tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post5111218742980624468..comments2023-10-20T05:51:51.625-04:00Comments on The THINK 3 INSTITUTE: How to prevent GerrymanderingSamuel Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-23423554635609504462010-12-30T13:20:41.273-05:002010-12-30T13:20:41.273-05:00Crhymethinc: "One nation" is a fine noti...Crhymethinc: "One nation" is a fine notion, but the lower house of Congress would still presumably include representatives of specific geographic units. Would Congress itself then divide the entire country into counties or districts? The challenge would remain a matter of preventing partisans from drawing the borders to maximize their competitive advantage in congressional elections -- presuming that you believe that gerrymandering can make a significant difference in the first place.Samuel Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-36451789607785315042010-12-30T07:34:58.615-05:002010-12-30T07:34:58.615-05:00Another alternative, of course, would be to elimin...Another alternative, of course, would be to eliminate states and their governments completely.<br /><br />I, for one, would much rather see "one nation, under..." rather than 50 squabbling states, constantly backstabbing one another to curry favor with big business and special interests.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-78347291139502708542010-12-29T18:42:37.500-05:002010-12-29T18:42:37.500-05:00Dale: I agree with you that districting reform isn...Dale: I agree with you that districting reform isn't the highest priority compared to ballot reform and relief from the tyranny of fundraising. My original post was just a modest proposal in response to the decennial griping about gerrymandering or the concoction of "majority-minority" districts. Democrats in particular complain that particular practice, but I'd be interested in seeing scholarly work that attempts to debunk their complaints. It may be that criticism of gerrymandering is only so much mugwumpery, but if critics really want to do something about it, state pride will have to be confronted on some level, and local pride cultivated.Samuel Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-47893862956839471682010-12-29T17:26:18.139-05:002010-12-29T17:26:18.139-05:00Surely, the people IN each state had a concern for...Surely, the people IN each state had a concern for the number of house seats their state had; you must admit there is at least some state-pride and some shared desire among citizens of a state. That their elected state leaders and federal representatives share that enthusiasm shouldn't be a surprise. I'm sympathetic to your feelings; what's less than a quarter of a percent in the grand scheme? But people--not just their representatives who would be out of a job, but people--are sometimes quite adamant on these things.<br /><br />I am opposed to gerrymandering (I think any sane person would be), but I'm also familiar with the research indicating that it's nowhere near as big a deal as most people think; under any districting scheme, very nearly every election ever in this country would have fallen along the same partisan lines (third parties would not have done any better, and only a few seats in any congress would have gone to a different major party; it's noise.)<br /><br />I quite like some of the algorithmic/mechanical districting methods out there, but I focus my efforts for systematic change elsewhere (campaign finance and approval or score voting.)Dale Sheldon-Hesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07974707193305445403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-15789495885669789552010-12-29T16:56:09.077-05:002010-12-29T16:56:09.077-05:00Dale, I appreciate the correction and the informat...Dale, I appreciate the correction and the information. Some of your objections from history are irrelevant to my concerns. I propose not to care, for instance, whether or not a state loses or gains seats since the state isn't directly represented in the House except when delegations must vote as states to decide a presidential election. That rule, too, can be changed. The real question raised by your criticism is whether states' interests are entitled to consideration when seats in "the People's House" are distributed. If no Representative is answerable to his state government, the answer would seem to be no. Since Representatives are meant to serve constituencies smaller than states, I feel entitled to ignore the complaints of states across history. If objections have been raised by actors other than states, I'd appreciate the clarification. Also, should gerrymandering not pose a problem for you,-- I can't presume one way or the other from your comments -- you're free to dismiss my suggestions completely.Samuel Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-46496052178645543982010-12-29T16:05:17.314-05:002010-12-29T16:05:17.314-05:00Two quick points:
1.) Its 435, not 438 (you'r...Two quick points:<br /><br />1.) Its 435, not 438 (you're conflating the 3 electoral votes for DC with house seats.)<br /><br />2.) Not all states have counties (AK), and some that do have no county-level government (CT). Not insurmountable, but a complication.<br /><br />But I also have a larger point: simply asserting that "some rule" should be established for giving multiple seats to some populous counties and combining some less-populous ones shows--and forgive me for saying this in such a blunt way, but I fear it must be done--a real ignorance of how this problem has been grappled with in the past.<br /><br />Are you familiar with WHY it was decided to set a fixed-number of seats? It used to be that, every 10 years, there would be HUGE arguments over how many seats should be in the new congress. These were caused by legitimate claims of injustice, because there are several mathematical paradoxes that occur when you allow the number of seats to vary and when different apportionment rules are used. Things like "increasing the total number of seats causes a state to lose a seat". These arguments are what caused 1920 to be skipped COMPLETELY for reapportionment: congress was completely unable to come to an agreement as to how many seats there should be, and how they should be divided, a clear failure of a constitutional mandate.<br /><br />I recommend "<a href="http://leastevil.blogspot.com/2010/08/book-review-numbers-rule.html" rel="nofollow">Numbers Rule</a>", which is primarily about the history single-winner voting systems, but also has a handful of chapters about precisely why this problem is much harder than you seem to think.Dale Sheldon-Hesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07974707193305445403noreply@blogger.com