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

How I Teach Gerrymandering

mitesp.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 80 posts

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#51

Post by gohrt »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #49
LordKano wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the composition of the Senate as a problem. I see it as balance. More populous states get greater representation in the House. The Senate serves to prevent more populous states from steamrolling less populous states. It's a feature, not a bug.

Since the passage of the 17th amendment, Senators don't represent states, they represent people. And some of those people have vastly disproportionate representation by Senators.

Senators represent the people of their state.

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#52

Post by napoleond »

Karunamon wrote: post #42
aidos wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I'm in an area where one of the seats was hotly contested. I, like thousands of others swapped votes on a website where we pledged to vote on behalf of other people. My local candidate narrowly won (the one I voted for, not the one I chose) – had a number of us not swapped votes, maybe that wouldn't have happened. For me that's a bit of a win of tactical voting - at least people were able to have some influen…

Out of curiosity - usually party candidates deeply reflect their party platform. Under what circumstances would you want to vote for a party but not their representative candidate?

Beyond strategic reasons mentioned elsewhere, the main ones are (a) local candidate of desired party is unqualified/unpopular/etc and (b) local candidate of less desired party is more qualified/more popular/etc. (Seeing as "popularity" is, for better or worse, a pretty important quality in a political candidate; this includes "I went to the same high school as candidate X, they seem like a good person.")

This happens easily in more-than-two party systems like Canada or the U.K. Since each party overlaps with another a bit on certain issues, and many voters only seem to feel strongly about a few issues, those voters are ideologically okay with more than one party. Even if they have a "favourite" party, they will consider the candidates of those other parties as well.

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#53

Post by aidos »

Karunamon wrote: post #42
aidos wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I'm in an area where one of the seats was hotly contested. I, like thousands of others swapped votes on a website where we pledged to vote on behalf of other people. My local candidate narrowly won (the one I voted for, not the one I chose) – had a number of us not swapped votes, maybe that wouldn't have happened. For me that's a bit of a win of tactical voting - at least people were able to have some influen…

Out of curiosity - usually party candidates deeply reflect their party platform. Under what circumstances would you want to vote for a party but not their representative candidate?

The leadership of the Greens are/were most closely aligned with my values – certainly at the time when the Blairites were still heading up the Labour party. So I wanted to vote Green as the party.

My local Labour representative, however, is a pretty good person to have looking out for the area. He was born and raised in the estates opposite my house - to a working class immigrant family, no less. In his time representing the area he's done a lot of good and he has a lot of experience. For me, that's all good - but his party values of continued austerity and benefit cuts don't sit well with me.

You see my conundrum? :)

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#54

Post by civilian »

The best solution to Gerrymandering is the Alternate Vote. CGP Grey has a great video explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

He also has a great "what is gerrymandering" video that illustrated this same idea, but with fun animals. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#55

Post by davidw »

Ntrails wrote: post #21
bonzini wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> UK election outcomes have nothing to do with gerrymandering and everything to do with > being a multi-party democracy using a FPTP electoral system, which tends to boost > the representation of leading parties at the expense of smaller parties. More precisely, FPTP tends to boost the representation of leading national _and local_ parties (the latter being best exemplified by the SNP) at the expense of smaller natio…

It's also worth remembering that FPTP is designed to encourage strong single party governments over large multi party coalitions. Whether you think that is a reasonable goal is a case of personal perspective imo. I dislike the position that implies FPTP is a flat out inferior system rather than one which has some advantages and some disadvantages (as do all other systems).

Bingo! No system is perfect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...

They all have some advantages and disadvantages.

Weak coalition governments like Italy has had in much of recent history are what you can end up with with purely proportional voting, and they have some serious problems of their own.

I think FPTP with a STV type of system is nice - you can still vote for who you want to, without having to vote tactically, but there's still going to be a stronger result.

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#56

Post by Karunamon »

aidos wrote: post #53
Karunamon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity - usually party candidates deeply reflect their party platform. Under what circumstances would you want to vote for a party but not their representative candidate?

The leadership of the Greens are/were most closely aligned with my values – certainly at the time when the Blairites were still heading up the Labour party. So I wanted to vote Green as the party. My local Labour representative, however, is a pretty good person to have looking out for the area. He was born and raised in the estates opposite my house - to a working class immigrant family, no less. In his time represen…

Heh, failure of imagination on my part. Thanks for the clarification :)

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#57

Post by tristanj »

civilian wrote: post #54

The best solution to Gerrymandering is the Alternate Vote. CGP Grey has a great video explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE He also has a great "what is gerrymandering" video that illustrated this same idea, but with fun animals. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY

> The best solution to Gerrymandering is the Alternate Vote

This is false. Alternate vote is still susceptible to gerrymandering. It even says so in the video you linked (@3:00).

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#58

Post by bossrat »

aidos wrote: post #53
Karunamon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity - usually party candidates deeply reflect their party platform. Under what circumstances would you want to vote for a party but not their representative candidate?

The leadership of the Greens are/were most closely aligned with my values – certainly at the time when the Blairites were still heading up the Labour party. So I wanted to vote Green as the party. My local Labour representative, however, is a pretty good person to have looking out for the area. He was born and raised in the estates opposite my house - to a working class immigrant family, no less. In his time represen…

your conundrum is that you have a distinctly minority opinion, but you would like to influence the outcome "more than your share"? so, instead of advocating unequal income distribution, you favor unequal outcome?

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#59

Post by rancur »

ergothus wrote: post #43
gortok wrote: post #10

This is a great way to teach gerrymandering. It also illustrates the problem with 'Party X is evil, Party Y is not.' Political parties (stripping away all else) are groups of people who identify with one another. Take that one step further, and they're groups of people that identify with one another and believe their group is the best one to represent the whole . Or, if you are less idealistic, they want to win (I su…

One slight correction to your "less idealistic view": It's not just (or at all) that one party believes they are the best to represent the whole, it's that they believe the other(s) are HARMFUL. Ergo, disempowering that other voice is in everyones best interests. While people can often do "evil" things (manipulative, etc), they usually do them for "good" reasons, at least according to their internal rationalizations.…

maybe we should just set up states. half blue, half red. each get to do what they want, and everyone blue or red moves to blue or red state. We come back in 50 years, and see what's up. The blue states are spending gobs on tuition and everyone is still stupid, and the red states, I don't know someone help. I'm colorblind

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#60

Post by TheCoelacanth »

gohrt wrote: post #51
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the passage of the 17th amendment, Senators don't represent states, they represent people. And some of those people have vastly disproportionate representation by Senators.

Senators represent the people of their state.

Yes, and some of those people have a vastly disproportionate amount of representation.
Post reply on HN