this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
1368 points (91.8% liked)
Memes
45655 readers
1703 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Off topic slightly, but I've seen on Lemmy lately where people are saying "get rid of gerrymandering" and I'm curious about the argument for this.
Honestly, I'd love for it to happen, but I assumed it was impossible in a Representative Democracy because of how the system/math worked. Kinda of an inherit problem. Mostly because the ways I've heard to remedy this issue is to distribute districts in such a way that they more closely resemble their population ratios. However, isn't this also a form of gerrymandering? Districts are getting set to way we think they should be. Not saying that wrong persay, just feel like a bandage solution. Like we're beating a nail in with a wrench. In a way though, this reminds me of the Observer Effect in a way
There isn't a perfect way to draw districts. I like sortest splitline for its simplicity and impartial strategy.
The best solution I can see is to evolve the House of Representatives into a body of proportional representation. This could be done in state level houses as well. Single winner, or other small number of winners elections should have ranked choice to make it harder for parties to maintain dominance.
This was more of the point I was trying to hit but couldn't think of
no.
gerrymandering is editing the borders for your party's gain.
If it's done to be balanced and representive, then it isn't gerrymandering.
there's a super simple solution: stop having the ruling party be allowed to draw the lines. Have the whole thing be controlled by ordinary government bureaucrats. No-one elected involved at any point.
then, suddenly, impossible for gerrymandering to exist, outside of criminal interference.