Anti-gerrymandering measures on Florida ballot

[BrainGlutton]

This has been tried before: (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=314742&highlight=Florida+gerrymandering) The Committee for Fair Elections in 2006 collected enough petition signatures to place on the ballot a measure that would have taken the redistricting power away from the state legislature and given it to an independent commission, in hopes of putting an end to gerrymandering. The Florida Supreme Court shot it down at the last minute, over the wording.

But activists regrouped in a new organization, Fair Districts Florida, (http://www.fairdistrictsflorida.org/home.php) and started over again.

Among the Florida ballot measures (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_2010_ballot_measures) this November will be Amendment 5: (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Legislative_District_Boundaries,_Amendment_5_(2010))

Legislative districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.

And Amendment 6: (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Congressional_District_Boundaries,_Amendment_6_(2010))

Congressional districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.

These amendments do not take the redistricting power away from the legislature, so I guess any question of their application will have to be resolved in court challenges.

BTW, Amendment 7, (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Redistricting,_Amendment_7_(2010)) which anti-gerrymandering activists called a "poison pill" the legislature introduced to divert support from 5 and 6, and which they filed a lawsuit to block:

In establishing congressional and legislative district boundaries or plans, the state shall apply federal requirements and balance and implement the standards in the State Constitution. The state shall take into consideration the ability of racial and language minorities to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice, and communities of common interest other than political parties may be respected and promoted, both without subordination to any other provision of Article III of the State Constitution. Districts and plans are valid if the balancing and implementation of standards is rationally related to the standards contained in the State Constitution and is consistent with federal law.

. . . has been struck from the ballot by court order. The Florida Supreme Court might or might not hear the case before e-day.

So, are you for these amendments or against them? Why? And do you expect them to pass? And, if they do, what will be the effects?

[Chronos]

I'd like to see a more rigorous definition of "compact", for starters. I've never been a fan of "I know it when I see it" in law.

[Little Nemo]

So, are you for these amendments or against them? Why? And do you expect them to pass? And, if they do, what will be the effects?How do you go about establishing a truly independent commission? Especially when there's no consensus about what a fair apportionment is? A commission is almost certainly going to be a partisan tool at one remove. You might as well give the responsibility directly to the legislature and let them answer for the results in the next election.

[Pleonast]

It sounds like they are steps in the right direction. That is, weakening the control incumbents and political parties have over redistricting. Probably not enough, since the incumbents and parties are still going to be doing the redistricting.

[Really Not All That Bright]

So, are you for these amendments or against them? Why? And do you expect them to pass? And, if they do, what will be the effects?How do you go about establishing a truly independent commission? Especially when there's no consensus about what a fair apportionment is? A commission is almost certainly going to be a partisan tool at one remove. You might as well give the responsibility directly to the legislature and let them answer for the results in the next election.
They only answer for the results in the next election if they got it right. :D

[BrainGlutton]

So, are you for these amendments or against them? Why? And do you expect them to pass? And, if they do, what will be the effects?How do you go about establishing a truly independent commission? Especially when there's no consensus about what a fair apportionment is? A commission is almost certainly going to be a partisan tool at one remove. You might as well give the responsibility directly to the legislature and let them answer for the results in the next election.

Well, there's no commission in the present amendments. The amendment proposed in 2006 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=314742) would have established an Apportionment and Districting Commission of 15 members: 3 chosen by the majority party of each house of the legislature, 3 chosen by the minority party of each house, and 3 chosen by the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

[BrainGlutton]

How do you go about establishing a truly independent commission? Especially when there's no consensus about what a fair apportionment is? A commission is almost certainly going to be a partisan tool at one remove. You might as well give the responsibility directly to the legislature and let them answer for the results in the next election.
They only answer for the results in the next election if they got it right. :D

No, if they got it right they don't answer for the results. That is the point of gerrymandering.

[Pleonast]

They only answer for the results in the next election if they got it right. :D
No, if they got it right they don't answer for the results. That is the point of gerrymandering.
Depends on whose "right".

[GHO57]

"may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party"???

So, basically they can't be drawn, period?

[Steve MB]

I'd like to see a more rigorous definition of "compact", for starters. I've never been a fan of "I know it when I see it" in law.

It is trivially easy to draw up an objective definition (e.g. a district shall contain at least x% of the land area within a circle that contains the entire district). The absence of such a definition suggests a lack of seriousness.

[Chronos]

On thinking about this some more, I've been subject to some gerrymandering that wouldn't have been stopped by any of these measures. Back when I was at Villanova, the (I think) county council had drawn up the boundaries such that the university campus was divided between five different districts, thus guaranteeing that the university would not have a voice on the council. Of course, the university was pretty politically diverse, but there were still some issues that we all agreed on: For instance, the zoning laws actually made it impossible for the entire student body to be legally housed (there were laws limiting how many unrelated people could live together, and also laws restricting the proportion of houses that could be occupied by students). We weren't a racial or language minority, but we were a voting bloc.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

I'd like to see a more rigorous definition of "compact", for starters. I've never been a fan of "I know it when I see it" in law.It's pretty tough to come up with a rigorous definition.

In Minneapolis, the redistricting rules defined compact as height of the district could not be more than twice the width of the district. Sounds pretty specific, right? But we ended up with one district that looks like a giant + sign. It meets the rules -- the width at the widest point is almost equal to the height at the highest point (20 x 24 blocks) -- but it's a funny looking district.*

It is trivially easy to draw up an objective definition (e.g. a district shall contain at least x% of the land area within a circle that contains the entire district). The absence of such a definition suggests a lack of seriousness.Trivial, but too simplistic to be of much use. Land area does not match to population.

Cities frequently have 'industrial areas' which take up a large amount of land, but have hardly any people actually living there. Also downtown commercial districts often have very few residents, too. (Last redistricting, one of the downtown blocks with the highest Census population was the City-County jail!) And vice-versa, there can be very small land areas that have a huge population living there. We have one case where the entire precinct is a single structure (the University super-dorm).

Land area does NOT equal population, and that is what the law requires as the basis for redistricting.

* To be fair, this district was partially defined to be a minority opportunity district -- they tried to make neighborhoods with a high minority population a near-majority of the district. Also, it's in the center of the city -- redistricting is harder there, because district boundaries in the outer parts of the city are constrained by the city limits.

[Little Nemo]

It is trivially easy to draw up an objective definition (e.g. a district shall contain at least x% of the land area within a circle that contains the entire district). The absence of such a definition suggests a lack of seriousness.But as I posted above, nobody has come up with a widely accepted idea of what is objectively fair.

Should districting aim to create voting districts that are representative of the region as a whole? Or should districting aim to create voting districts that as internally homogenous as possible?

For example, let's say there's a state which has five electoral districts. And 20% of the residents support the National Party and 80% support the Unity Party. Should the districting plan aim to create one National Party district and four Unity Party districts? Or should it aim for five districts, all of which have the 20/80 mix?

[Pleonast]

It is trivially easy to draw up an objective definition (e.g. a district shall contain at least x% of the land area within a circle that contains the entire district). The absence of such a definition suggests a lack of seriousness.
Trivial, but too simplistic to be of much use. Land area does not match to population.

Cities frequently have 'industrial areas' which take up a large amount of land, but have hardly any people actually living there. Also downtown commercial districts often have very few residents, too. (Last redistricting, one of the downtown blocks with the highest Census population was the City-County jail!) And vice-versa, there can be very small land areas that have a huge population living there. We have one case where the entire precinct is a single structure (the University super-dorm).

Land area does NOT equal population, and that is what the law requires as the basis for redistricting.
I'm not sure how your statements about land area versus population is pertinent to Steve's suggested requirement of compactness. Districts with a lower poulation density will have a larger total area, but can still meet the compactness criterion.

[Captain Amazing]

Just for fun, here's The Redistricting Game (http://www.redistrictinggame.org/), which is a game that teaches you the principles and ideas behind redistricting reform.

[hogarth]

It is trivially easy to draw up an objective definition (e.g. a district shall contain at least x% of the land area within a circle that contains the entire district). The absence of such a definition suggests a lack of seriousness.But as I posted above, nobody has come up with a widely accepted idea of what is objectively fair.
The "usual" definition has to do with the ratio of the perimeter of the district to the area of the district.

There's a Google Earth KML file that you can download that shows the most gerrymandered districts in the U.S., along with a text file explaining the methodology:
http://www.manifold.net/downloads/gerrymanders.zip

[Chronos]

Quoth hogarth:
The "usual" definition has to do with the ratio of the perimeter of the district to the area of the district.You'd actually want to take the ratio of the square of the perimeter to the area. But that wouldn't necessarily be the right approach, anyway: If a city is divided in half by a meandering river, it might seem to make sense (even from non-political considerations) to have the river be a boundary between districts, but that could give you districts with very high perimeters. Steve MB's suggestion would still work as intended there, though.

Quoth Little Nemo:
For example, let's say there's a state which has five electoral districts. And 20% of the residents support the National Party and 80% support the Unity Party. Should the districting plan aim to create one National Party district and four Unity Party districts? Or should it aim for five districts, all of which have the 20/80 mix? Ideally, the districting plan shouldn't aim for either, but should rather be based on nonpolitical considerations.

[Peremensoe]

On thinking about this some more, I've been subject to some gerrymandering that wouldn't have been stopped by any of these measures. Back when I was at Villanova, the (I think) county council had drawn up the boundaries such that the university campus was divided between five different districts, thus guaranteeing that the university would not have a voice on the council. Of course, the university was pretty politically diverse, but there were still some issues that we all agreed on: For instance, the zoning laws actually made it impossible for the entire student body to be legally housed (there were laws limiting how many unrelated people could live together, and also laws restricting the proportion of houses that could be occupied by students). We weren't a racial or language minority, but we were a voting bloc.

Good point. It seems to me that a natural law of districting ought to be that actual recognizable communities be their own districts, if large enough, or within one district.

[Little Nemo]

Ideally, the districting plan shouldn't aim for either, but should rather be based on nonpolitical considerations.Like what? Divide up districts based on race or religion or income levels?

Let's face facts. Creating voting districts is an inherently political process. Asking for a non-political districting plan is like asking for a non-political election.

[Musicat]

I can see a problem with the "contiguous" requirement. How do islands get included in the system, unless they each have their own separate district?

[Really Not All That Bright]

For the purposes of districting, islands are typically defined as contiguous when connected by a land bridge.

[Musicat]

For the purposes of districting, islands are typically defined as contiguous when connected by a land bridge.Wouldn't cover the islands in my county in the slightest. We'd need 23 districts more.

Come to think of it, if there is a "land" bridge, that wouldn't be an island, would it?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Bridge to land. Not land bridge. :smack:

[Cyberhwk]

Just for fun, here's The Redistricting Game (http://www.redistrictinggame.org/), which is a game that teaches you the principles and ideas behind redistricting reform.Dang. I was doing really well until Mission 5. How the hell am I supposed to get it pass the districting board if they won't even show me party affiliation or other information I need to appease them? I took Pat's house of of her district but it wouldn't even tell me where the hell she lived.

Or is that kind of the point?

[Chronos]

Like what? Divide up districts based on race or religion or income levels? I was thinking more like putting a regular grid down over the state, and then have a simple algorithm that distorted the grid until the population in each cell was equal. You don't need to know political affiliation or race or religion or economic conditions or anything else about the people to do this: Just the outline of the state, the number of districts to divide it into, and the population distribution.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

You'd actually want to take the ratio of the square of the perimeter to the area. But that wouldn't necessarily be the right approach, anyway: If a city is divided in half by a meandering river, it might seem to make sense (even from non-political considerations) to have the river be a boundary between districts, but that could give you districts with very high perimeters. Steve MB's suggestion would still work as intended there, though.
Here in Minnesota, state law requires that city redistricting (into wards & precincts) not cross over the boundaries set for Congressional & State Legislative Districts. Natural dividers (like rivers & creeks) are often used as the borders of these, as are human dividers like major highways & streets, railroad lines, etc.

So it gets much harder to do redistricting in a local, city area.

[Peremensoe]

I can see a problem with the "contiguous" requirement. How do islands get included in the system, unless they each have their own separate district?

Island not connected by bridge could be defined (for this purpose) as "contiguous" with the nearest point on the mainland, or the nearest point on a bridged island if that is closer than the mainland.

Actually this definition probably works about the same without reference to bridges.

[Captain Amazing]

]Dang. I was doing really well until Mission 5. How the hell am I supposed to get it pass the districting board if they won't even show me party affiliation or other information I need to appease them? I took Pat's house of of her district but it wouldn't even tell me where the hell she lived.

Or is that kind of the point?

Try ignoring them, and just draw four districts that are relatively equal in population and compact.

[foolsguinea]

I'd like to see a more rigorous definition of "compact", for starters. I've never been a fan of "I know it when I see it" in law.Well, there isn't really a good way to define compact more rigorously than "compact." I mean, there might be a scholarly way to measure it, but it's going to have to be a judgment call.

My opinion now is that single-member districts should be abolished in favor of very large, compact, multi-member districts & proportional representation. (E.g., Florida could be split into 2-5 districts, each with a dozen seats chosen by SNTV.) There is no geographic line possible to draw that is more representative & less of a gerrymander than self-organization.

[Chronos]

Well, there isn't really a good way to define compact more rigorously than "compact." I mean, there might be a scholarly way to measure it, but it's going to have to be a judgment call.Kind of a silly thing to say, when folks have already provided good, rigorous ways to define "compact" which don't require a judgment call.

[foolsguinea]

After playing the game linked above, I have come to a realization. Compactness looks simple, but the situation on the ground remains complex. Maybe compactness is a false good. Why not sort people as nearly as possible into "tribes" (in the Roman sense) according to the identities that make sense to them & let each politician work within that?

[foolsguinea]

Well, there isn't really a good way to define compact more rigorously than "compact." I mean, there might be a scholarly way to measure it, but it's going to have to be a judgment call.Kind of a silly thing to say, when folks have already provided good, rigorous ways to define "compact" which don't require a judgment call.Those are judgment calls. I guess the difference is, you can make a judgment call when you make the rule or when you apply it.

Personally, I think we should abolish legislative districts except where they correspond to administrative districts. Leg' districts as we know them are always going to be an imposition of artificial divisions.

But in the near term, the best political strategy for the out of power is to let the leg' gerrymander, get your poll data in place, then relocate the voters into the new districts in a reverse gerrymander.

[Chronos]

Those are judgment calls. I guess the difference is, you can make a judgment call when you make the rule or when you apply it.OK, I'll grant that: When you establish some mathematical definition of "compactness", you do have to set some threshold of what's "compact enough" when you write the law. But that only has to be done once, and can't be gamed thereafter like it could be if you just said "compact" without a definition.

[BrainGlutton]

One thing I don't know and haven't seen mentioned in this thread: Has any other state tried an amendment like this, that leaves the redistricting with the state legislature but imposes what are supposed to be anti-gerrymandering rules? If so, how did it work out?

[Clothahump]

I've never understood why they just don't use zip code area boundaries. It would make life so much easier.

"Rep. A represents zip code 77042 and the eastern half of zip code 77077, bounded by Dairy-Ashford Road. Rep. B represents the western half of zip code 77077, bounded by Dairy-Ashford Road, as well as zip code 77082."

Etc. Oh, wait - that's too logical. No wonder they don't do it that way.

[Captain Amazing]

One thing I don't know and haven't seen mentioned in this thread: Has any other state tried an amendment like this, that leaves the redistricting with the state legislature but imposes what are supposed to be anti-gerrymandering rules? If so, how did it work out?

In 2008, California passed Prop 11, which said that state legislature boundaries are to be drawn by an independent commission, and that federal House boundaries are still to be drawn by the legislature, but they have to follow the same rules the independent commission does. A copy of the proposition can be found here:

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i746_07-0077_Initiative.pdf

The rules that state legislature has to follow are as follows:

1. The districts must comply with the Voting Rights Act.
2. The district must be contiguous.
3. The geographic integrity of counties, cities, neighborhoods, and communities of interest shall be respected to the greatest extent possible so long as it doesn't conflict with an earlier criteria. Communities of interest don't include relationships with political parties or candidates
4. The district shall be geographically compact to the extent possible so long as it doesn't conflict with an earlier criteria. Compactness is defined as nearby areas of population not being bypassed for areas of population further away.

Obviously, it's too early to tell if it worked.

[JRDelirious]

[...] I took Pat's house of of her district [...]

Interestingly, our constitution has a provision that if a municipality straddles more than one legislative district, a resident thereof can represent any of the districts that cover part of it. I suppose that this is a form of "insurance" against people being redlined out of office by a mere block's worth.

[Captain Amazing]

Federally, in terms of the House of Representatives, the legal requirement is that a person be a resident of the state, not the Congressional district. This led to a circumstance like you saw in my parents' congressional district (NY-20) in March of 2009, where Jim Tedisco got the Republican nomination for the election to replace Kristen Gilibrand, who had been made Senator. Tedisco got the nomination in spite of the fact that he lived in NY-21 instead of NY-20. In practice, though, that probably was one of the factors that contributed to his loss.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

I've never understood why they just don't use zip code area boundaries. It would make life so much easier.

"Rep. A represents zip code 77042 and the eastern half of zip code 77077, bounded by Dairy-Ashford Road. Rep. B represents the western half of zip code 77077, bounded by Dairy-Ashford Road, as well as zip code 77082."

Etc. Oh, wait - that's too logical. No wonder they don't do it that way.It isn't at all logical.

Zip code areas are based on volume of mail, nothing to do with the number of eligible voters who live there. There are many office buildings that are a complete zip code on their own, but don't have a single person living in the building. And we have a small town in Minnesota that does the processing for most coupons and mail-in rebates in the country -- it is a very small town, about 1,000 houses -- yet it has over 20 zip codes assigned to it.

[Chronos]

And even if zip codes were uniform with population, they're still too small. There are over 40,000 zip codes in the US, and only 435 House districts, which means that the average House district will have close to 100 zip codes in it. That's enough resolution to allow for plenty of gerrymandering.

[Ludovic]

And we have a small town in Minnesota that does the processing for most coupons and mail-in rebates in the country -- it is a very small town, about 1,000 houses -- yet it has over 20 zip codes assigned to it.

And furthermore, they don't need district representation since they're all underage ;)

[Polycarp]

And we have a small town in Minnesota that does the processing for most coupons and mail-in rebates in the country -- it is a very small town, about 1,000 houses -- yet it has over 20 zip codes assigned to it.

And furthermore, they don't need district representation since they're all underage ;)

Congressional districts are not calculated on the basis of voters but of population. Those unable to vote are still represented by them. (Ask any Congressman how important it is to reply to a letter from a kid.)

[BrainGlutton]

And furthermore, they don't need district representation since they're all underage ;)

Congressional districts are not calculated on the basis of voters but of population. Those unable to vote are still represented by them. (Ask any Congressman how important it is to reply to a letter from a kid.)

And that would include legally resident noncitizen immigrants -- and also undocumented immigrants, if the Census can determine their presence in a district statistically. That doesn't mean they can vote; but confusion on this point might add fuel to the "illegal aliens voting" canard, as well as to the "Obama fixing the Census" canard. Of course, if you raise a fuss over this -- it means you're arguing your state should have fewer seats in Congress, which is hard to sell politically.

[Ludovic]

And furthermore, they don't need district representation since they're all underage ;)

Congressional districts are not calculated on the basis of voters but of population. Those unable to vote are still represented by them. (Ask any Congressman how important it is to reply to a letter from a kid.)Well, yes, that did enter my mind, but disinformation was required in order for the joke to work. Which it didn't really, but I get diarrhea of the fingers sometimes.

[BrainGlutton]

Update: Apparently not all Democrats are in favor (http://www.wtvy.com/home/headlines/103406644.html) of 5 & 6 -- because they might mean an end to "majority-minority" districts carefully crafted to include, say, all the African-American nieghborhoods in a county (such districts, BTW, often look really weird on the map).

On election day, those of you in Florida will have the chance to vote on Amendments 5 and 6. If passed, they’ll place strict limits on how legislative and congressional district boundaries can be drawn. Although that could help democrats regain control of Tallahassee, not all are in favor.

Democratic Congresswoman Corrine Brown is on a mission.

“I want to make sure that minorities have an opportunity to elect someone of their choice,” she said. “Based on the way the initiative is written, you cannot do that.”

Brown’s teaming up with a bunch of conservative republicans. Back in 1992, she was elected to Congress in large part because of the shape of her district. It stretches all the way from Jacksonville to Orlando and includes large pockets of democratic and minority voters.

If Amendments 5 and 6 pass, she worries her time in Washington is done. Why? Well, political districts would have to be drawn by the state legislature in a compact, uniform way.

No longer could you draw a squiggly line stretching hundreds of miles. In Brown’s case, all those minority democratic voters might be split up, making it tough to win.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

For the purposes of districting, islands are typically defined as contiguous when connected by a land bridge.

For example, look at Tom DeLay's old district in Texas, District 33.

[BrotherCadfael]

Heinlein once suggested that we should assign voters to districts alphabetically, or by birthday. Thus everyone born from Jan 1 through Feb 13 would be in District 1, Feb 14 - March 28 in District 2, etc. That way, every district would be of absolutely equal size (aside from a tiny rounding error), ensuring one person, one vote. As he put it, "surely where a person lives is the least important thing about them".

At the time he wrote it, this proposal would have been unwieldy, but today, with databases and the Internet, it could work.

[Chronos]

At the time he wrote it, this proposal would have been unwieldy, but today, with databases and the Internet, it could work. But then, the character who proposed that (I don't think Heinlein ever suggested something like that directly, and he didn't necessarily agree with all of his characters) proposed it precisely because it was unwieldy: He was ideologically opposed to all forms of government, and was trying to hamstring it.

[BrainGlutton]

As he put it, "surely where a person lives is the least important thing about them".

An interesting but highly questionable proposition. After all, society is not only an atomistic soup of individuals. Everyone is part of some local community or other, and communities as communities do have their own very real economic and political interests.

OTOH, most people also are part of non-geographical groupings or "communities" -- social classes, occupational sectors, ethnic identities, religious identities -- that have their own interests.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Thus everyone born from Jan 1 through Feb 13 would be in District 1, Feb 14 - March 28 in District 2, etc. That way, every district would be of absolutely equal size (aside from a tiny rounding error), ensuring one person, one vote.But that would NOT ensure equal sized Districts -- births do not occur uniformly throughout the year,

Births are higher on weekdays than weekends (probably because the majority of induced births are done on a weekday). And many holidays have fewer births, like Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, and especially Thanksgiving & Christmas. (Christmas has the fewest births of any day of the year.) However, there is an increase in births in August & September -- about 9 months after Thanksgiving & Christmas (Yule time joy, indeed!)

As he put it, "surely where a person lives is the least important thing about them".I don't think that's accurate at all. Where a person chooses to live is quite significant. (And a house purchase is the biggest purchase most people make in their life.)

I can tell you a lot of things about a person, based on where they live, with a high probability of being accurate. Marketing experts can tell you even more. For this topic specifically:
- rural = Republican
- urban = Democrat
- suburban = depends. The newer, richer, or farther from the central city the suburb is, the more Republican the average resident is.

[Boyo Jim]

Keep the district lines permanent, force the people to relocate as needed.

[Cyberhwk]

But that would NOT ensure equal sized Districts -- births do not occur uniformly throughout the year,
Nobody says we have to set the months up equally. Jan-Feb is D1. August could be D5 and September D6.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

But that would NOT ensure equal sized Districts -- births do not occur uniformly throughout the year,
Nobody says we have to set the months up equally. Jan-Feb is D1. August could be D5 and September D6.But which years? It varies over different years, too. And what happens when people move in, with different birthdays? The districts would become non-equal, just the same as current districts.

Such a system is effectively electing all the positions "at-large" -- that is a known way to prevent representation of minorities. And since the voters are spread out over the whole state, instead of being concentrated in a geographic district, candidates have to spend more money to reach them, via TV or radio ads, wider mailings, etc. -- so this favors rich candidates (or incumbents). Having Districts that dis-enfranchise minority views, and favor incumbents -- wasn't that the situation of the original Gerry-mandering?

[CJJ*]

Florida has 25 seats in the House. Each party in the state can place up to 25 candidates for the federal House on the ballot. Voters in Florida pick one of the 50+ candidates on the ballot as their representative. The top 25 voter-getters win.

Gerrymandering--both its cost and injustice--would be gone. More third-party candidates would have a shot at Congress (e.g. the Green party would likely field one or two candidates and try a statewide strategy). Composition of Congress would more closely match the electorate. Voters would have a broader array of choice and could apply a wider range of criteria: Al may favor expanded federal money for a local employer, Betty may be more concerned about federal abortion rights, Chuck wants a minority representative...and out of 50+ candidates they have a better menu.

Logisitcally the election would be more complicated. Ballots would be longer, and I've heard enough stories about ballot issues to make me suspicious. Local polls would have to report totals for a much larger slate of candidates, so it most likely would require electronic reporting. And the chances of a recount/dispute (between the 25th and 26th finisher) seems more likely. But these hardly seem like good reasons to scuttle the idea outright, given the potential benefits.

I really don't understand why every election has to be an either-or choice. Oh wait, yes I do (PDF) (http://www.dlc.org/specials/Gerrymandering_the_Vote.pdf).

[BrainGlutton]

Has there been any polling on these two ballot measures? I can't seem to find any polls on Amendment 5 or 6 on Ballotpedia or by googling.

[foolsguinea]

I'm with CJJ*. Single non-transferable vote would allow self-sorting, & no one can claim it's too complex.

(Though I think open list would be better, technically.)

[BrainGlutton]

Has there been any polling on these two ballot measures? I can't seem to find any polls on Amendment 5 or 6 on Ballotpedia or by googling.

Once again. This is curious. There seem to be poll results out there on practically everything else, including other Florida ballot measures.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Has there been any polling on these two ballot measures? I can't seem to find any polls on Amendment 5 or 6 on Ballotpedia or by googling.
Well, AARP members are overwhelmingly in favor (http://ko-kr.connect.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=158826514142913), for whatever that's worth.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Once again. This is curious. There seem to be poll results out there on practically everything else, including other Florida ballot measures.Polls are done only if someone will pay for them. Ballot measures often don't want to spend the money for polling. News media will pay for polls on major races, and then publicize the results.


Other polls, paid for by candidates or ballot measure campaigns, get publicized only if the people who paid for it believe publicizing the results will help their campaign.

[BrainGlutton]

Both measures passed! By 62%! That's actually a squeaker, an amendment now needs 60% to pass.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Considering that both were associated with the Democrats, that's not as close as it looks. Might have been 70% if we had 2008-level turnout.

[JoelUpchurch]

I wonder if this will effect Corrine Brown's district.

http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/preview/congdist/FL03_109.gif

It is practically a textbook gerrymander. With the last election it looks like a blue island sitting in a sea of red.

[SlackerInc]

Well, there isn't really a good way to define compact more rigorously than "compact." I mean, there might be a scholarly way to measure it, but it's going to have to be a judgment call.

I don't see it that way--in fact, it strikes me that you could set up an algorithm that drew perfectly compact districts without any human judgment whatsoever. Simply give the computer all the information about where everyone lives, and how many equally populated districts to divide the state into. Then the computer looks for the configuration in which the total length of all boundary lines between districts is the smallest number.

Optionally, you could preserve a bit of the gerrymandering prerogative of the state government by allowing them to take this map as a baseline and then giving them leeway to draw a map with total length of boundary lines up to X% longer than the baseline (hopefully no more than 10 as a value for X).

I'm not optimistic, but I'd really love to see a constitutional amendment require something like this because I'm so sick of gerrymandering.

[BrainGlutton]

I'm not optimistic, but I'd really love to see a constitutional amendment require something like this because I'm so sick of gerrymandering.

Well, we got the amendment. In 2010. But the devil is in the implementation-details. (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/27/2610988/house-panel-voting-on-fla-redistricting.html)

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Three groups that backed Florida's new anti-gerrymandering constitutional amendments say redistricting maps that cleared a House committee on Friday will perpetuate Republican legislative and congressional dominance in a state that's almost evenly divided between the two major parties.

House Redistricting Chairman Will Weatherford, a Wesley Chapel Republican, denied the maps were drawn to favor the GOP and threw the allegation back at the Fair District coalition groups.

<snip>

The committee approved its maps on party line votes, Republicans for and Democrats against.

<snip>

While the Florida League of Women Voters, National Council of La Raza and Common Cause of Florida declined to testify, the Fair District advocates submitted an 11-page letter. It outlines their proposals and why they believe the Legislature's maps violate the two state constitutional amendment voters adopted in 2010.

Both Fair Districts amendments, one each covering the legislature and Congress, prohibit intentionally drawing districts to favor or disfavor incumbents or a political party. They also protect the rights of minorities to elect representatives of their choosing and require districts to be compact and use existing political and geographical boundaries where feasible.

The letter says the Legislature's maps "promise to perpetuate a system of one-party control in Florida in clear violation of the Florida Constitution." The Fair District groups also contend the maps miss the mark by protecting incumbents.

[septimus]

I read quite a bit here before realizing the thread was a zomby. I decided to post; the point I wanted to make is the same as that of the zomby-reviver:

... Simply give the computer all the information about where everyone lives, and how many equally populated districts to divide the state into. Then the computer looks for the configuration in which the total length of all boundary lines between districts is the smallest number....

There may be no clear best solution or best algorithm, and a global optimization like SlackerInc's might be computationally prohibitive. Different algorithm designers would produce different districtings.

But that doesn't matter! With no info on ethnics, politics, etc., the districting produced would have no systemic bias.

[straight man]

Dang. I was doing really well until Mission 5. How the hell am I supposed to get it pass the districting board if they won't even show me party affiliation or other information I need to appease them? I took Pat's house of of her district but it wouldn't even tell me where the hell she lived.

Or is that kind of the point?
On the last level, you can have the courts approve it instead of the legislature. Don't worry, I missed it the first time round, too. ;)

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

There may be no clear best solution or best algorithm, and a global optimization like SlackerInc's might be computationally prohibitive. Different algorithm designers would produce different districtings.

But that doesn't matter! With no info on ethnics, politics, etc., the districting produced would have no systemic bias.Looking for problems--what's to prevent the algorithm's designer from designing multiple algorithms, and choosing the one that draws the districts most favorable to his party?

Perhaps the Governor's Association (or whatever they're called) could contract with an expert commission to develop guidelines for such an algorithm, and then contract with someone else to develop the algorithm using open-source code. They could do something like the secretary problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem): run a billion sample district lines, choose the best of those, and then run more samples until either they've found one better than the best-in-a-billion, or they've reached an arbitrary number that means running more samples has decreasing chance of finding a better sample.

If I understand the proposal, equal districts with shortest lines guarantees that districts are as close as possible to circular. And that's a good goal. However, I wonder if a better goal would be to have the lowest range in district perimeters--that is, the district with the smallest perimeter is as close as possible to the district with the largest perimeter? This prevents a solution with a lot of normal-shaped districts at the cost of one ridiculously-shaped district. Or maybe you figure out what a rectangular grid looks like, and you try to get the lowest score compared to this ideal district?

[Chronos]

If I understand the proposal, equal districts with shortest lines guarantees that districts are as close as possible to circular. And that's a good goal. However, I wonder if a better goal would be to have the lowest range in district perimeters--that is, the district with the smallest perimeter is as close as possible to the district with the largest perimeter? This prevents a solution with a lot of normal-shaped districts at the cost of one ridiculously-shaped district. Or maybe you figure out what a rectangular grid looks like, and you try to get the lowest score compared to this ideal district? Neither of those would work, since population is concentrated unevenly. Look at a state like Nebraska, for instance: There's one district that's basically Omaha, one that's the rest of the eastern quarter of the state including Lincoln, and one that's the entire rest of the state. Omaha by itself is about a third of the state's population, and any district including it is going to have to be tiny, while any district that covers the rural western parts has to be huge to encompass enough population. Trying to make all three districts the same size would require gerrymandering of the worst sort.

I do have an idea for a modification of SlackerInc's idea that would be computationally feasible, though. Start by having some commission come up with a map, using whatever methods they like. If everyone is OK with that map, fine. But then, any state legislator can come up with a new map, and whichever map has the lowest total boundary length replaces the one the commission comes up with.

I imagine that in practice, this would lead to each of the two major parties making a map, and the final map would end up being one drawn by one of the parties. But even though it'd be a party-drawn map, they still couldn't get away with any blatant shenanigans, because if they tried, the other party would be able to steal the map from them.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Well, we got the amendment. In 2010. But the devil is in the implementation-details. (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/27/2610988/house-panel-voting-on-fla-redistricting.html)
It's worth noting that the anti-gerrymandering amendments have yet to go into effect because Governor Babyeater has effectively blocked them by failing to submit them for Justice Department preclearance.

[CannyDan]

I imagine that in practice, this would lead to each of the two major parties making a map, and the final map would end up being one drawn by one of the parties. But even though it'd be a party-drawn map, they still couldn't get away with any blatant shenanigans, because if they tried, the other party would be able to steal the map from them.

I like it. It's a variant on the classic "one gets to cut the pie, the other gets first choice of the pieces". Worked great when my kids were fighting over the last of the ice cream or something. Enlightened self interest (read: simple greed) forced the person doing the dividing to split the booty evenly right down to the microgram.

[SlackerInc]

I do have an idea for a modification of SlackerInc's idea that would be computationally feasible, though. Start by having some commission come up with a map, using whatever methods they like. If everyone is OK with that map, fine. But then, any state legislator can come up with a new map, and whichever map has the lowest total boundary length replaces the one the commission comes up with.

I imagine that in practice, this would lead to each of the two major parties making a map, and the final map would end up being one drawn by one of the parties. But even though it'd be a party-drawn map, they still couldn't get away with any blatant shenanigans, because if they tried, the other party would be able to steal the map from them.

If indeed my proposal is computationally non-feasible, then this looks like a great modification. As CannyDan says, it's a bit like the ol' "one divides, the other chooses" (though with my kids, it is a struggle to get them to decide which has to divide, that being seen as the short end of the stick with some justification).

I'm a bit disappointed though to learn that despite having supercomputers that can do massive simulation of weather systems and so on, they can't do what I wanted to task them to do? Really? Huh.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

If indeed my proposal is computationally non-feasible, then this looks like a great modification. As CannyDan says, it's a bit like the ol' "one divides, the other chooses" (though with my kids, it is a struggle to get them to decide which has to divide, that being seen as the short end of the stick with some justification).
Even if the computer model is feasible, I kind of like the semi-bidding structure of Chronos's model better, since it neatly sidesteps any accusations about the partisanship of the modelers.

Actually, I think how I'd set it up would be like this:

The majority party submits their map.

The minority party either accepts their map, or else they submit an alternate map with lower total boundary lines by some significant margin (5%, perhaps)

If the minority party submits a qualifying alternate map, that's the one that's used. Otherwise, the majority party's map is used.

I'm not sure what the need would be for a commission, if it's going to be assumed that everyone ignores the commission's map.

[SlackerInc]

Even if the computer model is feasible, I kind of like the semi-bidding structure of Chronos's model better, since it neatly sidesteps any accusations about the partisanship of the modelers.

Actually, I think how I'd set it up would be like this:

The majority party submits their map.

The minority party either accepts their map, or else they submit an alternate map with lower total boundary lines by some significant margin (5%, perhaps)

If the minority party submits a qualifying alternate map, that's the one that's used. Otherwise, the majority party's map is used.

I'm not sure what the need would be for a commission, if it's going to be assumed that everyone ignores the commission's map.

That's brilliant! Absolutely wonderful.

My only caveat would be that political parties are not technically required in legislative bodies; also, it is in theory possible that such a body could have more than one minority party (and for that matter, could have no single majority party). What kind of mechanism could we use that would get around this, while accomplishing more or less the same thing?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

That's brilliant! Absolutely wonderful.

My only caveat would be that political parties are not technically required in legislative bodies; also, it is in theory possible that such a body could have more than one minority party (and for that matter, could have no single majority party). What kind of mechanism could we use that would get around this, while accomplishing more or less the same thing?I think the mechanism we could use would be to enact this in the United States, where every state legislature (AFAIK) is composed overwhelmingly of Democrats and Republicans. If at some point this is no longer true, a future House could change the law to accommodate their changed circumstances.

Although that also points to a fatal flaw in the process: how often does the majority in a legislative body support a proposal that gives more power to the minority? I could barely see it happening during a session midway between Censuses, but not otherwise.

[Chronos]

My only caveat would be that political parties are not technically required in legislative bodies; also, it is in theory possible that such a body could have more than one minority party (and for that matter, could have no single majority party). What kind of mechanism could we use that would get around this, while accomplishing more or less the same thing? That's why in my idea I started with a commission and let each individual legislator challenge it. That way you don't need to worry about what party those individuals are, and if the Stark Raving Loony Party manages to get a seat in the legislature, they get a voice. And the occasional seat held by a third party is hardly unheard-of, at the state level: One state once managed to even elect someone under the banner of the NASCAR party.

[SlackerInc]

That's why in my idea I started with a commission and let each individual legislator challenge it. That way you don't need to worry about what party those individuals are, and if the Stark Raving Loony Party manages to get a seat in the legislature, they get a voice. And the occasional seat held by a third party is hardly unheard-of, at the state level: One state once managed to even elect someone under the banner of the NASCAR party.

Right, good point. I'd suggest though at least preserving the LHoD's concept of requiring that any "improved" map submitted be at least 5% less in boundary line distance. And we need to have some kind of deadline for the last possible submission (then, I guess, if a bunch of legislators hand in maps right at the end, the lowest wins--or if none were more than 5% lower than the others, the whole legislature could vote among the lowest qualifiers for the one they prefer).

[Chronos]

Oh, and:
I'm a bit disappointed though to learn that despite having supercomputers that can do massive simulation of weather systems and so on, they can't do what I wanted to task them to do? Really? Huh.
"Find the best possible solution to problem X" tends to be very hard-- Such problems are often provably NP-hard, which is computer jargon for "if there exist any really hard computer problems at all, this is one of them". Finding such an absolute-best solution quickly turns into the sort of thing that would take a computer longer than the lifetime of the Universe. However, for such problems there's often a fairly simple algorithm that's good enough: It won't guarantee that it's actually the best, but it'll almost certainly be within some small percentage of being best, such that finding a better solution would be very difficult. So you wouldn't want a law to say that the state has to use the absolute best districting, since you could never be sure if you have it or not.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

If I understand the proposal, equal districts with shortest lines guarantees that districts are as close as possible to circular. And that's a good goal. However, I wonder if a better goal would be to have the lowest range in district perimeters--that is, the district with the smallest perimeter is as close as possible to the district with the largest perimeter? This prevents a solution with a lot of normal-shaped districts at the cost of one ridiculously-shaped district. Or maybe you figure out what a rectangular grid looks like, and you try to get the lowest score compared to this ideal district?None of these will work, realistically. These ideas are concerned only with boundary lines and perimeter distance -- they ignore several other criteria that are supposed to be considered in redistricting:
paying attention to major natural or human delineations, like rivers, freeways, etc. A river is a clear dividing line, and often makes a good divider. But they follow the contour of the land, and not the 'shortest perimeter'.
paying attention to existing boundaries, like city limits or county lines. It's better to keep a district all within a single city or county whenever possible.
paying attention to existing neighborhoods within towns & cities.
paying attention to housing patterns, to create 'minority opportunity districts'. For
example, if there are several neighborhoods with a large number of black voters, you should try to keep those within a single district, to increase the chance of this minority electing one of their own. As opposed to splitting those communities among several districts, thus diluting their voting power.
finally, paying attention to historical lines -- where the old district lines were. People are used to those, and having the least changes needed is better.


All of these factors are included in redistricting guidelines, and even in state law in some places. A computer program that goes simply on compactness or shortest perimeter would really mess up some of these, and produce an unacceptable map.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

None of these will work, realistically. These ideas are concerned only with boundary lines and perimeter distance -- they ignore several other criteria that are supposed to be considered in redistricting:
paying attention to major natural or human delineations, like rivers, freeways, etc. A river is a clear dividing line, and often makes a good divider. But they follow the contour of the land, and not the 'shortest perimeter'.
paying attention to existing boundaries, like city limits or county lines. It's better to keep a district all within a single city or county whenever possible.
paying attention to existing neighborhoods within towns & cities.
paying attention to housing patterns, to create 'minority opportunity districts'. For
example, if there are several neighborhoods with a large number of black voters, you should try to keep those within a single district, to increase the chance of this minority electing one of their own. As opposed to splitting those communities among several districts, thus diluting their voting power.
finally, paying attention to historical lines -- where the old district lines were. People are used to those, and having the least changes needed is better.


All of these factors are included in redistricting guidelines, and even in state law in some places. A computer program that goes simply on compactness or shortest perimeter would really mess up some of these, and produce an unacceptable map.
I don't especially understand *why* any of these, other than the last two, are better. What makes district A, that follows the contours of the river, better than district B, that doesn't?

As for minority districts, I don't know enough to have a firm opinion on the subject. I suspect they exist in response to previous anti-minority gerrymandering; with the elimination of gerrymandering, they may become irrelevant. There may also be the beneficial effect of forcing political parties to respect minority concerns in multiple districts instead of in just one.

And the advantages of historical districts would be very transitory and trivial, compared to the advantage of eliminating partisan gerrymandering.

[SlackerInc]

I don't especially understand *why* any of these, other than the last two, are better. What makes district A, that follows the contours of the river, better than district B, that doesn't?

As for minority districts, I don't know enough to have a firm opinion on the subject. I suspect they exist in response to previous anti-minority gerrymandering; with the elimination of gerrymandering, they may become irrelevant. There may also be the beneficial effect of forcing political parties to respect minority concerns in multiple districts instead of in just one.

And the advantages of historical districts would be very transitory and trivial, compared to the advantage of eliminating partisan gerrymandering.

I agree with all of this. Also, it's unlikely that compact districts would dilute minority representation to an unacceptable level. Districts that do that tend to be those that take a metropolitan area, including the inner city and the inner-ring suburbs that tend to have a higher population, plus the further suburbs and exurbs, and divide them up like a pizza, with triangular "slices" that use the outlying white areas (near the "crust", if you will) to form a majority. Not much chance of this happening with a system of compact boundaries.

And I know the other considerations are not universally applied. I lived in Lawrence, KS for a year, and because I lived in the western side of the city I was in one congressional district (and yes, this was for the U.S. Congress, not the state legislature); but other people who lived a few blocks to the east were in a different district. I'm not sure any of the advantages claimed for keeping cities within one district aren't outweighed by advantages of having them represented by more than one U.S. Representative.

In any event, nothing about the plan we've been advocating is negated by any of this (except maybe the "historical boundaries" issue, which is the biggest canard of them all as I've seen districts get radically redrawn many times), if it is deemed to be so important. We can simply state that any map submitted by a legislator must follow whatever state law already applies in terms of municipal boundaries, rivers, etc. Then as long as it is found to be kosher in that respect, it can be judged secondarily based on the length of the boundary lines between districts.

[Chronos]

And if you really want to respect county lines and rivers, you can make length along one of those count at a discount. Like, your total score is half the length of boundaries that run along county lines and rivers, plus the full length of boundaries that don't.

[septimus]

Minimizing geographic perimeters is not clearly desirable as a criterion. What is the point? Minimizing carfare during campaigning? If cultural closeness, rather than geographic closeness, seems useful in districting, then some of the odd districtings we see are good!

The real problem with gerrymandering is not the odd-shaped districts, but just the fact that a party with political control can enhance that control. The reason for proposals like SlackerInc's is not that compact districts are "better," but just to impose any arbitrary districting method to interfere with the ability to do politically-motivated gerrymandering.

Here's an off-the-wall approach, which may seem extremely stupid and assumes exactly two political parties, but which would solve a few problems:
  Let the minority party do the districting!
(A simple restriction, e.g. that only a fraction of districts can be redrawn in any cycle, would impose a useful inertia.) For one thing, this would counter the strong tendency to reelect incumbents, which is one of the problems in present-day America.

[DoctorJ]

Mere gerrymandering is amateur hour compared to the bushwa that just occurred here in KY.

The Democrats scored a "victory" (I guess) by re-drawing the Congressional district around Lexington to save Ben Chandler's ass. It wasn't easy, since no one really likes him on either side. Unfortunately, they had to give away the store to the Republicans to make it happen.

Kathy Stein has represented downtown Lexington in the state House since 1998 and in the state Senate since 2009, and is one of the few truly progressive voices in the state legislature. She's a constant thorn in the side of the Republican Senate leadership, which had pretty much free reign to redraw the Senate districts.

The problem is that it was hard to redraw Kathy's 13th district to guarantee that she couldn't win. So what did they do? They just re-numbered the districts. Kathy's 13th district is now in northeastern KY, starting about 45 minutes away. Downtown Lexington is now the 4th district, represented by a man who lives in Henderson, KY--200 miles west.

But it gets better. Odd-numbered Senate seats are up for election this year, and even-numbered seats go in 2014. In order to run for her 13th district seat Kathy would have to uproot and move to the new district, and she almost certainly wouldn't win since it's a far more conservative area. Meanwhile the district where she lives--now the 4th--won't elect a new Senator until 2014. So she has effectively been kicked out of the Senate for the next two years.

The upshot, I guess, is that the Republicans had to spend a ton of political capital to make this happen. But since our Democrats aren't really that much better, it remains to be seen whether that will turn out to be a good thing or not.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Minimizing geographic perimeters is not clearly desirable as a criterion. What is the point? Minimizing carfare during campaigning? If cultural closeness, rather than geographic closeness, seems useful in districting, then some of the odd districtings we see are good!

The real problem with gerrymandering is not the odd-shaped districts, but just the fact that a party with political control can enhance that control. The reason for proposals like SlackerInc's is not that compact districts are "better," but just to impose any arbitrary districting method to interfere with the ability to do politically-motivated gerrymandering.
And that's exactly it for me. I don't much like the geographic thing, anyway: I have a lot more in common with another geeky teacher in Oregon than I do with a Sons of Confederate Veterans used car dealer down the street from me. In our diverse economy, people's occupations aren't so much determined by their location, nor are many of their interests. But preventing gerrymandering is amajor concern, and geography provides as good an arbitrary stop to gerrymandering as any.

Here's an off-the-wall approach, which may seem extremely stupid and assumes exactly two political parties, but which would solve a few problems:
  Let the minority party do the districting!
(A simple restriction, e.g. that only a fraction of districts can be redrawn in any cycle, would impose a useful inertia.) For one thing, this would counter the strong tendency to reelect incumbents, which is one of the problems in present-day America.
Sorry, but I don't much like that--gerrymandering to favor the minority party is just as bad, IMO, as gerrymandering to favor the majority. Worse, possibly, inasmuch as it provides a way for minority interests to gain an outsized influence, leading to rule by a minority.

[Buck Godot]

Heinlein once suggested that we should assign voters to districts alphabetically, or by birthday. Thus everyone born from Jan 1 through Feb 13 would be in District 1, Feb 14 - March 28 in District 2, etc. That way, every district would be of absolutely equal size (aside from a tiny rounding error), ensuring one person, one vote. As he put it, "surely where a person lives is the least important thing about them".

At the time he wrote it, this proposal would have been unwieldy, but today, with databases and the Internet, it could work.

The problem with this is that it could lead to tyranny of the majority. If the state is 55% republican and 45% Democrat and everyone voted along party lines the result would be a state legislature that is 100% Republican.

In my fantasy, redistricting would be assigned to the Math department of the state University, and would not be implemented until the methodology was accepted for publication in a peer reviewed applied mathematics journal.