3 ms·

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

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....

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....