Jump to content

Gerrymandering: Difference between revisions

Citoid reference conversion
(formatting)
(Citoid reference conversion)
Line 27:
|5R
|}
Now, clearly under these suppositions, the overall political centroid for the entire population is properly 0; and the ''average'' for the elected body as a whole is indeed this. However, because of our gerrymander, The first three seats can form a majority whose weakest members are of value -0.6, which is clearly not representative of the entire populace. <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.reddit.com/r/EndFPTP/comments/efxx07/elections_could_they_be_fairer/fc9x82n|title=r/EndFPTP - Comment by u/curiouslefty on ”Elections: Could they be fairer?”|website=reddit|language=en-US|access-date=2020-04-05}}</ref></blockquote>Also:<blockquote>Next: it doesn't neuter gerrymandering at all. Take that standard WaPo graphic example, except now you've got 10 Red, 5 Purple, 10 Blue. Drawing 5 districts, make two {4 R, 1 P} and then two {1 R, 1 P, 3 B} and then finally one {1 P, 4B}. Let's ''generously'' suppose that Score will return the average for each district, where each R is a -1, a P is a 0, and a B is a +1. So the first two are -.8, the next two are +0.4, and the last one is a +.8. You can then form a majority using the 2 +0.4's and the +.8.
 
So yeah, supposing that Score works somehow better than it probably will in reality, you've changed the result in the legislature from a +1 to a +.4. It's a big improvement, but I'd hardly call it "neutering".
 
PR returns the better result here IMO, since P (the dead-center of the district) determines what passes or not. <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.reddit.com/r/EndFPTP/comments/d5t10w/i_submitted_a_california_ballot_measure_to/f0xvg3k|title=r/EndFPTP - Comment by u/curiouslefty on ”I Submitted a California Ballot Measure to Institute RCV Statewide”|website=reddit|language=en-US|access-date=2020-04-05}}</ref></blockquote>
 
== References ==
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.