Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections • Hacker News Board

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#101

Post by anarazel » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 2:56 AM UTC

dvt wrote: post #23

thephyber wrote: post #11

While it doesn't sound like a bad proposal and could probably get a strong majority of votes in some alternate dimension, the party in power will never allow this to make it to the floor of the House for a vote.[1] The more cynical I become, the more I think the party in power doesn't actually want to solve any problems, they only want to focus on wedge issues to ensure they can use {rage, fear, some other emotion} t…

> the party in power will never allow this to make it to the floor of the House for a vote The implication here is that the Democrats don't gerrymander. This is patently false. The Democrats are just pissed that the Republicans did a massively better job at it in the past decade. In many ways, it was an arms race, and the Democrats chose not to focus on small and local districts and elections (instead, worrying about…

> > > the party in power will never allow this to make it to the floor of the House for a vote

> The implication here is that the Democrats don't gerrymander. This is patently false.

I don't think that's really the implication. At the moment it is pretty clear that the GOP currently overall benefits more from gerrymandering [1]. And they are in power, despite having lost the popular vote [2]. The GOP has control over the WH and both chambers, it'd therefore be political suicide to change the system now in a way that'd hurt them.

> The Democrats are just pissed that the Republicans did a massively better job at it in the past decade.

They've obviously also gerrymandered, I fail to see what that has to do with OPs point? Are you really arguing that to be able to be against the concept of gerrymandering, you've to give up any chance of ever actually being able to do anything about it?

[1]: https://www.apnews.com/fa6478e10cda4e9cbd75380e705bd380 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#102

Post by WillPostForFood » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 3:02 AM UTC

mful wrote: post #37

kerkeslager wrote: post #22

I'm not sure how this would end gerrymandering. Setting up a committee to handle districting doesn't solve anything. If I remember correctly, didn't someone finally come up with an algorithm which evenly divides populations such that average distance from the average location of the district residents is minimized? A law which mandated use of that or a similar algorithm for district boundaries would actually help. Ju…

There may be a better solution than an independent committee, but an independent committee is far, far better than the "whoever is in power creates districts in the way that most entrenches the governing party" system we have today. Independent committees have historically been pretty effective anti-partisan solutions. One prominent example being the CBO, which both parties like to stand up for while in the oppositio…

Why is it better? It just means whichever side the independent goes with will benefit. "Replacing whoever is in power" with "whoever is in power, or not in power" is lateral at best.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#103

Post by moultano » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 3:02 AM UTC

nindalf wrote: post #79

blurbleblurble wrote: post #51

I'm reading a lot of resignation, and I feel it too. Why is it than when SOPA came out or when health care is on the line, people rally super hard, but when election reform is out, there's almost no effort? Why can't we get passionate about this too?

I think because there are relatively simple solutions to both the problems you mentioned * SOPA - don't pass the bill. * Health care - spend more, if necessary increase the deficit and we'll figure out the problem later through increased taxes or reduced spending elsewhere. With electoral reform, it's hard to know what the right thing to do is. Everyone wants to stop gerrymandering but what's the alternative? An algo…

Moreover there are no apolitical choices of algorithms. When one party is urban and one party is rural, your choice of algorithm determines which party will benefit.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#104

Post by anarazel » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 3:05 AM UTC

jccalhoun wrote: post #54

dvt wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the party in power will never allow this to make it to the floor of the House for a vote The implication here is that the Democrats don't gerrymander. This is patently false. The Democrats are just pissed that the Republicans did a massively better job at it in the past decade. In many ways, it was an arms race, and the Democrats chose not to focus on small and local districts and elections (instead, worrying about…

The party is power is whichever party happens to have more votes at any given time. Whoever is in power won't change it because it got them elected so why would they risk doing something that might take them out of power?

> The party is power is whichever party happens to have more votes at any given time.

That's really not true in the political system of the US, even without partisan gerrymandering. Given that the entire point of partisan gerrymandering is to enlarge the distance between popular vote and gained seats, I'm not sure what you're trying to say?

> Whoever is in power won't change it because it got them elected so why would they risk doing something that might take them out of power?

You can win the electoral college / house / senate / whatever, despite being disadvantaged via gerrymandering (arguably e.g. the case for Obama in 2012). So that's not generally true.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#105

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 3:08 AM UTC

ccleve wrote: post #27

zeckalpha wrote: post #3

I feel like most of these changes would require a constitutional amendment.

Why was this downvoted? Yes, it's likely you would need at least one amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose open primaries on the political parties. See California Democratic Party vs. Jones: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/99-401 This decision has been affirmed more than once, and it makes sense.

[deleted]

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#106

Post by roywiggins » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 3:10 AM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #78

chongli wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tu quoque . [0] One of the most powerful fallacies in politics. Shuts down countless reform attempts. Loved by the corrupt. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

I'm not sure it's that effective these days. The American electorate just seems to expect that its leaders will be hypocrites and rewards them for it.

The world wouldn't run without at least a little hypocrisy. I don't think hypocrisy is inherently immoral. Some immoral actions are hypocritical, but some hypocritical actions are the right thing to do.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#107

Post by roywiggins » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 3:13 AM UTC

WillPostForFood wrote: post #102

mful wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may be a better solution than an independent committee, but an independent committee is far, far better than the "whoever is in power creates districts in the way that most entrenches the governing party" system we have today. Independent committees have historically been pretty effective anti-partisan solutions. One prominent example being the CBO, which both parties like to stand up for while in the oppositio…

Why is it better? It just means whichever side the independent goes with will benefit. "Replacing whoever is in power" with "whoever is in power, or not in power" is lateral at best.

Insulating the commission means you won't allow a party to seize power and then cement it with gerrymandering, which is self-reinforcing. Cutting that loop means the commission can swing back and forth more easily and has the potential to even out. It can't possibly be worse than partisan gerrymandering.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#108

Post by roywiggins » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 3:15 AM UTC

JadeNB wrote: post #45

kerkeslager wrote: post #22

I'm not sure how this would end gerrymandering. Setting up a committee to handle districting doesn't solve anything. If I remember correctly, didn't someone finally come up with an algorithm which evenly divides populations such that average distance from the average location of the district residents is minimized? A law which mandated use of that or a similar algorithm for district boundaries would actually help. Ju…

> If I remember correctly, didn't someone finally come up with an algorithm which evenly divides populations such that average distance from the average location of the district residents is minimized? I had a colleague (mathematician) who suggested presenting district-ers with a dramatically distorted map of the region to be districted in which neighbourhoods were unrecognisable, and all that could be seen was popul…

An application of the Veil of Ignorance!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#109

Post by jacobolus » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 3:16 AM UTC

WillPostForFood wrote: post #102

mful wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may be a better solution than an independent committee, but an independent committee is far, far better than the "whoever is in power creates districts in the way that most entrenches the governing party" system we have today. Independent committees have historically been pretty effective anti-partisan solutions. One prominent example being the CBO, which both parties like to stand up for while in the oppositio…

Why is it better? It just means whichever side the independent goes with will benefit. "Replacing whoever is in power" with "whoever is in power, or not in power" is lateral at best.

When districts are competitive, both parties need to run candidates which appeal broadly to the electorate, because when ideologues/radicals win one of the party’s primaries, they end up losing in the general election.

When districts are not competitive (and especially when unlimited secret campaign donations are allowed), the primary campaigns end up driving candidates toward radical positions, because the primary is the only competitive stage of the process.

What we’ve seen with the GOP is a party that has moved sharply away from mainstream opinion, subjects all of its officeholders to strict purity tests, and is largely controlled by religious hard-liners and big donors (oil, defense, pharma, banks, telecoms, etc.), and has become increasingly anti-intellectual and overtly bigoted in the past few decades.

Re: Delaney Introduces Bill to End Gerrymandering, Reform Elections

#110

Post by breatheoften » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 3:19 AM UTC

nindalf wrote: post #83

breatheoften wrote: post #57

How about something sensible -- take a census of which party each person supports and then you get proportionate representatives from each party above .15% of the population. Elections then just determine who gets the seats allocated to each party. That's roughly how it works in Germany. Poof -- suddenly there is no such thing as gerrymandering.

Does each voter have a particular representative they can express their opinion to? As I see it, calls from constituents is an influence on politicians because they know these are the people who they depend on. I don't know how it works in Germany so maybe there's a provision for this. Also, the unintended consequence of such an electoral system is that it encourages extreme views, rather than moving towards the cent…

I had to look up the details -- Germany actually uses a mixed proportional system. Each person votes for their preferred candidate in a local race and for their preferred party. Half the total seats are filled by the winner of the local races -- and the remaining half are allocated in proportion to the party votes in order of a pre-determined list of candidates produced by each party. For some parties -- the order of the candidates on the party list is voted on, for others the list order is decided by some central power broker. I guess this means the local races could still be gerrymandered -- however with more total parties I think gerrymandering might be harder to preserve in general ...