California Re-districting experiment

[Arwon]

This is why you have proportional representation and preference distribution in multi-member districts!

 

[JerichoHill]

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.

Getting 75% of the vote doesn't mean that the president will be good. It meant he got 75% of the vote.

First, opinions change. The American South used to elect Democrats. Now Republicans.

Secondly, I see no logical reason why uncompetitive elections are a healthy thing for a democracy. Think about it.

 

[The Yankee]

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.

One strategy in gerrymandering the districts would be to create the boundaries in such a way so that a number of districts have a 65/35 split, to prevent an area of those in the minority to have their own district.

This sometimes backfires over the next decade.

 

[Cutlass]

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.

The thing with a successful gerrymandering is, if the people who vote for 1 party typically get 50.5% of the vote, and the other party gets 49.5%, then it is possible for the party that did the gerrymandering can probably win 80% of the districts consistently.

This disenfranchises people. And, if you get lucky, it can disenfranchise the majority of the voters for multiple elections at a time.

This is why I want districts that are as geographically contiguous as the population allows for. Now granted, no district will be a circle. My concept is that you start with the counties, and include whole counties as much as possible. And then whole towns as much as possible, and then coherent sections of towns as much as possible. Going in with the understanding that it will not be possible in all cases.

Ignore usual voting patterns, race, age, religion, and anything else besides population and the boundaries of existing political entities.

 

[Souron]

Getting 75% of the vote doesn't mean that the president will be good. It meant he got 75% of the vote.

It suggests that he accurately represents the people's interest. Of course it's not a foolproof system.

First, opinions change. The American South used to elect Democrats. Now Republicans.

Yes, parties in the us have shifted back and forth several times. What's your point here?

Secondly, I see no logical reason why uncompetitive elections are a healthy thing for a democracy. Think about it.

They wouldn't be uncompetitive. They would just be between candidates with similar positions. Which is good, because then people will still feel like their congressman represents them when the one they didn't vote for gets elected.

 

[Souron]

One strategy in gerrymandering the districts would be to create the boundaries in such a way so that a number of districts have a 65/35 split, to prevent an area of those in the minority to have their own district.

This sometimes backfires over the next decade.

I agree.

The thing with a successful gerrymandering is, if the people who vote for 1 party typically get 50.5% of the vote, and the other party gets 49.5%, then it is possible for the party that did the gerrymandering can probably win 80% of the districts consistently.

This disenfranchises people. And, if you get lucky, it can disenfranchise the majority of the voters for multiple elections at a time.

This is why I want districts that are as geographically contiguous as the population allows for. Now granted, no district will be a circle. My concept is that you start with the counties, and include whole counties as much as possible. And then whole towns as much as possible, and then coherent sections of towns as much as possible. Going in with the understanding that it will not be possible in all cases.

Ignore usual voting patterns, race, age, religion, and anything else besides population and the boundaries of existing political entities.

I agree with your description of the problem, but I disagree that voting demographics distinct from geography should not be considered.

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.

Lets strive for perfection if we can. Just because the current system may be ineffective, doesn't mean we should switch to another system, when that other system is also expected to be ineffective.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Lets strive for perfection if we can. Just because the current system may be ineffective, doesn't mean we should switch to another system, when that other system is also expected to be ineffective.

If the goal is for the House of Reps to represent the current "will of the people", it would be a more effective system. Candidates could draw supporters from a larger area and the manipulative effects of gerrymandering would go away.

If you goal is to keep the current office holders in power, then it would be a worse system

There would be a few side benefits too:
-- Voters would have more choices; rather than only two choices as now, each voter could have many choices. Choice is good, especially when you are talking about politicians.
-- Having no direct opponents lessens the value of negative campaigns. It is more difficult to go after a probably diverse set of others running in the same election.
-- Since the campaign is all about getting people to vote for "you" and not against another, perhaps we'd see more positive "vote for me because..." campaigns.
-- Without the need to redistrict, states save money

 

[deanej]

There are only two answers to this:
1. Switch to proportional representation, thus encouraging more parties and eliminating campaigns where the politician is only saying "don't vote for the other guy". There was even a candidate for the house that wouldn't tell anyone here positions on the issues unless elected.
2. Outlaw political parties. This is the ideal, but I doubt it will ever happen.

Just look at New York. Our gerrymandering has created a status quo that is so strong that officials only leave office by death or resignation. We might as well not have elections any more.

 

[Souron]

If the goal is for the House of Reps to represent the current "will of the people", it would be a more effective system. Candidates could draw supporters from a larger area and the manipulative effects of gerrymandering would go away.

If you goal is to keep the current office holders in power, then it would be a worse system

There would be a few side benefits too:
-- Voters would have more choices; rather than only two choices as now, each voter could have many choices. Choice is good, especially when you are talking about politicians.
-- Having no direct opponents lessens the value of negative campaigns. It is more difficult to go after a probably diverse set of others running in the same election.
-- Since the campaign is all about getting people to vote for "you" and not against another, perhaps we'd see more positive "vote for me because..." campaigns.
-- Without the need to redistrict, states save money

This is an argument for European style multiparty system, over the American 2 party political environment. Regardless of the merits, I don't think many people will support such a drastic change.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This is an argument for European style multiparty system, over the American 2 party political environment. Regardless of the merits, I don't think many people will support such a drastic change.

It would only lead to a multi party system if other parties had sufficient support. If the Dems, Republicans, green and independents supported what the people wanted, then no other parties would gain traction.

The question: Is the two-party system more important than the concerns of the voters? The two major parties certainly think so. A no-district system only dooms a party that is unresponsive to the desires of the public.

 

[deanej]

That's why the two parties make ridiculous requirements for a candidate to get included in a political debate and then exempt Democrat and Republican candidates from them. The only third party candidate to get in a debate since the Democrats and Republican parties took over the debates is Perot, and the requirements were raised even higher in response.