Redistricting Videogame Shows Problems in the System

An anonymous reader writes "This is a cool redistricting game that was launched out of the capitol building in Washington DC last week. It was created by the USC Game Innovation Lab and has been getting lots of press. It's about time someone took on a tough issue like redistricting reform using the power of the internet." It's crazy that gerrymandering is actually good fodder for a video game.

Comments

Sure it's a game

[Red Flayer]

It's crazy that gerrymandering is actually good fodder for a video game.

Why is that crazy? Gerrymandering, and indeed, much of politics, is a game. It's just played for higher stakes than we're used to when we think of games.

Or did you think that American politics at the highest levels was actually about serving the public?

Re:Sure it's a game

[Red Flayer]

So you're saying its more about the highest levels then?

Yeah. The grind sucks, and most of us never get out of it, but the content for people who've maxed out their level is fantastic.

Re:Sure it's a game

[Adambomb]

Plus, you get people contesting a raid schedule and it becomes all out war.

Re:Sure it's a game

[Anonymous Coward]

How I mine for oil?

Re:Sure it's a game

[moderatorrater]

However, even serving the public is a game. Games are, at the end, mostly resource management and getting the most benefit for what you do while there's always trade-offs. Politics are the same. Those with an income over $100,000 are obviously not going to need welfare, but for those who are stuck with a lower income and want to stop, welfare is a big help. As a politician who's trying to serve the public, you're trying to do what's best for the most people or, depending one your beliefs, your constituency. There's always going to be some downside to a particular policy. In addition, you have to manage your political party and allies. No matter how you run politics, it's a game.

Re:Sure it's a game

[corbettw]

Gerrymandering, and indeed, much of politics, is a game.

Sweet! Got a link to the cheat codes?

Re:Sure it's a game

[Ucklak]

People who spend money tend to be lower class.
People who save money tend to be middle class.
People who invest money tend to be upper class.

People themselves and the decisions they make are the biggest obstacle they have to overcome.
As much as 'people' would like to obliterate `classes`, class warfare will always exist just as some people will like the color green over the color pink.

Re:Sure it's a game

[Red Flayer]

As a politician who's trying to serve the public, you're trying to do what's best for the most people or, depending one your beliefs, your constituency.

Hey, I'm pretty cynical, I think there's a problem with your first clause there. Politicians at the highest level aren't trying to serve the public; they are first and foremost focused on electability (that's how they got to the highest level) and then focused on washing the hand that washed them i.e., giving handouts to the companies and groups that got them elected. The political process in the US filters out the more altruistic politicians at the lower levels.

Re:Sure it's a game

[Red Flayer]

Here's one link
and here's another.

Of course, some people would say that gerrymandering is a cheat code as well.

Re:Sure it's a game

[truthsearch]

-1 for taking the post too literally. Game != unreal. Many politicians treat the system like a game. It's irrelevant whether or not you call it a game. That's part of his point.

Re:Sure it's a game

[t0rkm3]

I think what he's saying is that present behavior allows an estimate of past behavior, past behavior (to some extent) can be linked to current status and then used to predict future status.

Several economists and social scientists have done studies of the wealthy and found that great majority of them have elevated themselves from a lower wealth-class through smart money management. I, myself, started out very poor and have managed to work my way up to have some wealth. This while supporting my wife in a single income family and paying for her continuing education.

I have a high school education from a podunk school from a town of 3000 people. If I can do it, you have no excuses.

It's not how much you spend. It's how you spend it. I don't have cable(I don't watch TV at all), I have two vehicles that I paid cash for, I do all of my own home and car maintenance. I built a gym in my home rather than pay out monthlies. (The equipment paid for itself in 12mos.) I don't eat out much, I don't go to convenience stores except to buy gas. These decisions add up.

For instance, eating out, including StarSucks and QuickTrip, usually accounted for $100 per week in expenses, by eating food that I or my have prepared and avoiding 'convenience food' I am saving at least that much per week.

The "Millionaire Next Door" has several references for further research on the topic. It has survived the empirical evidence gathered from the several millionaires that I have met and do business with.

To change your position in life, you must change your behavior.

Re:Sure it's a game

[rifter]

The political process in the US filters out the more altruistic politicians at the lower levels.

So what you're saying is the power gamers and gold farmers have taken over the game and ruined it for everyone else :D.

Re:Sure it's a game

[Red Flayer]

your post says nothing and contributes nothing to the discussion, in fact it's silly: Politics isn't a game, it's real and affects real peoples' lives.

Just because it affects people doesn't mean it's not a game -- as I said, the stakes are far higher than what we're accustomed to seeing in what we think of as a "game".

Can you honestly say that there are not people involved in politics to whom "winning" isn't the most important aspect? That this type of attitude is not common at the level of presidential politics?

Do you really think that Karl Rove, for example, has a primary motivation other than winning? Or that the Democratic Party, as an institution, is anything more than a group that exists purely to get people elected? That's the nature of partisan politics in the US system.

This is what my post is saying, I'll spell it out so you can understand, since it appears that you're completely missing my point:

American politics at the highest level is dominated by those who treat it like a game. Hence, it becomes a game, where the effect on the outcome (future election results) taints every action taken, and is often a primary motivation for actions taken.

So how, exactly, is this not a point for discussion?

As for your opinion on cynicism, perhaps you misunderstand what cynicism is. It's pointing out the flaws of society because solving a problem is predicated by awareness of the problem. Apparently in your world, all politicians are motivated by the effect of their actions on the public -- I know better than that, and so should you.

Re:Sure it's a game

[Red Flayer]

Wow, lay off the coffee (or the crack, whatever it is that gets you so wound up).

Don't put words in my mouth, I never made any claims about what politicians are like "in my world", how ridiculous, where did you get that?

You based your entire argument off the fact that the actions of politicians affect the real world and real people. For politics to not be a game, then it must not be considered a game by any of the decision-makers in the system (the players). Hence, your position requires that politicians are motivated by the impacts of their actions on people, not the impact of their actions on the electoral cycle.

Maybe you misunderstand what a game is --

because by definition a friggin game does not affect the "real world".

You think it must be something that has no effect on the real world, this is false and destroys the rest of your arguments. Show me an accepted definition of 'game' that states that it must have no effect on the real world. Is poker a game? Without a doubt. Does it have an effect on the real world? Without a doubt, if money changes hands.

So, before you fly off the handle again, why not re-examine your assumptions and try again?

Re:Sure it's a game

[rifter]

"Why is that crazy? Gerrymandering, and indeed, much of politics, is a game"

Your post getting +5 is a great example of how cynicism is often mistaken for intelligence. If you remove the "+5 Cynical", your post says nothing and contributes nothing to the discussion, in fact it's silly: Politics isn't a game, it's real and affects real peoples' lives.

It depends on your definition of "game." American football is a game, but it's real and affects people's lives. It has a major effect on the economies of large cities. So your disqualification would seem not to work here. Real-world impact of a game's outcome has no bearing on the definition of a game, whether it be a game in the traditional sense like basketball, or a game like politics or the stock market, which are games according to sociological and philosophical observation.

As far as politics goes, at least some of the participants would seem certainly to have understood it as a game in the traditional sense of the word. That is, there are winners and losers, a defined set of rules, etc. In any event, sociological analysis and game theory would, in even the most rudimentary analysis, seem to reinforce this belief. One of the more famous books that analysed sociological and psychological games was Games People Play, which among other things discussed the aspects of common social interactions which fit basic requirements for the definition of the word "game."

It seems you have made the common error of associating frivolity with the idea of a game. In English, the concept of games has been linked, in some people's minds inextricably, with the concept of frivolity. But while play and games can be frivolous they do not have to be so and are not always seen that way by the players. This would especially be true in the case of games where there is a sense of extreme competition and real-world impact, which would seem to be the case here. It's probably true that some of the participants of this particular game view it somewhat frivolously, in the sense that they are simply having fun, without losing their sense of competition; this was the case with some of the more famous entrepeneurs of the late 19th and early 20th century as regards the game of wealth-building. But there are probably others in politics who view it as a game and treat it as such while also treating it very seriously. For them politics would be a game which they mean to win, which is incredibly competitive; this is no different from the first case, but the distinction in the second case lies in impact. For these players the cost of losing is very great because they would feel that failure to win the game of politics would mean failure in the larger game of the determinance of the fate of the human race, or at the very least their particular plitical unit (city, state, country).

I think it's important to analyse this particular case. If you think about it, even a sincere politician who believes fervently in their stated ends must realize that they will not have the chance of implementing their ideas without winning the game of politics. This would probably lead to even more extreme measures than would the contest of those who view the game frivolously. For them the game would be very much like the game of war, in which the result of the other team winning is horrible in itself to contemplate, and the repercussions of being the loser even more horrible because the winner is also winning the right to dominance in that particular case. In politics, as in war, the winner of the game determines the future of the loser, who is at his/her mercy, as is everyone the loser cares about. For someone who is sincere in their beliefs this would be completely unacceptable, and it is possible that such a person would then do anything to win, perhaps even thinhgs they might otherwise not do, like cheating.

In the case

Re:Sure it's a game

[rhakka]

I'm working the same path you are, and you're right.

That said, you made a very dangerous comment. "If I can do it, you have no excuses".

You have no idea what it's like being anyone but you. You can point at some particular behaviours and say "hey, those behaviours aren't serving you", but expecting everyone else to be like you, and to suffer when they are not, is a dangerous manifestation of a particularly subtle arrogance... that, in fact, they would be better off if they were like you.

They might be financially better off, but perhaps not better off from any other metric they value.

Your personality may make it easier for you to focus on something heavily and sacrifice where others would not. How many workaholics are simply using work as a drug to escape other areas of their life they do not like? Does that make them a role model to aspire to?

I'm not saying that you are conciously insinuating any of this. I am simply saying, be very careful of that attitude. You cannot judge others by your own internal standards, because your own internal standards were developed by you, in the life you lead, and simply do not apply with objective reliability to anyone but you.

Focus on particular behaviours. It is a fact that if someone spends $100 a week eating out instead of $25 eating in, that's a poor financial choice. Unless, the time spent shopping and cooking could have instead generated more than $75 in revenue. throw in whatever qualitative comparison or subjective comparison on top of that, that pleases you (if I eat in, I eat organic and healthy. Eating out, greasy and bad. determine health value..). But never, ever make the mistake that other people should be like you. If we all were, after all... well, you know your own shortcomings better than I. isn't it better that the world has variety? perhaps that variety means that we need people who make poor financial decisions... because they may also have some other strength we collectively or individually benefit from. I don't know. But, neither do you.

careful careful ;)

Re:Sure it's a game

[NeilTheStupidHead]

You're better off just ignoring this profession and buying the oil directly. No, you're better off raiding to take the oil that belongs to others.

Re:Sure it's a game

[AndersOSU]

Sir, I'd like to subscribe to your social darwinism newsletter. Clearly the poor are that way because they deserve it.

Ever heard the phrase, "Where you start out in life is a good indication of where you'll finish?" Class mobility and the "American Dream" are largely hoaxes perpetrated by the rich on the middle and lower classes (kind of like the lottery, only you have to work much harder and invest much more, and the odds are much lower.) Sure some people were born dirt poor, and end up with money to burn, and some people are born with the silver spoon in their mouths and die on the streets, but the very vast majority of people will remain in the class they're born into for the rest of their lives. This is not a coincidence. (Read that last sentence again if you have to.) Another old gem is "It takes money to make money." and the poor don't have it.

All the personal motivation in the world might not overcome the socio-economic implications for being born poor, such as bad schools, dangerous environments, less leisure, and possibly most importantly the VP of Chase financial services doesn't live next door to you in section 8 housing - so you can't offer to mow his lawn when you're 7.

Why do you think single women *still* make less money than single men in the same jobs? Are they as a gender less motivated? That ignores the social consequences of being black or hispanic for instance, and the less opportunity at the same jobs, and with the increased probability of poverty, all of which are additive.

People can improve their stature in life, but the odds are stacked against them. While Paris will be just fine when she gets out of jail - and she doesn't have to give up TV. A poor person might never get a second (third?) chance for much less egregious missteps.

In short you're an ass, and you even give poor advice. For the middle class to get ahead they should buy the most expensive house they can afford (with a fixed interest mortgage).

Re:Sure it's a game

[AndersOSU]

Everyone gets a starting spot in life...and no, their not all equal ... If they can do it...anyone can do it.

Just because person A with a less advantageous starting position can surpass person B doesn't mean that person C can surpass person B. Basically because someone succeeds doesn't mean anyone can succeed. In this post, as well as the other you make sweeping oversimplifications, there is more to socio-economic status than which income tax bracket you fall into, home life, neighborhood, and acquaintances all play major roles, and it cannot be said that just because one person hits 7's and 11's means that another superficially similar person has the same opportunities.

I've known many people that have started at combinations of all the disadvantages listed above, and some have been WAY more successful than I

That probably means that your economic status could be classified as middle-middle class or lower. Very, very few people can climb from the pit of upper-lower or below to upper-middle or above, and even if you knew one Rockefeller, it is nearly statistically certain that you don't know "many people" who have done so well (unless you work with professional athletes).

Mobility on the socio-economic ladder is normally distributed (actually probably log normal - meaning there is increasing resistance to movement the further from middle-middle you are). It is relatively easy to move from lower-middle to middle-middle, harder, but possible to move from lower-middle to upper-middle, quite difficult to go from lower-middle to lower-upper, damn near impossible to go from lower-middle to middle-upper, and going from lower-middle to upper-upper is a herculean task. Now if the starting point is middle-lower it is herculean to go to lower-upper, and it becomes a few in a hundred million chance to break into middle-upper.

Life isn't fair, and I'm never going to argue that government social programs can change that, but to say that anyone can succeed belies a great misunderstanding of poverty and wealth. I don't know what "that kind of wealth" referenced in The Millionaire Next Door is, but if most people got there by earning it then it isn't upper-upper class type of money, and probably not even upper-middle type money. A million bucks isn't what it used to be, and lots of families can get there just by buying a home and sitting on it for 20 years. More important is that earning your way into the millionaires club is still only the purview of people who start in the middle classes. It would be more instructive to talk about the people who rise 3 or more ranks (e.g. middle-lower to middle-middle) and then look at the opportunities available to them. If someone in the middle-lower class climbs three ranks then he can lower his chance of being killed by homicide, and maybe afford to send his kids to college (with student loans). If someone in the middle-middle climbs three ranks, he can afford to drive his S class to the country club.

The point is that avenues of investment and entrepreneurship that are open to the middle classes are barricaded against the poor. Hosts of people can't afford a house - the best first investment, and need to work menial jobs with little room for advancement to survive - you don't go from mail-boy to CEO simply by working your way up, not even Hollywood tries to sell that. The only ways you get middle-upper type money or above is investments (which the poor can't afford) or found a wildly successful (read fortune 1000) company (which the poor have neither the resources or the time for), or inherit it. You simply don't earn that kind of money by climbing a corporate ladder or even very successful entrepreneurship. Poverty is a self-defeating cycle - and to blame them for it is to endorse societies ills.

Re:Sure it's a game

[knodi]

No, gerrymandering isn't a cheat code. It's a 'sploit. There's a distinct difference between hacking the system, and merely exploiting its weaknesses.

(anyone else think that it's about time they release the government 2.0 patch, though?)

Re:Sure it's a game

[CaptainCarrot]

This is flat-out untrue. My family on both sides were immigrants who arrived in the US in the late 1880s. I'll just trace what happened on my father's side.

The original immigrants, my great-grandparents, were oil refinery workers. That meant they had it relatively good, I admit -- most of the immigrants of the time from their ethnic group were coal miners.

My grandfather started out as an ordinary refinery worker, and through sheer hard work rose to management. He was, unfortunately, forced into a premature retirement in the early 1960s. His employer, Esso (now Exxon), decided to try out their new computers and reconcile their employee records, which is how they discovered he never had more than an 8th grade education but was doing a job that required at least a BA in Business Administration. My grandmother was a housewife, not counting her work as a child laborer in a silk mill. This was a common situation for women of her class and time, but her younger sister's career was not. She was the first woman to hold a management position at Western Electric. My grandmother's younger brothers were of an age to fight in WWII; they went to college on the GI Bill and ended up as professionals.

My father's generation all went to college, including his sister although she had no career in mind and became a housewife. This was again fairly typical for her time. The others were all professionals of one kind or another. It's noteworthy that it was only at this time that my family began to speak English at home. My father was the first to know the language before attending public school; his two older siblings and everyone who came before him did not.

My generation were all college educated if they wanted to be, which I think amounted to all of us but one. We are all, both men and women, academics, professionals, and business owners.

In four generations we rose from a class where it was not customary to be educated at all to the upper middle class of the United States, not because we were privileged in any way but because of a dedication to making a better life for descendants. And one or two generations before that? At least on my grandfather's side we were serfs; slaves in all but name. In the part of Europe we came from, serfdom was not abolished until almost 1850.

Taking the long view, insisting on instant equality is asking much. Should women be paid the same as men for the same work? Absolutely. But look at that timeline. My family was in this country for 80 years before it was usual for women to be employed outside the home. Women weren't even allowed to vote when my great-grandmother got off the boat at Ellis Island, and they were not enfranchised until 30 years later. In another 40 years a college education finally became almost as common for women as it was for men; another 40 years later the situation has actually reversed. It would be a bad thing if the injustice of sex-based pay inequity took another generation to be fully corrected, but relatively speaking there are far more oppressive injustices around than that. (At least now it's universally acknowledged that equal pay ought to be given for equal work regardless of sex. That wasn't a given not so long ago. Modern reactionaries who want to argue that there really is no injustice here are forced to the position that women usually don't do equal work, an absurdity on its face.)

There are a number of cultural issues standing in the way of minorities today, but a determination to make a better life can overcome just about anything. Perhaps my perceptions are skewed: the manager who hired me into the company where I now work was black ("was" because he retired since) and I've almost always had black co-workers. Not one of them was born into the middle class. They simply didn't give up until they achieved what they wanted, often in the face of opposition from all sides. Had they accepted that being born poor doomed them to poverty their entire lives, I'd have never met them let alone worked for them.

My own family is proof that even a language barrier need never be a serious obstacle.

So go ahead. Tell me it's a hoax. Just don't expect me to believe it.

Re:Sure it's a game

[AndersOSU]

my great-grandparents, were oil refinery workers... My generation were all college educated if they wanted to be, which I think amounted to all of us but one. We are all, both men and women, academics, professionals, and business owners.

So it took your family 120 years and four generations to go from middle-lower to upper-middle? Congratulations. This is exactly what I was talking about when I said the American dream is a hoax. It's a hoax, because (1) you haven't achieved real wealth, and (2) it takes too long, and is too hard to climb the socio-economic ladder. The "American Dream" is a rags to (real) riches story, not a rags to relative comfort story. It shouldn't take four generations of hard-workers to be able to afford a few luxury items, and it wouldn't if the top 1% didn't hoard 38% of the wealth.

Yes, asking for instant change is asking for too much, and asking for eventual parity is unrealistic, and unfeasible, and probably undesirable. However, asking to change the status quo isn't asking too much, especially when the chasm between the haves and the have-nots is widening.

Making it into the middle class would be an acceptable goal, if the middle class controlled an acceptable portion of the pie. That *might* have been the case from the 50's to the 80's, but today the upper 1% control more wealth than they have at any time since the great depression, and that is what I consider unacceptable.

Oh, and BTW, asking for women to get paid the same as men in the same job yesterday isn't asking too much.

Lessons taught through the difficult curve

[Applekid]

A good game has a well defined difficulty curve. What I found really interesting about this one is that the final stage is a hypothetical environment where redistricting reform is implemented and you're forced to define zones of near-equal population without any information provided for race or party affiliation.

That "final environment" is impossible to complete while keeping all the incumbents in their seats.

Which is the whole point, AFAIK, one I wholeheartedly agree with.

It's too bad there's no way to download the game and mirror it elsewhere or just hold onto a copy. Little gems like this are likely to disappear after a few months.

Re:Lessons taught through the difficult curve

[Smight]

Embedded flash games can easily be copied and saved in firefox... for reference only of course. http://www.cruciallimit.com/blog/?p=20

Re:Lessons taught through the difficult curve

[Opportunist]

If I got him right he agrees with the impossibility to keep the incumbents in their seats. I.e. he thinks it's a good thing that you cannot "win" the last scenario.

Re:Lessons taught through the difficult curve

[porcupine8]

That "final environment" is impossible to complete while keeping all the incumbents in their seats.

No it's not. When I did it, the original map had 3 republicans and 1 democrat, and I finally got a map approved (by 3 out of 5 members of the committee, then rejected by the R state legislature, then approved by courts) that resulted in 2 R and 2 D seats.

I thought there already was a redistricting game..

[DogDude]

... It's called Qix!

So how long...

[hphoenix]

...before they hold a contest to see who can 'redistrict' the best? Nice cash prize for the top 'winners', and the politicos can then use the results to lobby for actual changes. I wonder which side will try it first?

One has to ask...

[beef3k]

1. What... is redistricting?
2. What... is gerrymandering?
3. What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

Sincerely,
--
The English-as-a-second-language population

Re:One has to ask...

[Opportunist]

What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

A Republican or a Democrat?

*sexy lady voice*

[starbuckr0x]

Reticulating splines... and demagogues.

Grand Strategy Guide for Electoral Victory

[MSTCrow5429]

Step 1: Win an election

Step 2: Gerrymander your seats into safe districts

Step 3: Gerrymander your opponent's into insane districts

Step 4: Win an election

Step 5: Repeat as needed

Seriously, people find ethical lapses in a political system? How is that possible!

I'm looking forward to "ReDistricting 2: Earmarks, or buying of the votes."

Re:Grand Strategy Guide for Electoral Victory

[allanc]

What you're not taking into account is that usually the change in majority comes only from a major, major shift in public perception of the current bunch of weasels, faster than they can compensate for with redistricting. E.g., last Congressional election, and the "Republican Revolution" back in the 90s. And this last time, the new majority party just barely managed to squeak through with a majority. I don't recall how much the Republicans won back in the 90s, but I know that the election immediately following it had them just barely keeping their majority.

The congressional incumbancy rate was 98% in 2000.

Re:Grand Strategy Guide for Electoral Victory

[gurps_npc]

No. You missed #3.

3. There are 9 districts. Percentages republican are as follows: #1 = 90%, 2 = 80%, 3 = 70%, 4 = 60%, 5 = 50%, 6 = 40%, 7 = 30%, 8 = 20%, 9 = 10%.

Now change it as follows:

1 = 65%, 2 = 65%, 3 = 65%, 4 = 65%, 5 = 65%, 6 = 65%, 7 = 50%, 8= 5%, 9 =5%

You went from 3 certain, 3 in doubt, 3 definitely lost to 6 almost certain, one in doubt, 2 defitinely lost. Assuming a typical year, you go from an everage of 4.5 seats to an average of 6.5 seats. Two seat gain.

The only problem with this idea is that people MOVE and the data tends to be at least one year old. If you don't pay attention to trends, you gerrymandering works for about two years. If you do, you might be able to get 4 or 5 years out of it. Even then, it dies.

What about multi-member districts with STV?

[ckd]

One of the big issues in redistricting is minority representation (or non-representation), which leads to districts that consist of urban regions connected by a thin corridor or other similarly bogus shapes. Instead of artificially trying to group minorities (or party strongholds, or whatever) into specific geographical areas, though, why not remove that layer and replace it with a system that inherently represents various groups proportionally?

Using a single transferable vote system like that used for Cambridge (MA) municipal elections could work quite well. In the city council race, there are 9 seats, and any group capable of generating at least 10% of the total votes can elect a councillor of their own, even if that group is spread from one end of Cambridge to the other. Some councillors do have unofficial "districts" where their support is strongest, but this is not a requirement in any way.

STV elections also avoid the "wasted vote" problem with independent or smaller-party candidates, since voters can put one of those as their #1 choice, and if they don't win, those votes transfer down the ballot to the #2 or later choice as necessary.

With the current breakdown of seats by state, a system with a maximum of 11 seats in a district would allow all but 11 states to operate as one large multi-member district; raising the threshold to 13 would add Georgia, New Jersey, and North Carolina to the single-election list.

To use Massachusetts as an example: the current 10 seats in the House are all held by the Democratic Party. I doubt there's any viable redistricting that would allow the Republicans to win even one seat. Under a 10 member STV system, though, the 13% of the state that's registered Republican could elect at least one, and with support from unenrolled voters, possibly more.

Re:What about multi-member districts with STV?

[Anonymous Coward]

STV has a serious problem. It is the only seriously proposed voting system I've ever heard of which fails the monotonicity criterion. This means that voting for someone can cause them to lose. I.e., if you don't vote for them, they win; if you do vote for them, they lose (assuming everyone else votes the same way in both cases). This actually holds for any instant run-off systems (i.e., with more than one transfer). This is fucked up. Just say no to STV.

Re:What about multi-member districts with STV?

[arodland]

Er... with the current system there's pretty good odds that the only representative that's technically "yours" is a guy you didn't vote for and who doesn't agree with you. With multiple-member districts and proportional representation, there's a much better chance that at least one of the members from your district (whether that's a state or something a bit smaller) will be available to support you.

Take the example from the parent. Suppose you are one of the 13% of registered Republicans in MA. Who do you write to? The Democrat from your district, the Democrat junior senator, or the Democrat senior senator? But if MA was a single district with 10 seats, you'd end up with one guy who could argue your position on the floor, anyway. And representing the range of issues that people care about seems more important than representing purely geographical areas anyway. Especially when those geographical areas can be redrawn at will by those in power to represent purely political interests.

Re:What about multi-member districts with STV?

[Snarfangel]

Here is an interesting site which gives you some visualizations of voting methods. Take a look at IRV:

http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/

Redistricting vs. politics as usual

[Howard2nd]

I live in Florida - 20 years ago we tried to setup a logical redistricting system and were run out of town. The Republicans and Democrats would prefer to abuse each other every census. Any changes might allow for a thrid party and that will unite them against the people they represent everytime.

Remember that most states have 'winner-take-all' electoral votes, because the Republicans got with the Democrats to stop Teddy Roosevelt and his Bull Moose party.

Proportional Representation

[Colin Smith]

Largely solves the redistricting problem.

Re:Proportional Representation

[ThosLives]

Exactly, but that's probably why nobody will ever implement proportional representation.

Yeah, I know that's cynical...

The other thing that would "fix" the system is keep authority within appropriate geographic extents; for instance, what is good for people and what people in California want is generally not the same as those in South Carolina - the only things that should be Federal are those that apply equally to everyone, and a lot of the current legislative system on the Federal lever has gone well beyond those boundaries.

It's not just the US, either; the EU has the same problem...

Good, but part of the problem

[bahwi]

The game is good, making it easy for people to understand what is going on is great. But the whole political system is turning into a game. It's about winning, not the better policies. Remember those blogs after the 04 elections? "Seeing RED?!!" etc.. (Democrats do it too, just haven't been having big wins, once they do it'll be just as disgusting!)

It's about winning, which is what the last support of Bush is hanging on about right now, WE won, it's OUR victory, you can't say anything about it because YOU LOST. And it's really not about that. But making it a game, making it a badge "Proud Republican", "Texas Democrat" is not the way to go. If you're views are mostly in line with the Democrats there's a few republicans out there that you should vote for to stay in line with your views. And vice-versa.

It's the dumbing down of the process into a game. King of the Hill did it correctly when Bill said "I voted yesterday. I guessed right 4 out of 5 times." or something to that effect.

Oh, but this game is on the right track, explaining a complex concept to people in an easy to understand way is a great thing.

Too often...

[Notquitecajun]

Re-gerrymandering districts is more about incumbency protection (on BOTH sides of the aisle, often cooperating - there are stories about this that repeat themselves every ten years).

Georgia just completed its own cases...Louisiana had a particularly notorious case of blatantly obvious (even to the most hard-lined) one that literally snaked halfway around the state.

I don't necessarily agree with the "proportional" proposal unless there was some way to keep it local - I want someone who leaves nearby as my rep, not someone who is in the same party miles away. Neither the opposition NOR someone who doesn't live close by will have my political interests primarily at heart. Of course, someone who lives closely AND is in the same political boat probably won't, either...

Choose Our Own Districts By the Numbers

[Doc Ruby]

The best system for districting the US seems to me to be the one based on post offices. Each post office does define a community, especially in Federal services terms. It serves a small group of people who live very close, sharing mostly the same conditions other than those inside their private dwellings - which are also likely to be similar (and even homeless locals have the same access). It is the most common face of the Federal government, directly serving the community. And it already services election procedures like registration and delivery of election info.

I like the system where each person in a post office's service area (usually a ZIP code or two) selects the neighboring postal zones (up to the state border) to which they're most "connected" in order of "closeness" (as defined by the person selecting). Then all the responses are tabulated purely statistically to generate a map of the most interconnected regions, in a quantity equal to the number of representatives allowed in the state. There could be a second round to accommodate exceptions, like tiny islands (below some predetermined population size) or extremes of minimum/maximum populations in different districts, where the exceptional zones select their associations, as do the neighboring candidates for association to accept association with the exceptional zones.

We should choose our own fellow constituents who choose our mutual representatives. As long as the politicians themselves mediate the process with any discretion, the process will primarily serve them and their parties or other interest groups. We've got the stats and the sense of our neighbors to do it equitably and quickly. We should redistrict at least 10-20% of districts every odd-numbered year for reelection to the House of Representatives on the following year. After no more than a decade or two we should have equitable districts without a hasty conversion that will generate unmanageable sabotage from the existing order.

Re:How would you ban gerrymandering?

[Dachannien]

To my thinking, the solution is simple: mandate convexity of the districts, with an exception for irregular district borders at state boundaries. Districting would then become a sort of Voronoi diagram over a non-uniform space due to population density. This would reduce the problem to one of choosing the centroids of each district, which would be much harder to manipulate inappropriately due to the complexity of the problem. Still, you could define the locations of the centroids based on some metric such as maximization of distance between the centroids.

Re:How would you ban gerrymandering?

[mrchaotica]

Let us say you want to pass a state law or a national constitutional amendment that bars gerrymandering. How exactly would you word such a statute? It needs to remain flexible enough so that electoral districts can be changed in the future in response to population changes, but still not allow the "crazy shape" districts that are now common.

Define an algorithm that takes population distribution (but not race, age, political affiliation, etc.) as input, and tries to make districts of equal population while minimizing the ratio of circumference to surface area (i.e., trying to make the districts as close to circular as possible). Then just implement it and run it after every census.

Tried this in California already

[Fongboy]

Those of you from California might remember this from Schwarzenegger's last "special election". It was that thing about having retired judges do the redistricting instead of the politicians. Unfortunately, the politicians ran a bunch of FUD ads and scared the people of the state into believing that it was giving judges some mysterious power over them... and of course the ads conveniently never mentioned "redistricting" or what exactly the hell the judges were going to do. Heck, even that old People's Court judge/actor was hired to be a part of an ad. So you know... if this famous guy is saying it's bad... I have no idea what the hell he's talking about, but hey if he's famous he must be telling the truth! So the people of California, being the dumb sheep they are, voted down the redistricting proposition. Nice job Californians, you just screwed all of us over again. Sorry, I'm a bit bitter. =)

Re:How would you ban gerrymandering?

[necro81]

This doesn't exactly ban or rule out the possibility of gerrymandering, but Iowa instituted a much fairer way of redistricting back in the early 80s. Instead of the legislature drawing the lines, an independent committee (4 appointments from each caucus, plus a chairperson) draws up three new redistricted maps with the following guidelines:

1 - population equality,
2 - contiguity,
3 - unity of counties and cities (maintaining county lines and "nesting" house districts within senate districts and senate districts within congressional districts), and
4 - compactness.

When you look at these guidelines, you'll find it tries to do the same thing that various mathematical algorithms, which others have suggested in response to the parent post, try to do. The three proposed maps are sent to the legislature, who attempt to choose one in a simple take-it-or-leave-it vote, with contingencies if the legislature can't decide on one.

The result is that four of five congressional districts in Iowa are consistently competitive and mirror the state's overall political makeup. Compare that to about 50 of 435 congressional districts nationwide being competitive, despite the nearly even split between Democrats and Republicans.

Some Iowa politicians grumble when they have to move their home to stay within their redrawn district, but by and large everyone feels that the system is fair and equitable. Neither party considers abusing the system, because they realize how blatant it would appear, and because they know that the next time the same abuse could be revisited on them.

The Emergence of the Political Game?

[Billy the Mountain]

I was thinking about this idea a few months ago: You create a realistic sim-type game that when played, it encourages the player learn or develop a particular political point-of-view, simply by demonstrating how things work or don't work together. There was an old game from the mid-late 80's that sort of worked that way called Spheres of Influence.

BTM

Re:Cool Little Intro...

[Aqua_boy17]

I also thought it was an aligator.

Then again, I'm from Florida where there is a real probability that in some precints you actually could be chased by a real gator while on your way to the polls.

I wrote my own redistricter too...

[Soong]

http://bolson.org/dist/

I think I've gotten pretty good results for CA, TX, IL, FL and PA

It tries to create impartial districts that keep people on average close to the center of their districts. It works pretty well, but is kinda computationally intense. It could almost become Redistricting@Home if there was interest in the approach.

Re:a dated practice which is not needed

[cdrguru]

Yeah, right.

One small problem - what about the House of Representatives? These are folks that are elected by their "district" which is what this is all about.

No, there really aren't many more important issues. Because most of the real business of the government of the US is done by the House of Representatives. And getting people that would actually represent people might be a good thing.

Unfortunately, the current situation pushes things towards electing the properly connected people. So we end up with lawyers and such that have networks of friends through all levels of government.

Re:Sim City

[mooingyak]

Also quite similar to Pacman and Doom.

Re:It'd be a good game if it wasn't so biased.

[Teancum]

I agree that there are some presumptions here that I also don't necessarily agree with.

Most interestingly was the presumption that 3rd parties are completely meaningless, and that districting reform will have no impact upon them. And the idea that 3rd parties can be simultaneously "lumped into" undecideds as if they only help decide between the two major parties.

One other huge presumption is the idea that you will vote Democrat or Republican solely upon the basis of party affiliation, as if the personality of the candidate has absolutely no impact on a particular voter. Some candidates through sheer charisma can win over voters in what is arguably a district made primarily of voters from the "other" party. I can give very specific examples of this happening in the past, and surprisingly both times I was in districts where this happened, the district was "supposed to belong" to the other party when the redistricting took place. But very strong candidates prevailed of the "wrong" party and won the election... even if those same voters tended to vote for the "correct" party for the other races. Straight ticket voting is far less common than you would be led on to believe.

Still another huge presumption is that rural voters are identical to urban voters, with the only difference being the population density alone. Depending on the region of the country, a rural candidate from either party will get support over an urban candidate... particularly when you are talking about somebody running for the House. You could include other aspects including ethnic background or other factors.... and the ethnicity of the voter is not necessarily tied with the tendency to vote for a particular candidate. If that were true, we would have had only women as President of the USA since the passage of the 19th Ammendment.

The thing that struck me the most about the suggested "reform" proposal was after I made the supposedly "fair" districts (based exclusively on geometry and not taking any other issue under consideration including physical geography), was the process of submitting the proposal to the state legislature. The proposal that I submitted was flatly turned down by the legislature, yet the courts overruled the legislature. This to me is something very wrong, and a philosophy that I strongly disagree with. Why should I trust the judgement of a group of individuals who were put into their position by the body that they are overruling? This isn't just suggesting that the legislature can't have an act declared unconsitutional (so the courts will simply no longer enforce the law), but actively getting directly involved in politics in a way that is incredibly dangerous. And it misses the original concept of separation of powers, or what a legislative body is really supposed to be able to do. Or why legislative bodies ultimately wield nearly all government authority, and why the Bill of Rights has several clauses that start "Congress shall make no law...."

This is a fun game, and it does provide a good introduction to gerrymandering and why it happens, but it is at best a partial simulation missing some factors, and a political statement in the form of a game.

Re:The obvious solution.

[AndersOSU]

I am in fact familiar with the concept of money...

The point here is social inequality. Money may be a proximate factor for social inequality, but I find it unlikely to be the ultimate cause. Money has been around a long time, and throughout that time there have been wide swings in social inequality - it seems desirable to minimize inequality, while maximizing both average and total wealth.

There are other ways to keep those born rich from staying rich, besides your modest proposal, such as inheritance and progressive taxes. These things exist today for that very purpose, but somebody's going to call any type of tax unfair. I think we could stand to be a tad more progressive, making things a little easier for the poor and a little harder for the rich and the corporation, especially in these days of increasingly consolidated wealth, shrinking middle class, and growing poverty.

Before anyone calls me a pinko commie, I think that that the promise of personal wealth is the greatest part of capitalism. However, the grubby capitalistic hand needs to be slapped from time to time to keep it from harding everybody else's cookies. Besides, while money necessarily provides an advantage, there is no reason why that advantage should pay such high dividends to the rich due mainly to its interest bearing nature, and yield such low returns to the poor.

Real People

[Mark_MF-WN]

It does indeed take $100 to invest ... but in a savings account?! At 1% interest? That's less than inflation. That's the opposite of investment. That's losing money, in any realistic sense. But suppose someone DOES save that 1 cent you mentioned, does so every day, and invests it yearly in a savings account. In fifty years they'll have a staggering $23000 saved. That'll be some retirement.

I like how you use a teenager living at home as your example of financial success. Now consider this story: a single mom with two kids, who earns $1500 a month. She rents a two bedroom apartment for $1200, which is pretty cheap in the rental market hereabouts. A transit pass costs $65 (she needs to actually GET to work). That leaves her $235 a month to feed her family, buy clothes and shoes and whatnot for growing children, sundries, maybe a phone line so that she can actually take telephone calls from work letting her know when her shifts are.

But, by YOUR estimation, she's just a lazy idiot, and should try to do all of that on $135, and save $100 -- the teenager with no children and no bills can do it, so why can't she?!

One of my co-workers is in almost exactly this situation -- two kids, her husband is permanently disabled and in an institution, and she has no marketable skills. She's in the position where she has to squeeze every last penny just to make ends meet.

Attitude is everything. It's the cheapest thing that one can change that will have the biggest effect. The number one reason that employers hire new people to replace old people with bad attitudes is that the new people have healthy attitudes.

I know it makes you feel better about yourself to believe that those who don't come out ahead in life are just lazy or have bad attitudes. My co-worker that I mentioned? She is one of the sweetest, hardest working people I've ever meet. When I was training her, I couldn't get anything done myself because she insisted on doing EVERYTHING. She's just a really driven, positive, hard-working girl who will do anything to keep her family housed, clothed, and fed. Yet it's irrelevant -- she's stuck at the subsistence level, and will never be able to rise above it (or at least not for 20 years when her kids leave home and she finally has time to go back to school or something).

You can't invest a good attitude. In most cases, all it means is the difference between subsistence and death (we've had to fire more than a few people in similarly bad situations who just wouldn't do the job).

Seriously -- a teenager living at home with a job that his family got for him? What the hell kind of stupid example is that?! Why not focus on real families that are actually out there trying to make it -- people facing REAL challenges. You were homeless because you're a moron: morons constitute just a small minority of the homeless. Drug addicts constitute another small majority. It turns out that the majority of homeless people have serious neurological and psychiatric problems -- not "bad attitudes".

Hell, a hateful psycho like you probably thinks that my coworker's husband -- the one with such severe brain-damage from a stroke that he can't even take care of himself -- just has a bad attitude, and if he would try harder he'd be out there making money and getting rich.