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

131–140 of 151 posts

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#131

Post by bobthepanda »

minot wrote: post #128
bobthepanda wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? This seems to work and nobody has an issue with the high-level apportionment. The only criticism I've heard of it is the 435 cap, which is kind of arbitrary, and now one rep represents way too many people.

What would the number of representatives look like if it was fluid and we said the unit is the smallest state that only gets one representative is the yard stick? A quick search shows Wyoming is the smallest state by population with 578,759 so if we decreased the apportionment from seven hundred thousand something to that 578,759, how many more seats would we need? If a state with a population of 578,759 gets one sea…

round up or down as needed. 330 million / 578000 is 570 representatives, give or take. To put this in perspective, the current French National Assembly is 577 members, the Italian Chamber of Deputies is 630 members, the UK House of Commons is 650 members, and the German Bundestag is 709 members.

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#132

Post by sershe »

pessimizer wrote: post #66

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…

Choosing geographic boundaries can be done very arbitrarily. I wonder if the best solution to prevent gaming the system is to use natural boundaries, but use ALL of them - every stream, every road, etc. possible, to create tons of tiny district. Then pick the one with the largest population and start attaching the closest (as crow flies, from the current center) neighbors to it until the population matches the target. Repeat. That way it's mostly deterministic...

One problem is that the last district(s) may be split up... Perhaps the largest boundary district can be picked as a seed instead, to avoid that.

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#133

Post by m463 »

sershe wrote: post #132
pessimizer wrote: post #66

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…

Choosing geographic boundaries can be done very arbitrarily. I wonder if the best solution to prevent gaming the system is to use natural boundaries, but use ALL of them - every stream, every road, etc. possible, to create tons of tiny district. Then pick the one with the largest population and start attaching the closest (as crow flies, from the current center) neighbors to it until the population matches the target…

I've always wondered if you could do 1x1 mile hexes, say centered around the washington monument or state capitol.

Something like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_map

Then have some algorithm for growing or subdividing if you need a specific population.

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#134

Post by dane-pgp »

kukx wrote: post #130
not2b wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Districts drawn on natural boundaries as much as possible, that are geographically compact, will do a fairly decent job of representing people fairly as well as giving decent representation to minorities in segregated areas. Gerrymanders often are designed to violate this (for example, chopping up liberal Austin, Texas so that parts of it are in five separate congressional districts, each of which has a suburban majo…

These are all arbitrary numbers. Besides, I am not convinced that a democracy is better than a republic. Additional layers of competent people and detachment from the current will of majority has benefits and mitigates the rule of the mob. It is like a filter on the underlying volatility, which we benefit.

> Besides, I am not convinced that a democracy is better than a republic.

Perhaps you need to read one of the many explanations of those terms, which make it clear that they are not mutually exclusive. For example "‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous—And Wrong—Argument" by The Atlantic.[0]

To steelman your position a little, let me assume that you meant "direct democracy" and "indirect democracy" respectively. However, I don't think anyone is proposing a completely direct democracy, where every decision is put to a referendum.

Also, even if there is some merit in dampening the underlying volatility and limiting the power of small majorities, it's not clear that gerrymandering (or the electoral college, or whatever else you had in mind) actually works to prevent extreme outcomes.

If anything, the current lack of democracy in the US conditions a minority of voters (not to mention a minority of citizens) to expect over-representation in the corridors of power, and, as we saw on 1/6, it is pandering to the will of the minority that is most likely to lead to the rule of the mob, nationally.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/yes-consti...

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#135

Post by skygazer »

kukx wrote: post #130
not2b wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Districts drawn on natural boundaries as much as possible, that are geographically compact, will do a fairly decent job of representing people fairly as well as giving decent representation to minorities in segregated areas. Gerrymanders often are designed to violate this (for example, chopping up liberal Austin, Texas so that parts of it are in five separate congressional districts, each of which has a suburban majo…

These are all arbitrary numbers. Besides, I am not convinced that a democracy is better than a republic. Additional layers of competent people and detachment from the current will of majority has benefits and mitigates the rule of the mob. It is like a filter on the underlying volatility, which we benefit.

I’m sure there’s nuance I’m not appreciating, but my natural instinct as a person who votes is that minority rule doesn’t really feel like an improvement over majority rule. Sure, minorities need protection from majorities, but at the same time, majorities feel increasingly uncomfortable obeying the dictates of the few.

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#137

Post by tobylane »

not2b wrote: post #87
pessimizer wrote: post #66

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…

Districts drawn on natural boundaries as much as possible, that are geographically compact, will do a fairly decent job of representing people fairly as well as giving decent representation to minorities in segregated areas. Gerrymanders often are designed to violate this (for example, chopping up liberal Austin, Texas so that parts of it are in five separate congressional districts, each of which has a suburban majo…

The UK has a reasonably good and independent process for redrawing constituency borders. One extra goal it was given was to reduce the number of MPs, because 650 is considered too much. This is partly because of the small size of the Commons (ask your MP for a free tour). I don’t think increasing the number will fix ftfp problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_commissions_(United_K...

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#138

Post by totalZero »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #62
totalZero wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

WY was created by the United States of America. It wasn't some pre-existing entity that opted to join the union.

This is hilarious for two reasons.

One, Delaware existed prior to the founding of the United States of America, so your general point about small states is not carried by this WY-specific comment about the process whereby territories become states. And besides, there were people in WY before it formally became a state. Do you also believe that doctors don't exist before they graduate from medical school? lol

Two, during that debate about Delaware in 1787, Elbridge Gerry made the same exact argument that you are making here. It wasn't a convincing argument then, and in fact he is now best known for the term "gerrymandering" that was named for him.

The Tenth Amendment limits the rights of the federal government and requires the federal government to respect and protect the rights of the states, something that the Supreme Court has repeatedly done. So even if WY did not and could not exist independently, the fact that it is a state makes it CA's equal in some respects, including upper-house representation. This design was not an accident, but rather a thoughtful and intentional check upon the tyranny of the majority.

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#139

Post by jdmichal »

wffurr wrote: post #67
jdmichal wrote: post #63

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…

The idea you are looking for is Single Transferable Vote aka STV: https://www.fairvote.org/rcv#how_rcv_works

I'm familiar with the concepts.

http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/

Instant runoff is listed as Hare, and it has some very... interesting results. I don't think it fixes any of the issues people have with first-to-the-post voting, and sometimes makes those issues even worse.

Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts

#140

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

totalZero wrote: post #138
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WY was created by the United States of America. It wasn't some pre-existing entity that opted to join the union.

This is hilarious for two reasons. One, Delaware existed prior to the founding of the United States of America, so your general point about small states is not carried by this WY-specific comment about the process whereby territories become states. And besides, there were people in WY before it formally became a state. Do you also believe that doctors don't exist before they graduate from medical school? lol Two, dur…

> there were people in WY before it formally became a state

I believe I addressed this in the rest of this sub-thread.

> a thoughtful and intentional check upon the tyranny of the majority

That's an interpretation. There are others, including that it's a thoughtful and intentional way to preserve and even magnify the interests of those who own land.

Post reply on HN