Fair Representation Act (HR 3057) • Hacker News Board

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#41

Post by moultano » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 4:11 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #9

My horse in the race did not win. It wasn't HRC. However the feeling I get is a lot of her voters are in disbelief she lost and can't understand the opponent having won. It feels as if they felt entitled to a result that didn't pan out. If HRC had won, we would not be seeing these calls for reform gain attention. That said, gerrymandering has two effects, one negative, one positive. On the negative side, there is lit…

You should read OP. It's about making districts with multiple representatives, not changing districts with the current system.

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#42

Post by moultano » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 4:13 PM UTC

whatupmd wrote: post #39

jdavis703 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit more than just ranked choice. Since you have multiple congresspeople per district you can in theory have one extreme liberal, a centrist liberal, and a moderate conservative (I'm taking an example of a left leaning state, but the opposite could happen in a right leaning state). This eliminates the winner take all district which encourages partisanship and removes accountability.

I don't really understand that 2nd bit. How are you going to end up with the same number of congress people? And if you are dividing up seats by party doesn't that incentives you to cater to the base more?

You aren't dividing up seats by party. You make big districts with at least 5 representatives. Anyone with 1/n of first place votes is elected. The candidate with the fewest first place votes is removed, and you repeat until all the seats are filled.

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#43

Post by moultano » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 4:16 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #16

Doesn't the Constitution afford the states the prerogative to decide how to allocate their representatives? Would a federal law imposing this structure be constitutional?

The current system is already mandated by federal law passed in 1967. http://archive.fairvote.org/library/history/flores/district....

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#44

Post by Aaliyah5654 » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 4:16 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #37

maxerickson wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gerrymanding also gets used to deny the majority representation, it doesn't just get used to make safe seats. (Take an outcome matching the rightmost example at the top of this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/01/this-... ) edit: Actually, no need to say "majority" above, the 2 rightmost examples end up with people being denied representation.

What's the frequency of the "red wins" scenario? versus typical gerrymandering?

My mothers neighbour is working part time and averaging $9000 a month. I'm a single mum and just got my first paycheck for $6546! I still can't believe it. I tried it out cause I got really desperate and now I couldn't be happier. Heres what I do, •••••••••>> http://www.joinmate2.com

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#45

Post by moultano » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 4:17 PM UTC

snuxoll wrote: post #33

jasode wrote: post #22

Has "ranked choice voting" been extensively studied in game theory? Is it the consensus that RCV is the voting system with the least number of drawbacks?

Range voting seems to have the least drawbacks from an actual political science view, but its complexity makes a hand counted audit rather challenging when you don't want to trust anything electronic with counting votes.

For that reason I prefer approval voting (as well as how simple it is to explain) but I'm happy to get behind any change that has momentum. We have the worst possible system right now, so any movement is good.

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#46

Post by Aileen343 » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 4:24 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #37

maxerickson wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gerrymanding also gets used to deny the majority representation, it doesn't just get used to make safe seats. (Take an outcome matching the rightmost example at the top of this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/01/this-... ) edit: Actually, no need to say "majority" above, the 2 rightmost examples end up with people being denied representation.

What's the frequency of the "red wins" scenario? versus typical gerrymandering?

Im making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do...

https://is.gd/qKRnJt

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#47

Post by brianolson » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 4:29 PM UTC

tdeck wrote: post #38

Ranked choice voting is still fundamentally flawed [1]. Voters will be incentivized to vote strategically in this system rather than according to their preference, just as they do now. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...

Arrow's theorem says there isn't a 'perfect' method given Arrow's constraints. There are still good and better systems. Our current 'pick one' ballots are pathetically weak and real improvements could be made.

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#48

Post by brianolson » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 4:32 PM UTC

jasode wrote: post #22

Has "ranked choice voting" been extensively studied in game theory? Is it the consensus that RCV is the voting system with the least number of drawbacks?

I've been in online discussion forums for over a decade with theory nerds discussing the merits of dozens of possible algorithms for counting votes and picking a winner. There are lots of known shortcomings and advantages and tradeoffs and there are some generally agreed on pretty-good solutions. Condorcet's election method is my current pick for what to advocate we actually enact.

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#49

Post by brianolson » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 4:34 PM UTC

whatupmd wrote: post #24

I guess this is mainly about Ranked Choice voting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting "The Fair Representation Act (HR 3057) gives voters of all backgrounds and all political stripes the power to elect House Members who reflect their views and will work constructively with others in Congress." What incentive is there to "work constructively with others" in this system?

Instant Runoff Voting is severely flawed. It can solve basic problems like the Bush-Gore-Nader election where Nader voters probably would have preferred Gore, but it can also get the wrong answer and has in a real world election in 2009 in Burlington, VT: http://bolson.org/~bolson/2009/20090303_burlington_vt_mayor....

Re: Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)

#50

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 4:40 PM UTC

snuxoll wrote: post #21

tptacek wrote: post #16

Doesn't the Constitution afford the states the prerogative to decide how to allocate their representatives? Would a federal law imposing this structure be constitutional?

Section 4 of the US constitution, the federal congress is allowed to make regulations on how elections are handled that supersede the states - the only exception is the places which elections are held, that power rests fully with the state itself.

[deleted]