Live data from Hacker News

Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

autoredistrict.org

101–110 of 151 posts

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#101
post #76

I don't think that political parties or race should be included in redistricting plans, especially since I think that this could often accidentally result in optimally "cracking" or "packing" minority districts. Neither political parties nor races should be intentionally institutionalized. The defining characteristic of a district is that it is geographically contiguous. A defining specification for districts is that…

Physical commonalities are easily gameable. You could divide a city into east-bank/west-bank, or upstream/downstream, or even near-bank/far-bank. Give me enough factors and write me a large enough check, and I can give you whatever kind of partisan results you want. I do find watershed democracy (legislative district boundaries defined by watershed) kind of an interesting thought experiment. At the very least it'd he…

Bioregionalism strikes again!

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems... like a creative way of putting it. Wyoming may not have existed as a state entity, but the people sure did. And they had their reasons for joining the federation - this is one of them.

wikipedia: >The region acquired the name Wyoming by 1865, when Representative James Mitchell Ashley of Ohio introduced a bill to Congress to provide a "temporary government for the territory of Wyoming". > The region's population grew steadily after the Union Pacific Railroad reached the town of Cheyenne in 1867, and the federal government established the Wyoming Territory on July 25, 1868 > Once government-sponsored…

You're certainly more educated on the history than I am. My main point is that the smaller states would have never agreed to a representative democracy which made their desires 100% irrelevant.

There's enough small states like that to get some leverage. WY is one example, but there's many more. And as we saw in the civil war, states and people were willing to go to war to defend their interests, whatever those interests were.

I simply can't imagine the feds trying to conquer Wyoming. There are no cities to burn. There would be a rifle behind every shrub-brush, and the casualties would be so massive, and so demoralizing, that they would be forced to allow those states to form their own federation. It would be a high-desert Vietnam situation.

edit: I'm actually so ignorant on the history that I didn't realize WY became a state in 1890. The Great Compromise was in 1787. So this matter was already long settled by the time they had a chance to become a state - this nation was clearly intended to be a federation of states with independent control.

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#103
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A maximally representative district would be a large multi-representative district that elects 5 representative using ranked choice or approval voting. Then you get the property of representation you're looking for without having to draw fine-grained arbitrary distinctions on a map. https://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation#what_is_fair_vo...

I assume you mean that all the candidates run against each other simultaneously, and the top 5 all win a seat? I don't think that has the properties you are claiming. At least not with approval voting. Let's spherical cow this for a second and say that 51% of the population would like candidates from the Foo party, and 49% would like candidates from the Bar party. What prevents the 51% from electing five Foo candidat…

I see others have replied to you, correctly; but, to throw in my two cents: multimember districts use some form of ranked choice or quadratic or sortition system. What you’re talking about are called “multimember at large” districts and are both illegal (falling awry of the VRA), in addition to being unconstitutional.

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume you mean that all the candidates run against each other simultaneously, and the top 5 all win a seat? I don't think that has the properties you are claiming. At least not with approval voting. Let's spherical cow this for a second and say that 51% of the population would like candidates from the Foo party, and 49% would like candidates from the Bar party. What prevents the 51% from electing five Foo candidat…

Make it proportional to the vote. If it's 51/49, bar still gets 2. Also makes third parties feasible that way.

Personally, I think fully proportional meaning getting rid of districts is the best idea. The entire state is one district, parties publish a ranked list well before the election, and based on the votes everyone got, the top n people from the party's list get elected.

We still have a problem though: how many seats does each state get? Do we still continue to apportion seats each state gets every ten years on a census?

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#105

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,…

The concept of "a state as its own entity - not [ ... ] the people in the state" is so broken as to almost need no remark. What on earth does that even mean? How does a Senator represent "the state as its own entity - not [ ... ] the people in the state" ? Presumably the Senator responds to legislative proposals based on how their perceive them to affect the state, but what can it mean to say "how it affects the stat…

> A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people."

-Friedrich Nietzsche

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#106

I don't think that political parties or race should be included in redistricting plans, especially since I think that this could often accidentally result in optimally "cracking" or "packing" minority districts. Neither political parties nor races should be intentionally institutionalized. The defining characteristic of a district is that it is geographically contiguous. A defining specification for districts is that…

My African American friends are always very excited when a black politician wins an election. I can't imagine they would accept having even fewer black voices than they do now just so that every district can have the same "local weather patterns". That's actually pretty insulting now that I think about it to suggest "proximity to major land features" is more important that having representation for every community.

I don't really follow your argument in the last paragraph. Could you simplify it a bit?

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#107
post #88

We really need to get the cube root rule passed.[0] Gerrymandering wouldn't really be useful if each district were smaller, and then we'd get Representatives that have a similar breakdown to the people they represent. For example in the US each representative would represent ~475K people instead of ~755K. So California would have 84 representatives instead of 53. It's a lot harder to gerrymander when the districts ar…

I used to think smaller districts would be harder to gerrymander, but the 99 Wisconsin State Legislature districts (each none too big) can still be gerrymandered plenty to distort the balance of that body.

Interesting. I hadn't heard about that. I just read up on it, and it's crazy how well they gerrymandered. Look like in one election Democrats got 56% of the vote but only 28% of the seats.

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wikipedia: >The region acquired the name Wyoming by 1865, when Representative James Mitchell Ashley of Ohio introduced a bill to Congress to provide a "temporary government for the territory of Wyoming". > The region's population grew steadily after the Union Pacific Railroad reached the town of Cheyenne in 1867, and the federal government established the Wyoming Territory on July 25, 1868 > Once government-sponsored…

You're certainly more educated on the history than I am. My main point is that the smaller states would have never agreed to a representative democracy which made their desires 100% irrelevant. There's enough small states like that to get some leverage. WY is one example, but there's many more. And as we saw in the civil war, states and people were willing to go to war to defend their interests, whatever those intere…

> this nation was clearly intended to be a federation of states with independent control

Appeals to history like that don't work for me. You could just as easily say:

"this nation was clearly intended to be a place where only white men got to vote"

or

"this nation was clearly intended to be a place where slavery was legal and a slave was counted as 3/5 of a human being"

The emancipation proclamation, and later civil rights movements have changed those things in an explicit way. But I would argue (and I'm not alone in this) that many other legislative and judicials changes since the end of the civil war have undermined the historical notion of "a federation of states with independent control".

I don't disagree that it would be better if we were to explicitly modify the constitution to reflect these changes. But modifying the constitution is very tricky to do (a major defect in the constitution IMO), and so for now we have to deal a de-facto situation rather than one necessarily reflected in the words of an amendment or three.

The feds have never (so far) been faced with "trying to conquer Wyoming". As outlined in the quotes I gave last time, the federal government created the Wyoming territory, appointed its territorial governors, voted on whether to allow it to become a state. The federal government owns most of the land in Wyoming too. This story repeats for more or less the entirety of the western states. It is purely an imagined fiction that these were once sovereign independent nations that finally decided to join the continental union. They were paid for and controlled by the union until they decided to be states instead of territories, at which time they had more self-determination in many important ways (but less in others).

This process is more or less unrelated to the formation of the states that existed at the time of the DoI. These states had already existed for 40-100 years in various ways, and had never been part of anything other than the dominion of the British monarchy.

I would wager that even had the constitution not granted WY it's 2 senators for its 60k people, the handful of those who voted in 1889 would still have decided to become a state (the alernative was not some glorious independent future, but simply remaining as a territory).

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. What does gender have to do with population density? I chose population density, because it was the only value that I could think of that closely correlated with culture and that was not a protected status (ie, not race, religion, sex, etc). If it's done algorithmically, it doesn't seem like a bad measure. Anyhow, the "who gets to choose" thing is tough. Right now legisla…

My interpretation was that you chose to group together areas with similar population density because there are important policy concerns directly related to population density. And indeed that's true: water rights, zoning, building codes, pollution and noise restrictions, and more ought to depend highly on the population density of the area, and it doesn't seem necessary or even moral for rural voters to have much sa…

What you’re probably looking for is an increase in the number of Representatives rather than a change in the formula of districting. I am at least.

Look at it this way, if it were 1 Rep per between 30K and 50K instead of 1 Rep per ~700K, there is a decent shot that somewhere in those several thousand Representatives you’ll have a few that are from just about every slice of American life, and elections are still every 2 years if one session of Congress just isn’t good enough for you. Even Wyoming would be sending between 12 and 19 Representatives to Congress rather than the lone Rep they send now, and would have more and various opinions and interests represented.

Post reply on HN