Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

What maybe is needed is an Algorithm.  Use it to completely re(re)zone areas to some suitably minimum boundary-length-to-area ratio, lowest combined RMS-persondistance from the central point of the respective area, equal(ish) population, etc. Perhaps prefer (but not rely upon) watercourse/watershed/highway/etc boundaries (TBD) with only NS/EW joins between such stretches that don't otherwise connect. Run it five times in front of various allied party observers from outside the area with only physical cues (physical geography, basic population information but not density and definitely not voting trends) and take suggestions as to how to re-weight the parameters, until they are all happy it's not likely to go crazy, then run it a sixth time in front of the local officials "for real", to reveal the new political map that they'll have to work with.

This is what I support as the only reasonable way to do it. If you effectively automate the decision-making process then it becomes something they offload as a non-partisan civil service and there's no longer an incentive to politicize it and stock the agency involved with partisan officials.

However I'd break it up one level. Have an agency responsible for counties and county borders may change, the goal is RMS minimization of travel-time from any voter to the county seat. Then, next level up, congressional seats are a grouping of counties, and you use perimeter-minimization / equal population / minimize distance between all the counties as the rules, with some weighting on each. A decent effect would be that any specific country is in a single congressional seat, which is something I don't think is guaranteed right now.

[McTraveller]

Why is it these articles always paint things as "broken" which were intentionally designed that way, with known concessions?

I think your criticism of the article falls flat. In its own words:

By taking advantage of American democracy’s design flaws, Republicans secured an edge.

The larger question is how a democracy can be designed (or reformed) so that the real interests of its constituents are accurately embodied,  Gerrymandering is merely one mechansim used to further the entrenchment of aristocratic elites.  FPTP is another.

Last I checked there weren't specifically 2 preformed red vs. blue ideologies.  Even playing into the fossilised/antiquated party system, where are all the green and yellow (libertarian) representatives?  (To take the smallest step within the bounds of specifically representative democracy.)

And yes, I am deliberately just dipping the toe into the water.

My criticism is that it's arguable those are not design flaws - there is bias is in calling it a flaw. If they had said "these tradeoffs have proven to be easily abusable" or something, I'd probably not comment on it.  Much of the media makes statements of unfounded certainty, and this is one of those subtle times.

For example "electoral college is bad and has to go" assumes that having something that puts states on equal footing, instead of people, is a "wrong" choice.  I think it's a good tradeoff personally, even if it has outcomes I don't prefer.  As far as I can tell, the office of President was not set up to represent the people - it was set up to represent the States.

Re gerrymandering: I'm not defending the practice. I'm just saying you can't fix it in a universal sense.  At best you can maybe have some computer program find some kind of "most uniform distribution" districting, or pass laws that prevent the people currently in power from drawing the districts, but even that is going to suffer from how you weight the various parameters.

Most fundamentally - other than convention, why do we use geography to define political borders in the first place? It's not as arbitrary as it might seem on the surface.

[Doomblade187]

I know people are scared of rural areas not being represented, but the fact of the matter is that neither party actually gives a shit about places like Appalachia, and kicking out the old guard and implementing broad support networks would be a net positive. Losing some political leverage is scary, but just because it's not the farmer pandering party proposing it doesn't mean it's inherently bad.

[MrRoboto75]

I'd argue the only states that really matter under the EC are the four or five swing states.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And only the winning side of those swing states at that.

Senate seats should have the proportionality of House seats, House seats should have the proportionality that they did when the US was founded. (So 538 Senators, 1500+ Reps)

Supreme Court should add one member + vacancies every year, with 15 year term limits. And given recent events, automatically charge the Senate majority leader with treason if a vote is not held within two months of a vacancy.

[feelotraveller]

My criticism is that it's arguable those are not design flaws - there is bias is in calling it a flaw. If they had said "these tradeoffs have proven to be easily abusable" or something, I'd probably not comment on it.  Much of the media makes statements of unfounded certainty, and this is one of those subtle times.

I'm sorry I think you are missing the point.  Although I will fully admit the general criticism of the media I think this not the case to make a point of it.  American democracy is flawed precisely to the extent that it does not represent the interests of all Americans.  It is currently in the news because of how the system has been abused ('legitimately') to the extent that the country is close to slipping into autocracy. 

[McTraveller]

My criticism is that it's arguable those are not design flaws - there is bias is in calling it a flaw. If they had said "these tradeoffs have proven to be easily abusable" or something, I'd probably not comment on it.  Much of the media makes statements of unfounded certainty, and this is one of those subtle times.

I'm sorry I think you are missing the point.  Although I will fully admit the general criticism of the media I think this not the case to make a point of it.  American democracy is flawed precisely to the extent that it does not represent the interests of all Americans.  It is currently in the news because of how the system has been abused ('legitimately') to the extent that the country is close to slipping into autocracy.

You guys sound like you want an entirely different government system.  The US system is not intended to represent the interests of all Americans, at least not directly.  It's supposed to represent the interests of the States.  Making senate be proportional to population, or increase the House to absurd size, is just an entirely different system.

I can get behind Congressional term limits though.  Not sure about Supreme Court stuff - don't be reactionary.

[JoshuaFH]

Let's not forget the other half of the borken democracy: that candidates have to campaign with their own funds, and there's no upper limit to how much can be spent or any kind of monitoring or control at all. Campaigning is expensive, and so require donors. Selection pressure then concludes that the only viable candidates are the ones that attract the most donors, and you attract donors by being their bitch.

So, it's not just that large democracies have trouble not disenfranchising people, but the pool of candidates to vote for includes people that are pre-bribed to be subservient to monied interests. Excluding, of course, the odd mogul-turn-politician, who is worse in his own ways.

[MrRoboto75]

My criticism is that it's arguable those are not design flaws - there is bias is in calling it a flaw. If they had said "these tradeoffs have proven to be easily abusable" or something, I'd probably not comment on it.  Much of the media makes statements of unfounded certainty, and this is one of those subtle times.

I'm sorry I think you are missing the point.  Although I will fully admit the general criticism of the media I think this not the case to make a point of it.  American democracy is flawed precisely to the extent that it does not represent the interests of all Americans.  It is currently in the news because of how the system has been abused ('legitimately') to the extent that the country is close to slipping into autocracy.

You guys sound like you want an entirely different government system.  The US system is not intended to represent the interests of all Americans, at least not directly.  It's supposed to represent the interests of the States.  Making senate be proportional to population, or increase the House to absurd size, is just an entirely different system.

I can get behind Congressional term limits though.  Not sure about Supreme Court stuff - don't be reactionary.

It represents the interests of corporations.

[bloop_bleep]

Let's not forget the other half of the borken democracy

The Borken are resentful of your brazen Communist propaganda.

Also, redistricting is not supposed to be done with an eye just towards equal populations and sensible shapes and sizes per district, but also grouping like-minded and cohesive populations into their own districts.

[Starver]

Also, redistricting is not supposed to be done with an eye just towards equal populations and sensible shapes and sizes per district, but also grouping like-minded and cohesive populations into their own districts.

Except that the strategic reshuffling doesn't always do that (area A+B is made less heterogenous, but only to tip the balance) and even when it does it does it badly (leading to ghettoisation and gentrification pressures).

[Dunamisdeos]

The Bazooka Party would like to inform the American People that it has an unexpected surplus of bazookas, totaling approximately 328.2 million units. While these units will obviously be instrumental in our upcoming recount and fraud investigation procedures, we will be selling the excess to help pay for our next Presidential campaign in 2024.

Please visit our Etsy for bazooka and bazooka-themed accessories.

[Doomblade187]

@mctraveller

Yeah, I think most people wouldn't mind a new government system. This old one ain't working so well.

[martinuzz]

Geesh. What the republicans are doing now, backing Trump in his claims the elections were fraudulent and unfair is very dangerous.You guys are on the brink of becoming a authoritarian dictatorship state instead of a democratic country.

I hope there's enough reasonable people to stop that from happenening.  If needs be, with violence, but I hope not.

[MrRoboto75]

I hope there's enough reasonable people to stop that from happenening.

Most of them were cowardly idiots who thought "nobly stepping down in protest" meant something when all it did was make it easier to fill the vacancies with more loyal minions.