Slashdot Log In
Tweaking The Math Behind Political Representation
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Jan 10, 2008 05:10 PM
from the as-nature-intended dept.
from the as-nature-intended dept.
mlimber writes "Nature magazine's news section has an interesting story about how the seats in the US House of Representatives should be divided up. The problem is that the population isn't evenly divided by the number of seats in the House (435). So how should one allocate the fractional parts? The current method tends to favor big states, while a recent proposal by a mathematician is for what he calls a 'minimally unfair' allotment. He is predicting 'one person, one vote' challenges on this topic in the near future."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
eh... (Score:3, Informative)
Solving the wrong problem (Score:5, Insightful)
A vastly more critical glitch is that it is possible to draw congressional boundaries in such a way as to increase the influence of demographics tending toward electing one party and decrease the influence of the demographics tending toward the other, and the people who have the power to redraw districts barely even bother to hide the fact that they're doing so anymore. Solving that glitch with a means to draw boundaries that is guaranteed to be impartial, so that the elected representatives actually did reflect the preferences of the people electing them-- now that would be a serious improvement to democracy.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, gerrymandering would be just as technically possible under m
Re:Solving the wrong problem (Score:5, Informative)
Not necessarily. Gerrymandering [wikipedia.org] is the art of changing the boundaries to gain an advantage. In a simple way, this image [wikipedia.org] shows an even distribution redivided to give one party the advantage.
Parent
Re:Solving the wrong problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Not quite. Consider the possibility of a state that is 55% Republican, 45% Democrat, with 20 Representatives. Ideally, any districting should elect about 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats.
It is a relatively trivial exercise, however, to divide the districts up so that 20 Republicans and 0 Democrats are elected.
And it's not even especially hard to divide them up so that 3 Republicans and 17 Democrats are elected.
While it is true that each of those districts is reflective of the voting population, alas, it's not necessarily true that the results at the State level are reflective of their voting populations.
Parent
Re:Solving the wrong problem (Score:4, Informative)
If for some reason an elegantly simple example, such as the one in the Wikipedia article, is not sufficient, how about some real world examples [rangevoting.org]? Some of these districts are downright ludicrous. Are you seriously trying to tell me these district lines were drawn in an effort to create fair and unbiased voting districts?
Parent
bullcrap (Score:4, Informative)
My high school government teacher had a brilliant exercise for us: he gave us a map of Indiana with info on how each county voted (i.e. Democrat/Republican, to keep it simple). Then he assigned every student a party and everyone could draw districts such that their party would win ALL 10 seats.
The idea is to divide and conquer. By splitting up the opposing party's strong areas and absorbing pieces of them into your party's areas, you could essentially neutralize them.
The take home lesson is that whichever party is in power when the census is completed and redistricting happens is at a big advantage and they DO use it.
So sure, technically the representative is elected by the people in their district, but that district is no longer cohesive and is totally arbitrary (where arbitrary = convenient for the party that drew it).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, be honest.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, did you play the game?
They've finally found it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They've finally found it! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
What about the minor candidates? (Score:2)
Edelman method = Non starter (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Correction (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Correction (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
eu parliament (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_in_the_European_Parliament [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
what am I missing here? 1/453 and 2/3? I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean?
Re:Correction (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it doesn't. It says that (except for the period prior to the first Census, for which it spells out exact by-state representation) each state will have a number of representatives assigned in proportion to population based on a census count, except that each state will have at least one representative. It further states that the total number of representatives shall not be greater than 1 for every 30,000 people (that's not that the number will be 1/30,000: if that was the rule, the House would have, based on the 2000 census, 9,381 members — which would certainly reduce the voting-power impact of rounding problems from fractional seats.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fixing the wrong problem (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to fix a problem, come up with a better algorithm for drawing district boundaries. Right now the party in charge DOES use an algorithm, one designed to create the pessimal boundaries that ensure its maximum advantage.
Of course, there are many such algorithms, and no matter how fair they are the legislature would vote to choose whichever one favors them best.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to fix a problem, design a system where the drawing of district boundaries doesn't matter much instead of one where it does. Its easier to do, for one thing: simply increase the number of seats per district, and adopt a preference voting system that generates proportional results, like STV. This makes it difficult to do much to ensure "safe" seats or enhance partisan advantage by messing with district
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's called "the Senate."
I kind of like the original Constitutional idea (Score:3, Interesting)
The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand
A house of representatives with 10,000 people might actually be unwieldy enough to actually have to do business, rather than listen to speeches all the time.
Re:I kind of like the original Constitutional idea (Score:5, Funny)
Perfect!
Parent
Re:I kind of like the original Constitutional idea (Score:5, Interesting)
What is the largest number a person can adequately represent? I actually believe that 30K might be on the high side of that estimation. Right now, a Representative in the House isn't beholden to anyone other than the special interest groups. The Special Interest Groups only need to focus on 435 people currently. If they had to spread their $ around to more people, the amount they could offer each would be much less and more easily overcome by a small band of normal constituents.
I actuall see no problem with more representation, currently we're getting less and less. You tell me, do you feel adequately represented by anyone, let alone by your congress critter?
Parent
17th amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Very insightful! I've been saying this for a long time now. When the 17th Amendment was ratified, populists thought that direct election of US Senators would be a great move for democracy! Instead, they shot themselves in the foot. Do you really think your Senator cares a fig about your opinion? You're one among millions. Back when s/he was accountable to the state's legislature though, you can be darn sure he paid attention to their few dozen opinions. Losing the support of any one legislator was significant.
Making Senators into super-Representatives was just silly. The House has a 2-year term because the electorate is fickle. Senators have a 6-year term because (in theory) your legislators are wise enough to make more thoughtful decisions. If we trust them enough to make laws for the state, can't we trust them enough to select Senators? But no, now we are stuck with our fickle decisions for 6 whole years - and 6 years after they make dumb decisions they can be sure we've forgotten about them, so they are even less accountable than ever!
Increase the House membership to 1000, and repeal the 17th Amendment. Those are the two best things we could do to "fix" the Congress in a relatively easy manner.
Parent
One person, One vote only IN your state (Score:5, Interesting)
Therefore, for every 1 vote for a Republican in Wyoming, 60 votes for a Democrat in California are needed to cancel each other out. And this mathematician wants to make it more "fair" by giving more votes to smaller states?
Re:One person, One vote only IN your state (Score:4, Informative)
Ummm, I only see one representative listed for Wyoming on the official US House of Representatives [house.gov] website. The guy wasn't suggesting adding representatives to Wyoming, but to Montana and some other states. Montana had a population of 902,195 in the 2000 census and 1 representative. That works out to a voting power of 0.00011% per person in Montana. California had a population of 33,871,648 and has 53 representatives (0.000156% per person).
His model wasn't trying to be fair, just less unfair. To be fair Wyoming would either need a fractional vote or the size of the House would have to be increased until each person in the house represented about 500,000 people. Since this isn't possible from his model's point of view he does the next best thing (removing votes from large states that have fewer people per representative to smaller states that currently have more people per representative).
With that said, I agree that small states don't need more representation in the House. They are more than adequately compensated by having 2 votes in the Senate. To put in perspective how powerful that is, imagine that even if San Francisco had 2 senators the Wyoming senators would still be representing fewer people. San Francisco has a population of about 750,000 (4th largest in California) vs. the population of 500,000 for the entire state of Wyoming.
Parent
Re:One person, One vote only IN your state (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No, he wants to make the House of Representatives more fair. The House is supposed to be apportioned according to population, with each state receiving at least one representative. The Senate, on the other hand, has two representatives per state, regardless of population. Each state gets electoral votes equal to its representatives plus senators -- and that's where the small-state bias in the Presidential election comes from.
If you want to remove that bias, change the number of electoral votes to be eq
Re:One person, One vote only IN your state (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:One person, One vote only IN your state (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
some of us have no representation (Score:4, Insightful)
Add more seats (Score:3, Interesting)
I understand the cost involved - just the buildings alone will be a fortune. But consider how hard it is now for your representative to stay in touch with his or her constituency. The average size of a Congressional district is just below 650,000! That is three times what it was at the turn of the last century. Considering the minimum was set at 30,000, the current sizes are way out of whack compared to the probable intent.
With 650,000 constituents,it really is no surprise how important campaign donations have become. Worried about lobbiests and PAC's? Well, here is the root of the problem. Yours is a voice in the crowd.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, money always gets taken seriously by elected officials.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's why to a large extent the States (and even larger extent The People) were originally suppose to be the major government entity, with the Congress tasked with only 18 authorized jobs to do. One of those is to show up one day a year, since the framers thought that there wouldn't be enough work.
The REAL problem (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Divide each state into a grid of 1 mile by 1 mile "chunks"
2. Find the population of each "chunk" using census data.
3. Start in the Northern-West corner and start adding blocks to the district moving west to east and dropping down one row and changing direction each time you drop down.
"Drop down, change direction and increase speed" Lurr from Anthology on Interest 2: Futurama
4. When your population count hits what 1 representative can represent, start a new district.
5. Repeat
6. ????
7. Profit from special interest kickbacks and pork barrel spending.
Third House (Score:4, Interesting)
At the end, every law needs a majority vote in this new house in order to pass. Constitutional amendments require a 2/3rds or 3/4ths vote in order to pass.
If you can't convince a random sample (including people of all national origins, races, religions, sexual orientations, etc.) that a law is a good idea, it simply doesn't pass. The limited term and not being directly involved in the debate (only listening and then X rounds of questions) means that politics and political shenanigans are reduced to a minimum.
We also give this house the ability to override Presidental veto and Presdiential pardon/commutation. If 2/3rds of this house (alone) agrees that the President should not have vetoed a law or pardoned someone, then the President's action is null and void (i.e.: law passes, or person still goes to jail for obstruction of justice)
What do you think?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
After centuries of titles entitled to a seat there falling through various hands, it is probably the most diverse legislative body in the world. There are plenty of Lords with no property or income other than their stipend for attending Parliament.
hawk
A More Perfect Constitution (Score:2)
A More Perfect Constitution (Score:2)
King Solomon solution (Score:2)
[scene: 5 representatives from state X being sworn in.]
Congratulations! Now Mr. Representative #5, your honor, if you would just step this way...
[off stage: chain saw noises]
This method is bound to succeed (Score:2)
The Alabama Paradox (Score:3, Informative)
that's little compensation (Score:3)
Yeah, and the current method of allocating senate seats is favoring little states big time. That's one of the reasons our agricultural policies are so messed up and why the little states are getting money from the big states.
There's nothing to be "corrected" here, at least not until the allocation of senate seats is changed substantially.
Legitimacy (Score:3, Insightful)
As a side note, I would like to take this opportunity to complain that people too frequently equate democracy with freedom. There is nothing about a democracy that means that it increases your level of freedom. People in this country could vote to take away all my money and forcibly sterilize me, and it would be no less of an infringement on my basic freedoms than if some psychopath broke into my house, stole everything I had and cut my balls off.
This is not new (Score:3, Insightful)
The posts complaining about gerrymandering have more of a point that trying to reallocate how the House is allocated. And if you want a really big problem that needs to be addressed then look no further than the electoral college. Of course that one depends on which side you fell on in the last couple of elections.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a really bad idea. If all the states were equal sizes, this would be arguably a good idea (I think candidate-centered elections are better than party-list, so I'd oppose it even then, but it would at least make some sense.)
As it is, states have between 1 and 53 repr