3 ms·

I'm not sure how this would end gerrymandering. Setting up a committee to handle districting doesn't solve anything. If I remember correctly, didn't someone fi

I'm not sure how this would end gerrymandering. Setting up a committee to handle districting doesn't solve anything. If I remember correctly, didn't someone finally come up with an algorithm which evenly divides populations such that average distance from the average location of the district residents is minimized? A law which mandated use of that or a similar algorithm for district boundaries would actually help. Just moving the problem into committee obfuscates the problem.

SamReidHughes 9y ago
That would still help whichever party benefits from such a procedure. We've had debates over what the "right" algorithm is before, in regard to calculating the number of House representatives each state gets.
mful 9y ago
There may be a better solution than an independent committee, but an independent committee is far, far better than the "whoever is in power creates districts in the way that most entrenches the governing party" system we have today. Independent committees have historically been pretty effective anti-partisan solutions. One prominent example being the CBO, which both parties like to stand up for while in the opposition, and disparage while in power.
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  Why is it better? It just means whichever side the independent goes with will benefit. "Replacing whoever is in power" with "whoever is in power, or not in power" is lateral at best.
  - roywiggins 9y ago
    Insulating the commission means you won't allow a party to seize power and then cement it with gerrymandering, which is self-reinforcing. Cutting that loop means the commission can swing back and forth more easily and has the potential to even out. It can't possibly be worse than partisan gerrymandering.
  - jacobolus 9y ago
    When districts are competitive, both parties need to run candidates which appeal broadly to the electorate, because when ideologues/radicals win one of the party’s primaries, they end up losing in the general election. When districts are not competitive (and especially when unlimited secret campaign donations are allowed), the primary campaigns end up driving candidates toward radical positions, because the primary is the only competitive stage of the process. What we’ve seen with the GOP is a party that has moved sharply away from mainstream opinion, subjects all of its officeholders to strict purity tests, and is largely controlled by religious hard-liners and big donors (oil, defense, pharma, banks, telecoms, etc.), and has become increasingly anti-intellectual and overtly bigoted in the past few decades.
JadeNB 9y ago
> If I remember correctly, didn't someone finally come up with an algorithm which evenly divides populations such that average distance from the average location of the district residents is minimized? I had a colleague (mathematician) who suggested presenting district-ers with a dramatically distorted map of the region to be districted in which neighbourhoods were unrecognisable, and all that could be seen was population density. One could gerrymander such a map all one pleased, but with (presumably) no better than random chance of thereby accruing a benefit, and random risk of suffering a detriment.
- roywiggins 9y ago
  An application of the Veil of Ignorance! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
- ihaveajob 9y ago
  This reminds me of the simple way my brother and I used to split treats (cake, chocolate, etc) evenly and without fights. One of us would cut, and the other would choose a piece. That way, you could bet your behind that whoever was cutting would be as even as humanly possible.
m-j-fox 9y ago
I know this one! It's the k-means algorithm. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-means_clustering https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-means_clustering
jakelazaroff 9y ago
I don't think that necessarily solves the problem. You might end up with a state where congresspeople are geographically close to their constituents but non-representative in a number of other ways. For example, (arguably) representatives' political affiliations should roughly correspond to the affiliations of the state's voters — so if you had a state with 4m Democrats, 4m Republicans and 2m independents out of 10m voters total, you might have 4 Republican, 4 Democrat and 2 independent majority districts. There are undoubtedly other factors to consider than proximity and party affiliation. The key takeaway is that districting is an opinionated act, algorithm or not. If we're going to "solve" gerrymandering, we need to figure out what "successful" districts look like first.

SamReidHughes 9y ago

That would still help whichever party benefits from such a procedure. We've had debates over what the "right" algorithm is before, in regard to calculating the number of House representatives each state gets.

mful 9y ago

There may be a better solution than an independent committee, but an independent committee is far, far better than the "whoever is in power creates districts in the way that most entrenches the governing party" system we have today. Independent committees have historically been pretty effective anti-partisan solutions. One prominent example being the CBO, which both parties like to stand up for while in the opposition, and disparage while in power.

WillPostForFood 9y ago
Why is it better? It just means whichever side the independent goes with will benefit. "Replacing whoever is in power" with "whoever is in power, or not in power" is lateral at best.
- roywiggins 9y ago
  Insulating the commission means you won't allow a party to seize power and then cement it with gerrymandering, which is self-reinforcing. Cutting that loop means the commission can swing back and forth more easily and has the potential to even out. It can't possibly be worse than partisan gerrymandering.
- jacobolus 9y ago
  When districts are competitive, both parties need to run candidates which appeal broadly to the electorate, because when ideologues/radicals win one of the party’s primaries, they end up losing in the general election. When districts are not competitive (and especially when unlimited secret campaign donations are allowed), the primary campaigns end up driving candidates toward radical positions, because the primary is the only competitive stage of the process. What we’ve seen with the GOP is a party that has moved sharply away from mainstream opinion, subjects all of its officeholders to strict purity tests, and is largely controlled by religious hard-liners and big donors (oil, defense, pharma, banks, telecoms, etc.), and has become increasingly anti-intellectual and overtly bigoted in the past few decades.

JadeNB 9y ago

> If I remember correctly, didn't someone finally come up with an algorithm which evenly divides populations such that average distance from the average location of the district residents is minimized? I had a colleague (mathematician) who suggested presenting district-ers with a dramatically distorted map of the region to be districted in which neighbourhoods were unrecognisable, and all that could be seen was population density. One could gerrymander such a map all one pleased, but with (presumably) no better than random chance of thereby accruing a benefit, and random risk of suffering a detriment.

roywiggins 9y ago
An application of the Veil of Ignorance! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
ihaveajob 9y ago
This reminds me of the simple way my brother and I used to split treats (cake, chocolate, etc) evenly and without fights. One of us would cut, and the other would choose a piece. That way, you could bet your behind that whoever was cutting would be as even as humanly possible.

m-j-fox 9y ago

I know this one! It's the k-means algorithm. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-means_clustering https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-means_clustering

jakelazaroff 9y ago

I don't think that necessarily solves the problem. You might end up with a state where congresspeople are geographically close to their constituents but non-representative in a number of other ways. For example, (arguably) representatives' political affiliations should roughly correspond to the affiliations of the state's voters — so if you had a state with 4m Democrats, 4m Republicans and 2m independents out of 10m voters total, you might have 4 Republican, 4 Democrat and 2 independent majority districts. There are undoubtedly other factors to consider than proximity and party affiliation. The key takeaway is that districting is an opinionated act, algorithm or not. If we're going to "solve" gerrymandering, we need to figure out what "successful" districts look like first.