Tweaking The Math Behind Political Representation

mlimber writes "Nature magazine's news section has an interesting story about how the seats in the US House of Representatives should be divided up. The problem is that the population isn't evenly divided by the number of seats in the House (435). So how should one allocate the fractional parts? The current method tends to favor big states, while a recent proposal by a mathematician is for what he calls a 'minimally unfair' allotment. He is predicting 'one person, one vote' challenges on this topic in the near future."

Comments

eh...

[Richard.g.k]

Is there anything new in this article? people have been complaining about congress seat inequality forever...

They've finally found it!

[wpegden]

Once they get this little pesky problem fixed, our government will be awesome!

Re:They've finally found it!

[pilgrim23]

"Yes, its just that one thing" - Dogbert

Edelman method = Non starter

[Naughty Bob]

From TFA-

The method ... doesn't necessarily come up with unique solutions -- there could be many ways to achieve equal 'unfairness'.

So basically, any re-jigging using this method will arbitrarily (or otherwise) favor one state over another, with no rationale. Additionally, it would likely mire the US electoral process in endless legal challenges. And we can't have that! (waka waka waka)

Correction

[sharp-bang]

The current method doesn't favor big states. FTA, "the current method has an inherent bias towards giving small states a boost up".

Re:Correction

[taniwha]

yup - somewhere like Wyoming with a population of 1/453 already gets more representation per person than someone in California (it has about 2/3 or 1/453 of the US population)

Re:Correction

[DragonWriter]

The constitution says with the exception of the original 13 colonies, that there will be one representative for thirty thousand people and that each state will have at least one representative.

No, it doesn't. It says that (except for the period prior to the first Census, for which it spells out exact by-state representation) each state will have a number of representatives assigned in proportion to population based on a census count, except that each state will have at least one representative. It further states that the total number of representatives shall not be greater than 1 for every 30,000 people (that's not that the number will be 1/30,000: if that was the rule, the House would have, based on the 2000 census, 9,381 members — which would certainly reduce the voting-power impact of rounding problems from fractional seats.)

Fixing the wrong problem

[jfengel]

The article starts by noting that California dominates the House of Representatives, but this doesn't really change that fact. Tweaking a seat up or down does change things a bit, especially where the electoral college is concerned, but the real problem is gerrymandering. Seats end up being permanently allocated to one party or another, with the incumbent enjoying an immense advantage.

If you want to fix a problem, come up with a better algorithm for drawing district boundaries. Right now the party in charge DOES use an algorithm, one designed to create the pessimal boundaries that ensure its maximum advantage.

Of course, there are many such algorithms, and no matter how fair they are the legislature would vote to choose whichever one favors them best.

Solving the wrong problem

[Geoffrey.landis]

Of all the problems in the US electoral system, this is undoubtably the least important.

A vastly more critical glitch is that it is possible to draw congressional boundaries in such a way as to increase the influence of demographics tending toward electing one party and decrease the influence of the demographics tending toward the other, and the people who have the power to redraw districts barely even bother to hide the fact that they're doing so anymore. Solving that glitch with a means to draw boundaries that is guaranteed to be impartial, so that the elected representatives actually did reflect the preferences of the people electing them-- now that would be a serious improvement to democracy.

Re:Solving the wrong problem

[jsprat]

(...) they would by definition be reflecting the people who voted for them.

Not necessarily. Gerrymandering is the art of changing the boundaries to gain an advantage. In a simple way, this image shows an even distribution redivided to give one party the advantage.

Re:Solving the wrong problem

[CrimsonAvenger]

It doesn't matter if Gerrymandering has taken place or not. If there are enough votes to elect someone then they are reflective of their voting populous.

Not quite. Consider the possibility of a state that is 55% Republican, 45% Democrat, with 20 Representatives. Ideally, any districting should elect about 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats.

It is a relatively trivial exercise, however, to divide the districts up so that 20 Republicans and 0 Democrats are elected.

And it's not even especially hard to divide them up so that 3 Republicans and 17 Democrats are elected.

While it is true that each of those districts is reflective of the voting population, alas, it's not necessarily true that the results at the State level are reflective of their voting populations.

Re:Solving the wrong problem

[Taevin]

Do you seriously not get it, or are you deliberately trying to be obtuse? Of course the people who get elected got more votes, gerrymandering doesn't change the basic electoral system. What it does do is allow politicians to run virtually uncontested in a gerrymandered district. Since you completely ignored the rather obvious example of how this works provided by jsprat (in pictorial form, even!), I'll attempt to explain it again. In the original image, the two parties, green and magenta, are equally distributed in terms of voters (the dots). This would let to some very close elections, ranging from 4 green representatives to 4 magenta and everything in between (we'll say it evens out to 2 and 2). Now look at the gerrymandered example. There are now 3 representatives elected from the magenta party with no contest. See the problem?

If for some reason an elegantly simple example, such as the one in the Wikipedia article, is not sufficient, how about some real world examples? Some of these districts are downright ludicrous. Are you seriously trying to tell me these district lines were drawn in an effort to create fair and unbiased voting districts?

One person, One vote only IN your state

[micahfk]

Of course, what the article fails to mention is that your vote is only worth so much depending on what state you live in. Remember, in the US, we elect through the electoral college which generally means (technically, the electors do not have to vote by what the people vote with an exception of a few states) your vote is counted within the state and not within the nation. So, how much is your vote worth? At the extreme ends, Wyoming, which has the least number of people for a state gets 3 electoral votes for about 500,000 people (0.0006%), whereas California has 55 for 38 million people (0.00001%).

Therefore, for every 1 vote for a Republican in Wyoming, 60 votes for a Democrat in California are needed to cancel each other out. And this mathematician wants to make it more "fair" by giving more votes to smaller states?

Re:One person, One vote only IN your state

[joggle]

Ummm, I only see one representative listed for Wyoming on the official US House of Representatives website. The guy wasn't suggesting adding representatives to Wyoming, but to Montana and some other states. Montana had a population of 902,195 in the 2000 census and 1 representative. That works out to a voting power of 0.00011% per person in Montana. California had a population of 33,871,648 and has 53 representatives (0.000156% per person).

His model wasn't trying to be fair, just less unfair. To be fair Wyoming would either need a fractional vote or the size of the House would have to be increased until each person in the house represented about 500,000 people. Since this isn't possible from his model's point of view he does the next best thing (removing votes from large states that have fewer people per representative to smaller states that currently have more people per representative).

With that said, I agree that small states don't need more representation in the House. They are more than adequately compensated by having 2 votes in the Senate. To put in perspective how powerful that is, imagine that even if San Francisco had 2 senators the Wyoming senators would still be representing fewer people. San Francisco has a population of about 750,000 (4th largest in California) vs. the population of 500,000 for the entire state of Wyoming.

Re:One person, One vote only IN your state

[quizzicus]

Wrong. Electoral votes are allocated by the number of Representatives plus the number of Senators (DC gets three when we pretend it has representation). Thus, the number of representatives in a state directly influences the number of electoral votes it gets.

Re:One person, One vote only IN your state

[alan_dershowitz]

Everything you say is true, but is not relevant to his definition of fairness. The Electoral College is not meant to be proportional to the population while the House of Representatives is. He's trying to make a system that was MEANT to be proportional more accurate, while you are arguing for a conceptual change to the system. His definition of "fair" is more procedural ("if it's supposed to be proportional, is it?") than yours, which is essentially political ("One Person One Vote is a better system than the Electoral College.") Not to say you aren't right, but he's a mathematician and not a politician so he's studying the former and not the latter.

Re:One person, One vote only IN your state

[FroBugg]

The parent was talking about the Electoral College, not the House of Representatives. The numbers are not the same, as every state has at least 3 Electors, even Wyoming.

some of us have no representation

[Presto Vivace]

Did he mention Washington, DC in his mathematical formula?

The REAL problem

[jameskojiro]

Is gerry Mandering, we need a good mathematical formula for detirmining the SHAPE of the districts not who gets what.

1. Divide each state into a grid of 1 mile by 1 mile "chunks"

2. Find the population of each "chunk" using census data.

3. Start in the Northern-West corner and start adding blocks to the district moving west to east and dropping down one row and changing direction each time you drop down.

"Drop down, change direction and increase speed" Lurr from Anthology on Interest 2: Futurama

4. When your population count hits what 1 representative can represent, start a new district.

5. Repeat

6. ????

7. Profit from special interest kickbacks and pork barrel spending.

Third House

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we should add a third house, composed of a random sample of people across the entire country. The term is three months, and the only way to come back to the seat is to be (miraculously) drawn again. The job would be to listen to time-limited debates (without involving themselves in the debate), and brainstorming a set of questions they would like answered for the second round of the debate.

At the end, every law needs a majority vote in this new house in order to pass. Constitutional amendments require a 2/3rds or 3/4ths vote in order to pass.

If you can't convince a random sample (including people of all national origins, races, religions, sexual orientations, etc.) that a law is a good idea, it simply doesn't pass. The limited term and not being directly involved in the debate (only listening and then X rounds of questions) means that politics and political shenanigans are reduced to a minimum.

We also give this house the ability to override Presidental veto and Presdiential pardon/commutation. If 2/3rds of this house (alone) agrees that the President should not have vetoed a law or pardoned someone, then the President's action is null and void (i.e.: law passes, or person still goes to jail for obstruction of justice)

What do you think?

Re:I kind of like the original Constitutional idea

[thrillseeker]

I'd be willing to bet that a house of representatives with 10,000 people would never even manage to fund the government, let alone get any other business done.

Perfect!

Re:I kind of like the original Constitutional idea

[Archangel Michael]

Why is this modded funny? It is actually insightful.

What is the largest number a person can adequately represent? I actually believe that 30K might be on the high side of that estimation. Right now, a Representative in the House isn't beholden to anyone other than the special interest groups. The Special Interest Groups only need to focus on 435 people currently. If they had to spread their $ around to more people, the amount they could offer each would be much less and more easily overcome by a small band of normal constituents.

I actuall see no problem with more representation, currently we're getting less and less. You tell me, do you feel adequately represented by anyone, let alone by your congress critter?

17th amendment

[ChristTrekker]

What is the largest number a person can adequately represent? I actually believe that 30K might be on the high side of that estimation.

Very insightful! I've been saying this for a long time now. When the 17th Amendment was ratified, populists thought that direct election of US Senators would be a great move for democracy! Instead, they shot themselves in the foot. Do you really think your Senator cares a fig about your opinion? You're one among millions. Back when s/he was accountable to the state's legislature though, you can be darn sure he paid attention to their few dozen opinions. Losing the support of any one legislator was significant.

Making Senators into super-Representatives was just silly. The House has a 2-year term because the electorate is fickle. Senators have a 6-year term because (in theory) your legislators are wise enough to make more thoughtful decisions. If we trust them enough to make laws for the state, can't we trust them enough to select Senators? But no, now we are stuck with our fickle decisions for 6 whole years - and 6 years after they make dumb decisions they can be sure we've forgotten about them, so they are even less accountable than ever!

Increase the House membership to 1000, and repeal the 17th Amendment. Those are the two best things we could do to "fix" the Congress in a relatively easy manner.

bullcrap

[enos]

That's just an excuse to keep the current system in place.

My high school government teacher had a brilliant exercise for us: he gave us a map of Indiana with info on how each county voted (i.e. Democrat/Republican, to keep it simple). Then he assigned every student a party and everyone could draw districts such that their party would win ALL 10 seats.

The idea is to divide and conquer. By splitting up the opposing party's strong areas and absorbing pieces of them into your party's areas, you could essentially neutralize them.

The take home lesson is that whichever party is in power when the census is completed and redistricting happens is at a big advantage and they DO use it.
So sure, technically the representative is elected by the people in their district, but that district is no longer cohesive and is totally arbitrary (where arbitrary = convenient for the party that drew it).