Another setback for the Right Wing and the GOP

[Tigers!]

Why not base the the electorates solely upon population i.e make each electorate have a base of N persons +/- M%?

The question is how to divide them up.

You need good demographic data.
In your chosen state you need to find the demographic centre. Hopefully down to at least a street or city blocks. This will be in the area of greatest population density. Note that is the number of people not voters.
Starting at that point you draw an area that encompasses N persons +/- M%. Follow streets, road, rivers etc. i.e. clearly visible boundaries. Then continue outwards from that first area aiming for N persons +/- M%. As the population density decreases the area of the electorate, division, district will increase. Continue until you reach the boundaries of your state.
The values of N, M will need to be massaged to suit. This is where computers will be most useful.
The boundaries should be reviewed to take account of shifting densities, population movements very regularly. In Australia after every state or commonwealth election the boundaries are reviewed. The minimum review would be at your census. You would expect that there would some changes at every review. Electorates will be added, decreased, boundaries shifted etc.
As an example I worked at the division called Gellibrand at our recent commonwealth election (2 weeks ago). This is the 3rd election I have worked in the same polling station in 2013, 2016, 2019. In 2013 the station was in the division called Lalor and the boundary was about 300m to the east. In 2016 the station was a dual division for Lalor/Gellibrand as the boundary was 2 streets away to the west. This election the station was in Gellibrand and the boundary was about 500m away to the west.
In 8 years the divisional western boundary moved about 800m. This was due to massive housing estates to the SW being built. Yet the number of electors has remained the same. The boundaries are changed to reflect the shifting population density. The division is actually moving westward.

Our review does not take in account how an area voted at previous elections. It is based solely upon population changes.
We have totally independent commissions at both state and commonwealth that are responsible to their parliaments, not the government of the day. Parties, parliament, voters etc can query the proposed new boundaries before they are promulgated.

The first cut is also the hardest. Once the rhythm is established it becomes simpler(?)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why not base the the electorates solely upon population i.e make each electorate have a base of N persons +/- M%?

The question is how to divide them up.

You need good demographic data.
In your chosen state you need to find the demographic centre. Hopefully down to at least a street or city blocks. This will be in the area of greatest population density. Note that is the number of people not voters.
Starting at that point you draw an area that encompasses N persons +/- M%. Follow streets, road, rivers etc. i.e. clearly visible boundaries. Then continue outwards from that first area aiming for N persons +/- M%. As the population density decreases the area of the electorate, division, district will increase. Continue until you reach the boundaries of your state.
The values of N, M will need to be massaged to suit. This is where computers will be most useful.
The boundaries should be reviewed to take account of shifting densities, population movements very regularly. In Australia after every state or commonwealth election the boundaries are reviewed. The minimum review would be at your census. You would expect that there would some changes at every review. Electorates will be added, decreased, boundaries shifted etc.
As an example I worked at the division called Gellibrand at our recent commonwealth election (2 weeks ago). This is the 3rd election I have worked in the same polling station in 2013, 2016, 2019. In 2013 the station was in the division called Lalor and the boundary was about 300m to the east. In 2016 the station was a dual division for Lalor/Gellibrand as the boundary was 2 streets away to the west. This election the station was in Gellibrand and the boundary was about 500m away to the west.
In 8 years the divisional western boundary moved about 800m. This was due to massive housing estates to the SW being built. Yet the number of electors has remained the same. The boundaries are changed to reflect the shifting population density. The division is actually moving westward.

Our review does not take in account how an area voted at previous elections. It is based solely upon population changes.
We have totally independent commissions at both state and commonwealth that are responsible to their parliaments, not the government of the day. Parties, parliament, voters etc can query the proposed new boundaries before they are promulgated.

The first cut is also the hardest. Once the rhythm is established it becomes simpler(?)

I don't see how this picks the points to use as the center for the districts and you also have the problem that you could easily end up with a low density district completely surrounding a high density district.

And the problem with an independent commission is how do you select truly independent members?

 

[Tigers!]

You need good demographic data.
In your chosen state you need to find the demographic centre. Hopefully down to at least a street or city blocks. This will be in the area of greatest population density. Note that is the number of people not voters.
Starting at that point you draw an area that encompasses N persons +/- M%. Follow streets, road, rivers etc. i.e. clearly visible boundaries. Then continue outwards from that first area aiming for N persons +/- M%. As the population density decreases the area of the electorate, division, district will increase. Continue until you reach the boundaries of your state.
The values of N, M will need to be massaged to suit. This is where computers will be most useful.
The boundaries should be reviewed to take account of shifting densities, population movements very regularly. In Australia after every state or commonwealth election the boundaries are reviewed. The minimum review would be at your census. You would expect that there would some changes at every review. Electorates will be added, decreased, boundaries shifted etc.
As an example I worked at the division called Gellibrand at our recent commonwealth election (2 weeks ago). This is the 3rd election I have worked in the same polling station in 2013, 2016, 2019. In 2013 the station was in the division called Lalor and the boundary was about 300m to the east. In 2016 the station was a dual division for Lalor/Gellibrand as the boundary was 2 streets away to the west. This election the station was in Gellibrand and the boundary was about 500m away to the west.
In 8 years the divisional western boundary moved about 800m. This was due to massive housing estates to the SW being built. Yet the number of electors has remained the same. The boundaries are changed to reflect the shifting population density. The division is actually moving westward.

Our review does not take in account how an area voted at previous elections. It is based solely upon population changes.
We have totally independent commissions at both state and commonwealth that are responsible to their parliaments, not the government of the day. Parties, parliament, voters etc can query the proposed new boundaries before they are promulgated.

The first cut is also the hardest. Once the rhythm is established it becomes simpler(?)

I don't see how this picks the points to use as the center for the districts and you also have the problem that you could easily end up with a low density district completely surrounding a high density district.

And the problem with an independent commission is how do you select truly independent members?

Density is not the criterion. Number of people per district is the criterion.

We have had independent commissions for 100 years. What are you doing wrong?

 

[Patooka]

And the problem with an independent commission is how do you select truly independent members?

This is a fucking stupid argument. "We can't have a truly impartial commission so let's have the most corrupt system of gerrymandering possible". Do you cut your nails? Why bother as they only grow back. Why do you bother posting anything, as you have no chance of convincing absolutely everyone of your argument?

 

[Worldtraveller]

Turns out the GOP was pretty open about their reasons for gerrymandering:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...e-surprises-in-Thomas-B-Hofeller-s-hard-drive

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You need good demographic data.
In your chosen state you need to find the demographic centre. Hopefully down to at least a street or city blocks. This will be in the area of greatest population density. Note that is the number of people not voters.
Starting at that point you draw an area that encompasses N persons +/- M%. Follow streets, road, rivers etc. i.e. clearly visible boundaries. Then continue outwards from that first area aiming for N persons +/- M%. As the population density decreases the area of the electorate, division, district will increase. Continue until you reach the boundaries of your state.
The values of N, M will need to be massaged to suit. This is where computers will be most useful.
The boundaries should be reviewed to take account of shifting densities, population movements very regularly. In Australia after every state or commonwealth election the boundaries are reviewed. The minimum review would be at your census. You would expect that there would some changes at every review. Electorates will be added, decreased, boundaries shifted etc.
As an example I worked at the division called Gellibrand at our recent commonwealth election (2 weeks ago). This is the 3rd election I have worked in the same polling station in 2013, 2016, 2019. In 2013 the station was in the division called Lalor and the boundary was about 300m to the east. In 2016 the station was a dual division for Lalor/Gellibrand as the boundary was 2 streets away to the west. This election the station was in Gellibrand and the boundary was about 500m away to the west.
In 8 years the divisional western boundary moved about 800m. This was due to massive housing estates to the SW being built. Yet the number of electors has remained the same. The boundaries are changed to reflect the shifting population density. The division is actually moving westward.

Our review does not take in account how an area voted at previous elections. It is based solely upon population changes.
We have totally independent commissions at both state and commonwealth that are responsible to their parliaments, not the government of the day. Parties, parliament, voters etc can query the proposed new boundaries before they are promulgated.

The first cut is also the hardest. Once the rhythm is established it becomes simpler(?)

I don't see how this picks the points to use as the center for the districts and you also have the problem that you could easily end up with a low density district completely surrounding a high density district.

And the problem with an independent commission is how do you select truly independent members?

Density is not the criterion. Number of people per district is the criterion.

You missed my point. District #1 is in a high density area (say, a city core) and district B is nearby but in a low density area. If you simply grow them you'll fill up district #1 on the dense area and end up with B wrapping around it.

We have had independent commissions for 100 years. What are you doing wrong?

And how do you keep an independent commission from being subverted?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And the problem with an independent commission is how do you select truly independent members?

This is a fucking stupid argument. "We can't have a truly impartial commission so let's have the most corrupt system of gerrymandering possible". Do you cut your nails? Why bother as they only grow back. Why do you bother posting anything, as you have no chance of convincing absolutely everyone of your argument?

No. I'm saying that since you can't have a truly impartial commission the answer is to do it by formula instead.

 

[Patooka]

And the problem with an independent commission is how do you select truly independent members?

This is a fucking stupid argument. "We can't have a truly impartial commission so let's have the most corrupt system of gerrymandering possible". Do you cut your nails? Why bother as they only grow back. Why do you bother posting anything, as you have no chance of convincing absolutely everyone of your argument?

No. I'm saying that since you can't have a truly impartial commission the answer is to do it by formula instead.

You can't trust the people who make the formula to be truly independent so don't bother.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No. I'm saying that since you can't have a truly impartial commission the answer is to do it by formula instead.

You can't trust the people who make the formula to be truly independent so don't bother.

You can if the formulas are publicly available for anyone to read. That's why I said that the computer code be open source.

Not everyone is a programmer, but there are programmers in the Democratic Party, in the Republican Party, and the Libertarian Party. There may be programmers in the other parties as well. So while the average member may not be computer literate, they have allies who are.

 

[Patooka]

No. I'm saying that since you can't have a truly impartial commission the answer is to do it by formula instead.

You can't trust the people who make the formula to be truly independent so don't bother.

You can if the formulas are publicly available for anyone to read. That's why I said that the computer code be open source.

Not everyone is a programmer, but there are programmers in the Democratic Party, in the Republican Party, and the Libertarian Party. There may be programmers in the other parties as well. So while the average member may not be computer literate, they have allies who are.

The people reviewing the source code have their own bias it won't work. Therefore, it makes more sense to leave the gerrymandering unchecked.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You can if the formulas are publicly available for anyone to read. That's why I said that the computer code be open source.

Not everyone is a programmer, but there are programmers in the Democratic Party, in the Republican Party, and the Libertarian Party. There may be programmers in the other parties as well. So while the average member may not be computer literate, they have allies who are.

The people reviewing the source code have their own bias it won't work. Therefore, it makes more sense to leave the gerrymandering unchecked.

If it is open source, then any code literate person can review it. Presumably any code literate Democrat would make sure it isn't written to harm the Democratic Party or help the Republican Party, and any code literate Republican would make sure it isn't written to harm the Republican Party or help the Democratic Party, and any code literate independent or third party would make sure it isn't written to above and beyond in silencing independent voices. Therefore we are harnessing the biases of the reviewers to ensure that the code itself isn't biased.

It's like the old riddle about two people arguing about how to divide a cake. Person A cuts the cake, person B chooses which half he wants. By harnessing both of their selfish natures, you wind up with a fair distribution.

 

[bilby]

You can if the formulas are publicly available for anyone to read. That's why I said that the computer code be open source.

Not everyone is a programmer, but there are programmers in the Democratic Party, in the Republican Party, and the Libertarian Party. There may be programmers in the other parties as well. So while the average member may not be computer literate, they have allies who are.

The people reviewing the source code have their own bias it won't work. Therefore, it makes more sense to leave the gerrymandering unchecked.

If it is open source, then any code literate person can review it. Presumably any code literate Democrat would make sure it isn't written to harm the Democratic Party or help the Republican Party, and any code literate Republican would make sure it isn't written to harm the Republican Party or help the Democratic Party, and any code literate independent or third party would make sure it isn't written to above and beyond in silencing independent voices. Therefore we are harnessing the biases of the reviewers to ensure that the code itself isn't biased.

The existing divisional boundaries are published. Anyone can see, and if they believe that it is unfair, criticise them.

This has not had any notable effect in reducing unfairness.

Open source code just leads to splits. Which is fine for an OS, or an application, where each user can pick the distro he likes best (or hates least).

How does this work with electoral division boundaries? Does each voter get to decide which redistribution he prefers?

If not, you still need an impartial final arbiter to pick the winning system, or the winning boundaries.

Adding open source software adds complexity, but it doesn't ensure fairness. So it's pointless.

It's like the old riddle about two people arguing about how to divide a cake. Person A cuts the cake, person B chooses which half he wants. By harnessing both of their selfish natures, you wind up with a fair distribution.

It's not actually anything like that. Person A develops an algorithm for cutting the cake, Person B declares A's solution to be unfair and proposes a different algorithm, and person C still has to rule which one gets used, presumably guided by his own biases.

It's not a fair system, but person C will certainly welcome the obfuscation of the fact that he could be horribly biased.

 

[Patooka]

Just keep in mind if the solution to a problem isn't 100% flawless, don't implement it. There is no way to completely remove gerrymandering, so there is zero point in having any oversight, just leave it as it is.

 

[Bomb#20]

Just keep in mind if the solution to a problem isn't 100% flawless, don't implement it. There is no way to completely remove gerrymandering,

Yes, there bloody well is.

so there is zero point in having any oversight, just leave it as it is.

Oops, my bad, I forgot that every post in this thread is required to be sarcastic. Let's try this again...

Since there exists only one possible criterion we can use to decide between requiring Alice to have the same representative as Bob or requiring her to have the same representative as Chuck -- her latitude and longitude -- we will just all have to do our very best to figure out which procedure for letting politicians choose their voters instead of letting voters choose their politicians will result in the fairest way to gerrymander her.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You can if the formulas are publicly available for anyone to read. That's why I said that the computer code be open source.

Not everyone is a programmer, but there are programmers in the Democratic Party, in the Republican Party, and the Libertarian Party. There may be programmers in the other parties as well. So while the average member may not be computer literate, they have allies who are.

The people reviewing the source code have their own bias it won't work. Therefore, it makes more sense to leave the gerrymandering unchecked.

Disagree--while they may be biased that doesn't make the code say something it doesn't. Once the flaw is pointed out it will be apparent to other programmers, whether the problem is real or not will be easy to resolve.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The existing divisional boundaries are published. Anyone can see, and if they believe that it is unfair, criticise them.

This has not had any notable effect in reducing unfairness.

The problem is that as it stands now "unfair" is fuzzy. That lets people make decisions tilted in the direction they favor. We are after systems which are provably correct, no fuzziness to let people get away with bad calls.

 

[bilby]

The existing divisional boundaries are published. Anyone can see, and if they believe that it is unfair, criticise them.

This has not had any notable effect in reducing unfairness.

The problem is that as it stands now "unfair" is fuzzy. That lets people make decisions tilted in the direction they favor. We are after systems which are provably correct, no fuzziness to let people get away with bad calls.

Who's 'we'?

You got a mouse in your pocket?

 

[Patooka]

The existing divisional boundaries are published. Anyone can see, and if they believe that it is unfair, criticise them.

This has not had any notable effect in reducing unfairness.

The problem is that as it stands now "unfair" is fuzzy. That lets people make decisions tilted in the direction they favor. We are after systems which are provably correct, no fuzziness to let people get away with bad calls.

Who's 'we'?

You got a mouse in your pocket?

You can't have a system that is 100% flawless, so don't bother.

 

[Tigers!]

Density is not the criterion. Number of people per district is the criterion.

You missed my point. District #1 is in a high density area (say, a city core) and district B is nearby but in a low density area. If you simply grow them you'll fill up district #1 on the dense area and end up with B wrapping around it.

The boundaries of a district are not sacrosanct. They move as required. You would not allow a situation you envisage i.e one district surrounding another. The boundaries would be set so they only border not envelope each other.
As I noted earlier I have changed electorates without moving my house.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Density is not the criterion. Number of people per district is the criterion.

You missed my point. District #1 is in a high density area (say, a city core) and district B is nearby but in a low density area. If you simply grow them you'll fill up district #1 on the dense area and end up with B wrapping around it.

The boundaries of a district are not sacrosanct. They move as required. You would not allow a situation you envisage i.e one district surrounding another. The boundaries would be set so they only border not envelope each other.
As I noted earlier I have changed electorates without moving my house.

Except your proposed approach would certainly cause wrapped districts here.