North Carolina congressional map ruled unconstitutionally gerrymandered - Polidicks

[QUOTE=_Axel;53046442]Uh, what? Why would people vote democrat if they want a republican rep? That rebuttal doesn't make any sense at all.[/QUOTE] His rebuttal was in response to this: [QUOTE=_Axel;53044335]Or just attack the root of the issue and make gerrymandering useless in the first place by giving the most contested seats to the opposition parties until there is proportional representation.[/QUOTE] Voting doesn't matter if you're just giving the seat to the opposition.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53046512]Voting doesn't matter if you're just giving the seat to the opposition.[/QUOTE] It does matter though? You just have to hit a higher threshold than if the party you support actually did their job properly. It also matters on a macro scale where the proportion of reps [i]directly[/i] depends on your vote, contrary to how it currently works where if you're part of a large majority or a small minority within your district your vote basically doesn't count. The only difference with how it currently works is that priority is given to proportional global representation over proportional local representation, which is arguably less important. What makes your vote not matter is having your vote be deliberately suppressed and ending up having less reps than the opposition even though you're part of the majority.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53046529]It does matter though? You just have to hit a higher threshold than if the party you support actually did their job properly. It also matters on a macro scale where the proportion of reps [i]directly[/i] depends on your vote, contrary to how it currently works where if you're part of a large majority or a small minority your vote basically doesn't count. The only difference with how it currently works is that priority is given to proportional global representation over proportional local representation, which is arguably less important. What makes your vote not matter is having your vote be deliberately suppressed and ending up having less reps than the opposition even though you're part of the majority.[/QUOTE] No, it doesn't. If my district is being given to the opposition, then my vote doesn't matter because my choice couldn't win anyways, if I voted or not. That's the suggestion you are making here. And it's SUPPOSED to be local representation. The thing is that local representation should match, or be close to global representation, but it may not be exactly the same. If it isn't (which it's not), that means you either need more districts and representatives, or you're gerrymandering. We already know one of the two is true already.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53046547]No, it doesn't. If my district is being given to the opposition, then my vote doesn't matter because my choice couldn't win anyways, if I voted or not. That's the suggestion you are making here.[/quote] What? Seats would only be given to the opposition if : 1) Global representation is not proportional 2) Your district's seat is the most contested one So your vote always matter because : 1)a) It contributes to the overall representation of your party in your state b) Through that contribution you make it less likely that a seat has to be given at all 2) It makes it less likely that your district be the most contested one ie the one which will be lost to the opposition I don't understand how that's a hard concept to grasp. [Quote]And it's SUPPOSED to be local representation. The thing is that local representation should match, or be close to global representation, but it may not be exactly the same. If it isn't (which it's not), that means you either need more districts and representatives, or you're gerrymandering. We already know one of the two is true already.[/QUOTE] It's "local representation" that ends up being decisive at the federal level. Whether it's your "local" (quotes here because one look at the map shows it's anything but) representative or the one from the district next door of the same party that makes the vote makes a lot less difference than whether the majority of representatives for the state is a democrat or a republican. I really don't see the big deal here, if that's such a huge problem for republicans then surely they'll draw the districts so that no transfer of seat is necessary. They seem competent enough at this game to do this already.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53046602]What? Seats would only be given to the opposition if : 1) Global representation is not proportional 2) Your district's seat is the most contested one So your vote always matter because : 1)a) It contributes to the overall representation of your party in your state b) Through that contribution you make it less likely that a seat has to be given at all 2) It makes it less likely that your district be the most contested one ie the one which will be lost to the opposition I don't understand how that's a hard concept to grasp.[/quote] You're still creating a situation where voters' votes will be worthless because they will be powerless to pick their representative in certain situations, and not because they are being outvoted. [quote]It's "local representation" that ends up being decisive at the federal level. Whether it's your "local" (quotes here because one look at the map shows it's anything but) representative or the one from the district next door of the same party that makes the vote makes a lot less difference than whether the majority of representatives for the state is a democrat or a republican. I really don't see the big deal here, if that's such a huge problem for republicans then surely they'll draw the districts so that no transfer of seat is necessary. They seem competent enough at this game to do this already.[/QUOTE] The entire point is so that people have local representation in the federal level. You're basically just trying to turn the house into another version of the senate, which is not what it's there for. I understand and agree that gerrymandering is a problem that needs to be solved, but fucked up representation should never be solved with more fucked up representation.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53046648]You're still creating a situation where voters' votes will be worthless because they will be powerless to pick their representative in certain situations, and not because they are being outvoted.[/quote] But I just explained to you in the very part you quoted why they're not powerless no matter the situation? [Quote]The entire point is so that people have local representation in the federal level. You're basically just trying to turn the house into another version of the senate, which is not what it's there for. I understand and agree that gerrymandering is a problem that needs to be solved, but fucked up representation should never be solved with more fucked up representation.[/QUOTE] Not really, the Senate is even more fucked up representation wise considering every state gets the same amount of reps regardless of population. Also how is proportional representation "fucked up" representation? If anything, that's what you Americans lack.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53046718]But I just explained to you in the very part you quoted why they're not powerless no matter the situation?[/quote] You explained how people of a district could majority vote for one person for their representative, and get another. That's an entire district being powerless in choosing their representative, no matter how you slice it. [quote]Not really, the Senate is even more fucked up representation wise considering every state gets the same amount of reps regardless of population. Also how is proportional representation "fucked up" representation? If anything, that's what you Americans lack.[/QUOTE] The senate was the wrong example for me to use because the senate doesn't actually represent the people. It represents the states themselves. That's why they only get two representatives per state. And proportional voting is not fucked up. It's just not representation if you have some people who can't decide who their representative is because it's already chosen for them outside of the vote. The solution is to make every seat a contested seat, not to give away seats for free because the outcome overall doesn't match national political demographics.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53046648]You're still creating a situation where voters' votes will be worthless because they will be powerless to pick their representative in certain situations, and not because they are being outvoted.[/QUOTE] It is because they're being outvoted, just by the state as a whole rather than the district. Your vote could still tip the balance across the state, and you could also tip the balance between your state being the most contested or not. And also, what use is local representation when 'local' means 'incomprehensibly distorted area drawn by corrupt politicians that you happen to reside in'? Somehow I doubt the people of North Carolina's district 4 actually identified with that map area as being 'local'. Sure, it's going to be better now that they're changing it, but giving out seats based on state-wide vote proportions would undeniably give the most fair distribution of seats - that is, after all, what well drawn congressional maps would achieve too.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53046741]You explained how people of a district could majority vote for one person for their representative, and get another. That's an entire district being powerless in choosing their representative, no matter how you slice it.[/QUOTE] No it isn't. Powerless implies that your vote doesn't matter, and it does, for the reasons I already explained earlier. Denial does not an argument make. [QUOTE]And proportional voting is not fucked up. It's just not representation if you have some people who can't decide who their representative is because it's already chosen for them outside of the vote. The solution is to make every seat a contested seat, not to give away seats for free because the outcome overall doesn't match national political demographics.[/QUOTE] This is not about giving away seats for free, it's about increasing the threshold for parties which are given an unfair advantage by the way the districts are drawn. It's not already "chosen for them outside of the vote" because their vote can actually change who their representative is for the reasons I already mentioned and you keep ignoring. I find it hilarious that you find this small adjustment makes voters powerless somehow when your own presidential election is famously known for letting minorities win over a majority. As for the local representation argument, it's a moot point unless you want to argue that this: [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;53045945][t]http://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2016/07/Pennsylvania07.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] Can be considered representative of a local population. Your shit system already fails at local representation, its purported goal. Why defend it against a proposed system that's not any worse in that regard (or even better considering you won't have such awkwardly drawn districts without an incentive to gerrymander) and is actually much more fair in terms of global representation?

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;53046795]It is because they're being outvoted, just by the state as a whole rather than the district. Your vote could still tip the balance across the state, and you could also tip the balance between your state being the most contested or not. And also, what use is local representation when 'local' means 'incomprehensibly distorted area drawn by corrupt politicians that you happen to reside in'? Somehow I doubt the people of North Carolina's district 4 actually identified with that map area as being 'local'. Sure, it's going to be better now that they're changing it, but giving out seats based on state-wide vote proportions would undeniably give the most fair distribution of seats - that is, after all, what well drawn congressional maps would achieve too.[/QUOTE] They are not being outvoted. It is not the state's representative. It is the district's representative. Not only that, but unless you're planning on giving the libertarians 1% of the seats in the house (since were're "focusing on global instead of local", your system actually reinforces the two party system.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53046876]Not only that, but unless you're planning on giving the libertarians 1% of the seats in the house (since were're "focusing on global instead of local", your system actually reinforces the two party system.[/QUOTE] In my opinion, that would be one of the major strengths of a system like that, that it opens up for low percentages to actually yield seats that are proportional to that party's actual support. Don't know why you're insinuating I wouldn't support that, it would be fantastic for Democracy if a party with 2% votes would get 2% representation.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53046876]They are not being outvoted. It is not the state's representative. It is the district's representative.[/quote] That's a pretty shitty argument considering the state decides what its districts are. As of current, districts aren't representative of any cohesive population with common goals. Local representation is a moot point if you're going to defend your current system. [Quote]Not only that, but unless you're planning on giving the libertarians 1% of the seats in the house (since were're "focusing on global instead of local", your system actually reinforces the two party system.[/QUOTE] Care to explain how? Because I'm not sure how that can be the case. Also what's the problem with having party distribution represent the people's political alignment?

[QUOTE=_Axel;53046602]What? Seats would only be given to the opposition if : 1) Global representation is not proportional 2) Your district's seat is the most contested one So your vote always matter because : 1)a) It contributes to the overall representation of your party in your state b) Through that contribution you make it less likely that a seat has to be given at all 2) It makes it less likely that your district be the most contested one ie the one which will be lost to the opposition I don't understand how that's a hard concept to grasp. It's "local representation" that ends up being decisive at the federal level. Whether it's your "local" (quotes here because one look at the map shows it's anything but) representative or the one from the district next door of the same party that makes the vote makes a lot less difference than whether the majority of representatives for the state is a democrat or a republican. I really don't see the big deal here, if that's such a huge problem for republicans then surely they'll draw the districts so that no transfer of seat is necessary. They seem competent enough at this game to do this already.[/QUOTE] Sounds like it would be better to just use multi-member districts i.e. if a district votes 70% GOP and 30% Dem they get 2 GOP and 1 Dem representative, giving a voice to the minority party voters in each district. Use fewer and larger districts so that there's still roughly the same number of reps in the legislature

[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;53047236]Sounds like it would be better to just use multi-member districts i.e. if a district votes 70% GOP and 30% Dem they get 2 GOP and 1 Dem representative, giving a voice to the minority party voters in each district. Use fewer and larger districts so that there's still roughly the same number of reps in the legislature[/QUOTE] That does seem simpler and it does helps with proportional representation, though it still requires districts to be properly drawn. Though it hinders it, I'm not sure if that would get rid of gerrymandering entirely :thinking:

[QUOTE=_Axel;53047697]That does seem simpler and it does helps with proportional representation, though it still requires districts to be properly drawn. Though it hinders it, I'm not sure if that would get rid of gerrymandering entirely :thinking:[/QUOTE] The thing about multi-winner districts is that lessening either party's representation in one area will increase it in another. The reason that cracking and packing works so well with single-winners is that for districts, any percent of representation above 50% is meaningless, and can even be detrimental if not put into another district. Your "margin of error", for lack of a better term, decreases sharply once you're drawing districts with multiple winners. To get a 2-winner district to give 2 people of the same party, they need a minimum of 75% in that district. To get a 3-winner district to give 3 people of the same party, they need a minimum of 83.333...% representation. Here's a map. [R][R][D][D][D][D] [R][R][D][D][D][D] [R][R][D][D][R][R] [R][R][D][D][R][R] [D][D][D][D][R][R] [D][D][D][D][R][R] As you can see, there are 16 cells that vote Republican, and 20 cells that vote Democrat. We'll make 3 districts, with a varying amount of winners. In a single-winner scenario, the best either party can manage is 2/3 districts in their favor. Republicans, who are a minority, could make themselves into a super-majority through gerrymandering, and Democrats can make their majority bigger than it actually should be. The power is not in the hands of the people, but rather in the hands of old men running the world. In a double-winner scenario, the best either party can manage is 50/50 representation. There is no way to create a district that has 75% of their own party without creating one that also has 75% or more of the other party. In a triple-winner scenario, the outcome is impossible to change. Republicans will have 4 out of 9 winners, and the Democrats will have 5 out of 9. But what if we go for four districts? Except for single-winner, the absolute best Republicans can get is 50/50. In a single-winner scenario, Democrats can ensure 100% representation. Republicans can get 75%. In a double-winner scenario, Democrats can ensure 75% representation. In a triple-winner scenario, the best that Democrats can do is 2/3 in favor of them. This makes it evident that a multi-winner system makes it a lot more representative of the actual voter base, but this alone isn't sufficient to stop gerrymandering. With a sufficient combination of winners and districts, any actual "changes" that could be made through gerrymandering wouldn't be enough to actually change how many winners go to either party.