4 ms·

Most problems are constrained by the facts that it costs resources to move things, and that you can't trust people to play fair when they can get ahead by cheat

Most problems are constrained by the facts that it costs resources to move things, and that you can't trust people to play fair when they can get ahead by cheating. The latter makes us establish physical security around election polling sites, and the former requires that we spent money to move people, machines, and consumables into and out of those sites. As such, those costs require that political districts consider geography as a practical, money-saving measure, especially roads and buildings. You have to print N blank ballots and send them to the polling stations, and then send back any unused blanks, and the local issues on ballots for adjacent districts might be different. In order to eliminate geography, you would need a system that has good data security without requiring physical security for the whole network. And an integral part of that would be a foolproof and uncheatable online identification system. Good luck with that.

pqh 9y ago
Additionally, geography does matter for the group for similar reasons. Proximity constrains economics and policy.
michaelmrose 9y ago
You can consider geography as far as logistics without using geography as the determining factor as far as who gets elected. You could simply let anyone vote for anyone and elect the top N contenders where there is N seats. Logically the choices would resemble the choices of the population. You can also use the slow but difficult to default distributed network we have had the longest. The US mail.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  The point of districting is to have the representation be more connected to a particular demographic than the whole state. I get what you're saying about geography. But the alternatives have a lot of pitfalls. An at-large candidate from Texas or California is not likely to be particularly close to any minority demographic that might desire a champion for their concerns. You end up with every candidate from Chicago, campaigning in Chicago and its collar counties, and no one ever visits or gets elected from Carbondale or Bloomington-Normal or the Illinois part of the Quad Cities. It might be appropriate to segment the population by profession, such as to have all the bus drivers, car drivers, train operators, and pilots in the state nominally represented by the same person, while all the farmers, loggers, and ranchers have their own person. That faces the same problems as geographical gerrymandering, and more. If you segmented the population alphabetically, the representative for surnames starting with the letters A through C does not have a particularly clear mandate. But at least it would likely be a fair distribution. I think the simplest segmentation would be between urban and rural. Line up voters by the population density of their census tract. Slice the population into a reasonable number of buckets, 2 or 3, and the voters in those buckets elect a number of at-large representatives. You probably end up with liberal representatives for every urban core, moderate representatives for every suburb and commuter artery, and conservative representatives for every hamlet and unincorporated township that can still see the stars at night.
  - michaelmrose 9y ago
    If rural voters are a small minority of the populace why should their distinct regressive views have more than a mathmatically appropriate ammount of weight? When tyranny of the majority is most people agreeing people ought to have more rights than rural hicks think they ought to deserve I fail to see the problem. Democracy means representing the majority view tempered by personal judgement.
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      But they are not a small minority. It just costs more in campaign funding to sway their votes. You would have to have a smaller event in every county seat to equal one big political rally in the metropolis. That's a lot of time and distance, and the payoff goes into the basement if other candidates are doing the same thing.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Or you could just make this simple and use STV or a similar preference-based, candidate-centered, proportional system, which effectively segments the electorate by candidate preferences expressed in the election, rather than prior to the election. This essentially minimizes distortions resulting from pre-vote segmentation.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > You could simply let anyone vote for anyone and elect the top N contenders where there is N seats You could, but that would actually be worse the FPTP in single member districts. > Logically the choices would resemble the choices of the population. No, they wouldn't, except by chance. Say you have six candidates, A-F, for three seats. 75% of the electorate prefers an ideology generally espoused by A, B, and C; 25% prefers an ideology generally espoused by D and E, and 10% prefers an ideology espoused by F. In the first group, A is by far the most effective campaigner and gets 70% of the total vote, with the remainder split evenly between B and C; in the second group, support is split equally between D and E. The last, of course, all goes to F. So, in your top 3 vote, A and F win seats in the clear, and the third vote goes to a tiebreaker between D and E; this does not at all reflect the distribution of views in the population. That's why methods like Single Transferrable Vote and it's relatives, using preference rather than bullet ballots, exist.
  - michaelmrose 9y ago
    I'm all for innovative methods like single transferable vote and agree they would be more effective than FPTP but I think this is logically distinct from whether we should decouple votes from geographical locations.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      They aren't practically distinct, and the benefit you claimed upthread is not realized with the voting system (which is also an innovative, non-FPTP, system, just a bad one) you proposed.
- WorldMaker 9y ago
  Right, Oregon and Washington figured out an easy way to decouple geography logistics of polling places and voting is to use absentee ballots for everyone and allow the physical security of the postal service to do its job. It's not an interesting solution to the real-time results obsessed crowd, but it is a solution proven to mostly work.
zumu 9y ago
In Oregon we vote by mail. So there's one way.

pqh 9y ago

Additionally, geography does matter for the group for similar reasons. Proximity constrains economics and policy.

michaelmrose 9y ago

You can consider geography as far as logistics without using geography as the determining factor as far as who gets elected. You could simply let anyone vote for anyone and elect the top N contenders where there is N seats. Logically the choices would resemble the choices of the population. You can also use the slow but difficult to default distributed network we have had the longest. The US mail.

logfromblammo 9y ago
The point of districting is to have the representation be more connected to a particular demographic than the whole state. I get what you're saying about geography. But the alternatives have a lot of pitfalls. An at-large candidate from Texas or California is not likely to be particularly close to any minority demographic that might desire a champion for their concerns. You end up with every candidate from Chicago, campaigning in Chicago and its collar counties, and no one ever visits or gets elected from Carbondale or Bloomington-Normal or the Illinois part of the Quad Cities. It might be appropriate to segment the population by profession, such as to have all the bus drivers, car drivers, train operators, and pilots in the state nominally represented by the same person, while all the farmers, loggers, and ranchers have their own person. That faces the same problems as geographical gerrymandering, and more. If you segmented the population alphabetically, the representative for surnames starting with the letters A through C does not have a particularly clear mandate. But at least it would likely be a fair distribution. I think the simplest segmentation would be between urban and rural. Line up voters by the population density of their census tract. Slice the population into a reasonable number of buckets, 2 or 3, and the voters in those buckets elect a number of at-large representatives. You probably end up with liberal representatives for every urban core, moderate representatives for every suburb and commuter artery, and conservative representatives for every hamlet and unincorporated township that can still see the stars at night.
- michaelmrose 9y ago
  If rural voters are a small minority of the populace why should their distinct regressive views have more than a mathmatically appropriate ammount of weight? When tyranny of the majority is most people agreeing people ought to have more rights than rural hicks think they ought to deserve I fail to see the problem. Democracy means representing the majority view tempered by personal judgement.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    But they are not a small minority. It just costs more in campaign funding to sway their votes. You would have to have a smaller event in every county seat to equal one big political rally in the metropolis. That's a lot of time and distance, and the payoff goes into the basement if other candidates are doing the same thing.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Or you could just make this simple and use STV or a similar preference-based, candidate-centered, proportional system, which effectively segments the electorate by candidate preferences expressed in the election, rather than prior to the election. This essentially minimizes distortions resulting from pre-vote segmentation.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> You could simply let anyone vote for anyone and elect the top N contenders where there is N seats You could, but that would actually be worse the FPTP in single member districts. > Logically the choices would resemble the choices of the population. No, they wouldn't, except by chance. Say you have six candidates, A-F, for three seats. 75% of the electorate prefers an ideology generally espoused by A, B, and C; 25% prefers an ideology generally espoused by D and E, and 10% prefers an ideology espoused by F. In the first group, A is by far the most effective campaigner and gets 70% of the total vote, with the remainder split evenly between B and C; in the second group, support is split equally between D and E. The last, of course, all goes to F. So, in your top 3 vote, A and F win seats in the clear, and the third vote goes to a tiebreaker between D and E; this does not at all reflect the distribution of views in the population. That's why methods like Single Transferrable Vote and it's relatives, using preference rather than bullet ballots, exist.
- michaelmrose 9y ago
  I'm all for innovative methods like single transferable vote and agree they would be more effective than FPTP but I think this is logically distinct from whether we should decouple votes from geographical locations.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    They aren't practically distinct, and the benefit you claimed upthread is not realized with the voting system (which is also an innovative, non-FPTP, system, just a bad one) you proposed.
WorldMaker 9y ago
Right, Oregon and Washington figured out an easy way to decouple geography logistics of polling places and voting is to use absentee ballots for everyone and allow the physical security of the postal service to do its job. It's not an interesting solution to the real-time results obsessed crowd, but it is a solution proven to mostly work.

zumu 9y ago

In Oregon we vote by mail. So there's one way.