intent.

The better solution is to make the scarce resource less so; limit districts to 60k people (i.e. pre-Reapportionment Act levels) and expand the house of representatives correspondingly. Then this problem mostly becomes moot.

The other problem, of having ~5000 people in the house of representatives, presents additional challenges, naturally, but the house has the power to set its rules so it can put more work on committees (which can have additional specialization levels) and less work on floors.

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#37

Post by jrussino »

Whenever the topic of of redistricting/gerrymandering or voting comes up, I always like to recommend CGP Gray's series of videos on the subject: https://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom

I think the "meta" issue of improving our political system is probably the most important political issue we should focus on for the long-term health of our society. Does anybody here have other good resources to recommend for learning about these issues, both from a theoretical standpoint as well as groups/organizations that are advocating for improvements in this area?

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#38

Post by totalZero »

spankalee wrote: post #5
freeone3000 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that working out for the Senate?

Horribly. States borders are one of the worst districting systems imaginable, and the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the Senate makes it a huge, and basically insurmountable, problem.

The advantage of state borders is that they are static and precede many years of polity shift and demographic migration.

Districts, on the other hand, are drawn to serve the drawer.

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#39

Post by totalZero »

spankalee wrote: post #30
sudosteph wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

States aren't supposed to be districting systems though - they're meant to be independent governing bodies that work under a set of shared constraints for a shared repbublic. The entire point of the Sentate is to give a representation to the need of the state as its own entity - not as a representation to the people in the state. It wasn't even intended to be an elected body. It may feel unfair, but it's intentional,…

I know it's intentional, but it's unfair and broken. There's no valid reason for a WY resident to have 60x the voting power of a CA resident.

The reason is that WY would never become part of a federation where its partial sovereignty means nothing. Look up the Great Compromise.

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#40

Post by sudosteph »

maxerickson wrote: post #22
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…

Competitive districts select representative candidates. Safer districts select the candidate aligned with the majority party (competitive primaries are less common than competitive elections). Michigan has term limits. The notional goal is to avoid people that become lifetime representatives; much of the actual outcome is that policy expertise is concentrated in lobbying groups, and well liked, effective legislators…

I don't think your first sentence necessarily holds true - at least it doesn't lately. We just don't see powerful "blue dog democrats" and moderate republicans holding the keys any more.

While moderate candidates have more independent appeal - it's voter turnout that wins elections, even in competitve districts. Appealing to emotions, especially appealing to fear has been extremely successful at getting turnout for particular voters (ie, anti-abortion voters for example). Maybe that will calm down or moderates will turn out more and end this trend (as they did with Biden) - but even competitive races can turn out extreme candidates.

Another possibility to consider, is that what we call "competitive districts" are really just "moderate districts" to begin with. Places the population isn't particularly threatened by or well-served by either party. In that case, it makes sense that they would be both more competitive, and more moderate.

Post reply on HN