Ranked Vote: How To Reform Redistricting And End Political Gerrymandering?

Winner: Single Transferable Vote!
(click for detailed results)

Ranked Vote: Discussion Thread

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the party continues!
Cutting straight to the chase; for anyone who still doesn't know, this is a spinoff thread from the following set of threads:
Ranked Vote: Discussion Thread (includes schedule)
What To Do To Reduce Partisan Dysfunction In Politics
Solutions Oriented Approach to Restoring Meaningful Civil Discourse

To sum it up, we're taking issues that our country faces, and laying out the full range of options for how we might be able to deal with them, and we're voting on which of those options are the best using ranked methods for tallying the votes.

This particular thread is the voting thread for the subject of Redistricting/Gerrymandering.
The associated discussion thread can be found here:
How To Reform Redistricting And End Political Gerrymandering

The Gerrymander Vote!

​

.....Wait.....what the heck...what is that thing?.....
You call that thing a district?.......and now you're calling it a salamander!?
Sorry....I'm just not seeing it.....

As the title and discussion thread imply, the subject of this vote is how to reform the redistricting process as it relates to our congressional representatives in order to get rid of or reduce the politically slanted influence of partisan gerrymandering...a thorn which has been firmly and stubbornly stuck in our nation's collective side ever since....well....Governor Elbridge Gerry. To that end, the current list of suggestions is as follows (click links for additional details):

How To Reform Redistricting And End Political Gerrymandering?:

A. Use Automated Algorithm to Draw Maps Based on Key Principles of Fairness
B. Algorithm: Square-Rectangle Method
C. Algorithm: Shortest Split Line Method
D. Algorithm: Ring Method
E. Algorithm: Ring Method (Quadrant)
F. Algorithm: Ring Method (Multi Segmented)
G. Limit District Lines to County Borders
H. Require Districts to Meet a Complexity Ratio Standard
I. Require Districts to Meet a Proportionality Ratio Standard
J. Use Bipartisan Councils
K. Use Independent Commissions
L. Party-list Proportional Representation
M. Single Transferable Vote
N. Mixed-member Proportional Representation
O. Use Panel-Decided Algorithm + Map Approval by Independent Commission
P. Two District States (Rural/not Rural) + District Level Proportional Vote
Q. Leave Things as They Are (Status Quo Option)
R. Don't Feel Qualified/Knowledgeable Enough To Vote In This Poll
S. No Strong Feelings One Way Or The Other​

To start things off, there will be a nomination phase whereby suggestions can be made within this thread for things which should be added to the list before the vote starts. This time around, I'll go ahead and leave the nomination phase open through the end of (6/9). If there's something you think should be included in the list, try to post it here before the end of tomorrow.

Once the voting phase begins, voting will run through Friday (6/22).

To participate in this vote, simply follow the following three steps:

1. If you have an idea which isn't in the list, post it in the thread between now through tomorrow.
2. Wait for me to edit the above list of options. The ?? s will be replaced with lettered labels by (6/10).
3. After letters have been added to the above options list,
cast your ballot by making a post with a list of those letters sorted in your order of preference.
(you don't have to include them all, but including more gives your vote more chance to have an impact)

Spoiler: Example Ballot from a past vote:

B, C, D, F, H, M, 9, 8, 4, 3

B. Automation-Induced Job-Loss
C. Unemployment and Underemployment in General
D. Partisan Dysfunction in Congress
F. Too Many Restrictions on Abortion
H. Too Much Gun Violence
M. Global Warming
9. Homelessness
8. Overpopulation
4. Campaign Finance Laws
3. Economic and Social Inequality

(Also, please do actually post the letters when you vote, it really helps a lot. Thanks!)

​

Ah yes, now that's a salamander!

-Meta

 

I disagree, and based on preliminary results from the top national issues thread, I'm not the only one either.
But all the same, once the vote opens up I'll mark you down for the Status Quo Option.

-Meta

 

How so?

The way I see things, the purpose of districts, redistricting, and of the house of representatives is to have a branch of government which closely represents the views of the constituency, the voters, the people. If gerrymandering leads to results which are not representative of the people (which it does) then any system which allows for unrestricted gerrymandering is indeed a flawed system.

-Meta

 

How so?

It sounds to me like you may want to take another read through the discussion thread:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ting-and-end-political-gerrymandering.533582/
A lot of this was covered in there. Obviously, politicians should be required to convince voters to vote for them.
But gerrymandering is not convincing voters to vote for you...its manipulating the system so that you don't have to.
Of course, if enough are convinced by your opponent (as in, overwhelming numbers/a super-majority)
then that manipulation can be overcome, but its an unfair advantage politicians give to themselves which lowers the quality of our democracy and as such should not exist.

-Meta

 

I think this image posted in the discussion thread explains the answer to that question best:



Like I said in the discussion thread...if we have a congressional election in which 60% of voters overall vote for candidates from the green party and 40% of voters vote for candidates from the yellow party, and we somehow end up with either a congress in which 100% of the representatives are from the green party (i.e. they get significantly more representation than they should have) or a case in which the minority yellow party somehow ends up with majority representation in congress...then something has gone seriously wrong.

Not as many as you seem to think...

"It makes it impossible to throw out congressmen no matter how much everyone hates them. And we hate them. It's the only thing we as a country agree on anymore, we really hate Congress, but gerrymandering means we probably love our own congressmen.

Gerrymandering takes a 13% approval of Congress and turns it into a 90% reelection rate for incumbents. Let me repeat. Despite only 13% of us being happy with Congress, congressmen won 90% of their races in 2012. In fact, we haven't had a reelection rate in the House lower than 80% since at the very least 1964 and likely since longer."​

They want the politician because the politician draws the map specifically to pull people like that into their district.
And if those people ever stop wanting the politician, the politician can, if given the opportunity, simply redraw the map to exclude those people from the district and pull in another crop of favorable voters to replace them with. What this results in is that no matter what specific geographical area a politician preports to represent or how the voters' views of them changes over time, they perpetually remain in office regardless, leading to an overall congressional makeup which we the people increasingly grow to despise despite being unable to do anything to change its makeup, completely counter to the vast number of us who would like to see such a change.

This goes back to what I was saying earlier...Gerrymandering isn't about convincing voters to vote for you.
Its about taking voters who are already convinced, and manipulating the system in such a way that that group of voters gives you a win, even if they happen to be only a small minority. I've said it before, I'll say it again, democracy should be about voters getting to choose their representatives, never the other way around!

-Meta

 

See previous post.

No, not necessarily.

-Meta

 

Great idea! I've added this to the list.

-Meta

 

I can definitely get behind taking the human out of it.
That is where all the problems seem to start after-all.

What you describe sounds a lot like the Square-Rectangle Method.
And to some extent...the Ring Method. The Square-Rectangle Method is actually my favorite single potential solution,....or one of them anyways.

-Meta

 

Not exactly, but even if that was the case, what exactly is your point?

-Meta

 

All I want is for the results to more closely reflect what the people actually vote for.
To reflect more closely what it is they actually want.

On this particular subject, that means that if 60% of the voters vote for candidates from party A and 40% vote for party B for congress. Then I expect that congress, more or less, should be made up of roughly 60% of members form party A and 40% from party B. Some leeway is acceptable of course, but like I said before, given a voter split like that, if we somehow end up with near 100% of candidates from party A or 70% candidates from B, then something has gone seriously wrong.

I also want politicians to have to earn their votes by being responsive to the desires of the voters rather than being able to simply pick and choose groups of voters who already support them while casting the rest aside into districts which unfairly dilute their political impact.

-Meta