Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm
1–10 of 178 posts
Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm
#2Isn't gerrymandering a much more complex problem than that makes it out to be? I've always thought the problem was that it's actually difficult to even come up with a definition of what fair is. For instance, do you want each district to be as representative of the population as possible? Or do you want the house of representatives to be as representative of the population as possible? I suspect that you can't have both. For instance, if you have a state that is 60/40, then do you want each district to be 60/40? Or if it has ten representatives/districts, do you want 6 reps of one party and 4 of the other? What is districting even supposed to aim for? I don't think there is one reasonable answer to this question, which is why I think any attempt to answer this question for all states is doomed to fail.
The only way I can think of to get both is to increase the number of representatives. The House of Representatives was originally supposed to scale with the size of the population, and they eventually put a stop to that. If they had continued, then we'd have a house with a makeup that matches national polling much more closely than it does now, and gerrymandering wouldn't be as much of a problem. Isn't it true that as you add more representatives, gerrymandering distortions lessen?
Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm
#3Isn't gerrymandering a much more complex problem than that makes it out to be? I've always thought the problem was that it's actually difficult to even come up with a definition of what fair is. For instance, do you want each district to be as representative of the population as possible? Or do you want the house of representatives to be as representative of the population as possible? I suspect that you can't have b…
> Isn't gerrymandering a much more complex problem than that makes it out to be?
No, its vastly simpler: the problem with gerrymandering is that there is no good way to draw single-member winner-take-all districts, and the solution is just don't do that. Multimember districts with a system that provides proportional representation within each district (e.g., five-member districts with STV) solve the problem pretty much completely.
Algorithmic line-drawing of single-member winner-take-all district pretty much guarantees poorly-representative districts, but without anyone being able to control how and where they are bad (well, except that there are quite a lot of algorithms that can be chosen, so the political choice of which to choose will be influenced by the effect the particular algorithm would have on the particular jurisdiction adopting it.)
Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm
#4Doesn't gerrymandering mostly carve out a lot of districts for black congressmen who otherwise wouldn't have districts? I think that's kinda what it boils down to in America. There are conservative areas adjacent to and mixed with majority black areas and they want different representation.
Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm
#5Gerrymandering is an intentional act carried out by politicians, not one of happenstance. It's not something that can be cured with algorithms.
Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm
#6The goal isn't pretty lines.
The goal is maximal competitiveness. Which boosts voter participation. Which gives legitimacy to the results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Citizens_Redistrict...
"While the long-term results will bear out over time, independent studies by the Public Policy Institute of California, the National Journal, and Ballotpedia have shown that California now has some of the most competitive districts in the nation, creating opportunities for new elected officials.[12][13][14]"
Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm
#7One problem with this: it makes sense that district lines could be along natural (rivers, lakes, mountains) or political (towns, county) lines. Trusting a simple line algorithm may bisect a town down the middle.
Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm
#8Gerrymandering is an intentional act carried out by politicians, not one of happenstance. It's not something that can be cured with algorithms.
I take it the proposal is that there should be a law requiring that such-and-such an algorithm be used. That would take away the politicians' power to gerrymander.
(Of course it would also need to be voted for by the same politicians who presumably won by gerrymandering. Good luck with that.)
Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm
#9The problem with gerrymandering isn't that people aren't capable of drawing simple lines to split states into districts.
Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm
#10Isn't gerrymandering a much more complex problem than that makes it out to be? I've always thought the problem was that it's actually difficult to even come up with a definition of what fair is. For instance, do you want each district to be as representative of the population as possible? Or do you want the house of representatives to be as representative of the population as possible? I suspect that you can't have b…
> Isn't gerrymandering a much more complex problem than that makes it out to be? No, its vastly simpler: the problem with gerrymandering is that there is no good way to draw single-member winner-take-all districts, and the solution is just don't do that . Multimember districts with a system that provides proportional representation within each district (e.g., five-member districts with STV) solve the problem pretty m…
Agreed.
But even when the USA sees the light on proportional representation, there will continue to be winner takes all elections. Executive positions (president, governor, mayor), senators, judges, ballot issues, etc.
In those cases, approval voting is the correct answer. Easy to explain, easy to tabulate, most mathematically fair, hardest to game.
Per Duvenger's Law, approval voting would probably also help replace the current two party system with more choices.