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

91–100 of 178 posts

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

#91

Post by rmc »

WildUtah wrote: post #79
powera wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, you can't gerrymander Senate seats. (it's not representative now, but it's not changing either)

North and South Dakota are two states instead of one so that Republicans could have an extra two senators. Hawai'i and Alaska were admitted to the Union together so that neither party would gain an advantage in the Senate from the addition. So yes, you can gerrymander Senate seats. It's just harder and less reliable than House seats.

I wonder is this one reason some in the US Establishment are opposed to Peuto Rico being a state? Since it would probably be 2 Democrats?

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

#93

Post by tomohawk »

I'd love to get rid of gerrymandering. I live in a massively gerrymandered district where the representative can very safely ignore the area where I live.

This algorithm appears to have some interesting results though. Check out Maryland: http://rangevoting.org/Splitline2009/md.png

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

#94

Post by slackson »

creshal wrote: post #85
WildUtah wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is the US system better in that regard?

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

#95

Post by taejo »

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…

If one reads about Weimar politics, one striking thing is how basically nobody wanted a democracy. The Communists didn't, the Nazis didn't; Von Papen, Chancellor second before Hitler, of the "Centre" Party tried to get the monarchy re-instated, and ruled Prussia effectively as a dictator. Ending democracy was basically the one thing a majority of Weimar politicians could agree on.

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

#96

Post by learnstats2 »

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? I've always thought the problem was that it's actually difficult to even come up with a definition of what fair is.

That's perhaps true, and I observe what you say to be correct, but the lack of an acknowledged fair solution means that the existing solutions are all (party) political.

When Party A is in charge, they gerrymander in one direction, and when Party B is in charge, they then gerrymander in exactly the other (or perhaps a convenient tangent). The purpose of gerrymandering is to unfairly extend the period that you're in power.

Having an ostensibly party-neutral solution that all parties can agree to is a useful solution.

It's not immediately clear that this solution will really be fair, but it's not immediately clear that it's unfair, and at least it removes the politicking over boundaries.

If even a few regions start using this solution with the recognition that it is party-neutral, then parties in power elsewhere will start to be pressured into doing the same, to avoid appearing undemocratic.

It's a one-step improvement on what happens now.

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

#97

Post by vacri »

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…

> When one of these "modern, established democracies" manages to maintain a stable government (or even survive) for as long as the United States has

That's a lovely artificial requirement you've made there. I assume this means that you think the US system of government is inferior to the UK system of government, since longevity is apparently the only requirement?

And apparently having an extremely bloody secession war counts as 'stability'? Or being at war with your neighbours for most of the first half of your life? The US lost 50% more people fighting itself than when fighting the Axis in WWII a century later.

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

#98

Post by creshal »

slackson wrote: post #94
creshal wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is the US system better in that regard?

They don't even have more than two parties that matter, so… definitely no.

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

#99

Post by mseebach »

samfoo wrote: post #87
Turing_Machine wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Correlation isn't causation. The best conclusion you can draw from your list is that neither PR or FPTP inherently hampers development.

> Which of them would you not consider a stable government?

Whoa, that's some strawman. The standard we're looking to prove is "proportionality of representation is pretty closely linked to public satisfaction with government".

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

#100

Post by spacecowboy_lon »

dragonwriter wrote: post #40
Turing_Machine wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But even when the USA sees the light on proportional representation" "Sees the light"? Proportional representation is far from a panacea. It tends to lead to a fragmented government (which is usually bad). It also privileges party over individual candidates (which can be good or bad, but those who dislike partisanship would certainly disapprove). There are other factors at play as well. Most (in)famously, the Weimar…

> 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…

But it breaks the personal link with the electorate with party placemen/insiders getting the top positions on the list.

Pr also gives to much power fringe party's eg Germany totally abandoning nukes to keep the 1 or 2 greens onside to prop up Angela's government.

Post reply on HN