[EM] An impractical suggestion for redistricting
Kristofer Munsterhjelm
km_elmet at t-online.de
Fri Jun 10 05:23:15 PDT 2022
On 6/10/22 12:52 PM, Colin Champion wrote:
> On 08/06/2022 14:09, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> I was reading https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.04628.pdf, which gives an
> approximation to hard capacitated k-means clustering (basically,
> districting with the constraint that each district population should be
> the same)...
>
> In the UK, constituencies are adjusted by a commission. I don't suppose
> it's perfectly fair but in practice the errors it gives rise to are
> tolerably small. There's a bigger problem: constituencies are either
> rural or urban. If rural constituencies favour party A by a small
> majority and urban constituencies favour B by a large majority, then A
> has an in-built advantage. I'm not aware of anything in k-means
> clustering which guards against this.
It doesn't, no. It replaces engineered biases with natural ones (which
seem to be less severe, e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8796).
Any constituency-based majoritarian system has a fundamental limitation
in that it doesn't give parties who have a little representation
everywhere its share of the seats. Presumably better single-winner
voting methods like Condorcet would allow these minor factions to drag
the center in their direction, but it wouldn't give them direct
representation.
You could add a districting step to a Monroe-type multiwinner election
so that it draws "districts" of voters each candidate is accountable to,
after the fact, but I don't really see what the point would be :-)
Imposing the required geographic contiguity constraints would lower the
proportionality of the result, as well.
-km
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list