Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Open Source Tool Lets Anyone Redistrict New York

Posted by timothy on from the move-staten-island-a-bit-closer-to-the-bronx dept.

First time accepted submitter Micah_Altman writes "As the next redistricting battle shapes up in New York, members of the public have an opportunity to create viable alternatives. Unlike the previously reported crowdsourced redistricting of Los Angeles, the public mapping of New York is based on open source software — anyone can use this to set up their own public web-based redistricting effort."

23 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Eliminate districts by Patrick+May · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Districting only serves to virtually guarantee safe seats for the incumbent parties. We need at large elections to increase the representation of minority views and weaken the established players.

    1. Re:Eliminate districts by sribe · · Score: 5, Informative

      Districting only serves to virtually guarantee safe seats for the incumbent parties. We need at large elections to increase the representation of minority views and weaken the established players.

      At-large elections eliminate representation of minority views, duh (consult a history book or two about the civil rights struggles of the 60s).

    2. Re:Eliminate districts by FooAtWFU · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And the incumbents / established players in charge of districting to begin with... they are going to cede their power and weaken themselves why exactly now?

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    3. Re:Eliminate districts by Patrick+May · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps you should spend some time looking into alternative voting systems before flaming on Slashdot. In an at large system with N representatives for M people, any candidate getting M/N votes will get a seat. That increases the chances of a minority view being heard. In a gerrymandered system, the incumbent parties can ensure that the minority view is spread out over every district, diluting it to insignificance.

    4. Re:Eliminate districts by thue · · Score: 4, Informative

      We have an at-large election system here in Denmark, as in much of continental Europe. This proportional representation gives each voter a vastly better opportunity to vote for the candidate which best represents him, instead of just having to vote for the lesser of two evils or throwing your vote away.

    5. Re:Eliminate districts by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Oh, please, the political situation in Europe isn't any better than it is in the US, you just have more illusion of variety due to the larger number of parties. When push comes to shove, you don't have any more variety than we do, it's just we have less party unity than you do.

      People keep repeating that logic and it's no more true now than it was decades back. The party affiliation means little to nothing when politicians aren't required to vote with their party. Some of the Democrats in our legislature are as conservative or more than the GOP pols are.

    6. Re:Eliminate districts by hedwards · · Score: 2

      The problem is that the majority party has to deliberately cede power to the minority party and the voters tend to want their candidates to run the show. It's just like taxes and spending cuts, most people are surprisingly fine with both as long as they hit other people. As soon as it's their taxes and their programs they're suddenly significantly less willing to allow it.

    7. Re:Eliminate districts by damiangerous · · Score: 2

      From time to time, new political views get wider attention in Europe. In the past it was the greens, now it's the pirates. And they get into parliaments.

      From time to time new political views get wider attention in the US. In the past it was the neocons, now it's the Tea Party. And they get into office.

      I've yet to see any such political party have any kind of success in the US.

      That's because our political parties contain a much wider spectrum of opinion than yours. Blue Dog Democrats have vastly different views than Progressive Democrats or the Christian Left, for example. Log Cabin Republicans have a different agenda than the Tea Party, Neocons or the Religious Right. These are just a few examples. In Europe these would all be different parties. In the US they are forced to form factions within a superparty.

    8. Re:Eliminate districts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      An optimal election looks like this: [...]

      lol, what a load of crap. maybe you should read about electoral systems before spouting off. here's a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

    9. Re:Eliminate districts by westlake · · Score: 2

      We have an at-large election system here in Denmark, as in much of continental Europe. This proportional representation gives each voter a vastly better opportunity to vote for the candidate which best represents him

      Demark has a population of about 5.5 million. 90% Danish. That is half the population of metro New York City and not remotely as ethnically and culturally diverse. Denmark

      Adovocates of proportional representation in the states tend to ignore domestic cultural and political realities..

      The American voter wants a clear decision.

      The amiable non-entites that are everyone's second and third choices do not interest him at all.

      Absent some national calamity, he will not stray far from the centrist or center-right candidate with which he is most comfortable.

    10. Re:Eliminate districts by chrb · · Score: 2

      Not true. The Nazis were a populist party and would have gained power anyway. Goering testified at his war crimes trial was that, under the British "first past the post" system (which apparently he was a fan of), the Nazis would have won *every seat* at the Reichstag in the 1932 national elections (based on 37.8% of the vote). In the 1938 Anschluss vote, Hitler apparently got the vote of 99.73% of the Austrian people.

      I don't know why it's such a surprise that people would vote for this; it is human instinct to back a powerful leader who advocates nationalist policies. The fundamental platform is one that still appeals to many: anti-immigration, a strong national identity, pride in the military, a productive and profitable industrial base, and full employment.

    11. Re:Eliminate districts by The+Conductor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I like to describe it like this: First-past-the-post forces coalition building into the political parties, whereas proportional elections have coalition-building in the legislature. Gerrymandering is like coding theory: The party in control of the districts can trade margin of victory (bit error rate) for number of seats (data rate), but if you design for a large number of seats (high data rate) a small decline in popular support (signal-to-noise ratio) will cause a large number of seats to flip (catastrophic rise in bit error rate).

  2. A novel concept ... by fsckmnky · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Solve the problem once, and not more than once.

    Standardize on a re-districting algorithm, and use it.

    Social Securities funds wouldn't be in the toilet, if someone just hit re-calc once a year, on the spreadsheet that contained formulas that accounted for the dynamic nature of the population. Instead, we get to argue over static numbers until the sun explodes.

    Dumb.

    1. Re:A novel concept ... by scamper_22 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That never works because by in large people are not willing to pay for the costs of all the programs they like.

      Bill Clinton tried to do that with Medicare. Payouts were tied to funding... automatic cuts were supposed to be made. And of course the medical associations and lobbyists made a fuss.. the cuts are postponed...

      It would be the same with social security. If the plans calls for automatic increases in contributions, people will make a fuss. If it calls for cuts in benefits.. people will make a fuss... and the government will cave.

      You can see this in action. Sweden for example is known to have one of the best 'formula' based pension systems...taking into account the economy, age, expected life span... All was wonderful of course when nothing bad was demanded by the formula. When the economic downturn occurred and it demanded pension cuts for the elderly... the government caved. it compensated for the loss of pension income with tax cuts for the elderly to make up the difference. So basically, even the swedes were unable to follow the formula when it came to take the bad side of the formula.

      If things are not politically possible, they're not possible. Not recognizing that... is even dumber.

    2. Re:A novel concept ... by Nimey · · Score: 2

      The budget supercommitte is bipartisan. That's /not/ a guaranteed recipe for success.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    3. Re:A novel concept ... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      You gave examples of how formulas for very complex and dynamic specific budgets failed to model them to the satisfaction of the people.

      The redistricting problem is one that a formula can model well, if it's parametrized to include the voting of the people. Just as the Constitution is a set of rules that's highly parameterized by voting (at multiple levels, in multiple cycles) to select the actual implementation, and even the judging after accusations a person has broken a law.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  3. Let them eat cake by sgt+scrub · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Shouldn't it be 3d? That way they can draw lines so people living on top floors can vote and the people on the ground floor can eat cake.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  4. Ooh, I want One! by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since we're redistricting this year anyway, I want my own one-house district! A representative will have to work hard to gain all the votes in Brucistan, but it will be well worth making the effort!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  5. Not really useful? by el_flynn · · Score: 4, Informative

    The tool just teaches you how to redistrict - but has absolutely no real-life outcome. "It's full of smoke-filled back room dealmaking by political insiders with little public input" - highly doubtful that this will ever change.

    It's like watching Man vs Wild.

    --
    The Wknd Sessions - Malaysian and South East Asia independent music
    1. Re:Not really useful? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      The redistricting that state politicians actually enact comes from the people who have access to those politicians. The people with access have tools to create and analyze the districting that serves them best.

      Until now, the public hasn't had a tool like that, so the people with access have all the advantages. Those people still have their access advantage, but that's partly because most people never have anything worthwhile to say to the politicians, certainly not in a form that politicians can understand. But with this tool lots of people can compose and present an argument, in terms both they and their representatives understand.

      A tool like this can't solve problems on its own. But it does help in rebalancing the advantages enjoyed by the better funded, more exclusively focused, and hence better organized people who have the access. It can motivate other people to insist on access, or better use the limited access they already have.

      And the more a tool like this makes districting better represent the people in general, the more access the people in general will get. Of course much more has to change, but change has to start somewhere, even if somewhere that cannot complete the change.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  6. You missed his point by pavon · · Score: 5, Informative

    But it comes down to the people. Like it or not - Bitch all you want but the fact of the matter is that our elected officials reflect the people. Our politicians act the way they do because that's how they get elected. period.

    No they don't. This is demonstrated fact.

    Say the House in your state allows 100 representatives. The current system of choosing these 100 representative is to slice up the state into 100 districts, each of which chooses a single representative in a winner take all election. Suppose the Green party has a 10% support of voters across the state. Unless enough of them live in a single district such that they represent more than 50% of the vote in that district, they will not get a single representative.

    Even among the major parties, if you have a Democratic leaning state with 60% of the population voting democrat, you will find that more than 60% of the representatives are Democrats because of the same effect. Our current system of voting only represents geographic diversity, not diversity within a region.

    Apart from starting a huge hippy commune, the supporters of the Green party will never get the representation they deserve. Even then, chances are that the incumbents will simply change the boundaries of the district that the commune is in to include enough people from neighboring communities to ensure that the Greens don't get enough votes. Likewise for the Libertarians, who have had very limited success thus far with their Free State initiative.

    On the other hand, if you had a proportional election across the entire state this wouldn't be a problem. That has the downside that individual politicians get lost in the sea of the party. Alternately, if you did away with voting districts, and just had each county elect a handful of representatives*, then you will still be voting for individuals, but would give much greater chance for third parties and result in a House that is more representative of the views of the people.

    * In the case where the counties are huge (which is a problem in itself), still have districting, but make the districts 3-4 times larger than they currently are and elect 3-4 times the number of representatives per district.

  7. Maybe they got the idea from GTA IV? by zoom-ping · · Score: 2

    Is it like Civil Service game advertized in GTA IV radio?

  8. Get the Source Code by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

    It's not obvious from the link to the blog how to get the source code. But you can get it, and read how to set it up either on your own server or the Amazon hosting the project seems to prefer. The source is hosted at github, though there's a required R stats package hosted at sourceforge.

    --

    --
    make install -not war