Gerry-Mandering
Elbridge Gerry was an American politician who lived from 1744-1814 whose name got attached to the practice of carving out political districts with only a notional concern about geography but a primary concern about ethnic, income, and political neighborhoods.
The 4th congressional district of Illinois is now one of the most gerrymandered political districts in the USA. At one point it meanders down the median strip of an interstate highway. The point is to connect Mexican and Puerto Rican neighborhoods to get the required 700K people and have a Latino congressional district.
The potential districts using computer programs is unfathomable. They could wind around country trails and network all kinds of different communities together into one district and still meet the topological requirement of continuity.
Illinois had 27 districts in 1930 and must lose another one for next year's election to get the total down to 18. I imagine eliminating one of these heavily racial or ethnic districts is anathema.
Maybe we should give up our quaint 18th century attachment to geography. You could define 18 cultural or sociological groups for Illinois and allow people to have their choice of which congressional district they want to be attached to. Currently the courts have ordered that all districts must try to be the same size with a legal requirement of 10%.
You would have the GLBT district, the anti-abortion district, the anti-big government district, the fundamental Christian district, the Latino district, the NAACP district, and so forth. Coming up with the names would be half the fun. Each individual would have to submit their choices 1 through 3 since the districts would have to be equal in size. Of course some people would end up being assigned a group by random number generator since all choices cannot be honored. But since a lot of people never fill out any forms, there should be a lot of people left over.
It is a "modest proposal", but the other concept would be to make it illegal for politicians to carve out arbitrarily shaped districts. They should respect existing neighborhood, metropolitan and county divisions.
http://www.redistrictinggame.org/
(House of Representatives / Constitution Trivia: the one remaining unratified amendment in the original Bill of Rights would limit the size of the House of Representatives to between 200 and 6000 members. I have a feeling they're not in a hurry to get that one adopted.
And I am quite familiar with gerrymandering - my old home district (which, at one time, was Senator Boxer's) included a section that was "attached" to the rest of it by San Francisco Bay, and the shortest overland distance to it was about 20 miles.)
Quote: ThatDonGuyI don't see where in the Constitution it says that they need "districts" at all. I am a little surprised no states with more than one Representative have tried "at large" elections (where all of the candidates for all of the state's seats run against each other, and either you vote for (up to) the number of openings and the candidates with the most votes get elected (problem: minority candidates are at a significant disadvantage), or you list the candidates in preference order and they use the preferences to determine who gets elected (this wasn't feasible in large states with hand counts).
The Constitution doesn't but with the courts trying harder and harder to Balkanize the USA this would be a hard sell. In some places minorities can vote several times for one "at large" candidate instead of several candidates. This of course leads to the minority candidate simply having the interests of a small subset of the population and leads to more and more patronage. But heaven forbid minority candidates actually take positions that are in line with the general population so they actually get a majority to vote for them.......
Quote: AZDuffmanIn some places minorities can vote several times for one "at large" candidate instead of several candidates.
I'm confused...is this sentence about the Balkans, or about the United States. If it's the latter, do you have an example where this has happened?
Quote: ThatDonGuyI don't see where in the Constitution it says that they need "districts" at all. I am a little surprised no states with more than one Representative have tried "at large" elections (where all of the candidates for all of the state's seats run against each other, and either you vote for (up to) the number of openings and the candidates with the most votes get elected (problem: minority candidates are at a significant disadvantage), or you list the candidates in preference order and they use the preferences to determine who gets elected (this wasn't feasible in large states with hand counts).
(House of Representatives / Constitution Trivia: the one remaining unratified amendment in the original Bill of Rights would limit the size of the House of Representatives to between 200 and 6000 members. I have a feeling they're not in a hurry to get that one adopted.
And I am quite familiar with gerrymandering - my old home district (which, at one time, was Senator Boxer's) included a section that was "attached" to the rest of it by San Francisco Bay, and the shortest overland distance to it was about 20 miles.)
As states' populations grew and the size of the House didn't grow proportionally (at first) and then at all, the statewide at-large districts became too populous to truly represent "the people" the way the House was supposed to. But several states DID elect their Reps at-large for a while. Solid Republican and solid Dem states could try to do that in an effort to "swamp" the minority (California could go 55-0 in a polarized year where Democrat turnout could elect all 55. Local constituent service would also suffer. Even in swingy states, you could have, for example, all 14 Georgia seats from the Atlanta area. Maybe a mix of Republicans and Democrats, but the strength of the population center would propel those well-known "big city" candidates to victory while the rural areas would be overpowered. So it's not an idea likely to come to fruition.
Quote: rdw4potusI'm confused...is this sentence about the Balkans, or about the United States. If it's the latter, do you have an example where this has happened?
In this NY race, each person got 6 votes. You could sprinkle them among several candidates, or give all 6 to one candidate. The thought being the minority population could elect one of their own by pooling all their votes for 1 candidate. It's really surprising this is allowed. The scariest thing is that the Judge ORDERED it. While I'm not a crackpot Government hater Conservative, it does scare me when the courts dictate things like that. How long before the population will be forced to give their votes to candidates they don't approve of?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/16/hispanic-apparent-winner-unusual-ny-election/
Quote: rdw4potusI'm confused...is this sentence about the Balkans, or about the United States. If it's the latter, do you have an example where this has happened?
It is called "cumulative voting" and yes, it is being used in the USA. It has been used in Amarillo lately, and is a favorite system of far-left minorities to get at least one seat on a board or council. Lots of links when you google it.
But I thought that a max SF:LF rule would be in order. In other words, a square of side N has a SF:LF ratio of N:4. That could be anything from 1:4 to a gazillion:4, so I'm not sure what the best ratios would be for things the size of congressional districts, and some districts are, geographically, very small. But this seems to me to be the right tree to bark up.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerPersonally, I don't like gerrymandering, but I don't really have a legal leg to stand on. If the states impose their own gerrymandering rules, that would work for me, but I can't see that ever happening.
But I thought that a max SF:LF rule would be in order. In other words, a square of side N has a SF:LF ratio of N:4. That could be anything from 1:4 to a gazillion:4, so I'm not sure what the best ratios would be for things the size of congressional districts, and some districts are, geographically, very small. But this seems to me to be the right tree to bark up.
I support Communities of Interest more than any geometric carving. SOMETIMES a map can look ugly but there's an effort to link common areas with common concerns.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is called "cumulative voting" and yes, it is being used in the USA. It has been used in Amarillo lately, and is a favorite system of far-left minorities to get at least one seat on a board or council. Lots of links when you google it.
There's much better ways of voting a sub set of people from a list into a position as well, without having to allow multiple votes to one candidate (note that everyone in such systems gets the same number of votes)
Quote: thecesspitThere's much better ways of voting a sub set of people from a list into a position as well, without having to allow multiple votes to one candidate (note that everyone in such systems gets the same number of votes)
Right. Party lists are okay, but then you really need a primary to determine the order of candidates (ie which will be 1st on the list and therefore only needs 1 earned seat to take office, etc). The problem with this cumulative voting is you can have someone win who was the choice of far fewer people than the candidate that loses. In the NY example, 100 people could cast all six votes for someone, and 500 people could cast one of their votes for one candidate, perhaps finding the candidate that 100 people voted for unacceptable, but choosing any number of others.
Put another way: Let's say this was done for an office that Sarah Palin was running for. Over 80% of the public could find her utterly unacceptable and specifically wish to vote against her. Yet if a small minority grants all of their votes to her, she can win. This system will probably serve to elect the most fringe candidates out there, because they have the most die-hard supporters who are likely to "spend" all of their votes on one candidate.
Party's tend to offer a slate of candidates. People tend to vote for the entire slate, as it's local council and no-one really knows the candidates beyond the flyer they may send out. That would strike me as better than 3 votes that can be spent on one candidate. I've never quite understood why the small party's offer 3 candidates, not 1, but that's what they do... for someone like the Green's having one candidate that might grab a few votes from people voting for one of the bigger parties would at least concentrate their vote.
Party Lists are okay, but even a single transferable vote (with droop factor) can work out for X for Y votes, and still have smaller parties have a fair chance of being elected (in proportion to their support). Even with a two party system, you could use the STV to elect the Dem/Reps that most closely represented your leanings with an STV.
I prefer there to be more parties rather than less, as anything which forces debate and collaboration is better than standing two-sided shouting matches. What seems to happen is that there's always a strong, solid Right Party and a more fragmented Centre-Left group (from the centrist Democract/Liberal parties through left-centre labour into the whacky leftist socialist/communist/militant groups).
I would like to see a much more robust screening of voting before multi-voting was used, but I'm not sure we'll ever have anything like voter ID laws or anything here. And, I'm not even sure if those would be a good thing.
