New answers tagged

2

The city (or county) of Baltimore is not unfair to Republican voters. It could be argued that the state of Maryland is because of how they draw the congressional lines. On that same token, in part because Maryland has gotten even bluer since 2008, the state wants to draw the lines to be an 8-0 lockout. It is possible to draw such a map and not look as "...


2

Just so it's said, the concept of 'districts' — like many features of US politics — is founded in an 18th century context where social and geographical mobility was low, and the population was naturally (generationally) segregated into cultural or community-oriented enclaves. If you look at old cities around the US (Boston, Baltimore, New York City, etc.), ...


1

Short Answer Single member district election systems are inherently biased outside certain rare distributions of voters that usually aren't present. Maximal bias can be prevented with historic voting blind formulas for drawing districts, but minimal bias consistent with single member districts (i.e. gerrymandery bias free results) can't be achieved without ...


0

According to Fair Vote, the Fair Representation Act is a ground-breaking electoral reform package reintroduced into Congress when in 2019 the supreme court ruled in Rucho vs Common Cause. Although partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles", the federal courts cannot review such allegations as they present "...


-1

The obvious solution [to gerrymandering] is to use some sort of mathematical formula for dividing a territory into equal parts, so that no side gets an advantage. A 'deterministic' mathematical formula is not a panancea. It will have spurious precision if the underlyimg assumptions are not examined and shown to be consisyent wirh the aims that the modeller ...


0

Short Answer Partisan bias in redistricting persists because there are strong incentives to do it, it is hard to define, and it is non-trivial to find solutions to. Background The U.S. Constitution does not expressly forbid gerrymandering and vests redistricting largely within the authority of U.S. states once the census allocates the number of U.S. House ...


1

Bobson cleanly laid out what the constitutional requirements on the general election side of things are: namely that it is essentially in Congress' hands assuming that Representatives are still apportioned by states in a manner as allowed by the constitution. The other question is the constitutionality of Representatives having fractional votes. While it is ...


2

A statute could legalize multi-member districts and proportional representation. But, I think it would be fair to say that seat sharing would be constitutionally questionable and would probably be unconstitutional. While it isn't banned in so many words, the U.S. Constitution clearly contemplated that each seat in the House and Senate respectively be ...


1

First past the post strongly favors the existence of two viable political parties in any given geographic area in the long run equilibrium. But, it does not prevent a multiparty system if different geographic areas have different sets of leading political parties. The U.K. and Canada are both examples of how this can work out. In addition to center-left and ...


0

Pardon a somewhat sideways answer, but I think it's important to point out that the ballot system (like many pragmatic regulated systems) was never designed to prevent fraud in some absolute, draconian sense. The system was designed to make fraud unprofitable and ineffective. Most ballot-counting systems use a combination of partisan antagonism and ...


Top 50 recent answers are included