YSK that Gerrymandering allows politicians to determine election outcomes by changing electoral maps. In most western countries, it's illegal. Gerrymandering is common in the United States
You're viewing part of a thread.
Ranked Choice is an improvement, yes
So if improvements are possible then the current situation can by definition not be perfect, right?
As I said elsewhere, if there is only two parties/candidates running for each of these seats and the districts are divided this way then there is no functional difference between Ranked Choice, Approval, Proportional, or First Past The Post. The results would be 100% identical in any of those systems. In this specific situation, the result is "perfect", as it says. Under different circumstances, it would be less than perfect, but that is not how hypothetical work, my guy.
if there is only two parties/candidates running for each of these seats and the districts are divided this way
So, suppose these things were not immutable laws of nature, would a better representation the be possible?
If e.g. the candidates of our rectangle had 5 seats to compete for instead of one?
Your example is literally what is being illustrated. There is some disconnect you are suffering. There isn't only one seat they are competing for. There are 5 districts with 5 seats and depending on how you divide the districts, fairly or intentionally gerrymandered, you can get a fair outcome or outcomes that heavily favor one party. Even if they WERE competing for one seat, then blue winning that seat would still be the correct outcome in this case, so even if your misunderstanding the hypothetical were accurate, I dont get why you have a problem with the end result.
Your example is literally what is being illustrated.
The graphic literally illustrates that one of two teams "wins". In the "perfect" case that is blue.
here is some disconnect you are suffering. There isn’t only one seat they are competing for.
The disconnect being that the above example mentions nothing about the red districts getting anything.
That is an assumption you are making based on some real world system that is not depicted here.
My comment is based only on what the image shows. I understand that the real world may be different but the real world is not what I am commenting on.
I dont get why you have a problem with the end result.
I don't criticize the result. I just don't think it's perfect.
People here keep telling me the system is bad but it's the best we have.
If that is your definition of perfect that I suppose we just have a vastly different understanding of perfection.
The graphic literally illustrates that one of two teams "wins". In the "perfect" case that is blue.
They win majority of the district. Not all of the seats. I don't know why you're are being so obtuse about this. It's pretty apparent to everyone else. And it is exactly how districts in real life work
That is an assumption you are making based on some real world system that is not depicted here.
Yes, becuase the purpose of this info graphic is to show how Gerrymandering works in real life. Gerrymandering has nothing to do with taking individual seats. Ever. Period. It is about taking outweighed control of a multi-seat body. That is the ENTIRE point of gerrymandering, a subject that is not obscure in the slightest.
I don't criticize the result. I just don't think it's perfect.
What then would be the "perfect" result between only two parties running, and 60% support going to the blue party? Whether for 1 seat or for 5 as IS SHOWN in this graphic?
People here keep telling me the system is bad but it's the best we have.
If that is your definition of perfect that I suppose we just have a vastly different understanding of perfection.
I most certianly did not say that this is the best system we could have, but you confusion is because you are conflating vastly different things. When people are talking about different voting systems that would be better, that assumes that there is more than 2 choices in the matter. If there are only two, such as is in this example, the voting system resolves to being identical to First Past The Post, so it doesnt matter, FOR THIS ONE EXAMPLE. In real life, things are not that simple, but that doesnt matter when we are talking about a simplified hypothetical like this. That is the point.
Yes, becuase the purpose of this info graphic is to show how Gerrymandering works in real life
Yes, by changing voting groups in such a way that one party achieves a maximum of individual "wins" to achieve an overall "win". That is all it shows, there are 50 people split into two colors, five districts and one winner. No seats anywhere.
Gerrymandering has nothing to do with taking individual seats.
Right, because it it the process of rearranging voting groups to affect the overall outcome and has nothing to do with what the winner gets.
in other words
Gerrymandering, (/ˈdʒɛrimændərɪŋ/ JERR-ee-man-dər-ing, originally /ˈɡɛrimændərɪŋ/ GHERR-ee-man-dər-ing)[1][2] defined in the contexts of representative electoral systems, is the political manipulation of electoral district boundaries to advantage a party, group, or socioeconomic class within the constituency.
or
gerrymandering, in U.S. politics, the practice of drawing the boundaries of electoral districts in a way that gives one political party an advantage over its rivals
or
gerrymandering, noun an occasion when someone in authority changes the borders of an area in order to increase the number of people within that area who will vote for a particular party or person
What then would be the “perfect” result between only two parties running, and 60% support going to the blue party?
I never claimed I knew what a perfect system looked like or that perfection would be possible at all.
I don't need to know how to solve all problems in the world to tell you that the world is not perfect.
1 seat or for 5 as IS SHOWN in this graphic?
Ok please take a big red marker or a graphic tool of your choice And draw a circle where on the graphic it SHOWS that red gets anything, besides abstract districts.
If you could highlight the fabled seats, that would certainly convince me that they are shown somewhere.
Whether the districts impart any sort of political influence beyond the tally of which team gets to be the overall winner, depends on completely different factors not part of the graphic.
you are conflating vastly different things
I am not conflating anything. I am deliberately ignoring anything not in the info-graphic that presumably wants to teach us something.
It only shows how different district shapes affect the outcome of which team "wins".
You are the one conflating the abstract presentation on this graphic with some specific real-life situation.
Districts each get a seat. That is the part you are not getting. That is what gerrymandering manipulates. You seem to think that the districts are voting blocks with equal say (1 vote each) in an election of a single seat (thus why you think Blue wins it all) but that is NOT how districting and gerrymandering works in the US (where the word comes from and the only place it is really used, btw). I dont know why you are quoting definitions at me like I dont understand the concept.
I am not conflating anything. I am deliberately ignoring anything not in the info-graphic that presumably wants to teach us something.
You specifically brought up that other people are saying that there are better systems, which is exactly what I was responding to and saying you were conflating with the "perfect" term used in the info graphic. So no, this is bull.
You are the one conflating the abstract presentation on this graphic with some specific real-life situation.
The abstract presentation in the graphic is a hypothetical that EXPLAINS the real-life situation. Gerrymandering is not a concept in a vacuum. It is a thing that happens and show a simplified version of it here demonstrates how manipulative it is in a digestible way. That is the point. It's not a mathematical or logical axiom that exists purely in and of itself. It is a pretend situation meant to parallel a real life one and demonstrate a form of political manipulation.
Districts each get a seat. That is the part you are not getting.
They do not in the example. The example only knows a single winner.
thus why you think Blue wins it all
I think that blue wins because the example literally tells us that blue wins.
that is NOT how districting and gerrymandering works in the US
And if the infographic said "Gerrymandering as it specifically works in the US only" then that would be relevant.
But it only explains it a general abstract concept. One that can also occur outside the US. This general concept can also occur without US electoral districts that get some seats. It can occur in any voting situation where the overall population is divided into subgroups.
the graphic is a hypothetical that EXPLAINS the real-life situation
Yes, it explains one specific mechanism. Namely changing district shapes to affect the outcome. And the outcome in the example is one color winning.
I do not care how things are in real life, because my comment has nothing to do with the real life situation, only the one depicted here.