4 ms·

Gerrymandering needs to be tackled possibly at the level of a constitutional amendment, but like the filibuster it's a nonsense loophole power that neither side

by api 4y ago

Gerrymandering needs to be tackled possibly at the level of a constitutional amendment, but like the filibuster it's a nonsense loophole power that neither side wants to give up.

mbreese 4y ago
There is no way to tackle gerrymandering that doesn't ultimately end geographic representation. If you try to balance a map for every potential group, the end game is proportional representation. I think that's the bridge that people would be afraid to cross.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  One thing I have been thinking more on lately is just that. Why are we so attached to geographic representation, why does a congressional district, or even a state need to be a continuous polygon on a map. Why cant we break representation to be based on something else. I dont know what, and the simple answer it well geography is the easiest way but easy it often not the best
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    A geographically connected population is going to have a lot in common, and it makes sense that they would share a representative. Two neighboring farmers in Alamaba are going to have a lot more in common with each other than with someone living in LA. For political representation purposes, it makes sense for those two farmers to share a representative. You're correct that this isn't necessarily optimal, but I don't think it's that bad either. It's a pretty good heuristic in making sure that: 1) everyone has a representative. 2) each representative is representing a group of people who can reasonably be represented (because they have shared interests/goals/concerns).
    - smileysteve 4y ago
      Alabama is an interesting look, because of metro Atlanta, metro Birmingham, Huntsville in the North - and then the blue belt that is the Piedmont.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      I think that breaks down if you dig even a little deeper. Sure 2 Alabama Farmers farmers are in common. But does a farmer in near Austin has more in common with the Farmer in Alabama or the Urbanites in Austin? Would Occupation, be a better class than geographic, or age, or something else
  - salawat 4y ago
    Because of it wasn't geographic, it would end up going resident centric, and if you think the system is toxic or confusing now, imagine switching it up such that your representatives seat was assigned to you like a Social Security Number, and followed you through life. Also imagine that seat's occupant's job, trying to represent a bloc of people sharing little more than an accident of being born in a particular jurisdiction at a particular time, that have spread hither and yon with no geographical anchor to point to and go, "that's where the stuff is happening that I'm here on behalf of". Physical locality was the primary social constraint when the government was architected. I honestly have a great deal of difficulty imagining any other way of doing things that would make even a lick of sense in terms of information propagation.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      That seems like a False Dilemma there is no technical or logical reason to assume that anything other than geographic would mean you are assigned a seat at birth that would follow you for ever with no ability to "move" to a different seat. Also my comment does not say to forego all geographic basis but more so questioning the idea that we need continuous geographic zones. Maybe 3 counties in Iowa and 3 counties in Texas, and 3 counties in Montana all want for form a new zone....
- ochoseis 4y ago
  I have been wondering about this. Every state gets two senators representing the _entire state_, so you can’t gerrymander senate seats. I wonder if we need something similar for congressional districts, perhaps by allotting no less than two seats per district, which themselves are composed of one or more counties (the idea being county lines are not drawn by election boards).
  - stormbrew 4y ago
    > the idea being county lines are not drawn by election boards Until they're important for elections... The house is screwed up largely because it's capped by a law passed a century ago. It's essentially impossible for it to be actually proportional with the current voter:representative ratio and districts being allocated along state lines.
    - mbreese 4y ago
      Originally, the ratio was one representative for ~30,000 people. When the number was capped at 435 in 1929, the number of constituents for a representative was ~ 210,000. The current ratio is over 700,000. One could easily make an argument for geographic representation of 30,000 people. Those people should have a lot in common and have similar concerns. You could also make a good argument for 100k-200k people. However, 500k+ people cannot be properly represented by one voice in congress. If we had even the ratio of representation when the number was fixed (1:210,000), we'd have over 1500 members of Congress. https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Proportional-Representation/ https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Pr...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- scythe 4y ago
  >that doesn't ultimately end geographic representation. False. >the end game is proportional representation True. As I've said before, there are so many ways to do it that it's hard to unite people behind a single one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31347226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31347226 And in fact, even when I tried to make a list of all the methods in the comment above, I missed at least two: https://electowiki.org/wiki/PLACE_FAQ https://electowiki.org/wiki/PLACE_FAQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_proportional_approval_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_proportional_approv...
- bergenty 4y ago
  Why do we need geographic representation? People that eat everyone’s tax dollars and contribute very little to the economy should not have an order of magnitude in voting advantages just because they decide to move to places no one else would. Those might have been worthy incentives during the frontier days but are completely unnecessary now.

by api 4y ago

Gerrymandering needs to be tackled possibly at the level of a constitutional amendment, but like the filibuster it's a nonsense loophole power that neither side wants to give up.

mbreese 4y ago

There is no way to tackle gerrymandering that doesn't ultimately end geographic representation. If you try to balance a map for every potential group, the end game is proportional representation. I think that's the bridge that people would be afraid to cross.

phpisthebest 4y ago
One thing I have been thinking more on lately is just that. Why are we so attached to geographic representation, why does a congressional district, or even a state need to be a continuous polygon on a map. Why cant we break representation to be based on something else. I dont know what, and the simple answer it well geography is the easiest way but easy it often not the best
- dahfizz 4y ago
  A geographically connected population is going to have a lot in common, and it makes sense that they would share a representative. Two neighboring farmers in Alamaba are going to have a lot more in common with each other than with someone living in LA. For political representation purposes, it makes sense for those two farmers to share a representative. You're correct that this isn't necessarily optimal, but I don't think it's that bad either. It's a pretty good heuristic in making sure that: 1) everyone has a representative. 2) each representative is representing a group of people who can reasonably be represented (because they have shared interests/goals/concerns).
  - smileysteve 4y ago
    Alabama is an interesting look, because of metro Atlanta, metro Birmingham, Huntsville in the North - and then the blue belt that is the Piedmont.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    I think that breaks down if you dig even a little deeper. Sure 2 Alabama Farmers farmers are in common. But does a farmer in near Austin has more in common with the Farmer in Alabama or the Urbanites in Austin? Would Occupation, be a better class than geographic, or age, or something else
- salawat 4y ago
  Because of it wasn't geographic, it would end up going resident centric, and if you think the system is toxic or confusing now, imagine switching it up such that your representatives seat was assigned to you like a Social Security Number, and followed you through life. Also imagine that seat's occupant's job, trying to represent a bloc of people sharing little more than an accident of being born in a particular jurisdiction at a particular time, that have spread hither and yon with no geographical anchor to point to and go, "that's where the stuff is happening that I'm here on behalf of". Physical locality was the primary social constraint when the government was architected. I honestly have a great deal of difficulty imagining any other way of doing things that would make even a lick of sense in terms of information propagation.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    That seems like a False Dilemma there is no technical or logical reason to assume that anything other than geographic would mean you are assigned a seat at birth that would follow you for ever with no ability to "move" to a different seat. Also my comment does not say to forego all geographic basis but more so questioning the idea that we need continuous geographic zones. Maybe 3 counties in Iowa and 3 counties in Texas, and 3 counties in Montana all want for form a new zone....
ochoseis 4y ago
I have been wondering about this. Every state gets two senators representing the _entire state_, so you can’t gerrymander senate seats. I wonder if we need something similar for congressional districts, perhaps by allotting no less than two seats per district, which themselves are composed of one or more counties (the idea being county lines are not drawn by election boards).
- stormbrew 4y ago
  > the idea being county lines are not drawn by election boards Until they're important for elections... The house is screwed up largely because it's capped by a law passed a century ago. It's essentially impossible for it to be actually proportional with the current voter:representative ratio and districts being allocated along state lines.
  - mbreese 4y ago
    Originally, the ratio was one representative for ~30,000 people. When the number was capped at 435 in 1929, the number of constituents for a representative was ~ 210,000. The current ratio is over 700,000. One could easily make an argument for geographic representation of 30,000 people. Those people should have a lot in common and have similar concerns. You could also make a good argument for 100k-200k people. However, 500k+ people cannot be properly represented by one voice in congress. If we had even the ratio of representation when the number was fixed (1:210,000), we'd have over 1500 members of Congress. https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Proportional-Representation/ https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Pr...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
scythe 4y ago
>that doesn't ultimately end geographic representation. False. >the end game is proportional representation True. As I've said before, there are so many ways to do it that it's hard to unite people behind a single one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31347226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31347226 And in fact, even when I tried to make a list of all the methods in the comment above, I missed at least two: https://electowiki.org/wiki/PLACE_FAQ https://electowiki.org/wiki/PLACE_FAQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_proportional_approval_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_proportional_approv...
bergenty 4y ago
Why do we need geographic representation? People that eat everyone’s tax dollars and contribute very little to the economy should not have an order of magnitude in voting advantages just because they decide to move to places no one else would. Those might have been worthy incentives during the frontier days but are completely unnecessary now.