Biden's America

[deedsker]

50 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

You don't need AI. Just algorithms that can produce compact areas (minimize the ratio of perimeter to area) with equal population numbers in each area.

 

The number of districts for a state depends on it's population and not it's geography, so there's not really a way to make bigger districts without creating districts with too many people in them.

With ranked choice voting you can put more people up for election in single units when the election is for more than one position (i.e. boards, councils, or representatives for state or federal postiions (state senate or house of representatives)) usually with 3-5 winners being the ideal blocks of representation.

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

We were all on the same page two thread pages ago, before all of these:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

I spent a little bit of time this afternoon looking into theoretical solutions to fix gerrymandering, as I honestly have never looked nearly as far into solutions as I have into the problem.

 

One way to do it is by embracing algorithmic based decision making. I don't know how legislators would ever agree on what factors and areas of interest are emphasized, but our ability to create an algorithm that works towards that intended purpose is entirely possible, and personally I think there's a compelling argument that the only way humanity will survive going into the near future is to embrace building our systems with good integration of math and AI. Seems impossible to get people on board though.

 

I think the most realistic solution is to embrace A. ranked-choice proportional representation and B. bigger districts (less boundaries to manipulate/pack/crack, and more population diversity inside each).

It’s funny and interesting you didn’t include the people or posts I replied to with those statements.  Telling 

[teachercd]

I am starting to think that @Archy is really just like one of the non-stop PR posters that got tired of not having anyone to argue with, so they created a fake account that they use to post the info they hate, so that they can reply to it and argue their side.  

[Guy Chamberlin]

14 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

It’s funny and interesting you didn’t include the people or posts I replied to with those statements.  Telling 

 

C'mon man. A little self-reflection wouldn't kill you. It was clearly important to you to establish that gerrymandering has nothing to do with voting rights, and despite that statement being extremely arguable, you used it repeatedly to discredit the people trying to advance the more interesting discussion. Someone went to the trouble of walking you through those posts to show why you get the reaction you do. Learn from it.

 

As you should also recall, you've diverted discussions about voter IDs, partisan poll closures, and the sabotaging of mail in ballots, insisting that because someone could still technically "vote," these were not examples of voter suppression. Which is weird and wrong. 

 

It's not like I'm making it up when I say you do this all the time. 

[NM11046]

1 hour ago, deedsker said:

With ranked choice voting you can put more people up for election in single units when the election is for more than one position (i.e. boards, councils, or representatives for state or federal postiions (state senate or house of representatives)) usually with 3-5 winners being the ideal blocks of representation.

What are the negatives to ranked choice?  Who is against it?

[Lorewarn]

30 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

What are the negatives to ranked choice?  Who is against it?

 

 

I'm sure there's more nuanced and substantial downsides, but the main one is that people in or seeking power would be against it because it'll take a lot more work to actually be a compelling option to everyone instead of the easy-mode of just riling up a hardcore base with lowest common denominator rhetoric. 

[NM11046]

6 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

I'm sure there's more nuanced and substantial downsides, but the main one is that people in or seeking power would be against it because it'll take a lot more work to actually be a compelling option to everyone instead of the easy-mode of just riling up a hardcore base with lowest common denominator rhetoric. 

Agreed - I posed it seriously but also as somewhat of a rhetorical question.  People would fight against it because it would be fair and just and would result in what the populace wanted.

[sho]

1 hour ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

I'm sure there's more nuanced and substantial downsides, but the main one is that people in or seeking power would be against it because it'll take a lot more work to actually be a compelling option to everyone instead of the easy-mode of just riling up a hardcore base with lowest common denominator rhetoric. 

Extremists on both sides are against this.  To accomplish anything at all with ranked choice, you have to be able to work and compromise with the other side of the aisle, extremists want to abolish the other side of the aisle. 

[RedDenver]

15 hours ago, deedsker said:

With ranked choice voting you can put more people up for election in single units when the election is for more than one position (i.e. boards, councils, or representatives for state or federal postiions (state senate or house of representatives)) usually with 3-5 winners being the ideal blocks of representation.

I'm in favor of ranked choice voting, but I don't see how that addresses gerrymandering. If a district is gerrymandered to be 60% party A and 40% party B, how does being able to rank the votes change anything?

[deedsker]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

I'm in favor of ranked choice voting, but I don't see how that addresses gerrymandering. If a district is gerrymandered to be 60% party A and 40% party B, how does being able to rank the votes change anything?

A state like Nebraska would have only 3 representatives for the house. The whole state votes on who they want to represent themselves without any borders being made. This would be less chances for gerrymandering. When it comes to state elections the opportunity still exists, but the number of line needing to be drawn are fewer and it can be easier to identify, this city should have 5 representatives thus the people in the city borders vote for such representatives. 

 

Some good info in another topic if you really want to know.

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, deedsker said:

A state like Nebraska would have only 3 representatives for the house. The whole state votes on who they want to represent themselves without any borders being made. This would be less chances for gerrymandering. When it comes to state elections the opportunity still exists, but the number of line needing to be drawn are fewer and it can be easier to identify, this city should have 5 representatives thus the people in the city borders vote for such representatives. 

 

Some good info in another topic if you really want to know.

I see, so not ranked choice voting but proportional voting. I wonder if there's Constitutional issues with proportional voting for the Senate or House that would require an Amendment.

[deedsker]

15 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I see, so not ranked choice voting but proportional voting. I wonder if there's Constitutional issues with proportional voting for the Senate or House that would require an Amendment.

It would still be voting for you representative for your state. Wyoming can't be fixed and senate seats are usually done in off years meaning no state is supposed to have two senators elected at the same time. You can't fix one off votes.

[teachercd]

More cities need aldermen, like Chicago...it totally works.  

 

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, teachercd said:

More cities need aldermen, like Chicago...it totally works.  

 

No city should model their politics after Chicago.

[teachercd]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

No city should model their politics after Chicago.

Ha...Trust me I was joking.

 

I am here right now...the beefs are amazing but the politics suck hard.