[EM] Gerrymandering solutions.

[Ted Stern]

Michael, you are stepping naively into an area that has been very well
studied.  I include a couple of points below you may want to consider.

On 04 Jun 2012 22:18:06 -0700, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>
> 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.

Can you prove that the ranking from a single-winner election is
proportional?

I think not.

At the very least, you should remove ballots, in some fractional way,
when a ballot has achieved some portion of its preference.  Single
Transferable Vote (STV) is one way, of course, but there is also
Reweighted Range Voting, and a Bucklin variant proposed by Jameson
Quinn as AT-TV a year ago.  My simplified version of JQ's method is
Graded Approval Transferable Vote (GATV) and can be found here:

     https://github.com/dodecatheon/graded-approval-transferable-vote

>
> 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.
>

Brian Olson has one automated method, with examples from the 2010
census, located here:

      http://bdistricting.com/2010/

There is also the shortest splitline algorithm, discussed here:

      http://rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html
      http://rangevoting.org/GerryExec.html
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUS9uvYyn3A

Ted
-- 
araucaria dot araucana at gmail dot com
    

> 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
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info