Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday October 22 2017, @07:03PM   Printer-friendly
from the safe-borders dept.

From Quanta Magazine:

Simple math can help scheming politicians manipulate district maps and cruise to victory. But it can also help identify and fix the problem.
 
Imagine fighting a war on 10 battlefields. You and your opponent each have 200 soldiers, and your aim is to win as many battles as possible. How would you deploy your troops? If you spread them out evenly, sending 20 to each battlefield, your opponent could concentrate their own troops and easily win a majority of the fights. You could try to overwhelm several locations yourself, but there's no guarantee you'll win, and you'll leave the remaining battlefields poorly defended. Devising a winning strategy isn't easy, but as long as neither side knows the other's plan in advance, it's a fair fight.
 
Now imagine your opponent has the power to deploy your troops as well as their own. Even if you get more troops, you can't win.
 
In the war of politics, this power to deploy forces comes from gerrymandering, the age-old practice of manipulating voting districts for partisan gain. By determining who votes where, politicians can tilt the odds in their favor and defeat their opponents before the battle even begins.

 
Anyone for a game of RISK?


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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Insightful) by shortscreen on Sunday October 22 2017, @08:13PM (7 children)

    by shortscreen (2252) on Sunday October 22 2017, @08:13PM (#586038) Journal

    Under the two party system you get to fight the same battles over and over, and no matter which team wins, the grunts (ie. cannon fodder) always lose.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by rylyeh on Sunday October 22 2017, @08:41PM (6 children)

    by rylyeh (6726) <{kadath} {at} {gmail.com}> on Sunday October 22 2017, @08:41PM (#586047)

    Always?

    Voting would be more relevant if people voted intelligently, but gerrymandering robs power from the voter and gives it to party X.

    Don't throw that at me - I said, IF!

    --
    "a vast crenulate shell wherein rode the grey and awful form of primal Nodens, Lord of the Great Abyss."
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 22 2017, @09:22PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 22 2017, @09:22PM (#586058)

      As somebody else noted, gerrymandering mostly affects the federal government because of the way that house seats are allocated. Similarly state senate and house are commonly allocated like that as well.

      But, you see the same basic patterns in those other races that are based on county and city lines as well because nobody runs who's worth voting for. Right now I'm looking at the option of a corporatist and an anti-white women for mayor. We had a field of 21 to choose from in the primary of which there was only one or two that were actually qualified, but neither of them wound up in the final election. It's rather hard to be enthusiastic when all of the options suck.

      As long as qualified candidates don't run, you'll have issues no matter how the elections are managed and votes counted.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by jmorris on Sunday October 22 2017, @09:46PM

        by jmorris (4844) on Sunday October 22 2017, @09:46PM (#586067)

        We had a field of 21 to choose from in the primary of which there was only one or two that were actually qualified, but neither of them wound up in the final election. .... As long as qualified candidates don't run

        Sounds like you just refuted your own point. You had plenty pf people step up, including multiple people you believe were qualified. Your problem is your "qualified" candidate didn't make it out of the primary, not that they didn't exist. The primary is usually the place where the actual fight occurs, especially on the local levels. The dominant Party is all but assured to win the general election, all of the action is in the primary. And since most people don't seem to care, focused on the pointless general, that is where you should be putting all of your time, interest, money, etc. And don't forget to try taking over the Party machinery as well, you want better results, become the Party. It is incredible how much the fairly small things the Party can do make big impacts.

      • (Score: 2) by number11 on Monday October 23 2017, @02:54AM (2 children)

        by number11 (1170) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 23 2017, @02:54AM (#586145)

        Right now I'm looking at the option of a corporatist and an anti-white women for mayor. We had a field of 21 to choose from in the primary of which there was only one or two that were actually qualified, but neither of them wound up in the final election. It's rather hard to be enthusiastic when all of the options suck.

        There are ways to deal with that. Instant Runoff Voting/Ranked Choice Voting is one

        • (Score: 2) by number11 on Monday October 23 2017, @03:07AM (1 child)

          by number11 (1170) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 23 2017, @03:07AM (#586147)

          #@%! I hit "submit" instead of "preview"

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting [wikipedia.org]
          In its simplest form, you rank the candidates in order of preference, as far as you want. They count all the #1 votes. If the #1 leader doesn't get a majority, the worst performer(s) is dropped and the rankings adjusted as if they hadn't existed. Count again. Sooner or later, there will be a #1 with a majority of the votes. So if I were to vote for: #1 Wild-eyed Anarchist, #2 Guy who used to be my roomate, #3 Stodgy conservative pol who believes in free speech, #4 Xenophobic warmonger, it's likely that my vote would end up being counted for #3. Maybe I'm an anarchist, but a realistic one.

          In a nearby US city, the mayoral campaigns are underway. There are 16 candidates, of whom 4 or 5 could be called "serious" (qualified and actually mounting a significant campaign). The rest of the candidates are "some dude", a handful of perennial candidates who never get elected and the rest that no one except their mother has ever heard of. For city council seats, most of the races have 3 or 4 candidates, with 1 or 2 being "qualified".

          • (Score: 2) by number11 on Monday October 23 2017, @03:09AM

            by number11 (1170) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 23 2017, @03:09AM (#586148)

            Feh. I should have noted that in that nearby city, they use RCV to count the votes.

    • (Score: 2) by fliptop on Sunday October 22 2017, @10:56PM

      by fliptop (1666) on Sunday October 22 2017, @10:56PM (#586085) Journal

      Voting would be more relevant if people voted intelligently

      Actually, it's be more relevant if people voted at all. A couple of weeks ago we had a vote on a state-wide levy and only 9% of the registered voters bothered to show up to the polls.

      --
      Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.