3 ms·

Gerrymandering is a political process; it can't be "solved" with math. If there were a technical solution to the 'gerrymandering problem' we'd've used any of th

Gerrymandering is a political process; it can't be "solved" with math. If there were a technical solution to the 'gerrymandering problem' we'd've used any of the standard tools for drawing such maps. The major sociopolitical issue is that gerrymandering can be used for both good (minority-majority districts) and "bad" (supermajority plural houses when there's only a bare majority; or, worse). The root of the issue is that map-drawing is unfair and we'd like a fair system. I think for most of the interested parties, you can find middle ground on fair electoral mechanisms. For parties just trying to keep power you can make this argument: gerrymandering moves the election to the primary; the turnout for primaries is abysmal, and the result is that our government is weaker for having gerrymandering. In my state, Texas, there are some districts where the outcome of the election was decided by as little as 2% of the voters, i.e., only 3.5% of the voters showed up to the primary.

iainmerrick 3y ago
Gerrymandering is a political process; it can't be "solved" with math. I think that's a little too defeatist. It's like saying "tactical voting is a political process" and can't be "solved". But you can adopt voting mechanisms that reduce the effect of tactical voting, and many countries have! It doesn't completely solve the problem, sure, but it helps.
- thechao 3y ago
  Let me drill down to Texas, where I am quite active. I have been privy to a conversation[1] with Governor Abbot where he described in detail his horse-trading to swap precincts between Congressional representatives in order to: (1) maximize the number of GOP seats; and, (2) ensure the 'safety' of the win of preferred US reps. Secondary goals include trying to pass (Texas) constitutional amendments to make the following things illegal in Texas: any voting system that's not first-past-the-post; at large proposition mechanisms; independent citizens redistricting committees; etc. [1] This occurred while I waited in line to vote.
- oglop 3y ago
  I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree. Maybe I spent too much time in Ohio. You should read up on the maps there and the supreme court fight. Think about human motivations and desires more, and less about a math proof or abstract papers which literally has gone out the window now. People won't follow what a state supreme court jugde tells them, you think a proof will convince them or solve a very deep psychological problem? I don't, I used to, but Ohio cured me of that.
  - iainmerrick 3y ago
    Oh, sure, a math proof alone won't make any of the entrenched players change, it would have to be accompanied by new legislation (good luck with that) or a supreme court ruling. I'm just saying, if you did somehow legislate for change, what should the change look like? "Stop gerrymandering", sure, but how? This paper offers a potential solution, or at least a path towards one.
Taikonerd 3y ago
I agree. Matthew Yglesias wrote a great article about this: ===== "...redistricting is a particularly hard problem to solve because there are a number of different goals that are mostly incompatible: * It seems like a system should offer partisan fairness such that control of a legislature is typically in line with the population’s overall preference. * Districts should align communities of interest and correspond in some sense to real places that we can characterize, like “the South Side of Chicago,” rather than just be arbitrary zones, like “some of the suburbs of San Antonio and some of the suburbs of Austin plus a big disconnected patch of rural Texas.” * Racial minority groups should get fair representation. A state like Georgia that’s 30 percent black shouldn’t have an all-white congressional delegation. * There should be fair-fight districts with real electoral competition, not just everyone segregated into safe seats that protect incumbents. * Districts should be compact and look like a nice checkerboard of squares and triangles, rather than a bunch of crazy squiggles. Sometimes you can make this all work together, but oftentimes you can’t." ===== We can't have an "optimal" algorithm when we're trying to optimize for several different things, some of which don't even have a formal definition. [0]: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/11/16453512/gerrymandering-proportional-representation https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/11/16453512/...
- thechao 3y ago
  The San Antonio/I35/Austin district you refer to is Lloyd Dogget's; it's a minority-majority district created by MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense). It is a prime example of the use of gerrymandering for positive reasons.

iainmerrick 3y ago

Gerrymandering is a political process; it can't be "solved" with math. I think that's a little too defeatist. It's like saying "tactical voting is a political process" and can't be "solved". But you can adopt voting mechanisms that reduce the effect of tactical voting, and many countries have! It doesn't completely solve the problem, sure, but it helps.

thechao 3y ago
Let me drill down to Texas, where I am quite active. I have been privy to a conversation[1] with Governor Abbot where he described in detail his horse-trading to swap precincts between Congressional representatives in order to: (1) maximize the number of GOP seats; and, (2) ensure the 'safety' of the win of preferred US reps. Secondary goals include trying to pass (Texas) constitutional amendments to make the following things illegal in Texas: any voting system that's not first-past-the-post; at large proposition mechanisms; independent citizens redistricting committees; etc. [1] This occurred while I waited in line to vote.
oglop 3y ago
I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree. Maybe I spent too much time in Ohio. You should read up on the maps there and the supreme court fight. Think about human motivations and desires more, and less about a math proof or abstract papers which literally has gone out the window now. People won't follow what a state supreme court jugde tells them, you think a proof will convince them or solve a very deep psychological problem? I don't, I used to, but Ohio cured me of that.
- iainmerrick 3y ago
  Oh, sure, a math proof alone won't make any of the entrenched players change, it would have to be accompanied by new legislation (good luck with that) or a supreme court ruling. I'm just saying, if you did somehow legislate for change, what should the change look like? "Stop gerrymandering", sure, but how? This paper offers a potential solution, or at least a path towards one.

Taikonerd 3y ago

I agree. Matthew Yglesias wrote a great article about this: ===== "...redistricting is a particularly hard problem to solve because there are a number of different goals that are mostly incompatible: * It seems like a system should offer partisan fairness such that control of a legislature is typically in line with the population’s overall preference. * Districts should align communities of interest and correspond in some sense to real places that we can characterize, like “the South Side of Chicago,” rather than just be arbitrary zones, like “some of the suburbs of San Antonio and some of the suburbs of Austin plus a big disconnected patch of rural Texas.” * Racial minority groups should get fair representation. A state like Georgia that’s 30 percent black shouldn’t have an all-white congressional delegation. * There should be fair-fight districts with real electoral competition, not just everyone segregated into safe seats that protect incumbents. * Districts should be compact and look like a nice checkerboard of squares and triangles, rather than a bunch of crazy squiggles. Sometimes you can make this all work together, but oftentimes you can’t." ===== We can't have an "optimal" algorithm when we're trying to optimize for several different things, some of which don't even have a formal definition. [0]: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/11/16453512/gerrymandering-proportional-representation https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/11/16453512/...

thechao 3y ago
The San Antonio/I35/Austin district you refer to is Lloyd Dogget's; it's a minority-majority district created by MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense). It is a prime example of the use of gerrymandering for positive reasons.