4 ms·

Another way of looking at it: You have nine districts. Overall popular vote in the state is 55-44. Should the districts be awarded 5-4? Or should each have a 55

Another way of looking at it: You have nine districts. Overall popular vote in the state is 55-44. Should the districts be awarded 5-4? Or should each have a 55-44 split?

kens 6y ago
Gerrymandering can be much worse than that. The unpopular party could win 8 districts and leave one for the more popular party. Math: Assume 900 people, so 495 voting for the popular party and 405 for the unpopular party. Put 100 popular voters in district 1. Split the remaining equally (395 popular, 405 unpopular). All districts except the first will be won 51%-49% by the unpopular party. (This is the "pack and crack" gerrymandering strategy, packing the party into some districts and cracking them across the other.)
- tunesmith 6y ago
  I agree. I'm more just pointing out that it's non-obvious what "fair" even is. Although I do like the standard that was suggested in the Wisconsin case, the one that Kennedy chickened out on before he retired. Sorry, I forget the details - something about minimizing wasted votes.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  The thing about pack and crack is that if you try to do something most people think is fair (“preserving the integrity of communities of common interest”), you find that in areas with a urban core and suburban peripheries you end up naturally with pack-and-crack favoring Republicans because Democrats are often hyperconcetrated in the urban areas with Republicans holding a relatively narrow majority in the suburbs. Of course, if you adopt something like STV in small (say ~5 seat) multimember districts, the opportunity for altering representation by how you draw district lines goes way down, and you still retain individual candidate accountability to the general electorate (unlike in party-list proportional schemes). The problem isn't “how do you draw lines fairly in single-member, FPTP districts”. The problem is single-member, FPTP districts.
  - tunesmith 6y ago
    We're talking about Federal districts here, not state. It'd take a constitutional amendment to alter the single-member, FPTP practice, wouldn't it? That's much, much, MUCH harder than passing a state law to change redistricting / gerrymandering practices.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > We're talking about Federal districts here, not state. Yes. > It'd take a constitutional amendment to alter the single-member, FPTP practice, wouldn't it. Nope, the single-member district requirement is a federal statute that was adopted in response to states turning to, or at least considering, multimember at-large FPTP districts (majority-take-all) to prevent effectively enfranchising minorities (well, specifically blacks). Which was certainly a good motive, and single-member FPTP districts are better than that, but the same law could be retuned to prevent that but allow (or even require, in states large enough to support it) multimember districts with a candidate-centered proportional scheme like STV.
      - tunesmith 6y ago
        Ah, thank you - I had been unable to find the details on that. Suffice to say that it would take a federal statute to allow MMD outside of NM and Hawaii? That still seems like a heavier lift than passing state-level gerrymandering reform. And they don't need to be set against themselves anyway - if MMD were allowed, state-level gerrymandering reform is still valuable, for those that stick with single districts. Unless you're talking about a federal law to mandate MMD, which is even harder.

Another way of looking at it: You have nine districts. Overall popular vote in the state is 55-44. Should the districts be awarded 5-4? Or should each have a 55-44 split?

kens 6y ago

Gerrymandering can be much worse than that. The unpopular party could win 8 districts and leave one for the more popular party. Math: Assume 900 people, so 495 voting for the popular party and 405 for the unpopular party. Put 100 popular voters in district 1. Split the remaining equally (395 popular, 405 unpopular). All districts except the first will be won 51%-49% by the unpopular party. (This is the "pack and crack" gerrymandering strategy, packing the party into some districts and cracking them across the other.)

tunesmith 6y ago
I agree. I'm more just pointing out that it's non-obvious what "fair" even is. Although I do like the standard that was suggested in the Wisconsin case, the one that Kennedy chickened out on before he retired. Sorry, I forget the details - something about minimizing wasted votes.
dragonwriter 6y ago
The thing about pack and crack is that if you try to do something most people think is fair (“preserving the integrity of communities of common interest”), you find that in areas with a urban core and suburban peripheries you end up naturally with pack-and-crack favoring Republicans because Democrats are often hyperconcetrated in the urban areas with Republicans holding a relatively narrow majority in the suburbs. Of course, if you adopt something like STV in small (say ~5 seat) multimember districts, the opportunity for altering representation by how you draw district lines goes way down, and you still retain individual candidate accountability to the general electorate (unlike in party-list proportional schemes). The problem isn't “how do you draw lines fairly in single-member, FPTP districts”. The problem is single-member, FPTP districts.
- tunesmith 6y ago
  We're talking about Federal districts here, not state. It'd take a constitutional amendment to alter the single-member, FPTP practice, wouldn't it? That's much, much, MUCH harder than passing a state law to change redistricting / gerrymandering practices.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > We're talking about Federal districts here, not state. Yes. > It'd take a constitutional amendment to alter the single-member, FPTP practice, wouldn't it. Nope, the single-member district requirement is a federal statute that was adopted in response to states turning to, or at least considering, multimember at-large FPTP districts (majority-take-all) to prevent effectively enfranchising minorities (well, specifically blacks). Which was certainly a good motive, and single-member FPTP districts are better than that, but the same law could be retuned to prevent that but allow (or even require, in states large enough to support it) multimember districts with a candidate-centered proportional scheme like STV.
    - tunesmith 6y ago
      Ah, thank you - I had been unable to find the details on that. Suffice to say that it would take a federal statute to allow MMD outside of NM and Hawaii? That still seems like a heavier lift than passing state-level gerrymandering reform. And they don't need to be set against themselves anyway - if MMD were allowed, state-level gerrymandering reform is still valuable, for those that stick with single districts. Unless you're talking about a federal law to mandate MMD, which is even harder.