5 ms·

FiveThirtyEight did a great podcast series on gerrymandering in 2017 [1]. It turns out to be a much more complicated topic than I expected. Some gerrymandering

FiveThirtyEight did a great podcast series on gerrymandering in 2017 [1]. It turns out to be a much more complicated topic than I expected. Some gerrymandering is even legally required to ensure proper representation of minority groups even if they live in somewhat distributed communities. 1: https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/gerrymandering-podcast/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/gerrymandering-podcast/

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jandrese 7y ago
Which is so hilariously misguided it might be taken as a form of racism. By lumping minorities into a single candidate they create a token representative who has a very safe seat but no power in the state senate and allow all other candidates to effectively ignore that minority entirely. They don't have to worry about angering 5% of their electorate and losing the next election by a 2% margin.
- Spivak 7y ago
  Now let's take the other extreme. You split the minority population among 10 different seats where their population in each district is so small that their interests are ignored entirely in each one.
  - TheHypnotist 7y ago
    These are both extreme's which make total sense but the degree at which the entire drawing of borders is taken is extreme by itself. Are there any feasible solutions? Does simply squaring out a district make sense? Would that have unintended side effects?
  - bzbarsky 7y ago
    Yep. It's hard to effectively wield political power as a minority in a democracy based on voting power alone...
  - jandrese 7y ago
    If your population is relatively balanced then you need to worry about everybody because every vote might count. Sure a minority might only be 5% of the population, but if you anger them and they vote for your opponent that could absolutely change the outcome of an otherwise close race.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    That's what coalition-building (an important feature of other governmental structures used outside the US) comes in. You generally have a bunch of small minority groups all over the place, but if they work together ("hey, we'll support your group's big issue if you support ours"), they can form a large enough voting bloc that their issues get traction.
- legitster 7y ago
  This was exactly the point discussed in one of the episodes. Artificially create a black delegation? Or have no black delegation at all.
  - TremendousJudge 7y ago
    ...just do away with districts entirely? why are they needed?
    - tombert 7y ago
      I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Individual districts are going to have problems the the rest of the state or country don't know/care about. Having a representative for these districts makes sense. For example, in my district (Brownsville in Brooklyn), we have an almost tragically poorly-ranked school system, due largely to bad funding and high crime rates in the area. I don't expect someone from Midtown Manhattan to care a whole lot about these specific problems (I know I certainly didn't when I lived in Washington Heights). In an ideal world I guess I'd agree, everyone would care about everything at the exact appropriate weight, but that's not the world we live in. Certain problems will go ignored if we don't have fairly-granular representation for an area.
      - jandrese 7y ago
        That's not a great example because really the school budget should be set at the state level and distributed evenly to every district based on student headcount. You do make a valid point that many issues are local and that could be lost in a system where the party is focused at the state level instead of the local level. Proportional representation systems are prone to having this issue for example.
        tombert 7y ago
        Some areas are going to require more funding than others. For example, certain areas are wealthier and as a result are less reliant on the after-school programs, while poorer areas have a higher likelihood to be single-parent, or both parents having to work, meaning that the after-school programs are vital. That's just one example, but it's not as simple as "give a certain amount of money per kid to the schools", and saying this is reductionist.
- thefifthsetpin 7y ago
  If political issues actually split along the 95%/5% lines that correspond to that minority, then the 5% are effectively voiceless however you cut it. Another possibility is that most issues aren't about that minority group and you see something like republican:democrat:minority::42:43:5 split. Now the rep for that 5% has a ton of leverage to exchange, eg, votes for republican issues in exchange for republican support for minority issues.
runarberg 7y ago
State representation usually clusters around class issues not ethnicity. And even if it didn’t, why arbitrarily focus on ethnicity? Handicapped people need representation, yet we don’t draw districts that ensures they get one. And if we did, and started splitting votes by who we think need the most representation, we might as well do away with democracy and start arbitrarily arranging representatives.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  This is one reason why proportional representation is a better system. Parties can form to represent different types of interests, and their power is proportional to the number of votes they get. Instead, in the American winner-takes-all electoral system, the Supreme Court decides which groups need representation and mandates that they get gerrymandered districts.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jandrese 7y ago

Which is so hilariously misguided it might be taken as a form of racism. By lumping minorities into a single candidate they create a token representative who has a very safe seat but no power in the state senate and allow all other candidates to effectively ignore that minority entirely. They don't have to worry about angering 5% of their electorate and losing the next election by a 2% margin.

Spivak 7y ago
Now let's take the other extreme. You split the minority population among 10 different seats where their population in each district is so small that their interests are ignored entirely in each one.
- TheHypnotist 7y ago
  These are both extreme's which make total sense but the degree at which the entire drawing of borders is taken is extreme by itself. Are there any feasible solutions? Does simply squaring out a district make sense? Would that have unintended side effects?
- bzbarsky 7y ago
  Yep. It's hard to effectively wield political power as a minority in a democracy based on voting power alone...
- jandrese 7y ago
  If your population is relatively balanced then you need to worry about everybody because every vote might count. Sure a minority might only be 5% of the population, but if you anger them and they vote for your opponent that could absolutely change the outcome of an otherwise close race.
- kelnos 7y ago
  That's what coalition-building (an important feature of other governmental structures used outside the US) comes in. You generally have a bunch of small minority groups all over the place, but if they work together ("hey, we'll support your group's big issue if you support ours"), they can form a large enough voting bloc that their issues get traction.
legitster 7y ago
This was exactly the point discussed in one of the episodes. Artificially create a black delegation? Or have no black delegation at all.
- TremendousJudge 7y ago
  ...just do away with districts entirely? why are they needed?
  - tombert 7y ago
    I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Individual districts are going to have problems the the rest of the state or country don't know/care about. Having a representative for these districts makes sense. For example, in my district (Brownsville in Brooklyn), we have an almost tragically poorly-ranked school system, due largely to bad funding and high crime rates in the area. I don't expect someone from Midtown Manhattan to care a whole lot about these specific problems (I know I certainly didn't when I lived in Washington Heights). In an ideal world I guess I'd agree, everyone would care about everything at the exact appropriate weight, but that's not the world we live in. Certain problems will go ignored if we don't have fairly-granular representation for an area.
    - jandrese 7y ago
      That's not a great example because really the school budget should be set at the state level and distributed evenly to every district based on student headcount. You do make a valid point that many issues are local and that could be lost in a system where the party is focused at the state level instead of the local level. Proportional representation systems are prone to having this issue for example.
      - tombert 7y ago
        Some areas are going to require more funding than others. For example, certain areas are wealthier and as a result are less reliant on the after-school programs, while poorer areas have a higher likelihood to be single-parent, or both parents having to work, meaning that the after-school programs are vital. That's just one example, but it's not as simple as "give a certain amount of money per kid to the schools", and saying this is reductionist.
thefifthsetpin 7y ago
If political issues actually split along the 95%/5% lines that correspond to that minority, then the 5% are effectively voiceless however you cut it. Another possibility is that most issues aren't about that minority group and you see something like republican:democrat:minority::42:43:5 split. Now the rep for that 5% has a ton of leverage to exchange, eg, votes for republican issues in exchange for republican support for minority issues.

runarberg 7y ago

State representation usually clusters around class issues not ethnicity. And even if it didn’t, why arbitrarily focus on ethnicity? Handicapped people need representation, yet we don’t draw districts that ensures they get one. And if we did, and started splitting votes by who we think need the most representation, we might as well do away with democracy and start arbitrarily arranging representatives.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
This is one reason why proportional representation is a better system. Parties can form to represent different types of interests, and their power is proportional to the number of votes they get. Instead, in the American winner-takes-all electoral system, the Supreme Court decides which groups need representation and mandates that they get gerrymandered districts.