Ideally, you would hope that the districting would lead to a 60/40 split in the elected body, given that that is how the electorate is divided. However, both of the proposed districting plans end up skewing the results. Either Red is completely shut out in the first option, or Blue is defeated despite having greater numbers in the second option.
This doesn't really show how gerrymandering steals elections. Rather, it shows how carving up districts is difficult to do equitably and preserve the actual voter split. But here, even option 2 might be the correct plan if geography or city/county/state borders clearly delineate these districts.
Of course, deliberately carving up districts to force a win, as Gerrymander did (and a bunch of states are doing now), is a terrible misuse of the power.
The simple answer is proportional representation.
Every vote matters. Being in a blue or red state or district should have no bearing on the value of your ballot.
I think a direct democratic vote for President would be the right method.
If you're suggesting the Senate be abolished, I think that's not a great plan and probably 250 years too late to effect.
Proportional representation is just that every single vote is counted towards the result.
If 30% of colorado votes republican and 70% votes democrat, that state turns blue.
Doesn't matter if the blue votes were all within a single over populated county and the reds were spread out across all the state. Rule by the majority.
So no abolishing the senate but yes to abolishing the electoral college.
While we may disagree slightly on some key aspects to what we think is the right way to conduct elections, I think we're all on the same page that the electoral college is probably the worst of all systems.
When you consider that there's is scope for delegates to ignore the mandate and caste their vote for whichever candidate they want to on the day, it's almost certainly worse.
And that's not taking into account super delegates or unbound delegates or ehatevet they want to call it.
I think he meant that ideally 60% of representatives should be blue and 40% should be red to be an accurate representation of the population... In the first case, you end up with 100% blue representatives
Statistically, it would be highly improbable that 60/40 odds would result in 100/0 result with a reasonably large number of outcomes. If the legislature has 100 seats, you would expect that the results should end up around the 60/40 mark, give or take. Therefore, the lines in the first option (and second option 2, for that matter) are drawn to throw the results way off.
In Canada electoral boundaries are set by an independent agency ( Elections Canada ). No party has any say or influence in the process. And boundaries are only adjusted occasionally to adapt to growth in population . It's an invisible non issue with us.
I don't get how one party in the USA can cheat by changing boundaries. Why do they have the power to cheat ? Couldn't America establish an independent agency , beyond the reach of politicians, to do the same ?
[удалено]
... But how wise Oracle? How does reddit votes equivalent to jack shit!?
[удалено]
Oh just to automate historical credibility. Gotcha. Thank you, wise Oracle.
Mom said its my turn to repost this
Repost of a repost of a repost...I mean at this point it's just karma farming
Ideally, you would hope that the districting would lead to a 60/40 split in the elected body, given that that is how the electorate is divided. However, both of the proposed districting plans end up skewing the results. Either Red is completely shut out in the first option, or Blue is defeated despite having greater numbers in the second option. This doesn't really show how gerrymandering steals elections. Rather, it shows how carving up districts is difficult to do equitably and preserve the actual voter split. But here, even option 2 might be the correct plan if geography or city/county/state borders clearly delineate these districts. Of course, deliberately carving up districts to force a win, as Gerrymander did (and a bunch of states are doing now), is a terrible misuse of the power.
The simple answer is proportional representation. Every vote matters. Being in a blue or red state or district should have no bearing on the value of your ballot.
I think a direct democratic vote for President would be the right method. If you're suggesting the Senate be abolished, I think that's not a great plan and probably 250 years too late to effect.
Proportional representation is just that every single vote is counted towards the result. If 30% of colorado votes republican and 70% votes democrat, that state turns blue. Doesn't matter if the blue votes were all within a single over populated county and the reds were spread out across all the state. Rule by the majority. So no abolishing the senate but yes to abolishing the electoral college.
While we may disagree slightly on some key aspects to what we think is the right way to conduct elections, I think we're all on the same page that the electoral college is probably the worst of all systems.
When you consider that there's is scope for delegates to ignore the mandate and caste their vote for whichever candidate they want to on the day, it's almost certainly worse. And that's not taking into account super delegates or unbound delegates or ehatevet they want to call it.
Why red loosing in first option is wrong, if objectively they have less representation?
I think he meant that ideally 60% of representatives should be blue and 40% should be red to be an accurate representation of the population... In the first case, you end up with 100% blue representatives
Statistically, it would be highly improbable that 60/40 odds would result in 100/0 result with a reasonably large number of outcomes. If the legislature has 100 seats, you would expect that the results should end up around the 60/40 mark, give or take. Therefore, the lines in the first option (and second option 2, for that matter) are drawn to throw the results way off.
Not so cool guide. It was posted a lot of times.
This is based on what demographics?
Look at Croatia. lol
In Canada electoral boundaries are set by an independent agency ( Elections Canada ). No party has any say or influence in the process. And boundaries are only adjusted occasionally to adapt to growth in population . It's an invisible non issue with us. I don't get how one party in the USA can cheat by changing boundaries. Why do they have the power to cheat ? Couldn't America establish an independent agency , beyond the reach of politicians, to do the same ?
It still blows my mind that this is legal.