Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

rangevoting.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 178 posts

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#101

Post by notahacker »

ClayShentrup wrote: post #46
dragonwriter wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Algorithmic line-drawing of single-member winner-take-all district pretty much guarantees poorly-representative districts A) The status quo is massive Gerrymandering, so something like the Shortest Splitline Algorithm would be a massive improvement. B) The point is not to make quasi-proportional-representation with districts. The point is to make a legislature whose laws are representative. To that end, it does not…

Which optimization criteria and algorithm to use is also a political decision, and the people making that decision are the same as the ones responsible for massive gerrymandering. It's actually easier to defend perverse results[1] if they're the consequence of a redistricting from scratch by the "fair" algorithm you've chosen rather than arbitrarily switching parts of cities from one countryside district to another in a way which looks suspiciously like you've been paying attention to their demographics.

[1]like the Olson criterion, which when optimised by a computer program results in district boundaries apparently likely to return mostly Republicans in California...

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#102

Post by icebraining »

mseebach wrote: post #99
samfoo wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of the top twenty most developed countries in the world (ranked by HDI), over half (13) have some form of proportional representation. They aren't all Scandinavian countries, though predictably many are. Which of them would you not consider a stable government? Y Norway Y Australia Y Switzerland Y Netherlands United States Y Germany Y New Zealand Canada Singapore Y Denmark Y Ireland Y Sweden Y Iceland United Kingdom…

Correlation isn't causation. The best conclusion you can draw from your list is that neither PR or FPTP inherently hampers development. > Which of them would you not consider a stable government? Whoa, that's some strawman. The standard we're looking to prove is "proportionality of representation is pretty closely linked to public satisfaction with government".

> Which of them would you not consider a stable government?

Whoa, that's some strawman.

No. The person who was being replied to specifically wrote about stability.

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#103

Post by mannykannot »

JDDunn9 wrote: post #77

Gerrymandering gets attention because it is malicious misrepresentation, but unintentional misrepresentation is just as bad. Voting is a flawed system that will always give some voters more voice than others. - The people who voted for the loser will not be represented (one of the reasons minorities are underrepresented). - The need of local representation is illusory. Make a list of all the political issues you care…

> Gerrymandering gets attention because it is malicious misrepresentation, but unintentional misrepresentation is just as bad.

From an ethics point of view, the intent makes gerrymandering worse than unintentional misrepresentation. If you are not moved by ethical considerations, there is still the purely practical matter that the intent makes it much harder to fix.

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#105

Post by phphphph »

peter303 wrote: post #104

Splitline doesnt honor community or geographic boundaries. I'd suggest a modification that honors zipcode boundaries. The USPS has figured out basic units already.

Wouldn't just counting total votes rather than winning regions be the simplest fix?

(Honest question, not USAmerican)

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#106

Post by Bud »

rmc wrote: post #91
WildUtah wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

North and South Dakota are two states instead of one so that Republicans could have an extra two senators. Hawai'i and Alaska were admitted to the Union together so that neither party would gain an advantage in the Senate from the addition. So yes, you can gerrymander Senate seats. It's just harder and less reliable than House seats.

I wonder is this one reason some in the US Establishment are opposed to Peuto Rico being a state? Since it would probably be 2 Democrats?

There is no question about it. Same with the District of Columbia and various other places that should arguably already be states. They'd be likely to provide Democratic Senators, so there is a gigantic roadblock to keep this from happening.

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#107

Post by eli_gottlieb »

davidw wrote: post #58
dragonwriter wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Proportional representation is far from a panacea. Among modern, established democracies, proportionality of representation is pretty closely linked to public satisfaction with government, and public participation with government. Its as close to a panacea for effective democracy as you could have -- which isn't surprising, proportionality of representation is a pretty direct measure of the extent to which a govern…

Italy and Israel are two countries that have had very proportional systems in recent time frames. Having lived in Italy, I am not that impressed by the politics there, and think that proportional representation with party lists is part of the problem. I think STV is pretty interesting, but producing one winner is no bad thing either. Of course, as per Arrow, nothing is perfect.

Having lived in Israel, its politics are often poisoned by those of the United States, but are otherwise much, much healthier than those of the United States.

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#108

Post by eli_gottlieb »

nickff wrote: post #75
tadfisher wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So splitline-partition the country.

The intent of the Senate was to preserve the independence and influence of the states. If you splitline-partition the country, you are eliminating the means of achieving this goal, and it would be simpler to abolish the Senate. It can be argued that the current system of directly electing Senators has already made the institution unrepresentative of the interests of the state governments, but your proposal would furt…

Screw the states. Most of them only exist by historical coincidence anyway, rather than genuine cultural commonality.

I mean, hell, at this point, a lot of "state lines" are either way too far in (resulting in close-by cities within the same broad metro-area having no common government in the Northeast) or way too far out (resulting in close-by cities in the Bay Area having no common government that doesn't also serve rural Central California).

The point of drawing constituency lines is to unite people who have common interests while giving mutual autonomy to people with competing interests. The current states in the USA do none of that: they basically just systematize the shapes of former colonial land-holdings.

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#109

Post by dragonwriter »

notahacker wrote: post #101
ClayShentrup wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Algorithmic line-drawing of single-member winner-take-all district pretty much guarantees poorly-representative districts A) The status quo is massive Gerrymandering, so something like the Shortest Splitline Algorithm would be a massive improvement. B) The point is not to make quasi-proportional-representation with districts. The point is to make a legislature whose laws are representative. To that end, it does not…

Which optimization criteria and algorithm to use is also a political decision, and the people making that decision are the same as the ones responsible for massive gerrymandering. It's actually easier to defend perverse results[1] if they're the consequence of a redistricting from scratch by the "fair" algorithm you've chosen rather than arbitrarily switching parts of cities from one countryside district to another i…

Its worth noting that almost any party-blind algorithm for drawing district lives is going to overrepresent Republicans, because Democratic support is very concentrated in large cities, resulting in most party-blind algorithms creating few super majority Democratic districts and many bare majority Republican districts. (Few and many both being in relation to the proportion of each party in the populace.)

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#110

Post by philwelch »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #70
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It tends to lead to a fragmented government (which is usually bad). Already the case. It also privileges party over individual candidates Distinction without a difference. Even if the focus is on the candidates, they're all firmly partisan with little variation. Most (in)famously, the Weimar Republic used PR. That didn't end well. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar

" http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar" No, that is not the point. Hitler eating sugar had nothing to do with his government. Proportional representation did . That's how he came to power. Look it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Appointment_as_ch... "Hindenburg reluctantly agreed to appoint Hitler as chancellor after two further parliamentary elections—in July and November 1932—had…

A plurality of German voters voted for the Nazis. If Weimar Germany had the US or UK system of government, that plurality of voters might have given the Nazis an outright majority of seats, just as the UK Tories were recently reelected with only a plurality of the popular vote.
Post reply on HN