Gerrymandering again

[Tigers!]

Quite a number of years ago when the UK had a brief flirtation with introducing PR a joke when around about the possible unforeseen side effects of PR

There was an PR election with 4 candidates - A, B, C, D. But only 3 would be elected.
(note it does not matter which candidates won for this exercise)
Each candidate promised each elector 1 week paid holiday if they were elected.
Candidate A promised a holiday at Brighton
Candidate B promised a holiday in the Lakes District
Candidate C promised a holiday at Blackpool
Candidate D promised a holiday on the Isle of Wight
The election was duly held - Candidates A, C, D were elected.
The voters waited to hear when they would get their holidays and where (either Brighton, Blackpool, Isle of Wight).
Finally it was announced that the electors would get 5 days in Cardiff.

I don't get that joke.

Not a single elector got what they voted for.

PR involves much haggling and horse trading behind the scenes as often contradictory promises must be kept. Plus dividing the spoils of office is hard work. You may not get nor like what you elected.

So what? This sort of haggling can also happen inside of parties. Consider in the US House, back in 2021, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema vs. Build Back Better, and last year, not one but two nasty fights over who will be Speaker. A two-party system is supposed to be immune to such nastiness, right?

Never claimed that. I see so many who think that PR will solve all problems. It is not a magic potion. Just another way to determine who will get a seat when the music stops. (i was going to say gets a guernsey but that confuses too many people.)

Plus let us always remember that Hitler became Chancellor of Germany under the Weimar republic's PR system. (Before anyone jumps on me I am well aware that Hitler was selected rather elected). But his party was numerically the largest in the lower house. Horse trading can have unforeseen consequences.

So what? I've seen that as an argument against democracy in general.

PR all to often produces unstable coalitions ... (Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Israel)

As if that is typical of PR systems. I think that PR is good because it's a good way of sidelining extremists.

It is a possible way to side-line extremists but not fool proof.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

All the more reason to note that the only criteria to be used in determining electoral boundaries should be the number of electors.

As long as we ignore 200 or so years of history and what people in power have done, that will work out just fine.

Also, just looking at a state like Ohio, using number of electors doesn't particularly help. You can go from 3 D / 12 R to 6 D / 9 R +/-1. There is geography, economics, etc... that help make up reasonable districting.

Which is why I favor a mathematical approach.

Chop the state up into small blocks. Perhaps one address (for multi-family locations) or one physical block (every intersection divides them up) of houses. The boundaries of every block carry a weight that is defined by how closely associated it is with the next block. The boundary weight is based on how readily people move across it. Land that precludes the ready flow (protected land, rivers, unsafe land etc) has a boundary weight of zero. The weight to the continuation of our street is high (you can take one step to the next person's property), the weight to the neighbors behind us is somewhat lower (it would require going about a block and a half to reach them. Fences are concrete block and theirs is raised for a pool--unless somebody is on a ladder it's pretty much impossible to talk over the back fence.)

The proper redistricting is the arrangement that minimizes boundary weight while maintaining a required equality in population. Anyone can challenge the boundaries by showing a better solution. Obviously, it can be gamed somewhat by choosing weights--but require that no change can go into effect until after the election at least a year from now makes it very hard to do so.

Why complicate the exercise? You admit that weighting can be manipulated. Why then add any weighting at all?
Purely numeric. Each electorate has N +/- %N persons within.

Simply specifying the percentage range tells you nothing about where the boundaries should be.

And the reason for the weighting is the standard reason for districts--electing people from the same area. I'm measuring "area" by looking at how connected the chunks are. This will cause the dividing lines to favor those things that provide isolation--think of it as minimizing road miles rather than minimizing crow miles, except I'm trying to weight it towards what people would actually do. You have a street that's residential, then commercial, then residential, you will be a lot closer to the people on your side of the commercial block than those on the other side even if some of those on the other side are physically closer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

PR all to often produces unstable coalitions ... (Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Israel)

As if that is typical of PR systems. I think that PR is good because it's a good way of sidelining extremists.

Disagree--PR systems are more prone to it. If you had a linear distribution of positions you would be right, but when different people have different objectives it can be worse. Suppose you have a system that ends up 45%/45%/10%. That 10% group effectively wields the same power as the 45% groups.

 

[Tigers!]

Why complicate the exercise? You admit that weighting can be manipulated. Why then add any weighting at all?
Purely numeric. Each electorate has N +/- %N persons within.

Simply specifying the percentage range tells you nothing about where the boundaries should be.

And the reason for the weighting is the standard reason for districts--electing people from the same area. I'm measuring "area" by looking at how connected the chunks are. This will cause the dividing lines to favor those things that provide isolation--think of it as minimizing road miles rather than minimizing crow miles, except I'm trying to weight it towards what people would actually do. You have a street that's residential, then commercial, then residential, you will be a lot closer to the people on your side of the commercial block than those on the other side even if some of those on the other side are physically closer.

Sounds like you are referring to population density in your districts. That does not have to be a problem unless you want all districts to be the approx. same size. If you do not wish to have same size districts then do not concern your self with density.
Electoral divisions in Australia
Largest electorate in Australia (and the world)
Smallest electorate in Australia
Size does not matter

 

[Worldtraveller]

The only real restriction to how we limit voting district size in the US has to be that they respect (probably outdated, mostly meaningless) state boundaries.

The situation is analogous to healthcare. We have multiple successful models that do what it is intended to do, but (almost exclusively GOP) states refuse to implement it because it would actually make selecting representatives more fair. If you look at which states have implemented a non-partisan, algorithmically controlled or otherwise, districting system, literally every single one of them leans strongly democratic. So once more, both sides are NOT the same.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why complicate the exercise? You admit that weighting can be manipulated. Why then add any weighting at all?
Purely numeric. Each electorate has N +/- %N persons within.

Simply specifying the percentage range tells you nothing about where the boundaries should be.

And the reason for the weighting is the standard reason for districts--electing people from the same area. I'm measuring "area" by looking at how connected the chunks are. This will cause the dividing lines to favor those things that provide isolation--think of it as minimizing road miles rather than minimizing crow miles, except I'm trying to weight it towards what people would actually do. You have a street that's residential, then commercial, then residential, you will be a lot closer to the people on your side of the commercial block than those on the other side even if some of those on the other side are physically closer.

Sounds like you are referring to population density in your districts. That does not have to be a problem unless you want all districts to be the approx. same size. If you do not wish to have same size districts then do not concern your self with density.
Electoral divisions in Australia
Largest electorate in Australia (and the world)
Smallest electorate in Australia
Size does not matter

I am simply assuming the status quo--districts are required to be approximately equal. To do otherwise would mean some people have a smaller vote than others.