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?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 22 2017, @07:12PM (10 children)
In before someone starts blaming one American party for doing it more than the other.
They BOTH do it. They both usually end up suing each other in court because of some loss. In my state it has flipped a couple of times because of that. Remember districts usually only count mostly at the congress seat level. Most everything else is based on the county/city lines or popular vote.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday October 22 2017, @07:58PM (6 children)
Well, California is a problem. Let's hope Bannon can rally right, reducing retardism.
I don't like San Francisco and Boston dictating terms and behavioral guidelines to the rest of the proud White nation. The leftists will be stopped.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 22 2017, @08:15PM (5 children)
Lol, whoever modded you insightful is a sociopath and/or moron.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Fluffeh on Sunday October 22 2017, @08:54PM (2 children)
Some people just want to watch the world burn... Or, you know, they have a sense of humor.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday October 22 2017, @11:02PM
This isn't funny anymore though. When your humor starts pinging peoples' Poe sensors, it's time to re-evaluate. He should stick to toilet humor and similar, as it's all he's really good at. I don't think he's joking anymore, either.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @08:49AM
And some people like to rub their dicks with cheese graters. It doesn't mean most people will understand that either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 22 2017, @10:11PM (1 child)
While a bit inflammatory California does have a major gerrymandering problem plus an extra issue. In many cases they have worked it out so there is no republican representation.
(Score: 5, Informative) by WalksOnDirt on Sunday October 22 2017, @10:35PM
California has no gerrymandering, though they used to. The district boundaries are now set by a non-partisan commission, not politicians.
(Score: 1) by pdfernhout on Monday October 23 2017, @01:06AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIWHHk-52-8 [youtube.com]
The biggest challenge of the 21st century: the irony of technologies of abundance used by scarcity-minded people.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 23 2017, @12:10PM
Damn right that post is insightful - who would mod it back down to obscurity?
Haven't read TFA yet, only TFS. Before I even look - does this research have an agenda? Is it partisan? It should be noted that even a bipartisan agenda is still an agenda. The two parties have conspired to prevent any third party having a voting district, much less federal funding. I'm off to read TFA . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @02:37PM
Yeah, I guess we can figure out who done it first. The one who has probably thought they would "win", and were horrified when the other party did the same thing to them once they got into power.
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Sunday October 22 2017, @07:17PM (3 children)
How about Global Thermonuclear War?
For those who may not get the reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames [wikipedia.org]
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday October 22 2017, @07:31PM (2 children)
How about a nice game of chess [instead]?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 22 2017, @07:32PM (1 child)
Like I've said before... The only winning move is not to play.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 22 2017, @07:57PM
And a supercomputer?
:)
First strike always wins, amirite?
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 22 2017, @07:33PM (43 children)
Were society organized around capitalism rather than "government" coercion, then people would be voting continuously every single day, as they interact within the market; either someone finds a service profitable for himself, or he doesn't, and thereby "votes" to fund that service (or not) via voluntary exchange.
That is the shape of actual civilization.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday October 22 2017, @07:39PM (2 children)
Just curious, if someone rubs your ears, do you jizz in your pants?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 22 2017, @08:07PM
Obviously.
I mean, the answer is known to anybody who has even a passing familiarity with the Rules of Acquisition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @06:18AM
Related: wearing his pants as a hat?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Virindi on Sunday October 22 2017, @09:06PM (35 children)
Except, there has to be organized resistance to prevent the use of force in coercion, both on large and small scales. This organization is known as "government".
Without such an organized protection, the strong dominate the weak by force. Other nations invade and subjugate your nation. Gangs kill you and take everything you own, unless you are rich.
Government is a balancing act, claiming you can get by without it is naive and ignores historical evidence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 22 2017, @11:34PM (34 children)
You're saying that you need a coercive monopoly to protect you from a coercive monopoly. It makes no sense.
The actual solution is competition within a culture that respects voluntary association.
Your government "solution" is an, ancient, authoritarian idea. The new idea is the recognition that it's not the Dear Leader (authoritarianism) that is good for society, but rather voluntary interaction between individuals (libertarianism; capitalism).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @12:21AM (4 children)
And what about competition from without such a culture? Who in the Libertarian States of America is going to have the resources, training, organisation, and inclination, to stand up to the unified Mexican armed forces, when they come a-knocking to get back all the land that was taken from them?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @02:03AM (3 children)
If you're worried about the Mexican armed forces, then you join a "military" organization, or allocate your own damn resources to funding one.
Keep your dirty, thieving hands out of my pockets. I'd do peace-creating business with the Mexicans rather than engage in a circle-jerk of saber rattling.
Of course, if Mexican warmongering becomes worrisome even to me, then I might just join your effort. However, if you insist that I join your effort or be thrown into a cage for refusing, then I see no difference between you and those belligerent Mexicans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @09:47PM
Dude, seriously, read a history book.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Monday October 23 2017, @10:19PM (1 child)
Don't mind if I do. There's a pretty big first-mover advantage to such a business, so as soon as your bloodless anarcho-capitalist revolution happens I'll be sure to call up my friends and launch a startup.
Thanks again for letting us know you'll be unarmed and making loads of money, I'll send a squad of my boys over to your place for a contract negotiation. I'm sure you'll agree that you signed our contract voluntarily despite me negotiating from a position of superior leverage.
Relevant quotes from my company handbook (i.e., The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries [wikia.com]):
68. Negotiating from a position of strength does not mean you shouldn’t also negotiate from a position near the exits.
49. Every client is one missed payment away from becoming a target and every target is one bribe away from becoming a client.
38. What's easy for you can still be hard on your clients.
27. Don't be afraid to be the first to resort to violence.
21. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Take his fish away and tell him he's lucky just to be alive, and he'll figure out how to catch another one for you to take tomorrow.
19. The world is richer when you turn enemies into friends, but that's not the same as you being richer.
Most importantly:
1. Pillage, then burn.
Incidentally, if you were to follow Azuma's advice [soylentnews.org] you'd see that the mercenary companies are the ones that will take over eventually. News reports in your anarchist utopia will be replete with reports like "Pranger's Bangers liquidated [1] the leadership of the Maryland Irregulars as the Bangers continued their eastward territorial expansion. All of the M.I. clients are now covered by the Bangers for contract enforcement and fire insurance". This will continue until one group has a monopoly on enforcement.
[1] literally
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Tuesday October 24 2017, @02:56PM
Re-reading what I wrote, I realize that it's far too close to Poe's Law for my comfort. For the record, I can recognize a zero-sum game when I see one, and have no interest in becoming the most ruthless and bloodthirsty contract enforcer in AC's anarcho-capitalist dystopia.
I'm much more likely to survive the apocalypse of voluntary contractual agreements by making sure I have an indispensable skill that society needs [xkcd.com] regardless of who's in political control.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Virindi on Monday October 23 2017, @01:13AM (9 children)
That's exactly right, that's the balancing act I refer to. Human history shows that it is not possible to maintain a system where NOBODY has this type of control. If you try to do that, all you are doing is opening up an opportunity for someone else to impose it.
If you take that premise, then the question then becomes, how can such an entity be controlled by the population so that it does the least damage to society? The entity must be strong enough to protect itself to continue its own existence (and protect those it serves), but it must interfere with the population it serves as little as possible. Yes, these are opposite requirements. Thus, good government is a "hard problem".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @01:50AM (8 children)
That's not a matter of balance; that's a flatout contradiction.
Markets of voluntary exchange are the best tools with which to find the balance in extraordinarily complex systems of interaction.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday October 23 2017, @06:25AM (4 children)
A pity they don't exist globally and will never exist.
I don't know how you are going to demonstrate the absolute optimality (as in "the best tools") given such markets don't exclusively exist.
At the best, you'll need to make lots of assumption for a theoretical demonstration - nothing short of what are doing lots of "economic science" academics nowadays.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @11:34AM (3 children)
Evolution by variation and selection.
Variation: supplier competition.
Selection: consumer choice.
The more you fight this process, the less effective it is; the more you work with this process, the more effective it is.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday October 23 2017, @11:53AM (2 children)
Prisoner's dilemma: when the risk of losing overweights the benefit of playing optimally.
The result: opportunists, playing might makes right, can't be avoided.
It will never happen, the same way communism can't happen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @05:25PM (1 child)
Try again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @09:49PM
How about the exact same way libertarinism can't happen.
For fun, read some of the Anarchist philosophy. It basically matches your own. I wish I could enjoy riding the Unicorns in your world.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 23 2017, @01:35PM (2 children)
You must not be from Earth. Welcome to our world, stranger. Let me explain something. We never have had, and never will have that mythical "free market". Some very few civilizations in early history, or prehistory, may have enjoyed "free markets", but they are soon abandoned. People demand strong rulers, and said strong rulers subvert those mythical markets immediately, in order to raise money for things like armies, roads, ports, castles, mansions - the list goes on and on. With every addition to the list, someone else chimes in with yet another addition.
Mankind abhors a free market.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @05:28PM (1 child)
Here. [soylentnews.org]
You're fighting a straw man.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 24 2017, @02:06AM
Oh, yes, that is so INSIGHTFUL!! That's why Microsoft has cooperated so closely with hundreds of other companies, such as Digital Research.
Nothing was covered in that post, other than some propaganda that you hoped would confuse us.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday October 23 2017, @01:32AM (14 children)
Hey, dumbfuck...who enforces contracts when someone welches in the Peoples' Republic of Ancapistan?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @01:57AM (11 children)
The means by which a contract is enforced are necessarily specified in the contract itself.
Law by contracts is an iterative process, where each iteration produces a more robust system of agreement in advance of interaction; enforcement is just another service in the market.
There is profit in well defined interaction; that's why people drive on the same side of the road—not because it's mandated by law, but because people want to arrive at a destination without dying.
To behave in a way that is not well defined is to take a very large risk; the consequences are unknown and possibly disastrous. There is an incentive to come to agreement, if only through an implicit agreement such as a common culture ("When in Rome...").
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday October 23 2017, @04:10AM (1 child)
Bro, do you even game theory...?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday October 23 2017, @05:52AM
Which theory is he supposed to game? ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @04:23AM (1 child)
Do you really want to run around negotiating and signing 8+ billion contracts? How in the world would you find time to do anything else?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @11:37AM
Don't waste my time with stupid questions.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Mykl on Monday October 23 2017, @04:29AM (6 children)
Got it. So people just agree to the terms of the contract, even if they disadvantage them, because another term in the contract says that they have to. Right.
I'll tell you how things work out in your Libertarian paradise. It takes just one powerful psychopath in all of your society to make Pablo Escobar look like a teddy bear. If I don't like your contract terms, I'll just shoot you in the head.
What's that you say? That's against the terms of the contract? You mean the one I just wiped your brain off my jacket with? Oh well, someone will come and see me about that, I'm sure. Although, our contract was nobody else's business, so I suppose everyone will just shrug and get on with their own selfish lives instead.
Oh, but we agreed to engage the services of an 'enforcement group' beforehand? I suppose I could just bribe them. After all, how are they going to collect their fee from you when you're already dead and I've
stolenclaimed all of your money for myself?(Score: 2) by rylyeh on Monday October 23 2017, @05:57AM
Think Blade Runner!
"a vast crenulate shell wherein rode the grey and awful form of primal Nodens, Lord of the Great Abyss."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @11:44AM (4 children)
Not only are you failing to describe law-by-contracts, but you're ignoring the fact that such a problem already exists: Indeed, your law-by-legislation "government" idea is founded on that very principle of "do-as-I-say" coercion rather than "do-as-we-agreed" voluntary interaction.
You've solved nothing.
Why would you want to established a blessed, ordained monopoly on such violence? That's absurd. Clearly, it would be better to construct checks and balances, the most robust form of which is competition (after all, consider that the world is composed of separate governments, not one world government, and thank goodness for that!)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @03:30PM (3 children)
Hey dummy, they were trying to "solve" your naivety. Your series of voluntary contracts will boil down to one group with more power and they absolutely will renege on the co tractual terms as soon as they can make their coup. But you're too blind and throw all your problems into "naturally evolves to the optimal balance." It is like you're not even human...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @05:34PM (2 children)
You've explained exactly why there's One World Government for the entire planet. Thanks for the insight.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @06:46PM (1 child)
Except there is not OWG, but there should be. Nations should become more like states, with limits on their abilities to violate human rights. It is a shame upon our entire planet that places exist like North Korea, Somalia, and other bastions of dictatorship and abuse.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Monday October 23 2017, @08:27PM
...as defined by whom, exactly?
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Monday October 23 2017, @06:16PM (1 child)
Hey, dumbfuck...who enforces contracts when someone welches in the Peoples' Republic of Ancapistan?
Anyone else get the feeling Mr Violently Imposed Monopoly's actual purpose is to derail any discussion on the real issue of Gerrymandering?
Certain interested are not served by a more representative political structure in the US.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday October 24 2017, @07:29PM
No, i think he's a medium-to-high-functioning Aspie with an axe to grind. If someone actually hired this idiot for disinfo purposes I suggest they get a refund.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday October 23 2017, @06:20AM (2 children)
And there is your utopia, not better or worse than communism or free market.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @11:47AM (1 child)
People laughed when the "radicals" spoke of "a culture that respects the democratic Will of the People." Yet, here we are.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday October 23 2017, @11:57AM
Those readicals needed to make heads roll. Crowned heads.
Good luck beheading multinational corporations - the ones, theoretically the closest, but actually the very first enemies of your dream.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @02:41PM
It may not, but it is what it is. The government should never be half as weak as any corporation and/or other criminal enterprise. You can always, and should, give government more scrutiny than you do to any private entity, but you do need it. They should not have any need to work in secrecy on economic policy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @09:01AM (3 children)
then you get beautiful examples of nations like Somalia. No government coercion. Your example of panacea?
You seem to forget that for "free market" to function, you need to have,
1. order - someone has to impose order
2. low barrier of entry - someone needs to maintain this low barrier of entry into the market.
For order, you need to have rules and someone that keeps these rules. And low barrier of entry require rules on current business. All of these you call "coercion".
So, I'll just label you as naive, at best. You should read on history of companies like Standard Oil, monopolies, and general economic problems that happens when you either don't have a government, don't have a stable government or don't have free market *rules* that "coerce" the market into a free market. Because free market is NOT something normal, something that "springs" out of the blue.
You also seem to forget one thing -- unhindered capitalism always leads to total monopoly. Therefore you need a monopoly (whose goals are to maintain order and free market) to impose a such a free market - we call this a capitalist, lase-faire democracy ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @11:49AM (2 children)
Do you even history, bro?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @03:39PM
Do you even grammar, bro?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @06:58PM
Sweet jesus you're dumb!
Or a very dedicated troll. Wait, those aren't mutually exclusive! You're a dumb troll!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by shortscreen on Sunday October 22 2017, @08:13PM (7 children)
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.
(Score: 2) by rylyeh on Sunday October 22 2017, @08:41PM (6 children)
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)
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
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)
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)
#@%! 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
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
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.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Sunday October 22 2017, @09:09PM (2 children)
Is it just me or doesn't it seem like the other guy has better soldiers then the first guy? The fight seems kinda rigged.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday October 22 2017, @09:36PM (1 child)
The classic "right vs left" thing LOL, can't resist mentioning. There is an interesting aspect carefully not mentioned that all the soldiers are volunteers not under contract free to move where they want. In theory they have agency although the level of agency varies a bit along certain lines the existence of which are debated etc etc into eternity.
The point is as private citizens if you move to a less diverse area your vote counts less. There is a practical matter in that one party rules with a "firm hand" socially but is mostly a paradise to live in, whereas the other party rule generates horrific squalor. So you end up with a weird balance of power. If you're tired of party A winning district Z and you're a member of party A, well, freaking move there. However party B in rule might make the area unlivable, so ...
This also strays into "lets realign the parties along racial lines" with a side dish of "lets realign immigration policy along racial lines" which is kinda national level gerrymandering.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @07:05PM
Oh VLM, you think Democrats were the ones that created urban squalor? Please do some research and learn what policies actually screwed over low socioeconomic status communities. It is despicable when conservatives try and shift the blame off of themselves, stop voting for greedy pigs who make everyone's lives worse, well except for themselves (the super rich).
Your ignorance is a pox upon this site.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday October 22 2017, @10:33PM (6 children)
I had to read 90% of TFA to actually figure out what they were proposing. And it's dumb... or, rather, somewhat trivial. There's all this language of an "efficiency gap" and how minimizing it would lead to fairer elections. But what is "fair"?
After reading almost to the end, we finally discover what "minimize efficiency gap" really is after:
Ah, so the real goal is: we want a split in state representatives equal to the split in voter party demographics. So, if there's 50% of voters in each party, we want each party to win half of the seats. If the split is 70-30 in favor of Party A, we want 7 reps for Party A and 3 reps for Party B.
Which sounds reasonable until you recognize that negates the entire point of geographic districts. If you want THAT outcome, you don't bother with geographic districts at all. You have a general slate of reps for each party and allocate them on a state level according to the percentage each party gets in the election. (Some parliamentary systems effectively do this.) Obviously, a reform like that would require Constitutional amendments and such, but that's really what you want if your goal is "minimize efficiency gap."
But that's NOT the U.S. goal. The U.S. has districts to create representatives who are supposed to be tied into a geographic region's interests, say a metro area, or a large rural area. That goal is orthogonal to the "efficiency gap" metric. Not saying the latter can't be kept in mind, but the whole system is set up for another purpose entirely.
Not to mention that the efficiency gap goal is only temporary -- because as voter demographics change from election to election, you'd need to redistrict constantly. And what to do about those pesky "moderate" voters who might swing back and forth? How do we calculate their "efficiency" or "gap"?
TFA gives a hint at some vague idea, but it's severely lacking in details or insight about it... not to mention lacking any serious "math" as advertised in the headline.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 22 2017, @10:44PM
Fairness is definitely not an outcome measured in simple party dick measuring contests, in the USA system. Regionalism was explicitly, deliberately baked into the system.
In fact, parties have no official, constitutional existence except as a nebulous consequence of freedom of association, but the states as units, with political interests, definitely explicitly were. Something all-too-conveniently forgotten ...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by rylyeh on Monday October 23 2017, @01:18AM (4 children)
No.
The efficiency quotient they talk about is based upon the fewest wasted votes, not the % of representation. You said you read TFA but methinks you didn't 'get' it.
"a vast crenulate shell wherein rode the grey and awful form of primal Nodens, Lord of the Great Abyss."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @03:32AM (2 children)
For example, maybe many people actually liked the new candidate even though they were voting for the other side before Then would the big margin in the new candidate's victory count as "wasted votes" and thus a sign of gerrymandering according to this system?
(Score: 2) by rylyeh on Monday October 23 2017, @03:42AM (1 child)
It could affect the way the boundaries are drawn, but this would not likely invoke a gerrymandering challenge as that involves manipulating the boundaries intentionally.
"a vast crenulate shell wherein rode the grey and awful form of primal Nodens, Lord of the Great Abyss."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @11:32AM
If no, why not (using the reasoning of this research)? ;)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 23 2017, @02:10PM
And, that "efficiency quotient" is complete and utter bullshit.
The laws never should have been written that give preference to either and/or both of our dominant parties. It would be perfectly alright if two or six enclaves around the country regularly voted Whig - and another dozen enclaves routinely voted Socialist, while another dozen voted Libertarian. If gerrymandering is somehow "good" for the two dominant parties, then it only makes sense that every other interested party be given special districts, which will vote for them.
IMHO, there should be no districts at all. A county should be counted as a unit, and every county counted equally. Congressional "districts" should be composed of some number of counties - whether that number be one, or twenty, or whatever. But, EVERY DISTRICT should follow county lines.
Every scheme that I have looked at is rigged to favor someone. There are no non-partisan districting schemes. Counties make the most sense, because almost everyone in the same county has overlapping and similar concerns. A district that cuts across several counties is entirely bogus, each and every time it happens. It is a case of the "ruling class" divvying up the proles between them. And, it has nothing to do with democracy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 22 2017, @10:39PM (2 children)
There are places where gerrymandering simply isn't a choice, but a requirement. Remember that we have regions where there are supposed to be electoral areas effectively rigged to favour minority votes.
If you assume (true across much of the south) that minority voters are usually on the side of the democrats, and that you'll only really get their votes to elect anyone if you concentrate on them, you're then forced by default to give the rest of your state to those evil republicans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 22 2017, @10:57PM (1 child)
If the R team were interested in shrinking the size of government, which means getting rid of the drug war and wars abroad to protect the interests of the oligarchs...
Oh screw it. I think you know damned well why the R team is in evil territory these days.
Stop worrying about distractions like identity politics and start worrying about things that matter, like the things that caused N-day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @02:53AM
Who cares about identity politics? We're talking about gerrymandering, and a case about getting rid of it.
Let me spell it out for you clearly: if gerrymandering is OK because voting bloc A gets concentrated in location B, and that's somehow a good thing, then you have quite a hill to climb to explain how voting bloc C in location D should not be concentrated to get a few representatives, however much it screws up their ability to elect representatives elsewhere.
Get it? If it's sometimes OK, then it's tough to explain why and how it's bad at other times. And I doubt that the supremes are going to fabricate a rule that somehow allows both sides.
Now, just in case you think that gerrymandering is OK if it means that black people get their candidates in, in places like Atlanta, but not when urban hipsters get a lock on their choice in San Francisco, please observe that in both cases votes get "wasted" in bucketloads because it's not a proportional representation system, and the relevant voting blocs aren't herded together, but cluster by choice. Short of proportional representation, what formula do you propose that the supremes should use to decide what's OK and what's not?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by idiot_king on Monday October 23 2017, @12:51AM (3 children)
I feel that this spells out the subtext for anything that could be said about it, anyway. If politics is war, why bother with votes over just outright bullets and munitions? Who cares about gerrymandering, in that case? There's a reason why people are restless these days. Philosophers and political thinkers who say votes are worth a damn when a population is unhappy haven't been paying attention to what has happened in history, espeically in 18th, 19th, and 20th century Europe.
TLDR: There's a valid reason for young people to where Che shirts these days.
(Score: 3, Informative) by qzm on Monday October 23 2017, @01:33AM (1 child)
>>TLDR: There's a valid reason for young people to where Che shirts these days.
I can only assume your valid reason is 'because they have a complete lack of understanding of both history and relativity (not the Einstein type..).
After all, wearing a che shirt as a political statement is basically saying 'I support the system of rule that has resulted in more an order of magnitude more avoidable human deaths than any other'
With a little 'I support the idea of a minority using force and oppressive/voilent punishment to gain power for themselves'
Is that the particular type of Che you are referring to? because that is the historical facts.
Of course pretty much zero of the Che shirt wearers would have the least clue as to that, because they are mostly intentionally self-uneducated in such things.
TLDR: Socialism/Communism has produced by far the worst human atrocities in history, bar none (only holy wars come close..)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @06:33AM
Socialism itself is not a problem[1]. The problem is most proponents (including the Engels, Marx and the Che supporters) of Communism etc suggest or even recommend violence as part of the implementation plans.
When leaders are chosen with violence instead of votes, don't be surprised that leaders with the most violence win. And once they do, it's a lot harder to get rid of them, most won't step down peacefully when they are no longer wanted... And it's not surprising those leaders still tend to use violence to achieve their goals... :)
Make it the standard to choose your leaders with votes. You may still get crap leaders but at least they will be leaders a larger proportion of the people deserve. And when enough people don't want them you get a peaceful revolution because the new leaders have more votes, instead of waiting for new leaders to have more violence than the old leaders. Or for the old leaders to miraculously step down or for you to get lucky with a more benevolent successor...
[1] Seems to work ok in Scandinavian countries- they overdid it at certain periods but they seem to have a decent balance now (which might be upset if they take too many immigrants for them to assimilate and "brainwash" to accept the "Nordic ways").
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Monday October 23 2017, @06:02PM
It's similar attitudes to politics in the UK; I suspect it has to do with the FPTP voting system, which is adversarial, and where if you want to join a coalition you're seen as "surrendering" somehow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @03:26AM
Then would the big margin in the new candidate's victory count as "wasted votes" and thus a sign of gerrymandering?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Kawumpa on Monday October 23 2017, @05:44AM (1 child)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARSNaSeT9hw [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by rylyeh on Monday October 23 2017, @06:06AM
Nice!
"a vast crenulate shell wherein rode the grey and awful form of primal Nodens, Lord of the Great Abyss."