Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Friday June 09 2017, @12:15AM   Printer-friendly
from the kill-'em-all dept.

Gerrymandering has a long and unpopular history in the United States. It is the main reason that the country ranked 55th of 158 nations — last among Western democracies — in a 2017 index of voting fairness run by the Electoral Integrity Project

[...] Lawsuits fighting partisan gerrymandering are pending around the country, and a census planned for 2020 is expected to trigger nationwide redistricting. If the mathematicians succeed in laying out their case, it could influence how those maps are drawn.

[...] States such as Arizona and Iowa, which have independent or bipartisan commissions that oversee the creation of voting districts, fared much better. In a separate analysis, Daniel McGlone, a geographic-information-system data analyst at the technology firm Azavea in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, ranked each state’s voting districts for compactness as a measure of gerrymandering, and found that Maryland had the most-gerrymandered districts. North Carolina came second. Nevada, Nebraska and Indiana were the least gerrymandered.

[...] In the summer of 2016, a bipartisan panel of retired judges met to see whether they could create a more representative set of voting districts for North Carolina. Their maps gave Mattingly a chance to test his index. The judges’ districts, he found, were less gerrymandered than in 75% of the computer-generated models — a sign of a well-drawn, representative map. By comparison, every one of the 24,000 computer-drawn districts was less gerrymandered than either the 2012 or 2016 voting districts drawn by state legislators

[...] Political scientist Nicholas Stephanopoulos at the University of Chicago, Illinois, takes a much simpler approach to measuring gerrymandering. He has developed what he calls an “efficiency gap”, which measures a state’s wasted votes: all those cast for a losing candidate in each district, and all those for the victor in excess of the proportion needed to win. If one party has lots of landslide victories and crushing losses compared with its rivals, this can be a sign of gerrymandering.

Note: Please try to keep the discussion on the topic of gerrymandering.

http://www.nature.com/news/the-mathematicians-who-want-to-save-democracy-1.22113
https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8796


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09 2017, @04:38PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09 2017, @04:38PM (#523142)

    It doesn't matter whether you do proportional representation (where the party puts its favourite pets at the head of the list), or first past the post (where all the voters for all the losers end up empty-handed). Ranked choice runs into the same problem.

    You're still voting to give an ape power.

    What we need are representatives who have a job: vote against anything that your constituency disapproves. Fail to do so, lose your job and get prosecuted.

    Let people vote on a slate of legislative policies. If the voters are dead set against abortion, then the representative must vote against any law that authorises, subsidises or otherwise supports it. If the voters insist on a balanced budget, the representative must vote against any budget that is not balanced, or that plausibly increases national indebtedness, or whatever.

    This way, when crafting legislation, one can already tell who will be constrained to vote against it, and we'll never again have to deal with crap like voting for something to find out what's in it. And being a representative is just a paperwork job.