Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
More Twoson than Cupertino
... It's called Qix!
I don't respond to AC's.
...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?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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
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."
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
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.
Here's one link
and here's another.
Of course, some people would say that gerrymandering is a cheat code as well.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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.
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
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).