Comments on: some proposed reforms to the problems of gerrymandering http://allaboutvoting.com/2007/07/21/some-proposed-reforms-to-the-problems-of-gerrymandering/ Musings on voting systems and social choice Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:42:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: AllAboutVoting http://allaboutvoting.com/2007/07/21/some-proposed-reforms-to-the-problems-of-gerrymandering/#comment-5186 Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:54:09 +0000 http://allaboutvoting.com/2007/07/21/some-proposed-reforms-to-the-problems-of-gerrymandering/#comment-5186 Update:

I supported the last CA proposition addressing gerrymandering. It’s far from perfect but I see it as an improvement.

http://allaboutvoting.com/2008/10/12/i-support-ca-prop-11-redistricting-reform/

]]> By: » Gerry Mander: Public enemy number one | Djelloul Marbrook http://allaboutvoting.com/2007/07/21/some-proposed-reforms-to-the-problems-of-gerrymandering/#comment-5185 Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:37:43 +0000 http://allaboutvoting.com/2007/07/21/some-proposed-reforms-to-the-problems-of-gerrymandering/#comment-5185 [...] not just that our voting districts have been gerrymandered—counting prisoners in the counties where they’re imprisoned instead of where they come [...]

]]> By: The Rose Report on algorithmic redistricting « All About Voting http://allaboutvoting.com/2007/07/21/some-proposed-reforms-to-the-problems-of-gerrymandering/#comment-249 Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:26:02 +0000 http://allaboutvoting.com/2007/07/21/some-proposed-reforms-to-the-problems-of-gerrymandering/#comment-249 [...] December 1, 2007 · No Comments The Rose Report discusses algorithmic approaches to redistricting such as the shortest-splitline algorithm. [...]

]]> By: shortest splitline algorithm vs voting rights act? « All About Voting http://allaboutvoting.com/2007/07/21/some-proposed-reforms-to-the-problems-of-gerrymandering/#comment-60 Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:22:17 +0000 http://allaboutvoting.com/2007/07/21/some-proposed-reforms-to-the-problems-of-gerrymandering/#comment-60 [...] algorithm for eliminating gerrymandering, Warren D. Smith had commented on the potential issue that current law mandates majority-minority districts. The “issue” that gerrymandering to make majority-minority districts is required by law… [...]

]]> By: Warren D. Smith http://allaboutvoting.com/2007/07/21/some-proposed-reforms-to-the-problems-of-gerrymandering/#comment-24 Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:31:59 +0000 http://allaboutvoting.com/2007/07/21/some-proposed-reforms-to-the-problems-of-gerrymandering/#comment-24 Well, splitline boundaries are lines (more precisely, great circles since earth is round). If you know the (published) coordinates of the line’s two endpoints, then you can deduce from your coordinates (got from a GPS box) which side you are on. The GPS box might even in future provide an option to answer such “which side” questions so you do not personally have to do the math, it will do it.

So you do not need a map. (You also could do it with a map of course. I’m just saying, with splitline, you do not actually need one. This is an advantage for splitline over other methods.)

If the boundary is really “main street” then that WOULD be easier because everybody knows which side of main street they are on. But actually, gerrymanderers often wiggle wildly – in cases where they feel the need, trying to include and exclude individual houses. In that case it ISN’T just “main street” it is something horribly complicated for which you need a high res map, with considerably better than mere local street level resolution. Almost nobody has such a map.

(Also, prodded by AllAboutVoting I published some more theorems about how “chaos” is inevitable for any districting method, on the range voting bulletin board http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/ It seems therefore this is not a “disadvantage” for splitline.)

]]> By: AllAboutVoting http://allaboutvoting.com/2007/07/21/some-proposed-reforms-to-the-problems-of-gerrymandering/#comment-23 Sun, 22 Jul 2007 14:33:38 +0000 http://allaboutvoting.com/2007/07/21/some-proposed-reforms-to-the-problems-of-gerrymandering/#comment-23 >You can then use a laser or a GPS device to figure
>out which district you are in (if it isn’t obvious).
>With conventional maps it is harder, not easier, to
>figure out which district you are in, and you need
>a hi-res map. A laser or GPS device will not do
> the job but with splitline it can.
Can you clarify how this is done and who does it?
Many other districting proposals use natural (eg: ‘this side of the river’) or man made (eg ‘this side of Main street’) boundaries. If the shortest-splitline algorithm splits an urban area, who decides who lives on which side of the split? What about properties that are actually divided by the split line? This process sounds painful and expensive. Furthermore it will not be useful information after the next redistricting which may split through urban areas again but is very unlikely to split along the same line as it did in the previous redistricting.

]]> By: Warren D. Smith http://allaboutvoting.com/2007/07/21/some-proposed-reforms-to-the-problems-of-gerrymandering/#comment-22 Sun, 22 Jul 2007 04:37:29 +0000 http://allaboutvoting.com/2007/07/21/some-proposed-reforms-to-the-problems-of-gerrymandering/#comment-22 These 2 other splitlining & gerrymandering pages on the rangevoting.org website are perhaps better:
http://rangevoting.org/SplitLR.html
http://rangevoting.org/GerryExec.html

The “disadvantage” that splitline districtings are “unstable” is somewhat countered by the *theorem* that *every* reasonable districting method *must* be unstable:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/message/5446

The “disadvantage” that splitlines ignore things like rivers and mountains is somewhat countered by the facts that
(a) that doesn’t seem to happen very often [see pictures for all 50 states http://rangevoting.org/SplitLR.html ]
(b) the human districters also have those same problems, sometimes very intentionally. Arizona is a very dramatic example with a district with a tentacle winding 200 miles along the river in the Grand Canyon to link up to another region. Oh, yes, it was districted by an “unbiased bipartisan commission.” Gee. Several other states contain “go out to sea and come back to land” districts.

The “disadvantage” that “surveys are required to judge whether buildings are in what district…” is somewhat ameliorated by the fact that splitline districts are convex polygons. The entire map of a districted state is defined by just a few points.
You can then use a laser or a GPS device to figure out which district you are in (if it isn’t obvious). With conventional maps it is harder, not easier, to figure out which district you are in, and you need a hi-res map. A laser or GPS device will not do the job but with splitline it can.

The “issue” that gerrymandering to make majority-minority districts is required by law… sounds interesting. I encourage you to actually look at the law and inform us what the heck you are talking about. I will say that recent supreme court decisions seem to be against you. Further, the long record of supreme court decisions, a partial record of which is available at http://rangevoting.org/SupremeCt.html shows an extreme amount of unpredictable randomness that can be used to justify or invalidate damn near anything. Any additional contributions to this page are welcomed.

Basically, what I claim is going on with majority-minority is old fashioned bipartisan gerrymandering where the Ds and Rs both try to create safe seats for them both by deal. They just dressed that up in racial clothes for this occasion to pretend they were “reformers.”

Bottom line:
The fact is – judge for yourself by looking at the 50 state pictures whether splitline is better or worse than the human-drawn district maps. Don’t buy AllAboutVoting’s theoretical hogwash. Look at the pictures.

[AllAboutVoting: editted formatting on this comment]

]]> By: AllAboutVoting http://allaboutvoting.com/2007/07/21/some-proposed-reforms-to-the-problems-of-gerrymandering/#comment-21 Sun, 22 Jul 2007 03:46:48 +0000 http://allaboutvoting.com/2007/07/21/some-proposed-reforms-to-the-problems-of-gerrymandering/#comment-21 I voted against the last CA proposition that addressed gerrymandering. The proposition included a lot of language about how an ‘independant’ commission would be appointed. The language was based on assumptions that we live in a two party system where each party has roughly equal popularity. Although that may describe the current situation, I did not feel comfortable with codifying those assumptions into law.

]]> By: Bob Richard http://allaboutvoting.com/2007/07/21/some-proposed-reforms-to-the-problems-of-gerrymandering/#comment-20 Sun, 22 Jul 2007 01:43:27 +0000 http://allaboutvoting.com/2007/07/21/some-proposed-reforms-to-the-problems-of-gerrymandering/#comment-20 California voters have rejected proposals for redistricting reform a number of times (I think the number is five, but I can’t look it up right now). The most recent was Prop. 77 in 2005.

The problem seems to be that such proposals are generally perceived by voters as being designed to benefit one party or the other. This was certainly the case in both Ohio and California in 2005. Interestingly, the side thought to benefit was different in each case, and the voters rejected both.

This suggests that who designs and proposes the redistricting method may be just as important as the details of how it attempts to control gerrymandering. One possibility is the Citizens’ Assembly process pioneered in British Columbia.

Don’t expect miracles, though. Gerrymandering adds a few more safe seats to those created by the SMD system itself. But they’re the tip of the iceberg.

]]>