[EM] Gerrymandering solutions.

[Michael Ossipoff]

About gerrymanmdering;

PR would be a solution to gerrymandering, but certainly not the only one:

1. Proxy Direct Democracy wouldn't have a gerrymandering problem either. If
Proxy DD can be made count-fraud-secure, then it would make PR obsolete.

2. Whatever can be accomplished by PR can be accomplished by an at-large
single winner election, because every single winner method can output a
ranking of candidates instead of just one winner: Elect the winner. Then
delete the winner from the ballots and count them again. That will elect the
rank 2 winner. Then eliminate the rank 2 winner too, and count the ballots
again. Each time, delete every previous winner before counting to determine
the next winner. So you can elect N winners at large in a state, or
nationally, for a body such as Congress (or its separate houses, if you want
to keep them) or a state legislature. Of course, with Approval, it only
requires one count, and you elect the N candidates with the most approvals.

3. But districting needn't have a gerrymandering problem, even if
single-member districts are kept. Who said that districts have to be
arbitrary and freehand-drawn?? Where did we get that silly assumption?

Draw the district lines by some simple rule that doesn't leave any human
discretion or choice. It would be completely automated, but it would be so
simple that it would be very easy for anyone to check.

For example: You could divide the country (or state) into N1 latitudinal
bands such that each has the same population/average longitudinal width.
Then divide each latitudinal band into longitudinal sections, in such a way
as to give each section the same population, and so that there are the right
number of such sections overall.

But of course you wouldn't have to use latitude and longitude if you don't
want to. On a map, on any projection, that you choose, use a rectangular
grid of lines, drawn similarly to the way described above. If you use a
gnomonic projection, then all of your district lines will be straight lines
on the Earth (great circles). If you use a cylindrical projection, then it
will be as described in the previous paragraph. But it could be any
projection you like. I'd suggest that gnomonic and cylindrical (using
parallels and meridians as described in the previous paragraph) would be the
main two choices. Districts divided by parallels and meridians, or by
straight lines (great circles).

The point is that it could be done by a simple rule that would have no human
input, no human choice. What if it divides a county or a city? So what? No
problem. The rule could be that houses would be all counted on whichever
side of a line most of the house's area lies.

It could be automated of course, but the result could easily be checked by
anyone.

To change the  subject a little, I'd like to bring up another geographical
government suggestion, while I'm at it: Partition.

It doesn't make any sense for people to have to live under a government that
they don't like, with people whom they don't agree with or don't like. So
why not just divide the country up into separate countries, according to
what kind of government people like? It's ridiculous to make everyone share
the same county, when they want different kinds of country.

It would be like a PR election, except that it would be for square miles
instead of for seats.

Though, like districting, the partitioning of the country could be (1) by an
automatic rule, with those same rectangles (I like that),  or (2) it could
also be done by national negotiation in a PR negotiating body, or maybe by a
proxy DD negotiation.

I like the quick simplicity of (1). But (2) could _maybe_ be done in such a
way as to ensure that each new partition-country has, to the best extent
possible by negotiation, equally good land, by whatever standards its people
want to bargain for.

Of course an overall census could be taken periodically, and the process
repeated, to take into account people who have "voted with their feet". But
those adjustments wouldn't be necessary, because the initial partition would
let everyone live in the govt they like best. But, though I don't watch tv,
I used to watch it along with the family I was part of, so what about a
family like the one in "All in the Family"? Should Archie Bunker's daughter
have to remain in his country? Likewise the family in "A family Affair" (if
I've got the show-name right). It is not your fault what country you're born
in. So there would be a strong case for letting people continue to choose
what country they want to live in, even after partition. 

Of course then it would be necessary to repeat the initial partition process
to adjust the national borders to the new populations. Maybe migration
should only affect borders when it's by people who were born in the country
that they're in, as opposed to people who chose that country at partition
time.

But migration must be distinguished from fecundity, for this purpose. A
country shouldn't be able to expand over its neighbors just because it
doesn't like birth-control.

Mike Ossipoff