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

Redistricting and the Supreme Court have cut voters out of US House races

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 33 posts

Re: Redistricting and the Supreme Court have cut voters out of US House races

#21

Post by hvb2 »

boothby wrote: post #10
browningstreet wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the risk of raising the ire of the anti-AI crowd, this is exactly the kind of knowledge gap that AI can easily handle. Just point any AI at an article like this and say “explain this”. You don’t have to wait for someone else to provide a bespoke answer just for you. You can have the answer if you want it.

As a resident anti-AI curmudgeon, you're basically saying "just google it" but nowadays, LLMs store a lot of common-sense answers to plain-language questions, and this is probably a fine use for that. That said, I think there's value in asking questions like this. Conversation is how humans learn.

There's also value in actually doing the work. It might be googling but reading a few sources might get you some background info too that you'll absolutely be lacking when asking an LLM

Re: Redistricting and the Supreme Court have cut voters out of US House races

#22

Post by sholladay »

kitchi wrote: post #7
xhkkffbf wrote: post #3

I'm not sure how this is any different from before. Each person gets one vote. And if the district has a different number, that doesn't mean the voter is cut out of the races. The headline doesn't make sense to me at all.

This is true for a direct democracy, but for a representative democracy like the US (and many other countries) there's more nuance. Combined with first past the post voting, there's a lot of room for suppression of voices that are not aligned with those already in power. For say something like the state legislature race in a state, they count up all the seats they have won in each district, and whichever party has wo…

You explained it well. Representative democracy complicates systems of fairness since it adds another layer that itself also needs to be fair. And each is an opportunity to be corrupted into unfairness.

Our education curriculum is also a big problem here. If I stopped random people on the street in the U.S. and asked them what first-past-the-post is, I suspect only a small number would be able to answer.

Yet people are baffled as to why we have the two party system, gerrymandering, and all of the other problems. You can’t fix what you don’t understand. We have to start there.

Ranked choice is starting to gain some traction in the U.S. But there are many different ranking methods and the one we are using is instant-runoff, which has many of the same problems as first-past-the-post, including polarizing candidates and winners. I think if these systems were more broadly understood, many people would prefer Schulze for its fairness properties and to reduce polarization.

Curious to hear your thoughts on all of that.

Re: Redistricting and the Supreme Court have cut voters out of US House races

#23

Post by bdangubic »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #3

I'm not sure how this is any different from before. Each person gets one vote. And if the district has a different number, that doesn't mean the voter is cut out of the races. The headline doesn't make sense to me at all.

take a peek at re-drawn maps and picture will become crystal-clear (see texas and virginia to understand “both sides” so-to-speak).

the whole point of gerrymandering is for politicians to pick their voters vs. voters picking their politicians and if you are able to pick your voters you can easily guess how that will work out for you…

Re: Redistricting and the Supreme Court have cut voters out of US House races

#24

Post by Ekaros »

thinkling wrote: post #20
simonh wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a fan of proportional representation as commonly implemented, but think it is important that the results of an election fairly represent the preferences of the voters.

What do you dislike about the common proportional representation models?

My dislike is that they involve political parties. Which after religions are roots of all evils. I would just go with open list of candidates. The most voted candidates in order get the seats. Some argue that there would be wasted votes on most popular candidates but to me it sounds like voters got exactly what they wanted.

Re: Redistricting and the Supreme Court have cut voters out of US House races

#25

Post by thinkling »

Ekaros wrote: post #24
thinkling wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you dislike about the common proportional representation models?

My dislike is that they involve political parties. Which after religions are roots of all evils. I would just go with open list of candidates. The most voted candidates in order get the seats. Some argue that there would be wasted votes on most popular candidates but to me it sounds like voters got exactly what they wanted.

Interesting. I know that some smaller jurisdictions in the US (cities and counties) run non-partisan primaries and elections. Have party-less elections been done at the national level anywhere? Did they not result in de-facto party competitions? Curious to know where and read up.

Re: Redistricting and the Supreme Court have cut voters out of US House races

#26

Post by simonh »

Ekaros wrote: post #24
thinkling wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you dislike about the common proportional representation models?

My dislike is that they involve political parties. Which after religions are roots of all evils. I would just go with open list of candidates. The most voted candidates in order get the seats. Some argue that there would be wasted votes on most popular candidates but to me it sounds like voters got exactly what they wanted.

Agree, it's mainly about the break in the direct relationship between the voters and their elected representative.

Re: Redistricting and the Supreme Court have cut voters out of US House races

#28

Post by M95D »

deckar01 wrote: post #4

I’m ready for a modern form of representation that isn’t constrained by how many people an old building can hold. I wish small groups could have a representative with a proportionally small fraction of voting power.

Then, why have groups at all? Direct democracy!

Re: Redistricting and the Supreme Court have cut voters out of US House races

#29

Post by deckar01 »

M95D wrote: post #28
deckar01 wrote: post #4

I’m ready for a modern form of representation that isn’t constrained by how many people an old building can hold. I wish small groups could have a representative with a proportionally small fraction of voting power.

Then, why have groups at all? Direct democracy!

Mainly participation. Voter participation is already very low. It would be interesting if voting was more like jury duty and a random sample of the population was selected to vote per issue. That way there are no termed representatives to corrupt and participation is always significant and uniform.
Post reply on HN