Slashdot Mirror

http://www.redistrictinggame.org/

The actual goal is to make as many districts that are roughly 55-60% "theirs", just enough to ensure consistent wins, and then pack the remaining voters that are "not theirs" into as few districts as possible that contain 90% or above "not theirs" districts.

Along with that you also want the 'enemy' incumbents to live in one of your safe districts so they have no chance of getting re-elected. At the same time, the enemy's safe district has to run a new politician that will not be as influential as their predecessor.

If you want to actually try out the redistricting process, there is an online game to help out.

This is really a major problem of the system.

Back the last time redistricting was done, the redistricting game came out. It showed how eliminating gerrymandering, by forcing decisions to be made without including "percentage of voters of X party", would improve the political process.

Instead, what we're going to see now in most states is what we saw last time. If one party controls a state, they will try to make as many districts as possible that are 55% "theirs" while stuffing the remaining voters that are "not theirs" into as few districts as possible that are 90% or more the opposite party.

Result? Complete lack of representation for most people, courtesy of gerrymandered districts where the only "difference" is whether you get Herman Goering or Adolf Eichmann winning the nomination out of the primaries.

Are there always going to be "safe districts" in areas where one party is in control? Probably. Would there be nearly as many if the job of districting had been long ago taken out of the hands of politicians? Of course not!

I know a great and highly effective way to counter-balance this. If we are going to have online participation in government, force all would-be participants to complete a series of logic problems before being allowed to participate. Within a time limit. Eventually, move all voting and other civic functions to this system.

By selecting against the voters who prove they are unable to easily use logic, you negate a whole host of bad influences like gerrymandering, propaganda, sound bites, demagoguery, media over-representation, media-underrepresentation, debate framing, popularity, etc.

This is really a major problem of the system.

Back the last time redistricting was done, the redistricting game came out. It showed how eliminating gerrymandering, by forcing decisions to be made without including "percentage of voters of X party", would improve the political process.

Instead, what we're going to see now in most states is what we saw last time. If one party controls a state, they will try to make as many districts as possible that are 55% "theirs" while stuffing the remaining voters that are "not theirs" into as few districts as possible that are 90% or more the opposite party.

Result? Complete lack of representation for most people, courtesy of gerrymandered districts where the only "difference" is whether you get Herman Goering or Adolf Eichmann winning the nomination out of the primaries.

Are there always going to be "safe districts" in areas where one party is in control? Probably. Would there be nearly as many if the job of districting had been long ago taken out of the hands of politicians? Of course not!

At least you can (in theory) elect your representatives. A corporation has no such flaw: it's a plutocratic oligarchy through and through.

I say "in theory" because the United States implementation of democracy is broken (Gerrymandering, two-party rule, you name it). Yet that is no argument against democracy, merely one against a particular implementation of it.

Lastly... the corporations can't make up stupid laws or arrest you for making dry ice bombs.

In a libertarian system, eventually one of the corporations will end up with enough economic power that it can rewrite the rules of the game. When that happens, that corporation will translate the economic power into physical power and effectively make itself the new state, and then it can make whatever laws it wants.

Earlier, we had slashdot stories on the http://www.redistrictinggame.org/ and how it was educating people through video games.

From that, we have finally gotten Prop 11 on the ballot in California thanks to our Governor(ator). Take what you've learned, and vote accordingly. This proposition will have a significant impact on every election to come in California, and you should really put in the time to learn about it.

I doubt it will pass, but I really hope it does. Whatever happens, I hope other states follow in getting this prop on the ballot.

You can even try gerrymandering yourself thanks to this little game: http://www.redistrictinggame.org/

It doesn't matter. All that will change before the next redistricting and it will all be an entirely different ball game. And it is probably impossible to a 55% republican state to go all republican in the redistricting.

If it didn't make a difference, they wouldn't do it.
Since politicians work hard at gerrymandering, apparently it does make a difference.

Anyway, any discussion of redistricting wouldn't be complete without a link to the redistricting game.

Go and play these 5 missions in the redistricting game from basic to advanced, and come back and tell me if you've changed your views or not.

Seriously, be honest.

There was a very nice Redistricting game released by U.S.C. students last year which explains some of the issues in a US context. I thought it was a great piece of educational software.