4 ms·
If the analysis holds up in practice (and the methodology looks good at first glance) I really like this. It will allow fair districts to be drawn even by compl
by iainmerrick 3y ago
If the analysis holds up in practice (and the methodology looks good at first glance) I really like this. It will allow fair districts to be drawn even by completely divided jurisdictions, without needing any kind of neutral arbitrator to step in.
(The UK has reasonably neutral boundary commissions, but it seems for whatever reason there's no hope of that approach working in the US -- at best there's just an almighty legal battle in state supreme courts.)
- tivert 3y ago> but it seems for whatever reason there's no hope of that approach working in the US It's a technical solution to social problems: polarization and intolerance. Those never work. It would be very hard, but the only thing I see actually fixing the fundamental problem is limiting the degree of policy change per time period to something below what would trigger a backlash. That would lower the stakes, lower the perceived threat level, and maybe allow people to recover their sanity again. I think eventually the country would mellow out.
- eru 3y ago> It's a technical solution to social problems: polarization and intolerance. Those never work. The opposite: technical solutions are the only ones that work. Approximately, you can't solve social problems.
- Jensson 3y agoYeah, voting is itself a technical solution to a social problem, those tend to work really well.
- eru 3y agoI'm a bit more skeptical: I don't think technical solutions to social problems tend to work really well (on average); I just think that non-technical solutions have an even worse track record.
- gwd 3y ago> It's a technical solution to social problems: polarization and intolerance. Those never work. Except in this case, polarization itself isn't "organic", but being pushed by large organized entities; and these entities are pushing it because there's a value to be gained from polarization. Reduce ways to capture value from polarization, and you reduce the incentive to push for polarization.
- harimau777 3y agoWouldn't limiting the degree of policy change per time period just be a win for whichever side supports the status quo? Why would people being hurt by the current system ever support that?
- iainmerrick 3y agoRight, the status quo as I understand it in many US states is essentially "the current election winner at redistricting time gets to set the boundaries for the next election". That's a terrible status quo (unless you like gerrymandering) and there's very little incentive for anyone to change it (as it benefits the winners, by definition).
- eru 3y agoThe status quo is pretty good compared to eg North Korea or Somalia (for approximately everyone) or even the US 100 years ago for the vast majority of people. So when you say 'people being hurt by the current system' what the alternative you are implicitly comparing to?
- harimau777 3y agoI'm comparing it to the Western European and Nordic democracies.
- eru 3y ago> It will allow fair districts to be drawn even by completely divided jurisdictions, without needing any kind of neutral arbitrator to step in. Well, it assumes that there are exactly two sides in politics. Even the UK has more than two relevant parties.
- iainmerrick 3y agoThat's true, but favouring two sides fairly evenly is at least better than favouring one side. Both the problem and the solution are very US-centric, but it's still important work.