Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts
141–150 of 151 posts
Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts
#142We 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…
We need multi-member districts to achieve something closer to proportional votes and reduced polarization.
Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts
#143We 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…
More districts just means more opportunities to gerrymander. We need multi-member districts to achieve something closer to proportional votes and reduced polarization.
Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Would you please click the link and read about the Fair Voting Act in its entirety? I believe it addresses every issue you have raised so far.
Your link clearly says, in heading: "RCV for Single-Winner Offices (also known as Instant Runoff Voting / IRV)". So unless they are not actually using IRV, then the link I supplied is relevant. It's specifically this part which is broken, quoted from your link:
The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and voters who picked that candidate as ‘number 1’ will have their votes count for their next choice.
So unless a candidate gets a good-enough first-vote showing to not be last, they have zero chance of winning. Even if 100% of the population picks them as their second candidate, and the remaining first-pick votes are spread over 100 other candidates, it doesn't matter they will lose without first-pick votes. And that's what results in graphs like the "square" graph in my link, where a centrist population ends up with a candidate that doesn't make sense.
The heart of the matter is that part of the vote information is ignored until other events happen. But by the time that triggering event happens, the information may no longer be used. In my example, the fact that 100% of people pick a candidate as their second choice is flat-out ignored until candidates start being eliminated. By the time that second choice is looked at, the relevant candidate is no longer in the running.
I have not seen similar multi-candidate simulations, but STV seems to have the same issue regarding ignoring information. Unpopular first vote candidates will be eliminated, even if they're extremely popular second vote candidates.
For single-winner elections, approval voting is both simpler to administer (because there's no ranking) and has better outcomes (because all information is taken into account at the beginning). However, a more complicated method would need to be used for multi-candidate races if "fairness" of representation is a target.
Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I see nothing broken about my understanding of statehood and it's more than an the existing distribution of power. If we're using the dictionary definition, a state is: "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government." Which is exactly which each US State is. My home state, NC, is a territory which has a distinct culture and community, and it's o…
I appreciate the concept of a state as a culture. But like the concept of a state as a community, that means nothing without people. I grew up in a country (long, long ago [0]) that takes it culture so seriously that it frequently forgets this association, and believes that culture has some kind of existence above and beyond the people who might (or might not) share it. NC, relative to the UK, is a young place, and i…
The fact that our culture is young and highly syncretic (as many cultures are) does not delegitimize it at all. The Scottish have an influence over certain elements - but so do the descendants of various African cultures, the English, German Moravian settlers, and local tribes like the Cherokee. It doesn't matter when my ancestors first decided that the label of "North Carolinian" suffices to encompass all that and more - it just matters that it happened - or rather, it matters that we believed it happened and acted accordingly.
As far as impact the US Senate can make on the state of NC, here are a few I can think of:
- Federal laws about cigarette labeling were very impactful to NC, since our tobacco industry was historically a huge piece of economy (and it remains significant today, though not as powerful).
- Laws that relate to climate change and rising sea levels - The NC outer banks is a fragile ecosystem and is already eroding.
- Funding for interstate transportation infrastructure - which cities should have priority to be put on future interstate routes? This is huge for tourism.
- Rural Broadband expansion - there are parts on the NC mountains, such as where my grandparents live, that STILL don't have high speed internet connection. In fact, the crazy pants representative my district just elected (Madison Cawthorn), despite being a "small government republican", made rural broadband core to his platform - because it's that important here. If NC can ally with other states that have underserved populations on this, then maybe we can get an "internet new deal".
Fwiw, your examples of Texans being Texan first, and American second is exactly the norm in the south that I'm talking about. I didn't even grow up in a particularly southern-culture dominant part of the south, but I only lasted for 5 years in Seattle before I got my behind back to NC. It wasn't just that I missed the trappings of home (though I did), but I still felt that I couldn't relate to how most people there were thinking and acting, and I felt like an outsider. I could have tried harder to change myself to be more like them I guess, but I don't think I would have liked myself as much. The other part of it was, the state of NC played such a big role in making me who I am - that I do feel that I have the duty to help NC as well.
I totally see what you're getting at and respect it - but it's just not in line with how I'm tuned to operate. As I said before, I'm probably just a hopeless idealist :)
Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate the concept of a state as a culture. But like the concept of a state as a community, that means nothing without people. I grew up in a country (long, long ago [0]) that takes it culture so seriously that it frequently forgets this association, and believes that culture has some kind of existence above and beyond the people who might (or might not) share it. NC, relative to the UK, is a young place, and i…
Culture is such an interesting topic. I do think cultures do exist and have an impact even after they've lost their community (ie, how the great works from hellenistic culture and Roman culture continued to influence later scholars in the west), but you're right that they must ultimately be able to co-exist and progress with their own community to be relevant. That said, I happen to think that NC Culture has managed…
But first, let me just that I had no intent to try to "delegitimize" NC culture at all. If anything I was more trying to just move the boundaries a bit, and insist that it is bigger than that description suggests. I see it as more like some sort of set theoretic thing: any given culture anywhere on earth is a complex set of overlapping previously-existing cultures, gathered from across time and space, and the exact mixture will vary if not inch-by-inch then probably mile by mile. My sister- and brother-in-law live are OBX'ers and from many visits with them combined with a few to friends in the NC mountains, one could scarcely imagine they even live in the same timezone let alone the same state.
Tobacco: a huge piece of the economy measured in terms of dollars, but measured in terms the percentage of the population directly involved in it, not so much. So on the one hand, we have an industry that made and keeps a small number of people very wealthy, and on the other we have an industry that provided nothing more than a regular wage to many others PLUS doing substantial harm to those who smoke, both in NC and elsewhere. Thus ... when a Senator from NC votes on tobacco related issues, I would insist that what they are generally voting for is to preserve the existing distribution of power and wealth within the state.
Now, with rural broadband, one could argue that this goes the other way. Surely, one might say, universal (and affordable) access to reliable high speed internet service changes things a lot, in ways that actually threaten to change the existing distribution of power and wealth in NC (and obviously elsewhere too). I don't think that this is wrong, but I think it's very important to dig deeper into such proposals. Why? Because so often when someone bothers to do this, we find all kinds of nefarious self-interest still at work, hidden under what is almost certainly excellent public policy. Does it matter if someone who is already among NC's "landed gentry" (they would never call themselves that, of course) gets a bit richer while a process that gives everyone functioning Netflix occurs? Maybe, maybe not. I'd just be curious to see how Cawthorn sells this idea to his wealthier donors compared to his more public facing version.
I am not surprised by your reaction to Seattle. As I mentioned in another comment here, most people want to feel part of a group of "similar" folks that is of a size that they can wrap their hearts and minds around. I was reading something this morning that mentioned an area of Manhattan called "Alphabet City" - a relatively tiny area but one that still contains enough people for its residents to think of themselves as living some aspects of life with shared experiences and goals. So this sort of association/community/culture building goes on everywhere and at all times.
I don't think your a hopeless idealist. I think your experience and outlook is probably much closer to that of a majority of Americans than mine.
Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would that work with representative democracy? With direct democracy that's pretty straightfoward: one could vote with conservationists on land policies, libertarians on drug policies, progressives on welfare policies, etc. instead of having to vote for a representative who probably disagrees wildly with at least one of those views.
> How would that work with representative democracy? With PR there would be a larger number of viable parties, for example in the last Dutch election, 13 parties got elected. > instead of having to vote for a representative who probably disagrees wildly with at least one of those views With 13 parties you'd probably be able to find one which is reasonably close to your own views.
Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you please click the link and read about the Fair Voting Act in its entirety? I believe it addresses every issue you have raised so far.
I'm confused. I haven't actually brought up any issues except those raised in the link I provided, where IRV has some serious issues. So allow me to remedy it by providing specifics. Your link clearly says, in heading: "RCV for Single-Winner Offices (also known as Instant Runoff Voting / IRV)". So unless they are not actually using IRV, then the link I supplied is relevant. It's specifically this part which is broken…
> Unpopular first vote candidates will be eliminated, even if they're extremely popular second vote candidates.
doesn't seem to be a major problem. Groups do well on second and subsequent choices from a combination of being popular in their own right and more-popular groups saying "put us first and then them second".
Our federal electoral commission publishes every ballot ordering for our Senate elections now. A guy named David Bahry has a "preference explorer" which lets you get a high-level overview for yourself: https://pappubahry.com/pseph/aus_2019/
Re: Auto-Redistrict – automatically creates electoral districts
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How would that work with representative democracy? With PR there would be a larger number of viable parties, for example in the last Dutch election, 13 parties got elected. > instead of having to vote for a representative who probably disagrees wildly with at least one of those views With 13 parties you'd probably be able to find one which is reasonably close to your own views.
Having a larger number of viable parties doesn’t seem like it would help that much when your district is huge and gets one representative elected with FPTP.
For extra proportionality, have top-up seats (as used in Germany or Scotland).