Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government Politics

Gerrymandering Using Census Clustering And GIS 111

Posted by timothy from the as-if-incumbents-need-much-help dept.
dpplgngr writes "According to this BBC article, Map redrawing angers U.S. Democrats, Republicans in Texas are making use of Census data and mapping software to redraw districts, signficantly altering the election process, and resulting in the lowest overturn of incumbents in history."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gerrymandering Using Census Clustering And GIS More

Gerrymandering Using Census Clustering And GIS

Comments Filter:
  • Although it can be done a lot more precisely with this technology, this has been going on since the 1800's. There's really nothing new about it, other than the Republicans' rabid desire to have 100% control of Texas. :)
    • Right.

      It amazes me that after nearly 230 years it's still news to people that our government, in all its permutations, is a horrible kludge. Not as much of a horrible kludge as a lot of other governmental systems, but a horrible kludge nonetheless.

      Tomorrow's headline: Study shows nation's wine supply may contain fermented grapes!
    • Why do we never see any mention of term limits any more? As the story mentions, we're at an almost crisis of incumbency, yet I still hear nobody mention term limits.

      Would there ever be any hope of such a thing getting passed?

      (I would think some of the smaller states would be in favor, since the most powerful career congressmen are from the bigger states, though there are exceptions)
    • Gerrymandering has been going on for ages. If people want to complain about the inerrant unfairness of that, then try an at large system. Then the disenfranchised voters complain about the tyranny of the majority, in that their vote with their local interests is diluted, when lumped with the state as a whole.

      In many areas, city government is elected in an at large system, and people complain. Then it is changed to districting, to lump similar demographic groups together, and people complain.

      As we have a b

  • ancient (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheSHAD0W ( 258774 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @04:40PM (#10488038) Homepage
    Gerrymandering is an old, old game. There's already a solution for it; computer models exist that can generate maps that are fair. But with all the yelling the Democrats are doing right now, they'd never consider adopting a map-based system because then they'd lose the opportunity to gerrymander next time.

    • Re:ancient (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Exactly, this is nothing new at all, and certainly NOT exclusive to any one political party as the article makes it out to be.

      • Re:ancient (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Sevn ( 12012 )
        I'm just glad that two wrongs make a right.

        • Re:ancient (Score:3, Insightful)

          by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 )
          I'm just glad that two wrongs make a right.

          No, if you read their comments more closely, you'll see that they're not exactly saying "two wrongs make a right". They're saying an actual wrong and a hypothetical wrong make a right. "If your side was in power they'd be doing this too so it's OK."

          • No, if you read their comments more closely, you'll see that they're not exactly saying "two wrongs make a right". They're saying an actual wrong and a hypothetical wrong make a right. "If your side was in power they'd be doing this too so it's OK."

            Do you see that as being any better?

        • "I'm just glad that two wrongs make a right."

          On the other hand:
          "Two Wrights can invent the aeroplane." --Spock the Baptist
    • Gerrymandering is an old, old game.

      True true. The new hotness is illegally disenfranchising voters.

    • Matter of degree (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION ( 553878 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @06:24PM (#10488661)
      I agree with you that algorithmic district drawing is the only real solution, and with the Dems being disingenuous (this favors neither Dems nor Republicans--only incumbents).

      But this is a NEW big deal. Not because gerrymandering is new, but because its become so very powerful and accurate. It used to be that the House was the agent of change and the Senate was supposed to be the cautionary brake. Now the House has become gerrymandered so badly its considered even more stable for incumbents than the Senate. The House of Representatives has basically lost all purpose--in the space of a few decades of computer modelling, the House has become almost invulnerable to popular will. Much like the Senate pre-17th amendment, representatives are de facto appointed by the state legislatures. Except that those same legislatures are gerrymandering themselves as well. Without correction, we will have a self appointed Politburo running state governments and the House.

    • Re:ancient (Score:3, Insightful)

      by zangdesign ( 462534 )
      they'd never consider adopting a map-based system

      Not that it would matter if they endorsed such a system, since the Republicans are firmly in control here. It's more than just a little bit worrisome.

      "We're going to keep on building the party [the Texas GOP] until we're hunting Democrats with dogs." -- attributed to Phil Gramm.
    • Gerrymandering is an old, old game. There's already a solution for it; computer models exist that can generate maps that are fair.

      There is no such program that can generate a fair map.

      Why? Because generating a fair map requires knowing everyone's vote in advance so that they can be allocated to the appropriate districts.

      Even if you could get everyone's vote in advance, it may not even be possible to draw a map that groups the appropriate voters into contiguous districts. What do you do with isolated De

      • Re:ancient (Score:2, Insightful)

        by SgtChaireBourne ( 457691 )

        Sorry, but there is no apolitical solution.

        Actually there was, but it may be an anachronism because people have become mobile and isolated compared to the days without motorized traffic and a 'dynamic' labor market. There used to be geographical / social / cultural / geological boundaries which could be said to define communities. For example, people along part of a river could be said to be part of the same community. Or a cluster of neighborhood with the same ethnicity. Or groups on either side

    • I disagree that these computer models are a good solution. I also disagree that they are fair. The purpose of an election is for the people to choose who best represents their opinions. The purpose of these models is to garrentee that a certain number of each major party is elected. These are not compatible goals.

      The only real solution to gerrymandering is to stop using districts in elections where they have no meaning. Does the US House of Representitives really need a representive specifically from my di
      • Uhm. Districts are important because they are the population bases on which members of the House of Representatives are elected. What alternative do you propose to determine which Congressmen get elected to office?

  • Gerrymandering limited by increase in House reps (Score:5, Interesting)

    by captnitro ( 160231 ) * on Sunday October 10, 2004 @04:41PM (#10488043)
    I think one very effective way to reduce the effects of gerrymandering, and other seeming corruption, is an increase in the size of representatives in the House, which was locked at 433 in 1911 (with provisions for the allowance of representatives for New Mexico and Arizona, when they became states). With the admittance of Alaska and Hawaii, it was temporarily raised to 467. After the 1960 census, it dropped to 435 again.

    If the 2000 census is correct, we have around 294 million people in the United States. This makes for a ratio of one representative : 675,862 constituents. In 1910, the ratio was about 1 : 200,000.

    I don't foresee the population of the United States coming down any time soon, which is all the reason you need to see that this issue is only becoming more important, not less -- having a veritable Senator for your district who cannot be voted out and is distant from your needs breeds apathy and alienation.

    While many people I've talked to think that the number of representatives is fixed by the Constitution, it isn't -- it was fixed by Congress, and Congress can unfix it as well.

    Observe what Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution has to say on the subject:

    "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three."

    So apparently, they thought 30,000 : 1 was a bit of a low ratio to be sensible. By that count, we'd have 9,800 representatives. But having only 1,200 reps would mean having a ratio of 1 : 245,000; more than halfing the current 1 : almost 700,000 ratio.

    There are obviously logistical problems, like voting, space, offices, and so on. Also, it would significantly limit the amount of power reps currently have, which I can see as a good thing and a bad thing. But in a day where it seems nobody doesn't have a lawyer, why would it be so crazy to think that everyone should know their representative?

    • If the number of reps increased, we'd have to rename "pork" to "beef" or "elephant." It's a problem when you have too many cooks, because it spoils the pot. An increase in the numbers would decrease the bill-making efficiency.

      Then again, maybe slowing down congress is just what this country needs. We already have too many federal laws.

      • I agree. Frankly, expecting a little bit less in terms of proposals and more in terms of votes would go a long way -- I prefer as many laws to keep water coming out of my faucet as needed, and no more. (Not to mention that bill-making efficiency is abundant when wanted and completely absent when political; I don't think more voices in the room could be a bad thing.)

        However, it's not like we have 435 people working together anyway; most work is done in committee, where I don't think increasing the size by 2
    • I think one very effective way to reduce the effects of gerrymandering, and other seeming corruption, is an increase in the size of representatives in the House

      What, require candidates to weigh a minimum of like, 350 lbs?

      On a more serious note, why haven't there been any discussions focusing on the past two debates? Meanwhile, there has been a lot of discussion regarding independent candidates whose chances of being elected are statistically indistinguishable from zero.

      In my opinion, the reality of the

      • On a more serious note, why haven't there been any discussions focusing on the past two debates? Meanwhile, there has been a lot of discussion regarding independent candidates whose chances of being elected are statistically indistinguishable from zero.

        This is to avoid sounding biased. Since the republicans got SLAMMED in the debates, any mention thereof would have to make note of this fact.
      • And let's not hear that uninformed "they're all the same" nonsense. In the second debate, they came down on different sides of virtually every single question, with the exception of the draft.

        The second debate was all pre-approved questions, despite the fact that they were from the audience. Could it be that both camps simply refused to approve questions that they knew their opponent would sound the same on?

    • It's interesting to note that the only one of the first twelve constitutional amendments proposed by the first Congress that has not (yet) been ratified was a mechanism for automatically increasing the size of the House with the census. It was still linear so even that would prove to be unworkable today, but it's interesting that it's quite possibly the first outright alteration (as opposed to an addition) of the constitution proposed and passed by Congress.

      There are arguments for a cube root formula [prb.org] here
    • (Un)fortunately (depending on your point of view), this stands very little chance of being approved, as it would dilute the voting power of people in those big rectangular states in the Presidential election.

      I don't remember the exact numbers, but I remember someone working out what would have happened if Congress hadn't locked in the number of representatives, and as it turns out Gore would have won the 2000 election even w/o Florida.

  • New map shows.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by maskedbishounen ( 772174 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @04:43PM (#10488054)
    New map shows that Canada really is part of the United States!

    Okay, off to RTFA now, eh? :)
    • This is funny because in my senior government class someone actually asked "How many electoral votes does Canada get?" She wasn't making a joke either.

      Ahh... my generation, the future of America. Scary huh?
  • Gerrymandering isn't the only way incumbents stay in power. Campaign finance reform also allows them to stay in power. This is because of the drive to keep money out of politics just further reinforces the edge that incumbents have finacially.

    It takes money to win unfortunately, and if you restrict the ability to raise money, you impede the ability for a challenge to run a competitive campaign.

    If you are concerned about low turnover in the US house, gerrymandering or increasing the number of representa
    • Nonsense, incumbents are better able to raise funds than challengers. Gerrymandering isn't the only way--but it's quickly becoming the most powerful.
      • Nonsense, incumbents are better able to raise funds than challengers.

        That was my point!

        Gerrymandering isn't the only way--but it's quickly becoming the most powerful.

        All Gerrymandering does is group people together who vote the same way. This gives them more voting power. Just because they vote for the same person over and over doesn't mean that their voice is not heard. If another candidate wants to win, they've got to prove that they will represent the district better then the incumbent.

        Imagin

    • Allow donors to give as much money to a candidate as they desire. Then the campaign will be more competitive.

      Yes, this will be great. Let's cut to the chase and just let each corporation with over $10,000,000 in assets pick a rep and send him to Washington. Why bother the people with the laborous task of having to go to the polls and vote every year?

  • Never mind the Democratic Gerrymanders in Georgia that are ridiculous, or any of the other dozens or hundreds of times that both parties have controlled redistricting to their own benefit.

  • One-Sided Reporting (Score:3, Informative)

    by CustomFort ( 643959 ) <MarkNO@SPAMReitblatt.com> on Sunday October 10, 2004 @05:08PM (#10488225) Homepage Journal
    The BBC is talking about this as if this were the Republicans in Texas coming out of the blue and just turning this on the Democrats. What a load of shit.

    For those of you who don't remember, or don't care, Texas was a Democrat state a rather short period of time ago (about 20 years). Most of the uproar is from the Republicans trying to reverse the grossly partisan gerrymandering that took place just a little while ago to keep the Republicans from coming to power.

    The Texas Constitution requires new boundaries to be drawn every 10 years. In 1991, the last redistricting, both the Senate and the House were strongly controlled by Democrats ( 77% in the Senate and 62 % in the House). http://www.fairvote.org/redistricting/reports/rema nual/tx.htm [fairvote.org]
    That explains very well with maps what exactly happened in 1991, and even further back.

    Take my area for example. US District 21 extends from San Antonio all the way to El Paso, making it one of the largest districts in Texas. This was created to make a very strong Republican District so that the rest of the districts in the area could feed off of the Democrats.

    Even though the Bexar County Area is about 65% Republican, our representation in the state legislature is 70% Democrat. And one of those 3 Republicans is a moderate.

    Another interesting fact is that while it is illegal to redistrict based on race, it is perfectly legal to do it based on Political Parties.
    • Oh, piffle. The article explains quite clearly that the Democrats did their own gerrymandering back in 1991. "One-sided", indeed.

      The maps and analysis at fairvote.org are nice, though.

    • Re:One-Sided Reporting (Score:5, Informative)

      by moof1138 ( 215921 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @05:32PM (#10488379)
      "Most of the uproar is from the Republicans trying to reverse the grossly partisan gerrymandering that took place just a little while ago to keep the Republicans from coming to power."

      As a Texan, I have to say that is a totally false and highly partisan mischaracterization of the situation prior to the Republican's abusive redistricting. What actually happened was that both parties had fought in our legislature and could not come up with a solution for the redistricting. So the map was drawn by a nonpartisan panel of federal judges [wsws.org], based on the 2000 Census figures. A year later, the Republicans got enough control to push their new redistricting along, and a new Republican map was pushed through which was not based on any new Census information, but was purley designed to try to get a political advantage.
      • You are quoting the World Socialist Website as a source? I post a link to a nonpartisan website that has undisputable graphs and figures and maps and your rebuttal is based on something you got off of the WORLD SOCIALIST WEBSITE???

        Wow, I don't know what to say.
        Don't you think the editorialising on that page probably has just a little bit of an agenda?

        Here is a hint:
        Anything discussing the recent Texas gerrymandering that has absolutely no reference to 1991 is biased. For the reasons I pointed out
        • You're right that the source wasn't the best ever, there are plenty of other sources one can google for. The real point is that the Republicans took a (somewhat imperfect) districting scheme which was laid out by a non-partisan panel and turned it into extreme partisan gerrymandering.

          The 2000 Census brought the need for redistricting. There was a lot of conflict over the redistricting, so a non-partisan panel of federal judges made the final mapbased solely on Census data without poitical consideration.
          • "We now have an new level of absolutely insane gerrymandering that simply dwarfs anything that the Dems. ever tried. I live in Austin. Our city was chopped into slivers by the Republicans' redistricting to try to dilute our votes."

            It figures that you live in Travis County, the most Democratic County in Texas. Martin Frost did a MAJOR gerrymandering job in 1991, with the help of the DNC.

            I live in Northwest Tyler. Prior to the 1992 election I was in Texas US Congressional District 4, and was represented by
      • "So the map was drawn by a nonpartisan panel of federal judges, based on the 2000 Census figures"

        That is not totally true, and quite misleading. First of all, two of the Judges on the 3 judge panel were Democrat appointments [fairvote.org].

        Second, the judge's drew up their own House map, but accepted the Senate map.

        Third, They approved the new map [fairvote.org] that the BBC is reporting on.

        Fourth, even though Texas voted more then 60% Republican [state.tx.us] in 2000, 17 out of our 32 seats went to Democrats.( Before U.S. Rep. Ralph H [fairvote.org]
        • First of all, two of the Judges on the 3 judge panel were Democrat appointments.

          So what? Was their map unfair? Arguably no. As you said they took the Senate map, which also would have been drawn up by the GOP, so they weren't just being partisan.

          Fourth, even though Texas voted more then 60% Republican in 2000, 17 out of our 32 seats went to Democrats.

          Actually it was 56%. And why should a party that got 56% of the vote get over 70% of the seats?

          If anyone doubted /.'s slant, this parent is proof
      • What actually happened was that both parties had fought in our legislature and could not come up with a solution for the redistricting. So the map was drawn by a nonpartisan panel of federal judges, based on the 2000 Census figures.

        Nonpartisan? Right......judges never let politics sway them.

        Just looking at the results of the election in 2002 shows something is fishy.

        These judges were so non-partisan that they drew maps giving the Democrats over 70% of the representatives even though they received less t
    • The Republicans blocked efforts to redistrict fairly in 2001. They are not doing this to balance the situation. I live in Austin; my city, the CAPITAL OF THE FREAKING STATE, is being carved into several Conservative districts. Funny, the liberal centres around the state are being diced up into slight minorities in Conservative districts all over. Fair's fair, right?

      If the Democrats did things like this 12 years ago before Bush took over, we'd still have the state. Obviously, we either didn't do it or
      • The Republicans blocked efforts to redistrict fairly in 2001. They are not doing this to balance the situation. I live in Austin; my city, the CAPITAL OF THE FREAKING STATE, is being carved into several Conservative districts. Funny, the liberal centres around the state are being diced up into slight minorities in Conservative districts all over. Fair's fair, right?

        Funny, you never cared when rural Republican areas were carved up and divided among the liberal centers around the state.

        If the Democrats di
    • Isn't that your main complaint? Why don't you run back to Newmax and tell them.
      • What in the hell are you talking about? What the hell is "NewMax"?

        So you don't think there is something seriously wrong when a majority opinion is represented by a minority of congressmen?

        The comment about one of the 3 Republicans was to show that even the 30% Republican minority was really more like 25%, an even grosser injustice.
    • Apparently the Dems were not THAT effective or manipulative in there previous gerrymandering as apparently they are no longer in power. The point of the article is that using new tech the current Republicans are REALLY locking in their majority.

      Also, I may be wrong on this part but I think they used their current majority to force through a redistricting order outside of the normal schedule in an attempt to make their majority permanent.

      As far as being one-sided, as a earlier poster said, the history of D
    • http://www.fairvote.org/dubdem/tx.htm

      1992:
      48% voted R and won 30%(9) of the US House seats
      50% voted D and won 70%(21) of the US House seats

      1994:
      56% voted R and won 37%(11) of the US House seats
      42% voted D and won 63%(19) of the US House seats

      1996:
      54% voted R and won 43%(13) of the US House seats
      44% voted D and won 57%(17) of the US House seats

      1998:
      52% voted R and won 43%(13) of the US House seats
      44% voted D and won 57%(17) of the US House seats

      2000:
      48.0% voted R and won 43%(13) of the US House seats
      46.
      • http://www.fairvote.org/dubdem/tx.htm

        1992:
        48% voted R and won 30%(9) of the US House seats
        50% voted D and won 70%(21) of the US House seats

        1994:
        56% voted R and won 37%(11) of the US House seats
        42% voted D and won 63%(19) of the US House seats

        1996:
        54% voted R and won 43%(13) of the US House seats
        44% voted D and won 57%(17) of the US House seats

        1998:
        52% voted R and won 43%(13) of the US House seats
        44% voted D and won 57%(17) of the US House seats

        2000:
        48.0% voted R and won 43%(13) of the US House seats
        46

  • There is only one way to fix it (Score:5, Interesting)

    by infonography ( 566403 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @05:44PM (#10488433) Homepage
    Simple technical solution. Actually a Geometry solution. Make no district with more then 6 corners. Include the borders of a state in that requirement. Make them any size you want but six corners max. Anything else is gerrymandering.

    Count this as a published patent.

    • That is in now way simple, except maybe in a wonderfully flat place like Iowa, and even then there are going to be density issues that make 6 angles too restrictive. There are legitimate considerations in oddly shaped districts, particularly if you live in geographicaly complex places like California or other mountain states. You can readily have parts of the state that for election purposes are sensibly lumped together because shared mass media outlets, roadways and travel patterns, and other considerati
      • the big question is, why should it be complicated? sure there are mountains, seas, bodys of water, sand , and wetlands. That areas of the state are empty or unusable doesn't mean it's not part of the state. Every district has these sorts of areas. They are still in a district. It's not a size issue, it's shape. Here in Washington we can fit whole mountain ranges, Volcanos and all in a rectangle. So what if the population of that area is dominated by hermits and Hot Steam party. It's still a district. Cram e

  • For us non-US citizens... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fallacy ( 302261 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @05:45PM (#10488442)
    Apologies for my naivety (and perhaps ignorance), but could you explain to me - as a non-US citizen and not particularly au-fait with US politics - how gerrymandering is not classed as effectively cheating?
    From what I've just read, it appears that this is simply a way of increasing the vote for a particular party within the newly-drawn district, and thus lands more seats.
    • That's a sticky issue. Both political parties here participate in it, as well as cry foul when it happens. It's legal probably because both sides see it as a tool to use to their advantage. So as a whole, neither side really loses. About the only big loser are the American people, but few in power really care about them. :P

    • It is, but it is legal cheating. Further, the only people who could make it illegal[1] benefit from the process, or are looking forward to doing so in the near future. The only good part is that it must be re-done every 10 years, so the bad effects don't really last.

      I care most about fair redistricting when it isn't in my favor. No matter what the case is though there are more important issues to me. I'm more concerned about copyright, patent, and gun laws. (to name a few, there are others)

      [1] well

    • Sure, here's how it works.

      The United States is divided into 50 states.
      The legislature of the United States has two chambers.

      The upper chamber, the Senate, has 2 senators from each state. Senators serve for 6 years and their terms are staggered, so except for death or resignation or something, each election at most one Senator is elected from a state. Everybody in the state votes, and whoever gets the most votes in the whole state wins the Senate seat.

      The lower chamber, the House of Representatives, has
    • It's not unique to US politics - in the UK f'rinstance (thought admittedly not as frequent or 'legal'):

      Fury at dinner invite for Porter [bbc.co.uk]

      [the]investigation found that after Westminster Tories suffered a scare at the 1996 local elections, Dame Shirley [a tory politician] and several colleagues embarked on an illegal plan to ensure the party retained control of the borough.

      Despite growing housing waiting-lists, vacant council properties in eight marginal wards were deliberately kept empty until they could

  • Ok, so I was imagining a lizard viewed from above, crawling on its back, like in this article [salon.com]. But I was curious what it actually looked like. Turns out, the name was actually due in large part to a political cartoon [msn.com]. Pretty stuff, but wouldn't look like a salamander to me without the generous addition of artwork.

  • Would proportional representation fix this problem? Don't have districts anymore. Simply have all state registered voters vote this way... 1. List all candidates on the ballot with party affiliation. 2. Have each voter pick the candidate of their choice. 3. Let's say 40% choose Democrats, 35% choose Republicans, 15% choose independents, and 10% choose Libertarians. 4. 40% of the total seats would go to Democrats. 35% to Republicans. And so on. 5. Lets say there are 11 seats in a given state. That's 4 seats
    • I believe this is similar to how it is done in some parliamentary states, such as the UK. But I'm not sure.
      • Just a correction. The UK has single-seat, first-past-the-post districts just like here in the US. In fact, the US modeled this part of its electoral system after the UK. There has been some talk in the UK of moving to a proportional system, but the current system is very beneficial for the Labor Party. Sound familiar?
        • Then which EU country is it that has this? I could have sworn at least one country uses this.

          Maybe Australia? Japan? North Korea? :)

          • Lots of EU countries have PR in various forms. A few examples:

            The Netherlands has PR with the whole country being one electorate (it's a small place).

            Germany has single member electorates and then top-up members from national lists to make the proportions work out. This has the slightly odd result that you don't know in advance exactly how big the Bundestag will be.

            Sweden has districts with about 7 members elected by PR and then has top-up members.

            Australia (which is obviously not EU) has PR by stat

    • That could be done legally RIGHT now for presidential elections. The current system is a travisty, while your proposed system is much more how the Framers wanted it done...then the chosen elctors vote the BEST president...not the most popular... Also, the state governments have A LOT more control over the feds than our current system that allows the feds to be elected "over the heads of" our state/ local officals.
      • I believe there are many better ideas for Presidential elections than our current method. (Not all of my ideas are original, meaning I may have borrowed them from other places.) 1. Each county gets one "electoral vote", but no persons are elected as electors. Each county votes for President via IRV (Instant Runoff Voting), and the majority winner is granted one electoral vote. This prevents rural counties from being ignored, and makes things real interesting. The plurality winner at the national level wins
        • I believe there are many better ideas for Presidential elections than our current method. (Not all of my ideas are original, meaning I may have borrowed them from other places.)

          1. Each county gets one "electoral vote", but no persons are elected as electors. Each county votes for President via IRV (Instant Runoff Voting), and the majority winner is granted one electoral vote. This prevents rural counties from being ignored, and makes things real interesting. The plurality winner at the national level wi
          • You do realize that the populations of counties are wildly divergent? To say your system prevents rural counties from being ignored is the understatement of the century. It also prevents urban counties, where the vast majority of the people live, from being considered.

            I really don't understand what's wrong with just going with popular vote. Why should those who live in less populous areas get more of a say than those who live in populous areas? And why should those who live in an area trhat isn't close
            • Maybe what I said was a bad idea, but how about this. Right now we have the electoral process done at the state level. Move it down to the county level. This prevents politicians paying attention to the most populated parts of the state.

              As for how many electors each county gets, I guess one way is to calculate it like this. For every 500,000 potential voters in a given county, the county would be granted one electoral vote, with an actual person elected to cast the vote. It would round up to the nearest 50

              • Any flaws with simply changing it from a state level to a voter level? Why should some peoples votes count more than others?

                That's the flaw I see with the state level: I don't like disproportionate representation. Moving to counties just makes it worse. Even your 500,000 system just over-represents counties with less than 500,000 voters.

                The other flaw with any electoral college system is the winner-take-all. Why should some voters opinions be meaningless, just because significantly more than half of
                • Just going by a popular vote means candidates might as well ignore the low populated areas.

                  The Condorcet is flawed. It ignores voter choice. But then again, someone could simply only mark in the candidate they want to win, and leave some pairings blank.
                  • Currently candidates do ignore all but a handful of "swing" states; the number of voters candidates might as well ignore could hardly be worse. Well, maybe if we went with your counties idea...

                    Why shouldn't candidates try to appeal to more people rather than certain people? Why is it important to favor the relevance of rural dwellers over urban dwellers? Call me crazy, but I think candidates should concentrate more on places with more people. They should be trying to appeal to the most people, not th
    • In the parliment in Israel, the People vote for the Prime Minister from a selection of candidates, and then vote for a party to represent them in parliment.
      Each party gets a preportional number of seats to the percentage of the electorate that voted for them
      The people who fill the seats are selected by in-party elections prior to national elections. The prime minister must then build a coalition of 50% of the parliment in order to get the budget passed (I believe that if it is not passed by a certain date,

  • Caliper's Mapitude (Score:5, Interesting)

    by waldoj ( 8229 ) <waldo@NosPAM.jaquith.org> on Sunday October 10, 2004 @06:39PM (#10488759) Homepage Journal
    I work in politics. The program that we use for this is Caliper's Mapitude [caliper.com]. It's a bad-ass little package. Perhaps the most amusing function is the ability to pinpoint an address (the incumbent's) and construct a district that includes every house in the neighborhood but that one, pitting two incumbents of the same party against each other and leaving an open seat for the redistricting party. I'd love to own a copy, just to play with, but for $500, I'd rather have a new iPod. :)

    I don't know why I couch this is "this party" and "other party" language -- it's the Republicans, because they had dominance in many states after the 2000 census, just as technology had advanced sufficiently to turn redistricting into more of a science. If we Democrats had the majority then, we probably would have dome the same thing (though I'd like to hope I'd have argued against it in favor of redistricting by disinterested parties, not that what I say matters to anybody in any way).

    -Waldo Jaquith
    • If we Democrats had the majority then, we probably would have dome the same thing (though I'd like to hope I'd have argued against it in favor of redistricting by disinterested parties, not that what I say matters to anybody in any way).

      Democrats did do the same thing. Even without technology, Democrats ended up with over 56% of the representatives [cnn.com] despite getting only about 40% of the vote in 2000.

      Even after a redrawing of the map by "non-partisan" judges, the Democrats still got 53% of the representati

  • Texas... (Score:1, Funny)

    by hedrek ( 35787 )
    it's like a whole other country.
  • This is a huge problem, not only in Texas, but most states. Dick Morris, former Clinton staffer, highlights this point in his book "Off with their heads". This is being done not just by Republicans, but Democrats as well. Texas, Mississppi, California, New York, New Jersey, the list sadly goes on.

    I believe it's Utah Mr. Morris highlights in his book as the model of redistricting. They have an independent body that is agreed to only in number of participants by the parties, and they use strict interperatati

  • Constitutionality (Score:2, Interesting)

    by JimBean ( 610952 )
    Gerrymandering and single-seat districts are the biggest barriers to third parties gaining significant representation. One of my professors recently suggested that it could be argued that this system violates the First and Fourteenth Amendements (limits free speech, discriminates against certain individuals). I am no legal expert, but it seems plausible. Just a matter of getting the Supreme Court to agree.

  • Set up Boundary Commissions (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rpjs ( 126615 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @05:55AM (#10491553)
    Here in the UK we have an independent Boundary Commission that re-draws Parliamentary seats. It can receive submissions from the political parties, but it is required to produce a map that ensures constituencies of roughly equal population (about 70K electors IIRC), and - crucially - form a distinct community, or part of one (i.e. a town can be split into two or more constituencies if the population is sufficient).

    Now, the distinct community bit is obviously open to intepretation, but it does mean that some of the strange districts some US states have come up with straggling long thin arms halfway across the state wouldn't be allowed.

    Admittedly, sometimes balancing the requirements of population vs community can come up with oddities: at present the Western Isles of Scotland are rather over represented with one MP for around 30K electorate, whereas the Isle of Wight is under-represented with one MP for around 100K as it's not quite big enough to qualify for two constituencies. In both cases the Commission felt that the places were too distinct a community, being islands, to be combined with seats on the mainland.

    I know US posters will respond that there's no way in thousand years that the politicians would willingly give up this power, but surely in those states that allow popular initiative it ought to be feasible to set up a pressure group to campaign for it?

  • Can't mess with the founding fathers! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by G. W. Bush Junior ( 606245 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @06:29AM (#10491668) Journal

    I was going to post something about proportional representation, and why it would stop gerrymandering... but, heck, I know the answers I'll be getting:

    The founding fathers designed the system, they knew what they were doing yadda yadda. sure... it 's not perfect, but it's served us pretty well... yadda yadda We're the most stable democracy in the world yadda yadda.

    • http://www.fairvote.org/pr/whatis.htm

      Junior,

      The term most used nowadays is "Full Representation" and they are as varied as the colors of the rainbow.

      You can have party based systems like they have in Europe (ick!). Or you can have multi-member districts with limited voting, cumulative voting or choice voting. Personally, I like limited voting.

      It goes like this, let's say you have a district with 5 members. Everyone gets one (or some number less than 5) votes. The top 5 vote getters win with the highest

      • I know what it is (I still prefer "proportional", though... I feel it's more descriptive)... I've mentioned it in several posts before. I'm simply commenting on the fact that a majority of americans refuse to accept that democratic theory has moved on since the constitution was written, and that *maybe* it was time america moved with it.

        You can have party based systems like they have in Europe (ick!).

        I'm not sure anyone who lives in a country with a voter turnout in the low fourties (for congres

  • Iowan Rules (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I was told by a friend that Iowa has a law that says that district borders have to be as close to squares/rectangles as possible. While this isn't a complete solution to gerrymandering, it does make it a TON harder to do because you can't just go around a group of people and make those weird borders to suit your needs. Maybe this should become a national election law.
  • The BBC article has one small omission. Martin Frost's old district is #24, and is mapped accurately in the article. However, Frost is not running in #24 -- he's running in District 32 [martinfrost.com]. He's chosen to change districts and run against Pete Sessions, an incumbent Republican. The race is nasty, and I'd personally have a hard time voting for either corporate mouthpiece.

    The Democratic candidate for Texas House District #24 is a friend of mine, Gary Page [garyrpage.com]. He ran on the Green ticket in 2002, and his performa

  • It not the first time or state. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Good grief, the Democrats in California did the same thing after the 2000 census using computer generated maps to lock in their large majorities in state and federal office. The Republicans decided not to fight it this time and hang on to their safe districts.
  • Map redrawing angers U.S. Democrats,

    Only because the Republicans beat them to the punch. Don't, even for one minute, think that the Democrats wouldn't have done it if they had the chance.

    LK
    • I still don't understand how gerrymandering is a bad thing. There is a group of people. They get to vote on the representative of their choice. Their votes are all counted. What's the problem?

      It's designed to keep incumbents in power, but if your representative is a failure, there's a primary to defeat him in. Complaining about this problem makes one heck of a case against representative democracy: the poor, poor pitiful people can't pick decent representatives. They're all just girls who can't say "

Slashdot Top Deals

Trap full -- please empty.

Close