They had one job: Attack of the Gerrymander! Edition

[Umbran]

Let a computer draw the lines for instance?

I think that is covered by "hand it off to a non-partisan body".

Not that computers don't carry their own concerns - like verifying that the algorithms and data used are *actually* non-partisan. With people, you may have a discussion, and replace individuals found to have been acting improperly. To most, a block of code might as well be a black box.

 

[Staffan]

That would be difficult to implement here - each person in our House of Representatives is tied to a geographical district. You have a Representative that represents your area in Congress.

Is that something that's mandatory according to the Constitution, or just a "how it's done" thing? I mean, is there anything preventing a particular state from using STV instead?

There are reasons to *not* dismantle the system - making the Representatives for the State as a whole presents some electoral process issues - it isn't several people vying for *a* seat, it becomes a mob of people vying for a handful of seats, which is a far more difficult thing to manage on a ballot, and would make becoming an educated voter very difficult, as you have the entire mod of candidates to familiarize yourself with before voting. Removing the geographical connection can also lead to densely populated areas effectively stealing representation away from rural areas of a State.

Simply finding ways to remove partisanship from drawing district lines would be sufficient.

I don't get the complaint I sometimes see from Americans that proportional elections, or doing away with the electoral college, or other things that reduce the impact of first-past-the-post systems would unduly punish rural areas.

Yeah, sure, they would benefit cities and other highly populated areas. That's because that's where the people are. If cities were to "steal" representation away from rural areas, that's because those rural areas were unduly highly represented in the first place.

A government should be decided by the people, not by the land. In the 2012 election, more people voted for Democratic representatives than Republican ones, and yet Republicans got more seats (in 2014, Republicans got more votes, but their advantage in seats is larger than it should be).

CGP Grey has a series of videos on various election systems, which explains things way better than I'm able to. If you haven't watched them, you should.

 

[billd91]

Is that something that's mandatory according to the Constitution, or just a "how it's done" thing? I mean, is there anything preventing a particular state from using STV instead?


I don't get the complaint I sometimes see from Americans that proportional elections, or doing away with the electoral college, or other things that reduce the impact of first-past-the-post systems would unduly punish rural areas.

It is not a constitutional issue. It is a "how it's done" issue and since it serves the two major parties, it's not going to be changed any time soon.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, sure, they would benefit cities and other highly populated areas. That's because that's where the people are. If cities were to "steal" representation away from rural areas, that's because those rural areas were unduly highly represented in the first place.

The people in the cities are short-sighted. They don't typically see the fact that their way of life is in significant part supported by rural events.

A government should be decided by the people, not by the land.

And, when you live in a self-sustaining orbital habitat, then you can have it that way, as land will be an outmoded concept. Until that time, though, you are dependent on the land, and so the land is a significant consideration. The majority of your resources come from places and people who are far from the population centers. Since we, on the whole, are not wise enough to realize that, we must codify a certain amount of protection from our own foolishness.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Until that time, though, you are dependent on the land, and so the land is a significant consideration. The majority of your resources come from places and people who are far from the population centers. Since we, on the whole, are not wise enough to realize that, we must codify a certain amount of protection from our own foolishness.

Exhibit 1: the whole Keystone Pipeline debate. Many among the most gung-ho Obama villifying pipeline proponents are overlooking significant facts, including and most importantly the concerns of those who use the Ogallala Aquifer which lies under its current proposed path, and is- at points as little as 50' from the surface. One bad break in the pipeline could ruin the freshwater supplies of farms & residents in 7 states.

Fortunately, Nebraskan farmers who recognized the risk raised the issue with their (Republican) governor, who then asked the POTUS to have a more intensive secondary evaluation of Keystone's risk/reward analysis, and whether a different path for the pipeline would be a better plan.

But instead of letting the gov't agencies involved in the evaluation do their jobs, Keyetones's most ardent supporters want to fast-track it for approval...for fewer than 100 permanent jobs being created in the USA.

 

[trappedslider]

It seems some politicos are going to have to eat some extra antacids for a while, because in an effort to make sure a vote went a particular way, they gerrymandered the district so that it contained no registered voters, meaning the business owners could decide the outcome.

Except, when they finished, the gerrymandered district still had a registered voter in it. A single one.
.

My vote isn't for sell...but it is for rent

 

[Ryujin]

I prime example of what I like to call "The Law of Unintended Consequences."

 

[Umbran]

It is not a constitutional issue. It is a "how it's done" issue and since it serves the two major parties, it's not going to be changed any time soon.

Well, some things can be changed. For instance, the example of CA and WA that I gave earlier - they did manage to change their primaries to vastly reduce the impact of gerrymandering, even though having gerrymandered effects are in the best interest of the parties.

 

[MechaPilot]

Well, some things can be changed. For instance, the example of CA and WA that I gave earlier - they did manage to change their primaries to vastly reduce the impact of gerrymandering, even though having gerrymandered effects are in the best interest of the parties.

In time, I think parties will realize that Gerrymandering is not in their best interest. As I see it, Gerrymandering creates a kind of echo-chamber that encourages pushing the local members of a party further to the fringes. A lot of candidates will run unopposed in a district Gerrymandered in their favor. When someone wants to challenge that candidate, they are then forced to try to portray themselves as more that party than the other guy, swinging the pendulum towards the extremes instead of towards the middle.

I think Gerrymandering is probably responsible, in part, for Congress' inability to compromise on anything. Any compromise would give other potential candidates ammunition to say the current representative isn't as that party as they are.

 

[Staffan]

The people in the cities are short-sighted. They don't typically see the fact that their way of life is in significant part supported by rural events.

So? That doesn't mean they should be in charge. One person, one vote. Not one acre, one vote.

And, when you live in a self-sustaining orbital habitat, then you can have it that way, as land will be an outmoded concept. Until that time, though, you are dependent on the land, and so the land is a significant consideration. The majority of your resources come from places and people who are far from the population centers. Since we, on the whole, are not wise enough to realize that, we must codify a certain amount of protection from our own foolishness.

City life (note: not suburban life) is generally a lot more eco-friendly than rural life. For example, dense populations support public transport as well as getting to work by foot or by bike. So pretending that rural people are somehow more suited to being in charge is highly suspect.