How I Teach Gerrymandering • Hacker News Board

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#71

Post by OniBait » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 9:09 PM UTC

alex_young wrote: post #41

LordKano wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a very good reason why we don't use the popular vote for Presidential elections. It's precisely because without the electoral college, small states would receive zero attention on national politics. Why would anyone spend time courting votes anywhere north of New York when there's a much bigger payoff to be had working the rest of the eastern seaboard and the west coast? To use your examples of Massachusetts…

This logic confounds me. Is there some inherent reason to disproportionately focus our national choices on the areas of the country with the fewest people (rural areas)? I've lived in both the most rural and urban parts of the US, and it's clear that the current system massively discounts the will of people in urban areas in this stated endeavor of providing some kind of rural / urban "balance". Depending on what you…

If you look at the United States as a collection of State governments, it makes perfect sense. I'm surprised you are confounded by that logic.

It was actually the most controversial issue during the Constitutional Convention (See "The Great Compromise"). And read up on the Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist debates.

One of the main points is to not give all federal power to the top 9-10 states. Otherwise you end up with the situation where a few large cities are deciding things at the national level and there is no representation for rural areas.

As an extremely over-simplified example, imagine urban voters voting to outlaw tractors because "Tractors emit huge amounts pollution and nobody I know even uses a tractor! Those dirty farmers that I hear use them are dirtying up our air!"

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#72

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 9:18 PM UTC

Fishkins wrote: post #64

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.

In my view, talking about how much representation a state deserves doesn't even make sense. People should decide elections, not some semi-arbitrary geographical boundaries. In the house, people are fairly represented. In the senate, people in smaller states are unfairly over-represented. It's a feature like an "install our app" popup on every random mobile site is a feature. Someone thought it was a good idea and did…

> In the house, people are fairly represented.

Moreso than in the Senate, but beyond that, not actually fairly by most reasonable standards. Monatana's Congressional district has a little under a million people, each of Rhode Islands two districts has a little over a half-million. So the division into states creates an almost 2:1 advantage in representation for Rhode Islanders compared to Montanans in the House.

Now, that's not as lopsided as the 66:1 advantage Wyomingans have over Californians when it comes to representation in the Senate, but its not exactly equal representation, either.

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#73

Post by LordKano » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 11:30 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #48

LordKano wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a very good reason why we don't use the popular vote for Presidential elections. It's precisely because without the electoral college, small states would receive zero attention on national politics. Why would anyone spend time courting votes anywhere north of New York when there's a much bigger payoff to be had working the rest of the eastern seaboard and the west coast? To use your examples of Massachusetts…

> To use your examples of Massachusetts and Ohio, why waste time on a campaign stop in Boston when you can hit Columbus? Columbus has a much larger population and one can also hit Detroit and Indianapolis in the same day to maximize their face time with the public. As opposed to the current system, where...why waste time on a campaign stop in Boston when you can hit Columbus? Ohio is a swing state and MA has voted De…

The point of a Republic is to temper the temporary fashions in political thinking with adherence to inviolable principles.

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#74

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 11:33 PM UTC

LordKano wrote: post #73

philwelch wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To use your examples of Massachusetts and Ohio, why waste time on a campaign stop in Boston when you can hit Columbus? Columbus has a much larger population and one can also hit Detroit and Indianapolis in the same day to maximize their face time with the public. As opposed to the current system, where...why waste time on a campaign stop in Boston when you can hit Columbus? Ohio is a swing state and MA has voted De…

The point of a Republic is to temper the temporary fashions in political thinking with adherence to inviolable principles.

> The point of a Republic is to temper the temporary fashions in political thinking with adherence to inviolable principles.

That's arguably the point of a constitutional representative democracy as composed to an unlimited-powers direct democracy; as both of those are within the scope of systems to which the label "Republic" applies (as are many others), its a pretty odd notion to consider it the point of "a Republic" in any general sense, though it might be the point of the particular design of a particular republic.

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#75

Post by LordKano » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 11:33 PM UTC

OniBait wrote: post #71

alex_young wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This logic confounds me. Is there some inherent reason to disproportionately focus our national choices on the areas of the country with the fewest people (rural areas)? I've lived in both the most rural and urban parts of the US, and it's clear that the current system massively discounts the will of people in urban areas in this stated endeavor of providing some kind of rural / urban "balance". Depending on what you…

If you look at the United States as a collection of State governments, it makes perfect sense. I'm surprised you are confounded by that logic. It was actually the most controversial issue during the Constitutional Convention (See "The Great Compromise"). And read up on the Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist debates. One of the main points is to not give all federal power to the top 9-10 states. Otherwise you end up with…

Excellent metaphor.

That's precisely the kind of thing that would happen.

This system was created to prevent that kind of mob rule.

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#76

Post by LordKano » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 11:37 PM UTC

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.

The Constitution only provides for proportional representation in the House.

There were disparities in population during ratification. This was a necessary compromise to address the concerns of the smaller states.

The system is working as intended.

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#77

Post by philwelch » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 1:42 AM UTC

LordKano wrote: post #73

philwelch wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To use your examples of Massachusetts and Ohio, why waste time on a campaign stop in Boston when you can hit Columbus? Columbus has a much larger population and one can also hit Detroit and Indianapolis in the same day to maximize their face time with the public. As opposed to the current system, where...why waste time on a campaign stop in Boston when you can hit Columbus? Ohio is a swing state and MA has voted De…

The point of a Republic is to temper the temporary fashions in political thinking with adherence to inviolable principles.

No, the point of a republic is to abolish the monarchy. That's literally all the word means, in practice. It has nothing to do with granting more political power to people in Wyoming or Rhode Island than people in New York.

There are certain fundamental principles that this country was founded on, but some things were just 18th century political concessions.

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#78

Post by dagw » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 7:12 AM UTC

aidos wrote: post #13

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…

FPTP is heavily biased though - you end up in a situation where there's little point voting the way you want, because it won't be effective. Take the Greens, 3.8% of the vote with 0.15% of the final representation. And I bet that 3.8% would actually have been higher if people had felt like they wouldn't be throwing away their vote. I understand your sentiment, but I think "bit meh" is maybe a little uncharitable. Hal…

If you want a real 'travesty' why are you focusing on The Greens rather than UKIP? UKIP got 3.5 times the votes that the Greens got, but got just as many seats as the Greens did. And the same argument about the votes likely being even higher if people weren't afraid of throwing their vote away could also be made.

Yet you don't hear too many people complaining about that outcome.

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#79

Post by aidos » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 1:30 PM UTC

dagw wrote: post #78

aidos wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FPTP is heavily biased though - you end up in a situation where there's little point voting the way you want, because it won't be effective. Take the Greens, 3.8% of the vote with 0.15% of the final representation. And I bet that 3.8% would actually have been higher if people had felt like they wouldn't be throwing away their vote. I understand your sentiment, but I think "bit meh" is maybe a little uncharitable. Hal…

If you want a real 'travesty' why are you focusing on The Greens rather than UKIP? UKIP got 3.5 times the votes that the Greens got, but got just as many seats as the Greens did. And the same argument about the votes likely being even higher if people weren't afraid of throwing their vote away could also be made. Yet you don't hear too many people complaining about that outcome.

Yup. I think that's wrong too. I'm no fan of UKIP, but with so little influence after being the preferred party of 12.7% of the voters something surely isn't right.

Re: How I Teach Gerrymandering

#80

Post by TheCoelacanth » Wed, Oct 14, 2015, 8:26 PM UTC

LordKano wrote: post #76

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.

The Constitution only provides for proportional representation in the House. There were disparities in population during ratification. This was a necessary compromise to address the concerns of the smaller states. The system is working as intended.

I'm well aware of the reason it was created that way. I just don't think it makes sense in an era where 3/4 of the states are just arbitrarily chosen chunks of land rather than formerly sovereign entities.