Michigan Radio reported this morning[0] that some group turned in a petition with more than 400,000 signatures for getting how in-state districts are drawn revampted.
[0]http://michiganradio.org/post/redistricting-drive-step-close...
Gerrymandering with geographically compact districts
31–40 of 116 posts
Re: Gerrymandering with geographically compact districts
#32Gerrymandering is a problem because we have a poor voting system. I'm not sure if a single transferrable vote (STV) is the best system, but it would significantly reduce the benefit of gerrymandering (and probably result in better candidates from both parties).
CGP Grey did a great video on STV: https://youtu.be/l8XOZJkozfI
Re: Gerrymandering with geographically compact districts
#33We desperately need to get away from the hyper-partisan, two party system. An Either-Or system was not what the framers had in mind and is damaging. While not the most popular position, I ALWAYS vote for the 3rd party candidate with reasonable policies for the sake of our country.
I used to think the same way about 3rd party, but now I'm beginning to view the 2 party system including the primary as just a 2 round playoff. If you really have enough support to contend as a third party, you can easily win the primary of one of the major parties. Your most important vote is in the primaries (especially in areas dominated by a single party), and I think the country as a whole is beginning to realiz…
We shouldn't have to go through one of the 2 major parties to contend as a third party candidate. One way to solve this could be putting caps on campaign financing which would level the playing field for smaller 3rd parties. But that would never happen because the major 2 parties make the rules and that would hurt their dominance. By voting for either party we are essentially enabling the either-or system to continue
Re: Gerrymandering with geographically compact districts
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even with only two real parties if things were drawn to maximize competitiveness then at least the parties would be forced to play towards the center instead of their more extreme bases. Not ideal but much better than what has been going on since the 2000s.
I don't see how it maximizes competitiveness. Even in a perfectly split district, the primary generally has to play towards the base, and it's easier to get more members of your base to vote than to convert someone from the other party. The bipartisan attempt to neutralize other parties helps with that, it's easier for a Republican to turn a Libertarian voter to their side than a Democrat voter.
Competitiveness forces candidates to balance playing to the base with not alienating the other side, lest they turn out against you.
In the current system the question is who can be the most conservative/liberal. There is little downside to pushing further because there are more votes there but few people you’ll drive away.
Re: Gerrymandering with geographically compact districts
#35Gerrymandering is a problem because we have a poor voting system. I'm not sure if a single transferrable vote (STV) is the best system, but it would significantly reduce the benefit of gerrymandering (and probably result in better candidates from both parties). CGP Grey did a great video on STV: https://youtu.be/l8XOZJkozfI
I don't think STV presents any function that would really prevent gerrymandering. The only thing it might do is allow entry of third parties, but even that's not guaranteed. But a party could still design districts that they'd always have a shot at the second round in every district while other parties don't.
What could potentially help is to have a legislative body not determined by geography, possibly some kind of proportional party system (the downside being you need to make parties a formal part of the system, but they'll always be present anyways), that must ratify redistricting proposals and can challenge currently drawn districts.
Re: Gerrymandering with geographically compact districts
#36Dammit. For some years now I have been pointing out to people who would listen that what we need are policy solutions rooted in mathematical analysis, my go to case being gerrymandering. It seemed quite obvious that we could use geometric smoothing to set district boundaries based on census data to remove people from the process and therefore gerrymandering. Guess I had an untested assumption which wasn’t true, which…
One proposed implementation of your suggestion is the shortest split line algorithm: http://www.rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html The OP also uses split lines, but they are optimized for maximum partisan effect.
Ah. So it’s a case of “we can sound like we’re doing geometric optimization, but really only partially optimize in an exploitable way”?
Thanks for the summary. I’m at work and won’t be able to review he actual paper until later.
Re: Gerrymandering with geographically compact districts
#37Dammit. For some years now I have been pointing out to people who would listen that what we need are policy solutions rooted in mathematical analysis, my go to case being gerrymandering. It seemed quite obvious that we could use geometric smoothing to set district boundaries based on census data to remove people from the process and therefore gerrymandering. Guess I had an untested assumption which wasn’t true, which…
Removing people from the process doesn't remove gerrymandering, it means that the gerrymandering will be done by analyzing the short and long-term (based on demographic trends) effects of different mathematical criteria, with partisan actors legislating the most advantageous criteria.
You eliminate gerrymandering by eliminating single-member FPTP legislative districts in favor of multimeter districts with a system producing proportional results (Single Transferrable Vote or some similar candidate-centered method, or a party-list method, though I prefer the former.)
Re: Gerrymandering with geographically compact districts
#38Districting has time and time again proven to be a cat and mouse endeavor. Someone is always going to be able to create models to game the system one way or another. The real solution is abandoning districting for proportional representation like a true democracy. This Vox opinion piece is a great explainer, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/11/16453512/...
"proportional representation" is a generic term for a wide variety of possible representational systems. And each system has their own advantages and disadvantages. Those that get rid of districts entirely lose the ability for specific sub-regions of a state to have their own dedicated representative to vouch for their specific needs. This matters less in small states and countries, but can mean quite a lot in very large states. Other solutions use districts, but have multiple representatives per district, and have a method for apportioning those representatives. These are still vulnerable to gerrymandering, though its effectiveness is less pronounced as the number of representatives per district increases. But apportionment can be complicated. Some of these methods change the way voting works so that you vote for a political party rather than a specific candidate, which comes with a bunch of advantages and disadvantages.
All to say that, while different methods for representation should absolutely be considered and discussed, it's important to remember that none of these are a panacea, and we should be upfront about the nuances and disadvantages of every option.
Re: Gerrymandering with geographically compact districts
#39Districting has time and time again proven to be a cat and mouse endeavor. Someone is always going to be able to create models to game the system one way or another. The real solution is abandoning districting for proportional representation like a true democracy. This Vox opinion piece is a great explainer, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/11/16453512/...
"proportional representation" is a generic term for a wide variety of possible representational systems. And each system has their own advantages and disadvantages. Those that get rid of districts entirely lose the ability for specific sub-regions of a state to have their own dedicated representative to vouch for their specific needs. This matters less in small states and countries, but can mean quite a lot in very l…
> All to say that, while different methods for representation should absolutely be considered and discussed, it's important to remember that none of these are a panacea
Well, other than that more proportional results, by whatever means, seem consistently across modern democracies to provide government with which the people are more satisfied, and also provide a higher dimensionality to the range of political ideas and debate. (See Lijphart’s Patterns of Democracy.)
Every options has positive and negative traits, but single-member FPTP districts are about the worst, on balance.
Well, worst would be that plus having districts that don't even try to have similar population, so that the results are even less proportional than you'd expect with FPTP in single-member districts.
Re: Gerrymandering with geographically compact districts
#40Districting has time and time again proven to be a cat and mouse endeavor. Someone is always going to be able to create models to game the system one way or another. The real solution is abandoning districting for proportional representation like a true democracy. This Vox opinion piece is a great explainer, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/11/16453512/...
The root cause is Duverger's Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
TL;DR: With FPTP, each belligerent tries to form the smallest winning coalition, resulting in a near even split two-party system.
Proportional Representation is the remedy for assemblies, councils, houses.
Approval voting is the remedy for executive races (eg sheriff, mayor, governor).
Additional benefits of both PR and Approval Voting:
- no more primaries
- fewer elections means reduced voter fatigue
- increased turnout, because real competition boosts participation
- greatly reduces mudslinging, because everyone wants to be your second choice
- no more spoilers, making an incubator for third parties