[EM] Competitive Districting Rule

[Dave Ketchum]

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:53:45 -0400 raphfrk at netscape.net wrote:

> From: Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com>
> 
>> Agreed that redistricting should be based only on the decennial 
> 
> census - what was done in Texas needs forbidding.
> 
> Btw, what is your opinion on having districts setup so that a minority 
> group can get a reasonable number of seats ?


If you are asking about larger districts, with multiple legislators 
elected from each - I am all enthused:
      If it happened that a minority was 20%, they would normally be able 
to elect about 1 in 5.
      This thread still applies to district boundaries.
      Those setting up districts still know nothing of registration or 
voting.

> 
>> Likewise what they were doing about safe seats. Still, any formula 
> 
> based on parties is dangerous, for there is
> 
>> too much temptation to make it favor the formula writers.
> 
> 
> I agree, the rules generally shouldn't refer to parties.  However, I 
> couldn't see how you
> would figure out what the expected vote would be in each district as the 
> computer
> balances them.


I CANNOT trust the programmers who tell the computer how to "balance".
      I can accept larger districts as above, letting the significant 
minorities elect legislators per their strength.

I argue, sometimes, for proxies instead of electing:  Whole state, or 
whatever, allows voters to give a proxy power to represent them. 
Likewise, proxies can be multiple level.  Proxy holders sit in the 
legislature with power according to proxies held.  According to power:
      Too weak and no power.
      A bit stronger and can vote in legislature.
      Those with most proxies (gets enough warm bodies to make legislate 
workable) get this power.
      But, a limit on voting power - don't want some super holder becoming 
dictator.

> 
>> What happens if Frisco is heavily Dem and LA is heavily Rep?
> 
> 
> In both places, alot of the districts would be balanced 50/50 and also 
> the party with the most support
> would have a few districts where it has higher support.  For example, if 
> there was 10 seats, 5 might be "safe"
> and the other 5 would be optimised to be reasonably close to 50/50.

Who does the deciding as to which are to be safe?
> 
>> So I favor neutrality, based on the formulas not being allowed to 
> 
> KNOW anything about registration or voting.
> 
>> BUT, I would expand "contiguous" - some initial thoughts:
>> Hudson River: Lower Hudson is not crossable, so should be considered 
> 
> a solid wall
> 
>> when measuring distances. It is crossable at bridges, so consider 
> 
> them an expense to cross.
> 
>> Other boundaries such as lakes, railroads, and expressways - consider 
> 
> crossability.
> 
>> Manhattan - count most of the bridges and tunnels a solid wall.
>> Staten Island - water around it is mostly a solid wall except, if it 
> 
> is worth 2.5 districts, count
> 
>> the bridge to Brooklyn as connecting two half districts.
>> County boundaries:
>> Need a bit of porosity, for some counties cannot hold whole 
> 
> districts.
> 
>> Need some resistance, to discourage excessive crossing.
>> Other boundaries such as towns and cities - still trying to favor 
> 
> keeping communities
> 
>> together - and having districts share boundaries.
> 
> 
> What about
> 
> - the centre is the point inside the district that minimises the total 
> distance from residents to the centre
> - distances are calculated as travelled by road
> - 1 mile (or some distance) is added to the distance for every boundary 
> passed through (county/city)
> 
> This would mean that the all else being equal, the district boundaries 
> would not cross
> county boundaries.

Thanks for hearing my point - would need more thought to complete.
> 
> I would still like a way to make it so that all districts are reasonably 
> competitive.
> 
> What about the following:
> 
> Voters are also asked who they would have voted for if they were to vote 
> in the nearest
> neighbouring district.  This would mean that information would be 
> available on what would
> happen if a specific polling booth was to be swapped from one district 
> to that neighbour.
> 
> This could allow the districts to be updated after each election, 
> keeping them as close to
> un-safe as possible.

Aside from the complexity, another complaint.  Even though I would LIKE a 
legislator from my party, I ALSO LIKE having a legislator who understands 
my area's needs, so let's think on continuity.
> 
> This would make the government very dependant on "swing" since the 
> previous election.

-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.