this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
662 points (93.9% liked)

Political Memes

5506 readers
2039 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
662
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by balderdash9 to c/[email protected]
 

Another reason to like Tim Walz. He has openly supported RCV: https://www.rcvbloomington.org/supporters

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Gerrymandering will exist no matter what you do, including nonpartisan map committees, because what counts as gerrymandering is an opinion. We gotta just leap-frog that problem and move to multi-member districts.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Except it doesn't, because you'll end up boxing out voting populations that are significant, but spread evenly and thinly across your whole legislative area. If there's a voting block that is at 20% everywhere, they will never elect their preferred candidate, because they'll never have a majority in any district. Gerrymandering will always be a problem with single-winner districts, because the definition of fair districts has multiple inputs, and there's no consensus on how much priority to give to each.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If that 20% is evenly distributed everywhere, then they don't need their own local candidate. That's like having the men's candidate or the left-handed candidate.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

They won't have any candidate. Regardless, the same problem applies. If these people are spread out unevenly, there will still be voters in districts without representation. Their rep won't give a shit about them because they vote for a different team, and the rep on their team but in a different district will care mildly at best because they can't actually vote for that rep.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

What if we just did a standard federal grid system?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

That creates its own potential (unintended) problems. There's no one size fits all solution to gerrymandering.

Dave Wasserman did a really great job going through all sorts of potential solutions and the benefits and flaws.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hating-gerrymandering-is-easy-fixing-it-is-harder/

Short answer, it's complicated. Long answer, read the piece, it's really good.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

As long as you had single-member districts, there will be a significant fraction of the voting population who have no one they can lobby who will listen. If I'm a Republican in a Democrat district, I don't have representation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So what's the actual solution? Direct democracy?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I literally said the solution in my first comment? Multi-member districts. Each district has, say, five representatives and they're elected using some sort of proportional representation. Sequential Proportional Approval Voting is probably the best for the US. You can read up on the specifics of that method if you want, but in general any proportional method tries to take into account the fact that once a candidate gets into office, the people who voted for that candidate now have representation and some amount of satisfaction, so other people's opinions should be more heavily weighted when awarding the next seat. It's easiest to explain with party-based methods, but essentially, if the vote totals are 40% Team A, 40% Team B, and 20% Team C, then the winners should approximate that vote breakdown. In this case, 2:2:1. What it means is that minority populations are much more likely to have someone in office who faithfully represents them, but majority populations are still going to have the appropriate fraction of the seats in power.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

First sentence is snippy. If you didn't want engagement then why did you bother responding?

Thank you for the information I'll dig into it on my way to work tomorrow.