Redistricting Videogame Shows Problems in the System 322
An anonymous reader writes "This is a cool redistricting game that was launched out of the capitol building in Washington DC last week. It was created by the USC Game Innovation Lab and has been getting lots of press. It's about time someone took on a tough issue like redistricting reform using the power of the internet." It's crazy that gerrymandering is actually good fodder for a video game.
Sure it's a game (Score:5, Interesting)
Or did you think that American politics at the highest levels was actually about serving the public?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sure it's a game (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sure it's a game (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sure it's a game (Score:4, Interesting)
People who save money tend to be middle class.
People who invest money tend to be upper class.
People themselves and the decisions they make are the biggest obstacle they have to overcome.
As much as 'people' would like to obliterate `classes`, class warfare will always exist just as some people will like the color green over the color pink.
Re: (Score:2)
Economic class is about how you get your money, not how freely you waste it.
Re:Sure it's a game (Score:5, Insightful)
Several economists and social scientists have done studies of the wealthy and found that great majority of them have elevated themselves from a lower wealth-class through smart money management. I, myself, started out very poor and have managed to work my way up to have some wealth. This while supporting my wife in a single income family and paying for her continuing education.
I have a high school education from a podunk school from a town of 3000 people. If I can do it, you have no excuses.
It's not how much you spend. It's how you spend it. I don't have cable(I don't watch TV at all), I have two vehicles that I paid cash for, I do all of my own home and car maintenance. I built a gym in my home rather than pay out monthlies. (The equipment paid for itself in 12mos.) I don't eat out much, I don't go to convenience stores except to buy gas. These decisions add up.
For instance, eating out, including StarSucks and QuickTrip, usually accounted for $100 per week in expenses, by eating food that I or my have prepared and avoiding 'convenience food' I am saving at least that much per week.
The "Millionaire Next Door" has several references for further research on the topic. It has survived the empirical evidence gathered from the several millionaires that I have met and do business with.
To change your position in life, you must change your behavior.
Re:Sure it's a game (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, you made a very dangerous comment. "If I can do it, you have no excuses".
You have no idea what it's like being anyone but you. You can point at some particular behaviours and say "hey, those behaviours aren't serving you", but expecting everyone else to be like you, and to suffer when they are not, is a dangerous manifestation of a particularly subtle arrogance... that, in fact, they would be better off if they were like you.
They might be financially better off, but perhaps not better off from any other metric they value.
Your personality may make it easier for you to focus on something heavily and sacrifice where others would not. How many workaholics are simply using work as a drug to escape other areas of their life they do not like? Does that make them a role model to aspire to?
I'm not saying that you are conciously insinuating any of this. I am simply saying, be very careful of that attitude. You cannot judge others by your own internal standards, because your own internal standards were developed by you, in the life you lead, and simply do not apply with objective reliability to anyone but you.
Focus on particular behaviours. It is a fact that if someone spends $100 a week eating out instead of $25 eating in, that's a poor financial choice. Unless, the time spent shopping and cooking could have instead generated more than $75 in revenue. throw in whatever qualitative comparison or subjective comparison on top of that, that pleases you (if I eat in, I eat organic and healthy. Eating out, greasy and bad. determine health value..). But never, ever make the mistake that other people should be like you. If we all were, after all... well, you know your own shortcomings better than I. isn't it better that the world has variety? perhaps that variety means that we need people who make poor financial decisions... because they may also have some other strength we collectively or individually benefit from. I don't know. But, neither do you.
careful careful
Re:Sure it's a game (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever heard the phrase, "Where you start out in life is a good indication of where you'll finish?" Class mobility and the "American Dream" are largely hoaxes perpetrated by the rich on the middle and lower classes (kind of like the lottery, only you have to work much harder and invest much more, and the odds are much lower.) Sure some people were born dirt poor, and end up with money to burn, and some people are born with the silver spoon in their mouths and die on the streets, but the very vast majority of people will remain in the class they're born into for the rest of their lives. This is not a coincidence. (Read that last sentence again if you have to.) Another old gem is "It takes money to make money." and the poor don't have it.
All the personal motivation in the world might not overcome the socio-economic implications for being born poor, such as bad schools, dangerous environments, less leisure, and possibly most importantly the VP of Chase financial services doesn't live next door to you in section 8 housing - so you can't offer to mow his lawn when you're 7.
Why do you think single women *still* make less money than single men in the same jobs? Are they as a gender less motivated? That ignores the social consequences of being black or hispanic for instance, and the less opportunity at the same jobs, and with the increased probability of poverty, all of which are additive.
People can improve their stature in life, but the odds are stacked against them. While Paris will be just fine when she gets out of jail - and she doesn't have to give up TV. A poor person might never get a second (third?) chance for much less egregious missteps.
In short you're an ass, and you even give poor advice. For the middle class to get ahead they should buy the most expensive house they can afford (with a fixed interest mortgage).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is flat-out untrue. My family on both sides were immigrants who arrived in the US in the late 1880s. I'll just trace what happened on my father's side.
The original immigrants, my great-grandparents, were oil refinery workers. That meant they had it relatively good, I admit -- most of the immigrants of the time from their ethnic group were coal miners.
My grandfather started out as an ordinary refinery worker, and through sheer hard work rose to management. He was, unfortunately, forced into a premature
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So it took your family 120 years and four generations to go from middle-lower to upper-middle? Congratulations. This is exactly what I was talking about when I said the American dream is a hoax. It's a hoax, because (1) you haven't achieved real wealth, and (2) it takes t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because person A with a less advantageous starting position can surpass person B doesn't mean that person C can surpass person B. Basically because someone succeeds doesn't mean anyone can succeed. In this post, as well as the other you make sweeping oversimplifications, there is more to socio-economic status than which income tax bracket you fall into, home life, neighborhood, and acquaintanc
Re:The obvious solution. (Score:4, Interesting)
The point here is social inequality. Money may be a proximate factor for social inequality, but I find it unlikely to be the ultimate cause. Money has been around a long time, and throughout that time there have been wide swings in social inequality - it seems desirable to minimize inequality, while maximizing both average and total wealth.
There are other ways to keep those born rich from staying rich, besides your modest proposal, such as inheritance and progressive taxes. These things exist today for that very purpose, but somebody's going to call any type of tax unfair. I think we could stand to be a tad more progressive, making things a little easier for the poor and a little harder for the rich and the corporation, especially in these days of increasingly consolidated wealth, shrinking middle class, and growing poverty.
Before anyone calls me a pinko commie, I think that that the promise of personal wealth is the greatest part of capitalism. However, the grubby capitalistic hand needs to be slapped from time to time to keep it from harding everybody else's cookies. Besides, while money necessarily provides an advantage, there is no reason why that advantage should pay such high dividends to the rich due mainly to its interest bearing nature, and yield such low returns to the poor.
Real People (Score:3, Informative)
I like how you use a teenager living at home as your example of financial success. Now consider this story: a
Re:Sure it's a game (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The political process in the US filters out the more altruistic politicians at the lower levels.
So what you're saying is the power gamers and gold farmers have taken over the game and ruined it for everyone else :D.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sweet! Got a link to the cheat codes?
Re:Sure it's a game (Score:5, Funny)
and here's another. [essvote.com]
Of course, some people would say that gerrymandering is a cheat code as well.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
(anyone else think that it's about time they release the government 2.0 patch, though?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is that crazy? Gerrymandering, and indeed, much of politics, is a game
Your post getting +5 is a great example of how cynicism is often mistaken for intelligence. If you remove the "+5 Cynical", your post says nothing and contributes nothing to the discussion, in fact it's silly: Politics isn't a game, it's real and affects real peoples' lives.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because it affects people doesn't mean it's not a game -- as I said, the stakes are far higher than what we're accustomed to seeing in what we think of as a "game".
Can you honestly say that there are not people involved in politics to whom "winning" isn't the most important aspect? That this type of attitude is not common at the level of presidential
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps what you meant to say is that *to politicians* it is a game because they no longer feel anything for the negative effects their actions have in reality. But that still doesn't make it a game, and it isn't what you said.
Nor is it even true, for that matter. If you honestly think that no politician is doing anything anymore that does serve people in some way, then sorry, you are just getting 'cynicism points', because that is ridiculous ... try seeing how long things keep going smoothly if you take
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You based your entire argument off the fact that the actions of politicians affect the real world and real people. For politics to not be a game, then it must not be considered a game by any of the decision-makers in the system (the players). Hence, your position requires that politician
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Why is that crazy? Gerrymandering, and indeed, much of politics, is a game"
Your post getting +5 is a great example of how cynicism is often mistaken for intelligence. If you remove the "+5 Cynical", your post says nothing and contributes nothing to the discussion, in fact it's silly: Politics isn't a game, it's real and affects real peoples' lives.
It depends on your definition of "game [wikipedia.org]." American football is a game, but it's real and affects people's lives. It has a major effect on the economies of larg
Lessons taught through the difficult curve (Score:5, Informative)
That "final environment" is impossible to complete while keeping all the incumbents in their seats.
Which is the whole point, AFAIK, one I wholeheartedly agree with.
It's too bad there's no way to download the game and mirror it elsewhere or just hold onto a copy. Little gems like this are likely to disappear after a few months.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No it's not. When I did it, the original map had 3 republicans and 1 democrat, and I finally got a map approved (by 3 out of 5 members of the committee, then rejected by the R state legislature, then approved by courts) that resulted in 2 R and 2 D seats.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lessons taught through the difficult curve (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Lessons taught through the difficult curve (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought there already was a redistricting game.. (Score:5, Funny)
So how long... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pork Barrel Senator (Score:2)
Dumb game (Score:2)
Oh wait, I guess that's the point...
One has to ask... (Score:5, Informative)
2. What... is gerrymandering [wikipedia.org]?
3. What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
Sincerely,
--
The English-as-a-second-language population
Re:One has to ask... (Score:4, Funny)
A Republican or a Democrat?
Re: (Score:2)
*sexy lady voice* (Score:2, Funny)
Grand Strategy Guide for Electoral Victory (Score:5, Insightful)
Step 2: Gerrymander your seats into safe districts
Step 3: Gerrymander your opponent's into insane districts
Step 4: Win an election
Step 5: Repeat as needed
Seriously, people find ethical lapses in a political system? How is that possible!
I'm looking forward to "ReDistricting 2: Earmarks, or buying of the votes."
Re: (Score:2)
You can change the districts to have:
1) greater majorities for your party members. You will probably lose some seats, but the remaining guys are secure.
or
2) slimmer majorities for your party members. You could gain some seats, but since the majorities are thinner, there's a greater
Re:Grand Strategy Guide for Electoral Victory (Score:5, Interesting)
The congressional incumbancy rate was 98% in 2000.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
3. There are 9 districts. Percentages republican are as follows: #1 = 90%, 2 = 80%, 3 = 70%, 4 = 60%, 5 = 50%, 6 = 40%, 7 = 30%, 8 = 20%, 9 = 10%.
Now change it as follows:
1 = 65%, 2 = 65%, 3 = 65%, 4 = 65%, 5 = 65%, 6 = 65%, 7 = 50%, 8= 5%, 9 =5%
You went from 3 certain, 3 in doubt, 3 definitely lost to 6 almost certain, one in doubt, 2 defitinely lost. Assuming a typical year, you go from an everage of 4.5 seats to an average of 6.5 seats. Two seat gain.
The only problem with t
What about multi-member districts with STV? (Score:5, Interesting)
Using a single transferable vote [wikipedia.org] system like that used for Cambridge (MA) municipal elections could work quite well. In the city council race, there are 9 seats, and any group capable of generating at least 10% of the total votes can elect a councillor of their own, even if that group is spread from one end of Cambridge to the other. Some councillors do have unofficial "districts" where their support is strongest, but this is not a requirement in any way.
STV elections also avoid the "wasted vote" problem with independent or smaller-party candidates, since voters can put one of those as their #1 choice, and if they don't win, those votes transfer down the ballot to the #2 or later choice as necessary.
With the current breakdown of seats by state, a system with a maximum of 11 seats in a district would allow all but 11 states to operate as one large multi-member district; raising the threshold to 13 would add Georgia, New Jersey, and North Carolina to the single-election list.
To use Massachusetts as an example: the current 10 seats in the House are all held by the Democratic Party. I doubt there's any viable redistricting that would allow the Republicans to win even one seat. Under a 10 member STV system, though, the 13% of the state that's registered Republican could elect at least one, and with support from unenrolled voters, possibly more.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What about multi-member districts with STV? (Score:4, Informative)
http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ [zesty.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about multi-member districts with STV? (Score:4, Interesting)
Take the example from the parent. Suppose you are one of the 13% of registered Republicans in MA. Who do you write to? The Democrat from your district, the Democrat junior senator, or the Democrat senior senator? But if MA was a single district with 10 seats, you'd end up with one guy who could argue your position on the floor, anyway. And representing the range of issues that people care about seems more important than representing purely geographical areas anyway. Especially when those geographical areas can be redrawn at will by those in power to represent purely political interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Compare this to the 1:1 ratio,
Re: (Score:2)
And that's the problem with your idea.
How do you bring jobs to your 'district' when its constituants are spread across the state? How do you solve problems for people living on the other side of the State? Do you know the officials in their county? Do those officials care who you are, if you only represent (single digit)% of their popula
Re: (Score:2)
It's a philosophical difference, but I would say that this is a net benefit -- state legislators don't exist to bring home pork to their district, they exist to resolve issues facing the entire state. If their 'district' consisted of their entire state, then maybe they would take actions to benefit the entire state, not just their district at the expense of the rest of the state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Redistricting vs. politics as usual (Score:5, Informative)
Remember that most states have 'winner-take-all' electoral votes, because the Republicans got with the Democrats to stop Teddy Roosevelt and his Bull Moose party.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Florida
Well, there's your first problem right there... It's a joke people.
How would you ban gerrymandering? (Score:2)
Any ideas? Schwarzenneger's proposal simply moves the redistricting authority from the elected representatives to a panel of appointed jurists. This gets rid of the
Mathematical modeling (Score:2)
Re:How would you ban gerrymandering? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Define an algorithm that takes population distribution (but not race, age, political affiliation, etc.) as input, and tries to make districts of equal population while
Re: (Score:2)
One example from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
Here's a question... (Score:2)
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
Or wait.. then the Florida legislature redraws the state to have 1000 counties! Woo hoo they run the country!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How would you ban gerrymandering? (Score:5, Informative)
1 - population equality,
2 - contiguity,
3 - unity of counties and cities (maintaining county lines and "nesting" house districts within senate districts and senate districts within congressional districts), and
4 - compactness.
When you look at these guidelines, you'll find it tries to do the same thing that various mathematical algorithms, which others have suggested in response to the parent post, try to do. The three proposed maps are sent to the legislature, who attempt to choose one in a simple take-it-or-leave-it vote, with contingencies if the legislature can't decide on one.
The result is that four of five congressional districts in Iowa are consistently competitive and mirror the state's overall political makeup. Compare that to about 50 of 435 congressional districts nationwide being competitive, despite the nearly even split between Democrats and Republicans.
Some Iowa politicians grumble when they have to move their home to stay within their redrawn district, but by and large everyone feels that the system is fair and equitable. Neither party considers abusing the system, because they realize how blatant it would appear, and because they know that the next time the same abuse could be revisited on them.
Proportional Representation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Proportional Representation (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly, but that's probably why nobody will ever implement proportional representation.
Yeah, I know that's cynical...
The other thing that would "fix" the system is keep authority within appropriate geographic extents; for instance, what is good for people and what people in California want is generally not the same as those in South Carolina - the only things that should be Federal are those that apply equally to everyone, and a lot of the current legislative system on the Federal lever has gone well beyond those boundaries.
It's not just the US, either; the EU has the same problem...
Good, but part of the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
It's about winning, which is what the last support of Bush is hanging on about right now, WE won, it's OUR victory, you can't say anything about it because YOU LOST. And it's really not about that. But making it a game, making it a badge "Proud Republican", "Texas Democrat" is not the way to go. If you're views are mostly in line with the Democrats there's a few republicans out there that you should vote for to stay in line with your views. And vice-versa.
It's the dumbing down of the process into a game. King of the Hill did it correctly when Bill said "I voted yesterday. I guessed right 4 out of 5 times." or something to that effect.
Oh, but this game is on the right track, explaining a complex concept to people in an easy to understand way is a great thing.
Too often... (Score:3, Insightful)
Georgia just completed its own cases...Louisiana had a particularly notorious case of blatantly obvious (even to the most hard-lined) one that literally snaked halfway around the state.
I don't necessarily agree with the "proportional" proposal unless there was some way to keep it local - I want someone who leaves nearby as my rep, not someone who is in the same party miles away. Neither the opposition NOR someone who doesn't live close by will have my political interests primarily at heart. Of course, someone who lives closely AND is in the same political boat probably won't, either...
Choose Our Own Districts By the Numbers (Score:5, Interesting)
I like the system where each person in a post office's service area (usually a ZIP code or two) selects the neighboring postal zones (up to the state border) to which they're most "connected" in order of "closeness" (as defined by the person selecting). Then all the responses are tabulated purely statistically to generate a map of the most interconnected regions, in a quantity equal to the number of representatives allowed in the state. There could be a second round to accommodate exceptions, like tiny islands (below some predetermined population size) or extremes of minimum/maximum populations in different districts, where the exceptional zones select their associations, as do the neighboring candidates for association to accept association with the exceptional zones.
We should choose our own fellow constituents who choose our mutual representatives. As long as the politicians themselves mediate the process with any discretion, the process will primarily serve them and their parties or other interest groups. We've got the stats and the sense of our neighbors to do it equitably and quickly. We should redistrict at least 10-20% of districts every odd-numbered year for reelection to the House of Representatives on the following year. After no more than a decade or two we should have equitable districts without a hasty conversion that will generate unmanageable sabotage from the existing order.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to be a cynic (because the idea you present does have merit), but wouldn't this simply result in new political games where they work hard to open new post offices, and close old ones, so as to redefine political boundaries? This is bad in two ways: (1) it still allows for rigging the votes; and (2) it would impose severe inefficiencies i
Re: (Score:2)
Why is leaving the districting in the hands of all the people equally, requiring
Re: (Score:2)
How insightful of you to notice that the redistricting plan I described would be that simple. But so much more effective.
Sorry (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Giving up on politics only guarantees that those with the power will screw you without limit.
District Strength (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say you have 150 people, where 100 of them vote for political party X and the other 50 favor party Y. You want to put these people into 2 districts. But how do you distribute them?
First, lets assume that you favor party X. In that case, you want to put 50 X-type and 25 Y-type people in each district, allowing party X to win elections in both.
Now, assume you favor party Y. In this case, you want to put all 50 Y-types in one district, along with 25 X-types, allowing party Y to win that district. (The
Re: (Score:2)
Interoperability (Score:2)
Why try to patch a broken system? (Score:2, Insightful)
Gerrymandering is only possible (or rather, makes sense) because of an underlying "winner takes it all" system. If every vote counted, which is far from reality currently in the US, it would not matter at all in what district you cast it. It comes into the big, national pool and whether you're from Alabama or New York does not ma
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's a common fallacy to assume that the role of the electoral college was simply to overcome the shortcomings of communications methods of the time, but being common makes it no less a fallacy. The electoral college's primary purpose is specifically to ensure that even states with low populations have a say
Re: (Score:2)
But all the Electoral College does is shift the power from the populous states to the unpopulous states. Instead of states with more votes getting the campaign attention, it's the states with more EC seats getting the attention.
Here's an interesting thought; randomize the EC.
Or, in this day and age, do away with it. After all, everybody who cares to can see the debates and what not on the TV or Radio, let alone the Internets.
Tried this in California already (Score:2, Informative)
Flying arcade game machines (Score:2)
Did anybody else get the image of a 80's-era arcade videogame chassis flying out the front door of the Capitol?
a dated practice which is not needed (Score:2)
1) get rid of the electoral system, and use a popular vote
2) no more redistricting is needed
3) americans move on to more important issues
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
One small problem - what about the House of Representatives? These are folks that are elected by their "district" which is what this is all about.
No, there really aren't many more important issues. Because most of the real business of the government of the US is done by the House of Representatives. And getting people that would actually represent people might be a good thing.
Unfortunately, the current situation pushes things towards electing the properly connected people. So we end up with
The Emergence of the Political Game? (Score:4, Interesting)
BTM
I wrote my own redistricter too... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think I've gotten pretty good results for CA, TX, IL, FL and PA
It tries to create impartial districts that keep people on average close to the center of their districts. It works pretty well, but is kinda computationally intense. It could almost become Redistricting@Home if there was interest in the approach.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The word "gerrymander" is named for the Governor of Massachusetts Elbridge Gerry (July 17, 1744 - November 23, 1814), and is a blend of his name with the word "salamander," which was used to describe the appearance of a tortuous electoral district pressed through the Massachusetts legislature in 1812 by Jeffersonian democrats, in order to disadvantage their electoral opponents
Re: (Score:2)
The tongue in cheek correlation I see is that of an alligator. Gerrymandering...alligator...swing state...surely not
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Then again, I'm from Florida where there is a real probability that in some precints you actually could be chased by a real gator while on your way to the polls.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most interestingly was the presumption that 3rd parties are completely meaningless, and that districting reform will have no impact upon them. And the idea that 3rd parties can be simultaneously "lumped into" undecideds as if they only help decide between the two major parties.
One other huge presumption is the idea that you will vote Democrat or Republican solely upon the basis of party affiliation, as if the personality