6 ms·

These type of articles annoy me. Not the article necessarily, but the thinking that goes into it. The solution presented is technically sound and would absolu

These type of articles annoy me. Not the article necessarily, but the thinking that goes into it. The solution presented is technically sound and would absolutely solve the problem of crazy gerrymandered districts. The possibility of something like this actually being implemented: zero. Does anyone seriously think that congress would allow their re-election prospects to be controlled by a software program? It sounds like they are attempting a ballot initiative route, but good luck explaining this to a skeptical public while facing negative campaigning that makes it sound like 'computerized death panels' all over again. I see the same thinking all the time - a new developer shows up all bright eyed and tries to talk everyone into switching to his favorite 'Framework/Language X' without even considering considering if it's at all feasible. I'm not saying that things can't be improved. But if you're proposing a change you have to be smart enough to consider it's chances and propose ways to overcome the inevitable pushback.

graeme 14y ago
Not to mention that it ignores the motives for Gerrymandering. Politicians surely know that Gerrymandered districts are 'bad', if a logical electoral system is your priority. Politicians Gerrmander because they see an advantage in it, and they don't have compunctions against it. I suspect good, non-Gerrymandered districts could easily be generated using traditional means as well. But the officials in charge have signalled they aren't interested.
- danso 14y ago
  There is nothing easy about drawing districts...what fundamental rule is there that says it is better for my household to be grouped with the politically-polar-opposite area south of me rather than the more politically similar group east of me? Is it bad if each district contains demographically homogenous groups that vote as a bloc? How else to introduce diversity than by organizing districts differently than traditional neighborhood boundaries? Obviously, there are some who will attempt to game the system? But one candidate's gerrymander is another's fair apportionment...to dismiss it all as a big conspiracy controlled by indefeatable evil interests is to practice the worst kind of intellectual ambivalence.
- alexqgb 14y ago
  That's an understatement. Here in California, politicians reacted to the idea with an incandescent, frothing-at-the-mouth rage peppered with (political) death-threates aimed at anyone who dared to make an issue of the issue. But thanks to the direct-initative process, they didn't have to power to actually block it. The direct initiative system has been the source of a lot of grief, and frankly, it has a lot to answer for. But in this case, it proved to be worth its weight in gold. Indeed, it may be the thing that leads to the end of gerrymandering throughout America. Until very recently, California was polarized even more sharply than Washington DC, and seats were filled with ideological firebrands backed by primary voters who would punish "compromise". This chronic disunity meant we unable to use the power of our size effectively. But now that we're steadily replacing those folks with people who can safely operate together, our reps can safely ignore their parties to vote as a uniform block that only cares about itself. Coming from a state as big as California, that represents a major a threat. In another election cycle or two, California will have enough unity to become the swing vote on anything. And yes, you can expect it to use this power ruthlessly. Nothing will move unless there's something in it for California, and given the size and diversity of the state, it'll be a rare issue that passes without California extracting some major concession from the other States. It'll be all take and no give, all the time, on everything. Power this substantial and unchecked will be deeply resented and increasingly abused. For other big states, the only way to stop the pain will be to start operating the same way themselves. Florida is well on its way to ending gerrymandering. Governor Cuomo is starting to make an issue of it in New York. If they can start operating as post-partisan blocks, they can work together to neutralize California's power. Once Texas and Illinois get into the game (in that order, I suspect), the political dynamic will be Big States vs. Small States Further Disadvantaged By Intractable Partisan Rifts. Applying pressure of this magnitude to what will be perennial losers should cause the whole sordid institution to collapse entirely, subordinating politicians to people rather than parties in all 50 States. In retrospect, the madness we're living through now will look a lot like the crime-ridden hell scape of New York City in the 70's, as seen from the 90's on.
aneth4 14y ago
While I understand the sentiment that it's wasted effort to propose impractical solutions, it is important to know what our ideal is before deciding what is possible - otherwise we are condemned to incremental change based on pessimistic assumptions of what is possible that are baked into our ideation process.
kscaldef 14y ago
I'm not even sure that the solution is technically sound, as it appears to ignore the possibility that multiple people live at the same location.
gizmo686 14y ago
They would likely have the support of the party which is being dissadvataged by Gerrymandering. Combine this with the fact that (I think) this type of solution has a natural advantage based on its merit, and passing it does not seem as unlikely as you think.
jfb 14y ago
Plus, if you want an unrealistic but legal way to end Federal Congressional gerrymandering, a solution exists: proportional representation.

graeme 14y ago

Not to mention that it ignores the motives for Gerrymandering. Politicians surely know that Gerrymandered districts are 'bad', if a logical electoral system is your priority. Politicians Gerrmander because they see an advantage in it, and they don't have compunctions against it. I suspect good, non-Gerrymandered districts could easily be generated using traditional means as well. But the officials in charge have signalled they aren't interested.

danso 14y ago
There is nothing easy about drawing districts...what fundamental rule is there that says it is better for my household to be grouped with the politically-polar-opposite area south of me rather than the more politically similar group east of me? Is it bad if each district contains demographically homogenous groups that vote as a bloc? How else to introduce diversity than by organizing districts differently than traditional neighborhood boundaries? Obviously, there are some who will attempt to game the system? But one candidate's gerrymander is another's fair apportionment...to dismiss it all as a big conspiracy controlled by indefeatable evil interests is to practice the worst kind of intellectual ambivalence.
alexqgb 14y ago
That's an understatement. Here in California, politicians reacted to the idea with an incandescent, frothing-at-the-mouth rage peppered with (political) death-threates aimed at anyone who dared to make an issue of the issue. But thanks to the direct-initative process, they didn't have to power to actually block it. The direct initiative system has been the source of a lot of grief, and frankly, it has a lot to answer for. But in this case, it proved to be worth its weight in gold. Indeed, it may be the thing that leads to the end of gerrymandering throughout America. Until very recently, California was polarized even more sharply than Washington DC, and seats were filled with ideological firebrands backed by primary voters who would punish "compromise". This chronic disunity meant we unable to use the power of our size effectively. But now that we're steadily replacing those folks with people who can safely operate together, our reps can safely ignore their parties to vote as a uniform block that only cares about itself. Coming from a state as big as California, that represents a major a threat. In another election cycle or two, California will have enough unity to become the swing vote on anything. And yes, you can expect it to use this power ruthlessly. Nothing will move unless there's something in it for California, and given the size and diversity of the state, it'll be a rare issue that passes without California extracting some major concession from the other States. It'll be all take and no give, all the time, on everything. Power this substantial and unchecked will be deeply resented and increasingly abused. For other big states, the only way to stop the pain will be to start operating the same way themselves. Florida is well on its way to ending gerrymandering. Governor Cuomo is starting to make an issue of it in New York. If they can start operating as post-partisan blocks, they can work together to neutralize California's power. Once Texas and Illinois get into the game (in that order, I suspect), the political dynamic will be Big States vs. Small States Further Disadvantaged By Intractable Partisan Rifts. Applying pressure of this magnitude to what will be perennial losers should cause the whole sordid institution to collapse entirely, subordinating politicians to people rather than parties in all 50 States. In retrospect, the madness we're living through now will look a lot like the crime-ridden hell scape of New York City in the 70's, as seen from the 90's on.

aneth4 14y ago

While I understand the sentiment that it's wasted effort to propose impractical solutions, it is important to know what our ideal is before deciding what is possible - otherwise we are condemned to incremental change based on pessimistic assumptions of what is possible that are baked into our ideation process.

kscaldef 14y ago

I'm not even sure that the solution is technically sound, as it appears to ignore the possibility that multiple people live at the same location.

gizmo686 14y ago

They would likely have the support of the party which is being dissadvataged by Gerrymandering. Combine this with the fact that (I think) this type of solution has a natural advantage based on its merit, and passing it does not seem as unlikely as you think.

jfb 14y ago

Plus, if you want an unrealistic but legal way to end Federal Congressional gerrymandering, a solution exists: proportional representation.