3 ms·

>Distortions of the kind labelled gerrymandering are fundamental to the exclusive use of independent single member districts (and exacerbated if you use plurali

by gydfi 10y ago

>Distortions of the kind labelled gerrymandering are fundamental to the exclusive use of independent single member districts (and exacerbated if you use plurality or majority-runoff elections in those districts.) Not so much. In Australia we have single member districts but not really gerrymandering because our districts are set by an independent non-political body using an algorithm and some common sense. Look at an electoral map of Australia and you'll see that our electorates are reasonably sensible shapes, they haven't been set up to favour one party over another.

rhizome 10y ago
our districts are set by an independent non-political body Heh, yeah...we used to have those in the US, too. Is there anything in AUS law that prevents infiltration by members more political than the body's charter anticipated?
hibikir 10y ago
There's always gerrymandering as a concept: If you build everything by algorithm, you are making the problem far smaller, but ultimately the decision of which algorithm to use is never going to be as good as proportional representation. Whether one only looks at population density and geography, or one adds ethnicities or party affiliations, there is no such thing as an objective algorithm that will not lead to biased results. The results will be more fair under any definition than the gerrymandering in, say, North Carolina, but they are still not going to be wonderful. Given how the US political landscape is, it's not difficult to build a generic system that produces results that will favor the same party in all states. Compactness will, in general, be closer to favoring Republicans, while something that aimed for even population density in each district would favor democrats. If I had to choose between any algorithm and what we have now, I'd pick the algorithm, but it's still going to be a worse output than someone actively redistricting aiming for maximally competitive elections or a proportional system.

by gydfi 10y ago

rhizome 10y ago

our districts are set by an independent non-political body Heh, yeah...we used to have those in the US, too. Is there anything in AUS law that prevents infiltration by members more political than the body's charter anticipated?

hibikir 10y ago

There's always gerrymandering as a concept: If you build everything by algorithm, you are making the problem far smaller, but ultimately the decision of which algorithm to use is never going to be as good as proportional representation. Whether one only looks at population density and geography, or one adds ethnicities or party affiliations, there is no such thing as an objective algorithm that will not lead to biased results. The results will be more fair under any definition than the gerrymandering in, say, North Carolina, but they are still not going to be wonderful. Given how the US political landscape is, it's not difficult to build a generic system that produces results that will favor the same party in all states. Compactness will, in general, be closer to favoring Republicans, while something that aimed for even population density in each district would favor democrats. If I had to choose between any algorithm and what we have now, I'd pick the algorithm, but it's still going to be a worse output than someone actively redistricting aiming for maximally competitive elections or a proportional system.