3 ms·

This solves one aspect of the gerrymandering problem. The problem is that there are multiple aspects. As one example, people want to both have majority-minori

This solves one aspect of the gerrymandering problem. The problem is that there are multiple aspects. As one example, people want to both have majority-minority districts and avoid situations in which "specific populations of voters" (to quote the article) are concentrated into a district. These goals are often opposed to each other, especially when the minorities involved skew toward one of the two parties under consideration. So it's quite possible for a redistricting plan using the "I cut, you choose" process to end up falling afoul of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of a minority...

koheripbal 9y ago
More generally, the issue is that it solidifies control to the two political parties participating in the "I cut you choose" game, which are both incentivized to marginalize any 3rd party. I wonder if the game can be fairly expanded to X number of parties?
- bzbarsky 9y ago
  3rd parties are already so screwed, I don't even know where to start fixing the problems. For example, last I checked in Illinois third-party candidates needed _way_ more petition signatures to even get on a ballot than Republican or Democratic ones (though the legislation is careful to not call out the Republican or Democratic parties by name; it's written in terms of vote share in the previous election). That sort of thing is all over the place. As a mathematical exercise, trying to extend the game to more than 2 parties is interesting, for sure. Real-world relevance is unclear, unfortunately.
  - tripzilch 9y ago
    But if you're not even going to pretend 3rd parties (and 4th, 5th, etc) are even a remote possibility, you may as well give up pretending your democracy actually has the sort of good qualities that makes people prefer it over other types of government... (a hair's breadth away from calling it "not a democracy" because technically you still got to choose Kang over Kodos)

koheripbal 9y ago

More generally, the issue is that it solidifies control to the two political parties participating in the "I cut you choose" game, which are both incentivized to marginalize any 3rd party. I wonder if the game can be fairly expanded to X number of parties?

bzbarsky 9y ago
3rd parties are already so screwed, I don't even know where to start fixing the problems. For example, last I checked in Illinois third-party candidates needed _way_ more petition signatures to even get on a ballot than Republican or Democratic ones (though the legislation is careful to not call out the Republican or Democratic parties by name; it's written in terms of vote share in the previous election). That sort of thing is all over the place. As a mathematical exercise, trying to extend the game to more than 2 parties is interesting, for sure. Real-world relevance is unclear, unfortunately.
- tripzilch 9y ago
  But if you're not even going to pretend 3rd parties (and 4th, 5th, etc) are even a remote possibility, you may as well give up pretending your democracy actually has the sort of good qualities that makes people prefer it over other types of government... (a hair's breadth away from calling it "not a democracy" because technically you still got to choose Kang over Kodos)