Deliberately designing districts in such a way that the people designing the districts are specifically choosing to empower specific groups is a terrible system that is not only vulnerable to abuse, abuse is practically guaranteed. Furthermore, the upside you appear to be describing is that districts like this subvert majority rule.
The scenario you described where districts are a homogenous grid is superior.
The ideal solution is to skip all of this nonsense and just use proportional representation. Of course that would also mean the end of the two party system in the US, so it will never happen.
I'm open to hearing counter arguments if anyone has specific information on the district.
Yeah, it's TX-35 . It's been gerrymandered to pack a bunch of Dem voters.
From Wikipedia:
In March 2017, a panel of federal judges ruled that the 35th district was illegally drawn with discriminatory intent.[10] In August 2017, there was another ruling that the district is unconstitutional.[11] However, the district was allowed to stand in the Supreme Court's 2018 Abbott v. Perez ruling.[12]
AI doesn't solve the problem because the problem isn't drawing lines on the map. It's deciding what to base the lines on.
If every district is competitive, a small popularity swing for a party is multiplied in legislative elections. If they're not competitive, the results are guaranteed and candidates don't need to work to attact voters. Packing minorities into districts can be discriminatory. Diluting them in majority white districts can be discriminatory.
The technocratic solution is to take poll data, predict the overall vote totals, then gerrymander in favour of that. That's still rigging the election and isn't viable long term.
The real solution is to abolish territorial represenation.
That's the problem though. You can't create the algorithm until you decide what the percentages and priorities should be. If we knew that, the people drawing the districts would already be doing it.
It wouldn't be a linear "algorithm>line>election" process either. Just as you can predict the election from the districts, you can predict the districts from the algorithm. Once the debate shifts from what the lines should be to what the algorithm should be, all you're doing is complicating the data analysis. Instead of some guys drawing the lines they want, they determine the algorithm that will give them the lines.
At some point that local region has to have political power over itself and/or elect higher representation.
That's what federalism is for. And municipal governments.
It's the same either way. You vote for the algorithm that favours your party vs you vote for the election commission that favours your party.
You're assuming it's possible to discuss these things in the abstract. It's not. "What people want out of their representation" is the same as who they want.
It will take literally 10 minutes for this to turn into a partisan pissing patch. Liberals will want represenation of minorities. Conservatives won't want them given any special treatment.
If abstracting it were possible, and people decided what they want without knowing the consequences, the outcome would likely be worse. Competitive elections sound good in theory, but it's safe spots where 3rd parties can emerge as the alternative.
deleted by creator
Deliberately designing districts in such a way that the people designing the districts are specifically choosing to empower specific groups is a terrible system that is not only vulnerable to abuse, abuse is practically guaranteed. Furthermore, the upside you appear to be describing is that districts like this subvert majority rule.
The scenario you described where districts are a homogenous grid is superior.
deleted by creator
Astonishing that you’re out here claiming that other people don’t know how districts work.
deleted by creator
The ideal solution is to skip all of this nonsense and just use proportional representation. Of course that would also mean the end of the two party system in the US, so it will never happen.
Yes.
Yeah, it's TX-35 . It's been gerrymandered to pack a bunch of Dem voters.
From Wikipedia:
deleted by creator
AI doesn't solve the problem because the problem isn't drawing lines on the map. It's deciding what to base the lines on.
If every district is competitive, a small popularity swing for a party is multiplied in legislative elections. If they're not competitive, the results are guaranteed and candidates don't need to work to attact voters. Packing minorities into districts can be discriminatory. Diluting them in majority white districts can be discriminatory.
The technocratic solution is to take poll data, predict the overall vote totals, then gerrymander in favour of that. That's still rigging the election and isn't viable long term.
The real solution is to abolish territorial represenation.
deleted by creator
That's the problem though. You can't create the algorithm until you decide what the percentages and priorities should be. If we knew that, the people drawing the districts would already be doing it.
It wouldn't be a linear "algorithm>line>election" process either. Just as you can predict the election from the districts, you can predict the districts from the algorithm. Once the debate shifts from what the lines should be to what the algorithm should be, all you're doing is complicating the data analysis. Instead of some guys drawing the lines they want, they determine the algorithm that will give them the lines.
That's what federalism is for. And municipal governments.
deleted by creator
It's the same either way. You vote for the algorithm that favours your party vs you vote for the election commission that favours your party.
You're assuming it's possible to discuss these things in the abstract. It's not. "What people want out of their representation" is the same as who they want.
It will take literally 10 minutes for this to turn into a partisan pissing patch. Liberals will want represenation of minorities. Conservatives won't want them given any special treatment.
If abstracting it were possible, and people decided what they want without knowing the consequences, the outcome would likely be worse. Competitive elections sound good in theory, but it's safe spots where 3rd parties can emerge as the alternative.
deleted by creator