The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Fixing the Broken US Political System: North Carolina forced to redistrict
joshofalltrades
Class TraitorSmoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
Class TraitorSmoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
With the government shutdown looming, it's time to sit down and have a little chat about some pretty infuriating aspects of our "voter representative" Republic. It boggles my mind that we are not only aware of some of the pretty glaring and obvious problems, we are not having a widespread discussion of them nor any attempt by elected officials to correct them.
I understand that the things that break our political system can sometimes work out in the favor of sane, rational people. I feel that in the long run, we all stand to benefit from bringing problems with our elections to light no matter which political party currently stands to gain from them. It is more important that representation be true, even if the represented district/state/whatever is truly batshit crazy. Call me an idealist, but I believe that truer representation would result in fewer crazy politicians overall.
So let's talk about some of the things that need to go the way of the dodo:
Gerrymandering
Gerrymandering is what happens when a district map looks like a Rorschach test. "He who draws the district lines wins the election", to put it succinctly. The basic premise is twofold: packing and cracking. Most of the time these strategies are combined.
Packing is the act of sacrificing a district by giving up a single seat in order to win more. What would be a close race in a reasonably-drawn district can turn into a landslide for one side. But since we have a first past the post voting system, this overwhelming-majority-won district ensures that neighboring districts (emphasis on the plural s, here) are also comfortable victories: for the other party. If we suppose there are 5 districts, with one in the center, and we further assume that 70% of voters are party X while 30% are party Y, we might have (in a first-past-the-post election) 3 seats belonging to party X and 2 belonging to party Y. Note that this is still far not entirely representative; this brings the percentages to 60% party X reps and and 40% party Y, but this estimate is generously close to representation for current gerrymandering practices. Now suppose the lines are redrawn such that what were 65-35% or even 55-45% voting ratios across the board are now one very large and irregular district, won at 95%-5% of the vote, and the remaining four are won by roughly 60%-40% of the vote by the opposing party. This is packing: putting as many of the party which would normally win a majority of seats in one district as possible, and edging them out in the remainder.
Cracking is basically the opposite: take an intense X party area and divide it into other districts that you plan to win. The idea is to be careful to allow yourself a slight margin for victory, less than you would have otherwise, but still win the district overall. Again, this is the opposite practice of packing. Instead of letting an opponent party win a district through a concentrated voter population, you can make the races you are winning comfortably slightly less comfortable but still easily winnable by introducing just enough of these dense opposition areas. This is a little trickier and requires some good data to pull off, since putting too many opposition voters into your winnable district means you have actually lost it.
Of course, neither of these two gerrymandering strategies would be as effective without...
First Past the Post
Almost anything I can say to describe why this is a terrible way to run elections would pale in comparison to this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
Basically, watch that.
What other problems do we need to fix? How do we fix them?
Personally, I would prefer a mixed-member proportional representation system,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_678645&feature=iv&list=SPC1C0D3F2BA472F62&src_vid=s7tWHJfhiyo&v=QT0I-sdoSXU
because the problems inherent to it are far preferable to what we currently have.
I understand that the things that break our political system can sometimes work out in the favor of sane, rational people. I feel that in the long run, we all stand to benefit from bringing problems with our elections to light no matter which political party currently stands to gain from them. It is more important that representation be true, even if the represented district/state/whatever is truly batshit crazy. Call me an idealist, but I believe that truer representation would result in fewer crazy politicians overall.
So let's talk about some of the things that need to go the way of the dodo:
Gerrymandering
Gerrymandering is what happens when a district map looks like a Rorschach test. "He who draws the district lines wins the election", to put it succinctly. The basic premise is twofold: packing and cracking. Most of the time these strategies are combined.
Packing is the act of sacrificing a district by giving up a single seat in order to win more. What would be a close race in a reasonably-drawn district can turn into a landslide for one side. But since we have a first past the post voting system, this overwhelming-majority-won district ensures that neighboring districts (emphasis on the plural s, here) are also comfortable victories: for the other party. If we suppose there are 5 districts, with one in the center, and we further assume that 70% of voters are party X while 30% are party Y, we might have (in a first-past-the-post election) 3 seats belonging to party X and 2 belonging to party Y. Note that this is still far not entirely representative; this brings the percentages to 60% party X reps and and 40% party Y, but this estimate is generously close to representation for current gerrymandering practices. Now suppose the lines are redrawn such that what were 65-35% or even 55-45% voting ratios across the board are now one very large and irregular district, won at 95%-5% of the vote, and the remaining four are won by roughly 60%-40% of the vote by the opposing party. This is packing: putting as many of the party which would normally win a majority of seats in one district as possible, and edging them out in the remainder.
Cracking is basically the opposite: take an intense X party area and divide it into other districts that you plan to win. The idea is to be careful to allow yourself a slight margin for victory, less than you would have otherwise, but still win the district overall. Again, this is the opposite practice of packing. Instead of letting an opponent party win a district through a concentrated voter population, you can make the races you are winning comfortably slightly less comfortable but still easily winnable by introducing just enough of these dense opposition areas. This is a little trickier and requires some good data to pull off, since putting too many opposition voters into your winnable district means you have actually lost it.
Of course, neither of these two gerrymandering strategies would be as effective without...
First Past the Post
Almost anything I can say to describe why this is a terrible way to run elections would pale in comparison to this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyoBasically, watch that.
What other problems do we need to fix? How do we fix them?
Personally, I would prefer a mixed-member proportional representation system,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_678645&feature=iv&list=SPC1C0D3F2BA472F62&src_vid=s7tWHJfhiyo&v=QT0I-sdoSXU
because the problems inherent to it are far preferable to what we currently have.
joshofalltrades on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
It would take very fast political action to make something like, say, MMPR the law of the land within our lifetimes. Like, dictatorship-level fast.
Gerrymandering can be solved without a Constitutional amendment, as can congressional FPTP (on a state-by-state basis.) MMP is not a realistic option for the United States.
I'm fine with the thread covering more local issues as well. We elect everybody in Texas and it ends up being ridiculous.
Can you elaborate on this? How could it be worse than FPTP?
Even for fptp, the best I can see you getting is some minor parties that caucas with the bigger ones, possibly only existing in name only, because your government isn't really set up to have coalitions in congress
You're saying that FPTP is necessary to prevent a future civil war?
The explanation of different voting systems in terms of vulnerability to spoiler effects and propensity for picking the Condorcet winner are most illuminating.
It makes the nuts and bolts of what is going on in gerrymandering incredibly easy to understand.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
I'm saying that there is exactly zero chance of us moving to an MMP system without an outright revolution.
Ugh, this is why loathe most proposed laws that also change the Constitution (mostly on a state level); the goal isn't so much the law as it is to make something more permanent, that way if/when someone wants to change it down the road it's all "THEY WANT TO ALTER THE CONSTITUTION!".
3DS FC: 4699-5714-8940 Playing Pokemon, add me! Ho, SATAN!
I think he's saying that for all it's faults, the two-party system that arises from FPTP does a decent job of making sure the kind of bullshit going on in Congress right now that prevents the government from doing jack shit doesn't happen very often.
I mean, I would love to be able to have more than two choices when casting a vote for a person or party whose ideals align with my own, and have a reasonable expectation of that person/party actually getting in office, but a lawmaking body made up of several groups of people with different ideas on how to do things isn't going to get much done. I guess you could say that is what voting blocs are for, but I don't see much differince between that sort of comprimise and the kind you end up getting when there are only two or three polical parties to begin with.
Unfortunately arrows theorem applies to preferences not necessarily to whether or not the system has enforced orders.
When you allow ties in preference order the math doesn't change it just means that you may end up choosing someone with no preference.
The two voting systems also fail theoretically because of essentially autility equivalence assumption(which is false). Whereas preference based voting does not have these pitfalls.
That is to say if two people prefer x to y to z only mildly but person 3 prefers y or z to x very heavily then y or z can win. Even if person 3 prefers y or z to x only mildly by selecting heavy preference for y or z he can swing the election. Such it's not the case that being honest about your preferences is a dominant strategy. The dominant strategy is to select a single preference (which turns the voting into exactly fptp)
Well, a vote for a Democrat could be a Union vote, a Progressive vote, or a Blue Dog vote. And the reps get to make up whatever they want for where their votes come from.
In a Proportional representation system, the reps know exactly where their votes come from, and how many votes are available for that kind of thought, and how many votes they will be losing for going against something.
MWO: Adamski
...Have you been following the political scene in, say, New Zealand or Australia? They use a proportional voting system.
Guess what? The resulting governments are actually worse. I mean, at least FPtP marginalizes the crazies - they can vote Republican, sure, but they can't vote for Ron Paul's little party or Rick Santorum's little party because those are never things that will realistically exist in a FPtP system. MMP gives these crazies not only a voice, but the ability to adjust laws and direct the state's funds.
"But Ender, surely this will be balanced out by the fact that other demographics will vote for more thoughtful and progressive candidate parties?"
Nope, it won't, because the number of people actually interested in, say, LGBT equality or women's rights or science or environmental sustainability is so shockingly low that the figures boggle the mind.
I see FPtP as a necessary safeguard.
MWO: Adamski
Also, the Ender, care to set out exactly why you think NZ's government is actually worse under MMP than it was under FPP? I don't believe that this point would be widely accepted in NZ, so am interested to see your thoughts
It also gets the crazies out of the main parties and into their own little huts, making the government as a whole trend towards centrism. The conservative party over here may be loathesome, but I'd take it any day of the week over the Republicans. Acting as if FPTP is any kind of safeguard for a certain set of policies is entirely absurd.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
It has dealt with that problem and delivered stable government of coalitions over half a dozen terms and was easily returned in a referendum in 2011.
In the long run, anything is possible. Also, we'll all be dead.
I see no reason to not assume that the status quo will continue to stick up for itself, and the US system is excellent at protecting status quo interests.
I would love to bet on this.
First past the post is like the worst possible electoral system. The problem with electoral reform is that its never in the self interest of the parties/persons elected by the current system to change said system.
"The problem" with American politics is that political victories aren't necessarily reasonably associated with legislative and economic outcomes, because political losers can retain enormous amounts of political power, and the Senate is problem #1 with that, and the gerrymandered house is #2.
I remember a poll from the POTUS '12 election that showed that if every person in the US had to vote and could only choose D or R, Barack Obama would've won by about 60-40, the House would be D and the Senate would be filibuster proof D.
The structure of voting laws in the USA also makes disenfranchment too easy at lower levels of government though. The fact that it takes 5 minutes to vote in Republican districts in Florida, and 5 hours in Miami, is pretty much criminal.
Counterpoint: Israel. Small, radical parties such as Shas possess greater influence thanks to the kingmaker effect.
Besides, if you really want third parties to have more influence, we have a system that works quite well in doing so - fusion voting.
So, you're telling me that India is the most representative democracy in the world?
The sweet spot is about 3.5 effective parties. Effective number of parties is only one measure of how representative a democracy is, and a democracy is not only measured by how representative it is.
Craptons of parties is super dumb, but so is two dominant all encompassing monstrous parties.
Why?
Because from where I'm sitting, most countries have a two party split. Then there's a third junior party that exploits the kingmaker position to get power, even though it's usually significantly smaller than the two major parties. Finally, there are the dwarfs - the smaller parties that have no real functional power, but do manage to get a small handful of seats - Hedgie's First Rule of Politics says all that needs to be said about those parties.
What bothers people is that in the US, influencing politics takes more than voting, moreso than in other countries. The parties are tents, and there's a lot of negotiating that goes on inside of them. And that's where changing positions happens.
Edit: Considering that measure would define India as the Most Democratic Nation in the World, I'm inclined to just toss it out as being unreliable.
There are two problems I see:
1) Opposition is easier from the extremes. It's easier to say something isn't rightwing or leftwing enough than to see 'your focuses in the center are wrong,' which over time erodes centralist parties and empowers both extremists and single issue parties. Geert Wilders PVV is currently the larging polling party in NL at around 16% of the vote, because the centralist governments budget cuts are very impopular.
2) When the vote is fractured, coalitions get unstable. In the Netherlands, only 1 government since 1990 has reached the end of its term. 8 others have fallen beforehand (Though 2 fell more or less in symbolic ways, just before elections anyway, mostly as an indicator that the same coalition wouldn't happen again).
Is it just that you don't know anything else?
Effective parties means parties that matter. Yes, it tends to be more than 2.5, and 2.5 isn't ideal, but it's a lot better than 2.
1) A system that allows smaller parties more effectively marginalizes extremist voices that would otherwise remain within the larger parties. Said larger parties are thus more able to adopt centrist positions and work together.
2) A system with a decent number of parties means parties are more used to working together and functioning in cases of divided government
3) A system with more than two parties isn't subject to the same level of bitter partisan division; every party having things to like and dislike about the others
4) A two party system doesn't remotely allow voters to make a choice representing their views other than the least worst option
Seriously, the whole republican party hijacked by idiots and US government getting shut down things? Two party system.
Exactly. With a larger number of parties to vote for and negotiating between parties voters choices actually matter.
You're taking this way too far, too few parties bad; too many parties (as SanderJK says) bad, ok?
1) One (among others) measure of representativeness is number of parties
2) Representativeness is not the only measure of a functioning democracy
3) 'Most democratic' does not necessarily imply best functioning democracy
Two few parties can be both unrepresentative (in this one particular sense ) and badly functioning, too many can be very representative and badly functioning.
1. Once again, Israel is the perfect counterpoint. Thanks to being able to take the kingmaker position, small radical parties like Shas play an oversized role in the political process there. The fact that extremist voices would move out to smaller parties would not marginalize them by any means. The US also falls under this on a technical level - we're actually a three party state if you get into the nitty-gritty, with the junior regional Southern faction moving between the two seniors to exploit the power balance.
2. The counterpoint here is India. Exactly why is left as an exercise to the reader.
3. See above.
4. And this is really why these systems get pushed - because the idea is to make the voter feel empowered, even if in reality, doing so doesn't actually empower them. Once again, remember Hedgie's First Law of Politics: the goal of politics is not to get people elected - it is to get policy enacted.
In any event, the two large parties get about 70-to 75 of the vote almost every election so it ends up a pretty stable system.
Oddly enough, both major parties have refused to enter into coalition with the Greens so far. 2014 may force them to change this view
Yep. The thing is, Civics class doesn't teach people about the importance of party primaries and party discipline. So when it does matter, it strikes the people who lost as underhanded.
Civil war? No, at least not initially. War is expensive, and unless you are prepared to perform ethnic cleansing and/or long-term military government - as the US federal government was quite prepared to do in 1865 - there's not much point confronting rebellious attitudes by force. All you can do is make concession after concession and hope that the relevant voters finally figure out that devolved powers don't automatically grant a competent government. You only get the terrorism-erupting-into-civil-war outcome if either side loses patience with the process of ever-greater concessions and start opening fire.
What it does stoke is regionalism. FPTP enforces the pursuit of the national median voter, over the ideological spectrum of the entire relevant electoral group. PR does not.
The whole appeal of PR is that it lets people who would prefer to vote Aryan Nations instead of Republican to do so without feeling that they have wasted their vote. But by the same token, it also lets people who would prefer to vote Southern Independence instead of Republican to do so without feeling that they have wasted their vote. Sadly, you cannot enable only the ideological splinter groups, not the territorially splinter groups as well. That's really it.
Of course, this is not a concern in countries where national loyalty is so strong, that it can be taken for granted that it will trump all regional loyalties.
because MMP requires accepting the legitimacy of non-geographic seats, which the US is not presently prepared to tolerate. There is still a perception, however wrong, that the federal government is a place that you send a deputy that you voted for, to represent your community. MMP requires accepting that you may win a majority of all geographic seats - say, the majority of the states - but still lose to a coalition of geographic and non-geographic seats de facto generated by the coastal states.
more likely, it will retain the present form of formal representation but disempower the relevant representatives through internal Congress reorganization
this has changed multiple times in the past, and its current form only really dates to post-Watergate
That was and is a problem in NZ, where list MPs often have a lesser status. It would be hard for a list MP to become a serious leadership contender for either main party for that reason. That being said, people have largely accepted this as a concept and this after 130-40 years of the old FPP local rep model. So if NZ voters could accept it, I'm sure US voters could too.
Regarding fracturing. Well there is an argument to be made that PR has the opposite effect, as it integrates these minorities into the system when otherwise they might not and therefore be more inclined to violence. Hell, we even have a Maori Party that arose during a period of great unrest, which successfully achieved some of their main goals before fading in importance as their voters return to other parties. Unlike Israel we do have a threshold of 5% to get in, which has meant no extremists seem to have made it past the gate.