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

Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

rangevoting.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 178 posts

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#81

Post by WildUtah »

nickff wrote: post #75
tadfisher wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So splitline-partition the country.

The intent of the Senate was to preserve the independence and influence of the states. If you splitline-partition the country, you are eliminating the means of achieving this goal, and it would be simpler to abolish the Senate. It can be argued that the current system of directly electing Senators has already made the institution unrepresentative of the interests of the state governments, but your proposal would furt…

There is no constitutional provision that would ever allow abolishing the Senate. The Constitution of the USA prohibits any amendment that could change the disproportionality of the Senate.

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#82

Post by schoen »

WildUtah wrote: post #81
nickff wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The intent of the Senate was to preserve the independence and influence of the states. If you splitline-partition the country, you are eliminating the means of achieving this goal, and it would be simpler to abolish the Senate. It can be argued that the current system of directly electing Senators has already made the institution unrepresentative of the interests of the state governments, but your proposal would furt…

There is no constitutional provision that would ever allow abolishing the Senate. The Constitution of the USA prohibits any amendment that could change the disproportionality of the Senate.

Technically it says that "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate" so the Senate could presumably be abolished by constitutional amendment if all states agreed. (I wonder about replacing the Senate with another legislative house and giving the existing Senate largely ceremonial responsibilities without formally abolishing it -- would that count as depriving the states of equal suffrage in the Senate?)

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#83

Post by nickff »

WildUtah wrote: post #81
nickff wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The intent of the Senate was to preserve the independence and influence of the states. If you splitline-partition the country, you are eliminating the means of achieving this goal, and it would be simpler to abolish the Senate. It can be argued that the current system of directly electing Senators has already made the institution unrepresentative of the interests of the state governments, but your proposal would furt…

There is no constitutional provision that would ever allow abolishing the Senate. The Constitution of the USA prohibits any amendment that could change the disproportionality of the Senate.

An amendment can alter the text of any portion(s) of the constitution. While I agree that abolishing the Senate would be a radical change, I do not know of any restrictions which would bar it.[1] Even if this were not possible, a constitutional convention could be held to make the change.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_Sta...

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#84

Post by WildUtah »

dragonwriter wrote: post #3
tunesmith wrote: post #2

Isn't gerrymandering a much more complex problem than that makes it out to be? I've always thought the problem was that it's actually difficult to even come up with a definition of what fair is. For instance, do you want each district to be as representative of the population as possible? Or do you want the house of representatives to be as representative of the population as possible? I suspect that you can't have b…

> Isn't gerrymandering a much more complex problem than that makes it out to be? No, its vastly simpler: the problem with gerrymandering is that there is no good way to draw single-member winner-take-all districts, and the solution is just don't do that . Multimember districts with a system that provides proportional representation within each district (e.g., five-member districts with STV) solve the problem pretty m…

The Mixed-Member Proportional system proposes to keep the advantages of FPTP and PR by electing most members FPTP and adding a few PR seats in the same body so that gerrymandering is ineffective.

You just lay out about 75-80% of your districts with traditional geographic community lines so each area gets a representative for its local interests responsible to local voters. Then voters vote for their local rep and also for a preferred party. You count the reps elected from districts by party and the remaining PR reps are allocated to fill in the discrepancy between that result and the party preference votes.

New Zealand, Mexico, and Germany use some variation of MMP for their legislatures, so it's working in prosperous stable first world countries already.

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#85

Post by creshal »

WildUtah wrote: post #84
dragonwriter wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't gerrymandering a much more complex problem than that makes it out to be? No, its vastly simpler: the problem with gerrymandering is that there is no good way to draw single-member winner-take-all districts, and the solution is just don't do that . Multimember districts with a system that provides proportional representation within each district (e.g., five-member districts with STV) solve the problem pretty m…

The Mixed-Member Proportional system proposes to keep the advantages of FPTP and PR by electing most members FPTP and adding a few PR seats in the same body so that gerrymandering is ineffective. You just lay out about 75-80% of your districts with traditional geographic community lines so each area gets a representative for its local interests responsible to local voters. Then voters vote for their local rep and als…

re Germany: "Working". It took over 60 years to fix the overhang seat allocation to not give big parties more power than they should have.

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#86

Post by MaysonL »

SapphireSun wrote: post #21
specialist wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gerrymandering is simply incumbency protection. Fairness is simply maximal competitiveness.

It's not clear to me that maximum competitiveness is "fair". Suppose you do in fact have a state that is perfectly divided into a red district and a blue district, but instead of drawing a representative from each side, you split it on the orthogonal side to create maximum competitiveness. Then, by essentially random chance, you might end up with two blue reps or two red reps when fair representation would probably b…

If you did that, you would tend to elect purple candidates, rather than the bright red and sky-blue ones which gerrymandered districts tend to produce: see what caused Boehner to resign.

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#87

Post by samfoo »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #69
dragonwriter wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Proportional representation is far from a panacea. Among modern, established democracies, proportionality of representation is pretty closely linked to public satisfaction with government, and public participation with government. Its as close to a panacea for effective democracy as you could have -- which isn't surprising, proportionality of representation is a pretty direct measure of the extent to which a govern…

"Among modern, established democracies, proportionality of representation is pretty closely linked to public satisfaction with government" When one of these "modern, established democracies" manages to maintain a stable government (or even survive) for as long as the United States has, perhaps that statement could be made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#Li... Other than perhaps the Scandina…

Of the top twenty most developed countries in the world (ranked by HDI), over half (13) have some form of proportional representation. They aren't all Scandinavian countries, though predictably many are. Which of them would you not consider a stable government?

    Y    Norway 
    Y    Australia 
    Y    Switzerland 
    Y    Netherlands 
         United States
    Y    Germany 
    Y    New Zealand 
         Canada 
         Singapore 
    Y    Denmark 
    Y    Ireland 
    Y    Sweden 
    Y    Iceland 
         United Kingdom
    Y    Hong Kong 
         South Korea 
         Japan 
    Y    Liechtenstein
    Y    Israel 
         France

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#88

Post by bjterry »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #45
chadzawistowski wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's tautological about it? Here's the same sentiment expressed in image form: http://i.imgur.com/bRPcQ7O.jpg

In the original statement, the latter is just a slightly more detailed strategy for achieving the former.

I think the ideal strategy in gerrymandering is not immediately obvious (although it may technically be a tautology, it is not obviously tautological). If you asked people which of the two following strategies is ideal, many would give the wrong answer:

1. Begin by drawing the districts such that your opponents win almost 100% of the votes in as many districts as possible.

2. Begin by drawing the districts such that you win almost 100% of the votes in as many districts as possible.

Upon analysis the mathematics of the situation is obvious, but one's gut reaction may be that winning elections handily for yourself seems obviously good.

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#89

Post by vojvod »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #70
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It tends to lead to a fragmented government (which is usually bad). Already the case. It also privileges party over individual candidates Distinction without a difference. Even if the focus is on the candidates, they're all firmly partisan with little variation. Most (in)famously, the Weimar Republic used PR. That didn't end well. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar

" http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar" No, that is not the point. Hitler eating sugar had nothing to do with his government. Proportional representation did . That's how he came to power. Look it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Appointment_as_ch... "Hindenburg reluctantly agreed to appoint Hitler as chancellor after two further parliamentary elections—in July and November 1932—had…

What alternative electoral system would have kept the Nazis out of power in spite of their huge lead in vote share in three successive elections?

Re: Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline algorithm

#90

Post by rmc »

vojvod wrote: post #89
Turing_Machine wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar" No, that is not the point. Hitler eating sugar had nothing to do with his government. Proportional representation did . That's how he came to power. Look it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Appointment_as_ch... "Hindenburg reluctantly agreed to appoint Hitler as chancellor after two further parliamentary elections—in July and November 1932—had…

What alternative electoral system would have kept the Nazis out of power in spite of their huge lead in vote share in three successive elections?

The Nazis weren't too concerned with legalities
Post reply on HN