Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Redistricting 2.0: Cloud Lets Voters Take Part

Posted by samzenpus on from the participate-in-your-own-manipulation dept.

CWmike writes "As the 2010 U.S. census results arrived, Los Angeles County's politicians started ramping up for redistricting — the once-a-decade, computing-intensive, often contentious process of geographically carving up the populace into discrete parcels of voters. In the past, such decisions were made by politicians using expensive computer systems and software. Participation in the process was limited to an elite few who could afford experts who understood redistricting's arcane rules and GIS technology well enough to game them. This year, however, it won't just be the politicians and special interest groups poring over the data and tweaking boundary lines. All 4.5 million registered voters in LA County have access to a cloud-based redistricting application called the Public Access Plan that lets voters view and modify existing maps and boundaries, submit comments, and even create and submit their own plans from scratch. LA County is among the first government entities to consider providing Web-based tools that allow for direct public participation. 'This notion of public access has changed quite dramatically,' says Tim Storey, a senior fellow at the National Conference of State Legislatures. 'Throwing that wide open is a big step.' The big question now is whether the public will use it."

13 of 83 comments (clear)

  1. The cloud doesn't let voters do anything.. by intellitech · · Score: 2

    Redistricting 2.0: Cloud Lets Voters Take Part

    The "cloud" is not a mechanism, it doesn't enable the voters to do anything. The term you're looking for is called Crowdsourcing.

    --
    vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
    1. Re:The cloud doesn't let voters do anything.. by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 2

      Is there an "Optimize Gerrymandering" button on that service?

    2. Re:The cloud doesn't let voters do anything.. by causality · · Score: 2

      If they can't simply do a popular vote, then at least use a fixed boundary like county lines.

      County lines don't work. Counties have different populations, some incredibly different (one county with a metropolis may be 5x the population of a neighboring mostly rural county). Constitutionally, districts must be as evenly populated as possible for Congressional representation.

      What would make some level of sense is eliminating the anachronistic Senate, which used to be elected indirectly but has basically turned into a secondary squabbling house after the change to "direct election" of those assholes, and replacing it with a parliamentary percentage-representative system (say, each political party gets 1 Senator for each 1% of the vote they earn). The added bonus is that it would give an incentive for smaller parties to exist and participate again. ...which is precisely why the dumbicrats and republicunts won't go for it, since it would loosen their corrupt grips on power.

      I'd be happy with a repeal of the 17th Amendment. The Senators being appointed by the state legislatures and sent to Washington to represent the states is a GOOD THING. It's what would prevent the federal government from bullying the states as it does today. Right now the current practice is easy to observe: the federal government collects taxes from the residents of a state; if the state plays ball and adopts policies that please Washington, the states get some of their own money back; the states are then beholden to the federal government (undermining their check against its tyranny) because their budgets become dependent (addicted) on this money. It's an attack on federalism and, to knowingly use a loaded word, extremely un-American.

      The House of course should still be elected by popular vote. Remember that the House and Senate have to both agree on a bill for it to become law. That's the proper balance between popular representation and governance by legislators who do not feel pressured to wet their finger and go with whichever way the winds blow, abandoning all semblance of principle and philosophy of government.

      That and abandoning the district system entirely and adopting (on the state level) the Single Transferrable Vote would go a long way towards fixing this nation. No one but the politicians benefit from the current system. The Single Transferrable Vote has the nice side-effect of giving third parties a much more realistic chance of winning elections. I never understood how people universally recognize why a duopoly in the marketplace, when it's all about money alone, is a bad thing; yet they universally fail to understand why a duopoly with a stranglehold on politics, when it's about both money and power, is also a bad thing. In both scenarios the customers and the voters lose.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    3. Re:The cloud doesn't let voters do anything.. by Dragonslicer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (where some states are virtually ignored, and others like CALIFORNIA are flooded by campaigning)

      At least California represents a significant portion of the country's population and economy. The more disturbing fact is how important New Hampshire and Iowa are.

    4. Re:The cloud doesn't let voters do anything.. by causality · · Score: 2

      I never understood how people universally recognize why a duopoly in the marketplace, when it's all about money alone, is a bad thing; yet they universally fail to understand why a duopoly with a stranglehold on politics, when it's about both money and power, is also a bad thing. In both scenarios the customers and the voters lose.

      Simple: for 80-90% of the "elected representatives", those who aren't quickly replaced or in non-safe districts, they are the aristocracy. They are the ones in control. Why would they support a system that is highly likely to remove them from power?

      I don't believe you appreciate where I was going with that.

      Yes, I am aware not only of the aristocracy but also of its favorite tools of manipulation. Whereas the kings of old would use their thugs to physically intimidate the peasants to keep them in line, the masters of today are far more sophisticated. They use the media and the public schools to keep people stupid, foster anti-intellectualism, portray mental and spriitual and particularly emotional immaturity as normal and acceptable, freedom as scary, love as either unrealistic or unattainable or limited only to a select few you happen to like, conflict as inevitable and unpredictable, trauma and humiliation as a normal part of growing up, privacy as illegitimate, meaning and purpose as elusive, independence as questionable and selfish, and subservience as patriotic.

      I don't give a shit if those things are controversial. They're also the truth. Point is, I realize all of that.

      My comment was on the effectiveness of the conditioning. It's the inability to apply principle, requiring that each specific instance of the same principle be taught in isolation as though totally unconnected to the others. That's why they love rote memorization and whole-word literacy. That's why the school system can instruct people that a monopoly or a duopoly in the marketplace is a Bad Thing. That's why those same people cannot apply the concept to what happens when a monopoly or duopoly dominates a political system. Their ability to think independently, to use reason, to apply principle, to connect ideas has been either destroyed or severely crippled.

      Most of all, that's why we spend so much time bickering and squabbling against each other. That's why we spend what free time is left on useless concerns like celebrities and professional athletes, nice tame neutered things that can't affect the power structure no matter how they turn out. It's also why being a shallow, loud-mouthed, egotistical braggart who must be the center of attention has become an unstated American ideal. People respond to it because it reinforces the false idea that there is no more personal growth to do, that they are fine as they are, that their suffering is simply the nature of existence and not the predictable result of the decisions which are made and who gets to make them.

      The horrible thing is: the worse it gets, the more entrenched it becomes, the more of a shock it is to wake up and realize how much you're being lied to and manipulated every day. It's the primary "barrier to entry" to those who otherwise have the capacity to become self-aware.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  2. Crowdmandering or gerrysourcing? by deprecated · · Score: 5, Funny

    Crowdmandering or gerrysourcing?

  3. Take a cue from Iowa by straponego · · Score: 2

    I can't believe I'm praising Iowa politics, but here goes: Iowa uses a simple grid and a computer to determine the maps. It's not perfect (the legislature can vote up/down on changes), but it's more fair than any other state. Also, we should get rid of the two-party system and use preference voting...

    1. Re:Take a cue from Iowa by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      The district loses its "squareness" and follows the local streets/neighborhoods.

      No, they follow neighborhoods, generally neighborhoods carefully chosen by the party in power to ensure that said party will be reelected for the foreseeable future. Imagine a city with 50/50 republicans and democrats, where 50% of the democrats live in one neighborhood but the republicans are evenly spread. The democrats take one district handidly, but lose every other district by a considerable margin. A city that is politically an even split suddenly has a city council that is made up of 19 republicans and 1 democrat.

    2. Re:Take a cue from Iowa by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2

      Iowa uses a simple grid...

      How could that be possible? That would only work in states that are flat and utterly devoid of interesting geographical details... Oh, yeah. Uh, never mind...

      --
      That is all.
    3. Re:Take a cue from Iowa by telso · · Score: 2

      The new map is here (PDF). It was adopted by 90-7 and 48-1 votes in both chambers on April 14, signed by the governor five days later. The population variance is 0.0005%, which is so small I almost don't believe it. (More details here.)

      And the guidelines are here, summarized in the redistricting commission report:

      1. Districts shall be established on the basis of population and shall each have a population as nearly equal as practicable to the ideal population.
      2. For Congressional districts, each district shall be composed of whole counties. For Legislative districts, the number of counties and cities divided into more than one district shall be as small as possible.
      3. Districts shall be composed of convenient contiguous territory.
      4. Districts shall be reasonably compact in form, to the extent consistent with the first three standards. In general, reasonably compact districts are those which are square, rectangular, or hexagonal in shape, and not irregularly shaped, to the extent permitted by natural or political boundaries.
      5. A district shall not be drawn for the purpose of favoring a political party, incumbent legislator or member of Congress, political party, or other person or group.
      6. Each state representative district shall be wholly included within a single state senatorial district. To the extent possible and consistent with the first five standards, each Senate and House district shall be wholly included within a single Congressional district.
      7. A new districting plan shall not be used prior to the primary election of 2012.
      8. Each bill embodying a plan shall include provisions for election of senators to the general assemblies which take office in 2013 and 2015, which shall be in conformity with Article Ill, section 6, of the Constitution of the State of Iowa.

      Lastly, note the following from the same report: "[N]o political or demographic information other than total population is taken into consideration when creating proposed redistricting plans."

  4. For non-US readers by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you're not familiar with the US system of districting, how it works is that an area, like the state of New York gets a number of representatives (29 in NY's case) based on its population. The geography of the state is then split up into 29 regions and each region gets to choose its own representative. After the once-a-decade census, like we just had in 2010, states often will redistrict, which means that they pick the boundaries of those 29 regions. For the political parties involved, they want to draw the district boundaries such that they end up with a majority of citizens who will vote for their party in each district. They use voter registration records and census records to do so. The census records, while they don't include political party preference, do include race, age, family size, and income, all of which are good indicators of how someone will vote. As a result, redistricting is usually contentious, and often abused process.

    I know that this probably isn't a complete or 100% accurate description of the process; feel free to correct me if I made any mistakes.

    1. Re:For non-US readers by Moridineas · · Score: 2

      Mostly dead on, a couple changes/additions.

      1) You're talking about United States House of Representatives seats. Each House district nationwide is supposed to have roughly the same number of people in it. So that CA-5 and NC-1 and LA-2 should represent roughly the same number of people. I believe currently districts are supposed to be about 600k people.

      2) These districts have to be redistricted every 10 years (a few states only have 1 district, making it easy)

      3) Then many states also have state districts. That is, my state has both a State House and a State Senate. Thus state legislative districts have to be drawn as well, and do not have to coincide at all with the US House districts.

      4) In some states the legislature draws the lines. In some a non-partisan panel draws the lines. In some the legislature draws the line but the governor also has to approve. Some states (Florida pops to mind) have adopted rules that districts should--so far as possible--make sense geographically, so you don't get the absolute partisan monstrosities you find in states like North Carolina or Illinois (and many other places--those two are particularly egregious looking).

      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=NC -- check out NC-12
      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=IL -- check out IL-17

      5) Finally, a large number of southern states are still be punished for civil rights abuses, and face extra scrutiny and rules when drafting districts. Rules that, for instance, require districts that are majority minority (primarily meaning majority black, increasingly majority hispanic).

  5. Just say no by magarity · · Score: 2

    I always decline to list a party affiliation on the voter registration form to avoid being a pawn in the gerrymandering process. It's pretty bad in Colorado this year.