Log in

No account? Create an account
The Masked Retriever [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ website | MaskedRetriever.com ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Proposal: Antimandering [Jul. 8th, 2011|07:17 am]
Gerrymandering is an issue almost nobody's paying attention to, but it's a huge part of the political problem in the US. Parties in power re-draw lines to make themselves more in power, the process ratchets, and ultimately all districts are safe and the only way to get kicked out of a seat is to not be radical enough so you get hit with a primary challenge.

So you make a rule, at the ballot initiative level, that mandates "antimandering" by computer, which is means iteratively nudging all the boundaries of the districts with the direct aim of moving the voting percentages towards 50% for all districts.

Additionally, instant runoff, but that is gonna take an amendment process because individual states lose power in elections if they go it alone on this one. The result of antimandering would be an increase in a state's power, since their politicians would become more likely to be swing votes.

[User Picture]From: erelin
2011-07-09 07:23 pm (UTC)
Well, but power doesn't run with states, it runs with parties. Gerrymandering is actually an easy thing for both parties to agree to, as it 'solidifies' each one's power base. This is enhanced when party members believe their own superiority, so having a solidified base is better for them. The only groups that are truly for "antimandering" would either be disenfranchised in the current parties (and thus, have little ability to sway such a process) or be huge proponents of state's rights. (to the point where they are willing to risk their party and their solid base for that principle)

Unfortunately, as officials compete with each other by party and not by state in elections (which is where gerrymandering is useful to them) there is actually less incentive to engage in antimandering than there is in instant runoff.
(Reply) (Thread)