California Re-districting experiment

[The Yankee]

No it doesn't, it just makes it less likely for their candidate to win. Also when it's split 50/50, all that means is that half of the population of that district loses, and is going to be unhappy, and basically unrepresented. Which is why it's better to have a 75/25 district or 90/10.

So you make some voters happy by it. But how well does it do for actual representation? Why live in a decent-sized town if it's split five ways and your congressman is actually 150 miles away. Who actually has the interests of this area at heart?

Besides, as was noted in the page I linked to, opinions change. What's good this year for a one seat gain may backfire in four, six, eight years.

 

[JerichoHill]

Kara, you have some good points, ones that I see myself. However, given the horrible way its done now, I think this is still a step forward. We shall see.

JH, have you (or your peers) had to do a lot of research on this law in CA? What is the viewpoint of the "political class", so to speak?

I can only speak for myself Shane, but my impression among my peers (political scientists, not politicians) is that we've been wondering if non-partisan districting commissions would work in reality, so now we get see an attempt. That's why we were excited. California was kind of a disaster area anyways so if it doesn't work then no big dea

 

[JerichoHill]

No it doesn't, it just makes it less likely for their candidate to win. Also when it's split 50/50, all that means is that half of the population of that district loses, and is going to be unhappy, and basically unrepresented. Which is why it's better to have a 75/25 district or 90/10.

Actually no Kara, when you get such a lopsided demographic ratio, there is almost no point to have a general election then.

----------------
Districting is very simple, but also very hard. Geographic maps don't do justice to what is going on. Most districts will look somewhat weird. A primer

1) The perfect district is circular if population is distributed evenly. It isn't. 2
2) Geography and state boundaries get in the way.

So, basically, say 650K people per Congressional district. You have 11 such districts to make. Now, how do you do that in say, Ohio, while keeping to the 1 person 1 vote requirement in the constitution which means that you need these districts to be very close to the same size in pop.

There are a good many constraints. It is not an easy problem, and if you think it is you simply don't understand the problem of filling in a matrix where the row and column totals are known but none of the internals. That is a problem statisticians at Harvard struggle with.

In general, in the past, politically led state redistrictings have resulted in non-competitive seats (bad for democracy), deals between groups (as in GA, give the black dems 3 seats and they'll let the reps drawn favorable districts for the others) to Tom Delay's district in Texas (ugly).

Also, keep in mind its not very nice to split recognizable communities up in say, congressional disticts. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but guess what, political districting do this all the time to split up a minority demographic group

I cannot say much else, other than to say that I've floated some ideas about national districting solutions for congressional districts that relies on census data and a somewhat advanced nodal model. But states, not the fed, control their districting processes.

 

[amadeus]

Actually no Kara, when you get such a lopsided demographic ratio, there is almost no point to have a general election then.

If you've been reading his posts, you'd know that was kind of the idea.

 

[Souron]

Actually no Kara, when you get such a lopsided demographic ratio, there is almost no point to have a general election then.

Sure there is. The fact that almost all votes agree on an issue is a good thing. It means that the elected official is a good representative of the district.

Like if the president got a 75% popular vote, that would be a good president.

Also, having a monotonous political landscape, doesn't mean that there will be no competition, it just means that the two candidates are going to be very similar in position. So people will not have to choose between what they perceive as a total wacko, and a guy with whom they disagree with, but not near as much. They will choose between two candidates one perhaps the same, and the other closer to their more moderate views. Again, this means a better representative.

I say the worst case is not a 90:10 ratio, but a 65:35 ratio, where there is a large minority that constantly gets underrepresented. this is especially true if the same minority is underrepresented in a neighboring district.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I support the change for California; I hope it goes well.

Why not do away with districts altogether? If a state is to have 5 representatives, then let all candidates run at-large and select the top five vote getters. Every one gets to vote for the person they think will best represent them. Candidates can campaign anywhere they like to get their support.

 

[Karalysia]

Why not do away with districts altogether? If a state is to have 5 representatives, then let all candidates run at-large and select the top five vote getters. Every one gets to vote for the person they think will best represent them. Candidates can campaign anywhere they like to get their support.

Because you would destroy the principle behind the House of Representatives and the foundation of our government and undermining the nature of our democracy?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Because you would destroy the principle behind the House of Representatives and the foundation of our government and undermining the nature of our democracy?

I'm not sure what principle you are talking about, but I don't think it does. Every two years voters get to elect the person they think is most qualified to represent them.

 

[Karalysia]

I'm not sure what principle you are talking about, but I don't think it does. Every two years voters get to elect the person they think is most qualified to represent them.

The House of Representatives is based on representation related to population of the states. If you give 5 at large reps to every state then how is it any different from the Senate?

A place like Wyoming which has like no one living there is considered equal to California or New York the most populous states of the Union. This is incidentally the major problem with the Senate, it gives too much power to the small states far out of proportion with their population size while devaluing the votes of the population of the larger states. It's why it's so hard to get anything damned passed in the Senate. The House is by far the more representative, democratic and useful institution.


Edit:

Or if I misunderstood and you're saying the number of representatives of a particular state are selected at large, how is that supposed to work practically? The purpose of a represntative is to represent a local area/district and it's inhabitants, if it's at large it's not all that much different from the Senate, and are we really going to put 30 people on the ballot plus all the people contesting that particular seat, how is the average voter going to react to that you think? Most don't even know who their representative is, how are they going to vote for 30 different ones? Votes will likely be split along party lines. You won't find Alabama electing Democrats or New York electing Republicans so you'll be disenfranchising large minorities in these states.

 

[Souron]

I support the change for California; I hope it goes well.

Why not do away with districts altogether? If a state is to have 5 representatives, then let all candidates run at-large and select the top five vote getters. Every one gets to vote for the person they think will best represent them. Candidates can campaign anywhere they like to get their support.

Because then all the candidates will represent the majority demographic in the state, instead of proportionally representing the demographics of the state. It'd be like the senate, which as Karalysia points out is contra to point.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The House of Representatives is based on representation related to population of the states. If you give 5 at large reps to every state then how is it any different from the Senate?

A place like Wyoming which has like no one living there is considered equal to California or New York the most populous states of the Union. This is incidentally the major problem with the Senate, it gives too much power to the small states far out of proportion with their population size while devaluing the votes of the population of the larger states. It's why it's so hard to get anything damned passed in the Senate. The House is by far the more representative, democratic and useful institution.

No you misunderstood. five was just an example. the number of reps for each state would be based on the population as it is now. I'd just eliminate the districts. For example NM has three districts; northern half of the state, southern half of the state and Albuquerque (half the population). I'd let all candidates who qualify, run. Say 7 do. All 7 are listed on the ballot and the top 3 get the seats.

 

[Karalysia]

No you misunderstood. five was just an example. the number of reps for each state would be based on the population as it is now. I'd just eliminate the districts. For example NM has three districts; northern half of the state, southern half of the state and Albuquerque (half the population). I'd let all candidates who qualify, run. Say 7 do. All 7 are listed on the ballot and the top 3 get the seats.

Or if I misunderstood and you're saying the number of representatives of a particular state are selected at large, how is that supposed to work practically? The purpose of a represntative is to represent a local area/district and it's inhabitants, if it's at large it's not all that much different from the Senate, and are we really going to put 30 people on the ballot plus all the people contesting that particular seat, how is the average voter going to react to that you think? Most don't even know who their representative is, how are they going to vote for 30 different ones? Votes will likely be split along party lines. You won't find Alabama electing Democrats or New York electing Republicans so you'll be disenfranchising large minorities in these states.

This still stands.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Because then all the candidates will represent the majority demographic in the state, instead of proportionally representing the demographics of the state. It'd be like the senate, which as Karalysia points out is contra to point.

One vote per voter will make that a poor strategy. One candidate who grabs most of the votes will create a path for second tier candidates who can put together blocks of minority constituents.

Hmmm I didn't realize the our current House is a proportional representation of the population.

 

[Karalysia]

No there's not proportional representation in the House. It's a Single Member District Plurality System which comes with a range of problems, which is why Britain wanted electoral reform and was seeking PR. The overall # of reps per state is based on population. That's not the same as proportional rep.

The best way not to worry about redistricting is to simply adopt a system of proportional representation. (See Netherlands), though PR has it's own problems related to empowering extremists and fragmentation of the legislature requiring coalitions.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The House of Representatives is based on representation related to population of the states. If you give 5 at large reps to every state then how is it any different from the Senate?

A place like Wyoming which has like no one living there is considered equal to California or New York the most populous states of the Union. This is incidentally the major problem with the Senate, it gives too much power to the small states far out of proportion with their population size while devaluing the votes of the population of the larger states. It's why it's so hard to get anything damned passed in the Senate. The House is by far the more representative, democratic and useful institution.


Edit:

Or if I misunderstood and you're saying the number of representatives of a particular state are selected at large, how is that supposed to work practically? The purpose of a represntative is to represent a local area/district and it's inhabitants, if it's at large it's not all that much different from the Senate, and are we really going to put 30 people on the ballot plus all the people contesting that particular seat, how is the average voter going to react to that you think? Most don't even know who their representative is, how are they going to vote for 30 different ones? Votes will likely be split along party lines. You won't find Alabama electing Democrats or New York electing Republicans so you'll be disenfranchising large minorities in these states.

Voters only vote for one person, not more than one. All they have to do is select the one person who they think best represents them. Such a method doesn't stop any candidate from focusing on a particular part of a state or a demographic. Districts have become a means to control outcomes. Getting rid of them would allow small constituencies across a state to ban together to elect their best candidate. Since the winners are the top number of vote getters that match the appropriate number of reps for the state, in a large state with one or two very popular candidates, the top guys collect say, 60% of the votes leaving many candidates who win with small counts.

 

[Souron]

One vote per voter will make that a poor strategy. One candidate who grabs most of the votes will create a path for second tier candidates who can put together blocks of minority constituents.

That sets up a weird political environment, where each party isn't going to be asking for everyone to vote for their candidate. Instead the optimal strategy is to try to make your supporters distribute their votes between the 5 best candidates. And telling people which candidate would be best for the party would be a complicated problem that would confuse voters. The result would be hard to predict, because it would be a measure of how effectively each party is able to get it's core to distribute their votes. But I don't see any reason why it would reflect the demographics of the state better than geographic districts.

 

[Souron]

No there's not proportional representation in the House. It's a Single Member District Plurality System which comes with a range of problems, which is why Britain wanted electoral reform and was seeking PR. The overall # of reps per state is based on population. That's not the same as proportional rep.

The best way not to worry about redistricting is to simply adopt a system of proportional representation. (See Netherlands), though PR has it's own problems related to empowering extremists and fragmentation of the legislature requiring coalitions.

That works with a multi party system, but would not work so well with the 2 party system that we have in the US.

So to achieve something like proportional representation, geographic districts are used, on the theory that the most consistent indicator of voter demographics is where you live.

 

[Birdjaguar]

That sets up a weird political environment, where each party isn't going to be asking for everyone to vote for their candidate. Instead the optimal strategy is to try to make your supporters distribute their votes between the 5 best candidates. And telling people which candidate would be best for the party would be a complicated problem that would confuse voters. The result would be hard to predict, because it would be a measure of how effectively each party is able to get it's core to distribute their votes. But I don't see any reason why it would reflect the demographics of the state better than geographic districts.

You are exactly right. Politicians would have to rethink how they get elected and how their party gets elected. It make things harder for those trying to "manage" an election and easier for the voter. As a voter I just choose the guy I like best.

It would only be better at reflecting demographics if those groups gathered to support candidates that reflected their demographic groups. but it would give them the opportunity to do so if they chose.

 

[Souron]

You are exactly right. Politicians would have to rethink how they get elected and how their party gets elected. It make things harder for those trying to "manage" an election and easier for the voter. As a voter I just choose the guy I like best.

It would only be better at reflecting demographics if those groups gathered to support candidates that reflected their demographic groups. but it would give them the opportunity to do so if they chose.

But the individual core party voter cares for the success of the party as much as those trying to manage it. So such a system would confuse and frustrate them too. Overall it would weaken the majority disproportionally. The minorities would be most successful if they only had one candidate, but the majority demographics would be split.

So say a state was 30% blue, 15% green, and 55% red, and there are 3 candidate seats. The ideal result should be 2 red the then the ideal distribution should be 1 blue seat, and 2 red seats. But if the red party/republicans aren't able to manage their voters well, then one of their candidates might get 40% of the votes, and the green party would steal the seat from the secondary red candidate.

 

[Birdjaguar]

But the individual core party voter cares for the success of the party as much as those trying to manage it. So such a system would confuse and frustrate them too. Overall it would weaken the majority disproportionally. The minorities would be most successful if they only had one candidate, but the majority demographics would be split.

So say a state was 30% blue, 15% green, and 55% red, and there are 3 candidate seats. The ideal result should be 2 red the then the ideal distribution should be 1 blue seat, and 2 red seats. But if the red party/republicans aren't able to manage their voters well, then one of their candidates might get 40% of the votes, and the green party would steal the seat from the secondary red candidate.

And if such a thing happened, would our government be any worse for it? The current system is broken. Time for something new. If you want proportional representation by party affiliation, then stop having elections and just select.