7 ms·

Gerrymandering is considered a bad thing, but one might reasonably ask why we ought to care about geographical subdivisions of voters at all, why not just allow

Gerrymandering is considered a bad thing, but one might reasonably ask why we ought to care about geographical subdivisions of voters at all, why not just allow a pure majority vote within a broader administrative unit. This is, incidentally, the argument behind eliminating the Electoral College. But the fascinating thing about the EC is that it's basically a custom "consensus algorithm" that is intended to prevent large disparities between the political power of states with very large vs very small populations. This has the effect of increasing the political power of voters in remote regions, and decreasing the political power of voters in states with large populations. In effect, what we consider "consensus" in the EC system is different than what we'd consider consensus in a purely majority-vote system. Congressional districting is an attempt to do the same thing at the state level... Consensus requires more than just appealing to the largest numerical majority. Interests that correlate with geography get slightly more political power than they would in a purely majority-vote system. As we know from cryptocurrencies, changing the consensus algorithm is a hot topic, and there is always a group of winners and a group of losers. Gerrymandering creates voting blocs that make it more likely that the bloc will elect a candidate that strongly supports the bloc's interests, but it also reduces the impact of the bloc's views on elections held in nearby blocs. How this plays out in any specific scenario is largely the result of historical accident, but I'd offer the argument that allowing states to change the consensus algorithm for their own voters is not necessarily bad for anyone outside of that state. I support the Electoral College because I think that without it, the issues that Americans considered at the national level would be very strongly dominated by the concerns of the most populous urban centers, which would lead to even more fractiousness between urban areas and "flyover" areas. So states that tinker with their own consensus algorithms are potentially helping (but likely hindering) the ability to achieve stable consensus. This is a bad thing, but not something that should be prevented by Federal law. We should let them make their own mistakes and let more enlightened states (if any exist) lead by example.

aanm1988 10y ago
> I support the Electoral College because I think that without it, the issues that Americans considered at the national level would be very strongly dominated by the concerns of the most populous urban centers, which would lead to even more fractiousness between urban areas and "flyover" areas. and with it the majority of voters get overridden because of those flyover states. I don't like this argument because you are arguing for exactly the opposite as the better way. Anyway, I still think the easiest way is to remove the cap on the house or raise it a lot. You still get the electoral college benefit you want but the disparity in power isn't so high. I don't really like that though. Personally I think a popular vote would just result in more moderate policies because you need to at least split the cities, and then the rural areas are still valuable to put you over the top.
- barsonme 10y ago
  > and with it the majority of voters get overridden because of those flyover states. I don't like this argument because you are arguing for exactly the opposite as the better way. Urban voters have the benefit of living in a densely populated area. There's something to be said for safety in numbers. > Personally I think a popular vote would just result in more moderate policies because you need to at least split the cities, and then the rural areas are still valuable to put you over the top. Campaigns would visit fewer areas than they do now. Voter fraud could become more easier to commit. Swing states would disappear. Popular voting sounds great until you realize those who live away from larger voting blocs would get the short end of the stick.
  - aanm1988 10y ago
    > Voter fraud could become more easier to commit Why? > Swing states would disappear. Thank fucking god for that.
    - grandalf 10y ago
      > Thank fucking god for that. Do you want swing states to no longer have votes that matter? Or do you wish that the kinds of issues that result in swing states would no longer exist?
      - aanm1988 10y ago
        > Do you want swing states to no longer have votes that matter I don't want them to be the only ones that end up mattering.
        grandalf 10y ago
        > the only ones that end up mattering Even in a popular vote system there would still be small issues that ended up mattering (seemingly too much) they would just not be as likely to be from geographical areas with low populations. There are issues with broad support, and other issues with narrow support. In order to win, politicians must cater to both. The narrow, tie-breaker issues in a popular vote system would also (quite likely be just as stupid as they are today).
jpfed 10y ago
>the issues that Americans considered at the national level would be very strongly dominated by the concerns of the most populous urban centers, which would lead to even more fractiousness between urban areas and "flyover" areas. This is a common sentiment. I'm curious about what you think about the following question: Let's say we order cities from most populous to least populous. How many cities would we need to add together to get to roughly 50% of the population? Bonus points for putting down a guess before doing the math and checking.
- memmcgee 10y ago
  I guessed about a 100 and that's a little low. Half the US lives in the top 146 biggest counties. http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-liv...
  - grandalf 10y ago
    There are a few places where the split into counties obscures the contiguity of the population, such as greater NYC (the five boroughs, part of NJ, etc.) and greater SF (includes Oakland, Berkeley, etc., down to San Jose). The same is true in the greater DC area and greater LA area. Once you merge those into virtual counties, the number of counties is a lot lower.
    - jpfed 10y ago
      And, of course, there are places where the county's reach exceeds the city's. For example, the city of Milwaukee is deep blue, but Milwaukee County elects Sheriff Clarke.
- grandalf 10y ago
  > How many cities would we need to add together to get to roughly 50% of the population? While this is an interesting question, it's not the one that we should ask: Instead, what is the lowest number of flights a candidate needs to take to visit a majority of the voters' nearby area? If the candidate can drive for under three hours to arrive at another area, the trip does not qualify for a flight. See these links for the map visuals supporting this line of reasoning: http://www.arbesman.net/blog/2011/02/02/the-city-states-of-america/ http://www.arbesman.net/blog/2011/02/02/the-city-states-of-a... and https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/a-new-map-for-america.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/a-new-map-... A popular vote system decreases the number of flights substantially compared to the EC system, and would make much of the US utterly irrelevant in a national election. The EC system was created to prevent this from happening. Also, flights are a proxy for overall campaign spending. A popular vote system would reward spending on the most populous visits and (compared to the EC system) penalize visits to the least populous areas.
specialist 10y ago
Consent of the governed is important. When the winning side is disenfranchised, repeatedly, it undermines the legitimacy of the democracy.

aanm1988 10y ago

> I support the Electoral College because I think that without it, the issues that Americans considered at the national level would be very strongly dominated by the concerns of the most populous urban centers, which would lead to even more fractiousness between urban areas and "flyover" areas. and with it the majority of voters get overridden because of those flyover states. I don't like this argument because you are arguing for exactly the opposite as the better way. Anyway, I still think the easiest way is to remove the cap on the house or raise it a lot. You still get the electoral college benefit you want but the disparity in power isn't so high. I don't really like that though. Personally I think a popular vote would just result in more moderate policies because you need to at least split the cities, and then the rural areas are still valuable to put you over the top.

barsonme 10y ago
> and with it the majority of voters get overridden because of those flyover states. I don't like this argument because you are arguing for exactly the opposite as the better way. Urban voters have the benefit of living in a densely populated area. There's something to be said for safety in numbers. > Personally I think a popular vote would just result in more moderate policies because you need to at least split the cities, and then the rural areas are still valuable to put you over the top. Campaigns would visit fewer areas than they do now. Voter fraud could become more easier to commit. Swing states would disappear. Popular voting sounds great until you realize those who live away from larger voting blocs would get the short end of the stick.
- aanm1988 10y ago
  > Voter fraud could become more easier to commit Why? > Swing states would disappear. Thank fucking god for that.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    > Thank fucking god for that. Do you want swing states to no longer have votes that matter? Or do you wish that the kinds of issues that result in swing states would no longer exist?
    - aanm1988 10y ago
      > Do you want swing states to no longer have votes that matter I don't want them to be the only ones that end up mattering.
      - grandalf 10y ago
        > the only ones that end up mattering Even in a popular vote system there would still be small issues that ended up mattering (seemingly too much) they would just not be as likely to be from geographical areas with low populations. There are issues with broad support, and other issues with narrow support. In order to win, politicians must cater to both. The narrow, tie-breaker issues in a popular vote system would also (quite likely be just as stupid as they are today).

jpfed 10y ago

>the issues that Americans considered at the national level would be very strongly dominated by the concerns of the most populous urban centers, which would lead to even more fractiousness between urban areas and "flyover" areas. This is a common sentiment. I'm curious about what you think about the following question: Let's say we order cities from most populous to least populous. How many cities would we need to add together to get to roughly 50% of the population? Bonus points for putting down a guess before doing the math and checking.

memmcgee 10y ago
I guessed about a 100 and that's a little low. Half the US lives in the top 146 biggest counties. http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-liv...
- grandalf 10y ago
  There are a few places where the split into counties obscures the contiguity of the population, such as greater NYC (the five boroughs, part of NJ, etc.) and greater SF (includes Oakland, Berkeley, etc., down to San Jose). The same is true in the greater DC area and greater LA area. Once you merge those into virtual counties, the number of counties is a lot lower.
  - jpfed 10y ago
    And, of course, there are places where the county's reach exceeds the city's. For example, the city of Milwaukee is deep blue, but Milwaukee County elects Sheriff Clarke.
grandalf 10y ago
> How many cities would we need to add together to get to roughly 50% of the population? While this is an interesting question, it's not the one that we should ask: Instead, what is the lowest number of flights a candidate needs to take to visit a majority of the voters' nearby area? If the candidate can drive for under three hours to arrive at another area, the trip does not qualify for a flight. See these links for the map visuals supporting this line of reasoning: http://www.arbesman.net/blog/2011/02/02/the-city-states-of-america/ http://www.arbesman.net/blog/2011/02/02/the-city-states-of-a... and https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/a-new-map-for-america.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/a-new-map-... A popular vote system decreases the number of flights substantially compared to the EC system, and would make much of the US utterly irrelevant in a national election. The EC system was created to prevent this from happening. Also, flights are a proxy for overall campaign spending. A popular vote system would reward spending on the most populous visits and (compared to the EC system) penalize visits to the least populous areas.

specialist 10y ago

Consent of the governed is important. When the winning side is disenfranchised, repeatedly, it undermines the legitimacy of the democracy.