3 ms·
the gerrymandering is a really important issue. my city is split into n districts (where 10 < n < 15), each of which elects a representative to the city council
by leetcrew 6y ago
the gerrymandering is a really important issue. my city is split into n districts (where 10 < n < 15), each of which elects a representative to the city council. the city votes overwhelmingly blue, but there are clusters of people who mostly vote red in the more affluent neighborhoods. there are enough red voters (roughly 10% of total) that, if they were concentrated in one or two districts, they would actually have a chance of winning a couple council seats. but the democrats have been very careful to slice all red-leaning neighborhoods right down the middle to nullify their votes.
I'm not arguing the city would be better off with more republicans in office, but it's a good example to show how even affluent people can be totally disenfranchised in a political system. no matter how effectively these people mobilize, they will never win an election, even at the most local level, in the foreseeable future.
- iso947 6y agoA single district electing say 20 people via a single transferable vote would be far more representive. The problem isn’t district boundaries, it’s first past the post.
- thechao 6y agoSortition with incumbency: if an incumbent wants to “run” again, flip a coin. All empty seats are filled by randomly choosing from a pool of volunteers. Has the nice property of being well-nigh incorruptible, cheap to implement, and perfectly representative of the population interested in serving. I also like the fact that it provides direct agency as a “voter” (volunteer to serve), rather than indirect agency (vote for a volunteer).