[hrothgar]

For what its worth, I'm going to provide a brief posting on the political issue that concerns me more than anything else right now. (Yes, I know that I stated that I don't think that we should be discussing politics on this board. With this said and done, i hope that this issue is boring enough that it will pass the "No one will care" test)

For better or worse, I am extremely passionate about redistricting. At the moment, far too many US congrassional districts have been Gerrymander into so-called "safe" districts. Safe districts are engineered to feature large Democratic or Republican majorities. They are inherently non-competitive. Its virtually impossible for a Democrat to win a district with 66% Republicans, and equally difficult for Republicans to win a district with 66% Democrats. Unfortunately, safe districts have a nasty impact on the body politic... Consider the following: If a candidate is going to run for election in a competitive district he typically needs to adopt a centrist position in order to attract the most voters during the general election. In contrast, if a candidate is attempting to win election in a safe district, his main priority is winning the primary. In turn, this requires adopting a more extreme positions designed to appeal to highly partisan primary voters.

From my perspective, this is the root cause of an awful lot of issues currently afflicting the US. In particular, I think that the highly polarized political climate in Washington is a direct consequence of the un-competitive nature of our elections. Equally significant, I suspect that the easiest way to achieve "term limits" for elected officials is to make sure that they face real channlenged during an election cycle.

Personally, I'd like to see the US start to use "objective" computer algorithms for designing political districts. Here's a simple example of this type of system. Assume that you need to partition a state like Texas or California into 75 (or 123 or 312) separate districts.

1. Start with a "physical" map of the given state
2. Create a new map by weighting geographic size based on population density.
3. Partion the new map into 75 districts. Each district must contain the same number of voters.
4. Chose the districting scheme that minimizes the sum of the circumferences of the districts.

[Gerben42]

Sorry Richard, your post makes sense which means no one will ever use this scheme.

[joshs]

I have been wanting to write such a computer program for years. Its embaressing that
a. the state legislatures can, having taken power, seize power for their party perminantly by redrawing the districts
b. the public has no confidence in the democratic process these days. This ranges from how districts are drawn, to how votes are counted.

Now the wrangling over the exact algorithm chosen to draw the districts will be intense. So the algorithm has to initially have a stocastic element to it, so the parties can't predict the exact districts that will come out of it ahead of time....

[Al_U_Card]

What? You propose a method based on efficiency and sensibility? You ARE talking about POLITICS, are you not?

[hrothgar]

joshs, on Apr 11 2006, 06:59 PM, said:

Now the wrangling over the exact algorithm chosen to draw the districts will be intense. So the algorithm has to initially have a stocastic element to it, so the parties can't predict the exact districts that will come out of it ahead of time....

Its unclear to me whether this is necessarily true:

In an ideal world, the end result of the algorithm will be a large number of deterministically designed districts with a stocastic outcome to any given election. If your algorithms doesn't produce this outcome than the exercise really doesn't accomplish anything. Adding uncertainly regarding the precise set of boundaries really shouldn't change the incentives all that much.

Equally significant, this type of change would be a major threat to any incumbent regardless of party affiliation. Other than a few old school idealists, none of em have any interest in leaving office. Look how quickly the class of 4/96 lost interest in term limits.

From my perspective, the only real way to get something like this through is to ride a mass popular wave directed against incumbents in general. Alternatively, its always possible that one of the existing major parties might decided to include this platform on "principle". Case in point: A lot of folks, myself included, have issues with the Democrats because the don't seem to stand for anything. Personally, I'd like to see them add this type of technocratic / policy wonk position into their platform. I (hope) that the electoral gains for standing up and doing whats "right" might outweigh any losses from loosing a few gerrymandered districts.

[pclayton]

Richard I totally agree, especially in California.

State Assembly and Senatorial district are so badly gerrymandered that a member of an opposition political party in a given district does not stand a chance.

Every election cycle, 'targeted' seats are identified, where a certain incumbent may be vulnerable. Literally, all of the party's resources are poured into one or two targeted races where the party believes it stands a chance of winning a seat in a district that traditionally has not held. Other races in districts get very little resources from the party bosses in Sacramento. Incumbents, no matter how incompetent, are virtually guaranteed relelection until their terms expire. So, just about all elections are won at the primary stage.

The initiative in last November's election that would have assigned redistricting to three independent judges was a good idea in principle, but due to the unpopularity of Arnold it failed.

[kfgauss]

pclayton, on Apr 11 2006, 05:21 PM, said:

The initiative in last November's election that would have assigned redistricting to three independent judges was a good idea in principle, but due to the unpopularity of Arnold it failed.

I agree. Up here in Berkeley, it was quite unpopular, but largely because it was seen as a Republican power grab since it was "off-cycle" (the next redistricting is scheduled for 2010 I think) and the Democrats are currently in power. I thought rejecting it for this reason was short-sighted and so I supported it, but many friends didn't for only this reason. I suspect (read: hope) that if it comes up again, but with a 2010 start, then it'll have a better chance.

Andy

[csdenmark]

From my side of the pond we don't care much whether democrat or republican. We see all of them as just the same. Perhaps the republicans more based in religious traditionalism during last 20 years or so. But else we see no real difference in basic political values.

During my walk on beach today I came to think of how would USA look like if the election mandates to Congres would follow the line of population instead of the line of states. I have always wondered how can it be acceptable for big states like California and Texas only to have same numerical representatives as South Dakota etc. I also wonder why majority leaders normally comes from small states.

As far as I am able to see it this means USA is no longer lead by persons representing the ecomic centers of the country. Such leads to the conclusion that USA legislative bodies are based in rural economy. From our perspective this is mostly synomym with 'the bible belt'. Such cannot be healthy to any nation.

[hrothgar]

csdenmark, on Apr 12 2006, 12:31 AM, said:

From my side of the pond we don't care much whether democrat or republican. We see all of them as just the same. Perhaps the republicans more based in religious traditionalism during last 20 years or so. But else we see no real difference in basic political values.

During my walk on beach today I came to think of how would USA look like if the election mandates to Congres would follow the line of population instead of the line of states. I have always wondered how can it be acceptable for big states like California and Texas only to have same numerical representatives as South Dakota etc. I also wonder why majority leaders normally comes from small states.

As far as I am able to see it this means USA is no longer lead by persons representing the ecomic centers of the country. Such leads to the conclusion that USA legislative bodies are based in rural economy. From our perspective this is mostly synomym with 'the bible belt'. Such cannot be healthy to any nation.

The US has a bicameral legislature.

There are 100 seats in the Senate (2 for each state)
However, seats in the House of Representatives are allocated based on population.

The President is (formally) elected by the Electoral College. The nuber of Electors for each state is the sum of the number of Senators and Representatives. Underpopulated rural states do have disproportionate political power, but its no where near as bad as you might think.

[mike777]

csdenmark, on Apr 11 2006, 04:31 PM, said:

From my side of the pond we don't care much whether democrat or republican. We see all of them as just the same. Perhaps the republicans more based in religious traditionalism during last 20 years or so. But else we see no real difference in basic political values.

During my walk on beach today I came to think of how would USA look like if the election mandates to Congres would follow the line of population instead of the line of states. I have always wondered how can it be acceptable for big states like California and Texas only to have same numerical representatives as South Dakota etc. I also wonder why majority leaders normally comes from small states.

As far as I am able to see it this means USA is no longer lead by persons representing the ecomic centers of the country. Such leads to the conclusion that USA legislative bodies are based in rural economy. From our perspective this is mostly synomym with 'the bible belt'. Such cannot be healthy to any nation.

This is the ongoing fight/balance/trade off of the rights of the majority versus the rights of the minorities. Our country is based on a central distrust of government. We have split the Central government into 3 competing parts. These 3 parts constantly fight for power/ fight to increase their power and limit the other 2 parts.

On top of this we split the power to govern with states, counties and cities fighting the central government on selected issues. All of this results in a neverending fight for power and money among competing interests. From time to time one section will have the upper hand until they are brought down by the others. This makes for a very messy process with compromise demanded to be able to govern.

Because of these compromises many non-americans think there is little to choose between our parties.

Funny enough most Americans think of this as a great blessing for our country!

[pbleighton]

"Because of these compromises many non-americans think there is little to choose between our parties.

Funny enough most Americans think of this as a great blessing for our country!"

And a lot more of us don't.

Peter

[Walddk]

csdenmark, on Apr 11 2006, 10:31 PM, said:

From our perspective this is mostly synomym with 'the bible belt'. Such cannot be healthy to any nation.

Are you speaking on behalf of anybody but yourself? I don't think you should use "our". I for one don't want to be included.

Fred has said it on a number of occasions: it would be nice if you could add "in my opinion".

Roland

[csdenmark]

Walddk, on Apr 12 2006, 12:14 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Apr 11 2006, 10:31 PM, said:

From our perspective this is mostly synomym with 'the bible belt'. Such cannot be healthy to any nation.

Are you speaking on behalf of anybody but yourself? I don't think you should use "our". I for one don't want to be included.

Fred has said it on a number of occasions: it would be nice if you could add "in my opinion".

Roland

I have been extraordinaire patient with you Roland - simply because you are a dane. No longer.

Our conversations ENDs here.

[csdenmark]

I have never paid much attention to this topic but a little more study might be a way better to understand some of that what looks very strange over here.

We mostly see the Senate as legislative body in USA. It is those persons in focus, those we know name of. Therefore my conclusion is it is also those who have the right for initiatives.

I looked up House of Representatives and found they had 435 members.

53 from California
32 from Texas
28 from New York

I can see here not so overwhelming representation from rural areas as I thought.

But I still wonder why it is the name of the senators we know of instead of those from House of Representatives. The only name I remember to have heard from above list is: DeLay, Tom; Texas, 22nd

[mike777]

In most World countries there is one party in power, see UK etc.....they control almost all parts of the government.

In the USA most of the time the government parts are split in power. This makes it hard for any one leader to be a King or Queen.....and do what they want without compromise.

We have the 3 parts to the Central Government.
1) Executive..think the President
2) Judicial..think the Supreme Court
3) Legislature..House and Senate


The House members serve for 2 years and this is the "house of the people" It's purpose is to be more "hot blooded" closer to the people and the people's passions for better or worse. They think for the shorter term.

The Senate members serve for 6 years, they are suppose to be more "thoughtful and contemplative" They think for the longer term, in theory.

A law has to pass both the House and Senate and be signed by the President. All these hurdles make laws very hard to pass and require compromise.

In addition we have states making laws, counties making laws and cities making laws...they all have police forces.....again a split in power so no one can become King or Queen.

[pbleighton]

"In most World countries there is one party in power, see UK etc.....they control all parts of the government."

Not quite true - they control the executive and the legislative branches, but there is an independent judiciary. The power of the judiciary varies by country.

Peter

[Sigi_BC84]

Walddk, on Apr 11 2006, 11:14 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Apr 11 2006, 10:31 PM, said:

From our perspective this is mostly synomym with 'the bible belt'. Such cannot be healthy to any nation.

Are you speaking on behalf of anybody but yourself? I don't think you should use "our". I for one don't want to be included.

That was not necessary, Roland. I guess what he wanted to say is that generally among Europeans the term "bible belt" would come to mind (probably even among US Americans?).

If you disagree, simply say it. If Claus is speaking about "Danes" or "Denmark" I guess it is clear that obviously there will also be Danes who disagree.

--Sigi

[luke warm]

Sigi_BC84, on Apr 11 2006, 06:43 PM, said:

Walddk, on Apr 11 2006, 11:14 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Apr 11 2006, 10:31 PM, said:

From our perspective this is mostly synomym with 'the bible belt'. Such cannot be healthy to any nation.

Are you speaking on behalf of anybody but yourself? I don't think you should use "our". I for one don't want to be included.

That was not necessary, Roland. I guess what he wanted to say is that generally among Europeans the term "bible belt" would come to mind (probably even among US Americans?).

If you disagree, simply say it. If Claus is speaking about "Danes" or "Denmark" I guess it is clear that obviously there will also be Danes who disagree.

--Sigi

i think the biggest problem here boils down to the fact that roland's english (being understood and understanding) seems better than claus'... when roland has been insulted in english, there's a very high probability he will know it... when he insults someone in english, it's a sure bet he knew what he was doing

i don't sense the same from claus... sometimes (and i think this is one such time) he feels he was insulted and i don't think he was... roland was (imo) simply saying "when you use the word 'our' you make it sound like everyone... maybe another word is more appropriate"... i didn't read an insult into that... conversely, sometimes i think claus' statements are taken to be insulting when (again imo) they're simply a matter of idiom or familiarity with the english language...

anyway, that's my attempt at peace... i doubt i'll make it a habit

concerningt gerrymandering, i agree 100% with richard... it's a vicious circle and i don't know how to stop it...

[helene_t]

csdenmark, on Apr 11 2006, 11:31 PM, said:

From my side of the pond we don't care much whether democrat or republican.

Not sure how large a proportion of Europeans share this point of view. I, for one, disagree. Then again, a lot of people (whether European or American or something else) don't care about politics at all. Anyway, please speak for yourself, Claus.

I think Richard's suggestion is excelent.

In Denmark, the Netherland, UK and probably other European countries, there is a tradition for aligning electoral districts with units that (also) exist in other respects, mainly local municipalities. A party district is bound to coincide with a local municipality because local party subdivisions have to take position on local matters. Now it could be argued that electoral districts for national and European elections should coincide with party districts because election campains of individual politicians are organized by local party subdivisions. Besides, in some cases, (such as the Dutch first-chamber elections) regional parlamentarians serve as ellectoral college.

So elctoral districts actually coincide with local municiplaties, at least in Denmark and the Netherlands. This constrains the choices that Richard's algorithm could make if implemented in such countries.

[helene_t]

pbleighton, on Apr 12 2006, 01:15 AM, said:

"In most World countries there is one party in power, see UK etc.....they control all parts of the government."

Not quite true - they control the executive and the legislative branches, but there is an independent judiciary.  The power of the judiciary varies by country.

Peter

Basically, I agree with Peter. But while most of the World's consitutions more or less reflect this idea of division of power, it doesn't always work like that in practice.

In Britain, judges are appointed by other judges so they are very independant of the political system. On the other hand, certain trials can be appealed to the House of Commons.

In Denmark, judges are apponted by the minister of justice.

Another issue is how much freedom judges have to interpret legal practice and/or the constitution. Under the French system of law, which is used in most European countries, the lawmakers have more power than under the British system of law.

And then there are, of course, all the not-so-democratic countries in which politicians (or other de-facto rulers) can put pressure on judges. Or where the police make some decisions which courts are supposed to make.

This may all sound as if I'm advocating the British system. FWIW, I think the French system is more democratic since a bigger part of the governement decisions are under democratic control. On the other hand, it does give some stability that power is not in the hand of a single insitution. Maybe the ideal solution would be something like lawmaking at the national level combined with a system of justice run by the European community.