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.
So how long... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Lessons taught through the difficult curve (Score:1, Insightful)
Agreed. Can we please abandon Flash as an interactive content-delivery platform? A lot of taxpayer money went into supporting this work, and there's no way for me to get a copy to demo to students when offline, or to make any changes, etc.
Proportional Representation (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re:Lessons taught through the difficult curve (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sure it's a game (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:Sure it's a game (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Sure it's a game (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...
Re:Sure it's a game (Score:1, Insightful)
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 matter.
I can see the historical reasons for this kind of election, but frankly, we outlived this system by at the very least 50 years. With modern technology and information traveling around the globe in a second, there is no need for an electoral college and other forms of more indirection between the people and their representatives. And there is certainly no need for "all or nothing" situations anymore.
Of course, this change will not come from the two big parties who would have to deal with smaller groups eating away at their power base. Neither of them would willingly even think of abandoning that concept, and they will most likely team up against any attempt to change it. If such a change is to happen, it has to come from the "bottom" of the political pyramid. Unfortunately, that would require a LOT of people get off their rears and actually care about the country.
Re:Sure it's a game (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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:Sure it's a game (Score:3, Insightful)
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 politics?
Do you really think that Karl Rove, for example, has a primary motivation other than winning? Or that the Democratic Party, as an institution, is anything more than a group that exists purely to get people elected? That's the nature of partisan politics in the US system.
This is what my post is saying, I'll spell it out so you can understand, since it appears that you're completely missing my point:
American politics at the highest level is dominated by those who treat it like a game. Hence, it becomes a game, where the effect on the outcome (future election results) taints every action taken, and is often a primary motivation for actions taken.
So how, exactly, is this not a point for discussion?
As for your opinion on cynicism, perhaps you misunderstand what cynicism is. It's pointing out the flaws of society because solving a problem is predicated by awareness of the problem. Apparently in your world, all politicians are motivated by the effect of their actions on the public -- I know better than that, and so should you.
(Insert witty subject line here) (Score:1, Insightful)
Too cynical? Sorry. I'm sure it's a mighty fine...game. To...play.
Re:Sure it's a game (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 politicians are motivated by the impacts of their actions on people, not the impact of their actions on the electoral cycle.
Maybe you misunderstand what a game is --You think it must be something that has no effect on the real world, this is false and destroys the rest of your arguments. Show me an accepted definition of 'game' that states that it must have no effect on the real world. Is poker a game? Without a doubt. Does it have an effect on the real world? Without a doubt, if money changes hands.
So, before you fly off the handle again, why not re-examine your assumptions and try again?
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:Easy... - Nope, challenge. (Score:1, Insightful)
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:It'd be a good game if it wasn't so biased. (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 of the candidate has absolutely no impact on a particular voter. Some candidates through sheer charisma can win over voters in what is arguably a district made primarily of voters from the "other" party. I can give very specific examples of this happening in the past, and surprisingly both times I was in districts where this happened, the district was "supposed to belong" to the other party when the redistricting took place. But very strong candidates prevailed of the "wrong" party and won the election... even if those same voters tended to vote for the "correct" party for the other races. Straight ticket voting is far less common than you would be led on to believe.
Still another huge presumption is that rural voters are identical to urban voters, with the only difference being the population density alone. Depending on the region of the country, a rural candidate from either party will get support over an urban candidate... particularly when you are talking about somebody running for the House. You could include other aspects including ethnic background or other factors.... and the ethnicity of the voter is not necessarily tied with the tendency to vote for a particular candidate. If that were true, we would have had only women as President of the USA since the passage of the 19th Ammendment.
The thing that struck me the most about the suggested "reform" proposal was after I made the supposedly "fair" districts (based exclusively on geometry and not taking any other issue under consideration including physical geography), was the process of submitting the proposal to the state legislature. The proposal that I submitted was flatly turned down by the legislature, yet the courts overruled the legislature. This to me is something very wrong, and a philosophy that I strongly disagree with. Why should I trust the judgement of a group of individuals who were put into their position by the body that they are overruling? This isn't just suggesting that the legislature can't have an act declared unconsitutional (so the courts will simply no longer enforce the law), but actively getting directly involved in politics in a way that is incredibly dangerous. And it misses the original concept of separation of powers, or what a legislative body is really supposed to be able to do. Or why legislative bodies ultimately wield nearly all government authority, and why the Bill of Rights has several clauses that start "Congress shall make no law...."
This is a fun game, and it does provide a good introduction to gerrymandering and why it happens, but it is at best a partial simulation missing some factors, and a political statement in the form of a game.
Re:Sure it's a game (Score:3, Insightful)
Mobility on the socio-economic ladder is normally distributed (actually probably log normal - meaning there is increasing resistance to movement the further from middle-middle you are). It is relatively easy to move from lower-middle to middle-middle, harder, but possible to move from lower-middle to upper-middle, quite difficult to go from lower-middle to lower-upper, damn near impossible to go from lower-middle to middle-upper, and going from lower-middle to upper-upper is a herculean task. Now if the starting point is middle-lower it is herculean to go to lower-upper, and it becomes a few in a hundred million chance to break into middle-upper.
Life isn't fair, and I'm never going to argue that government social programs can change that, but to say that anyone can succeed belies a great misunderstanding of poverty and wealth. I don't know what "that kind of wealth" referenced in The Millionaire Next Door is, but if most people got there by earning it then it isn't upper-upper class type of money, and probably not even upper-middle type money. A million bucks isn't what it used to be, and lots of families can get there just by buying a home and sitting on it for 20 years. More important is that earning your way into the millionaires club is still only the purview of people who start in the middle classes. It would be more instructive to talk about the people who rise 3 or more ranks (e.g. middle-lower to middle-middle) and then look at the opportunities available to them. If someone in the middle-lower class climbs three ranks then he can lower his chance of being killed by homicide, and maybe afford to send his kids to college (with student loans). If someone in the middle-middle climbs three ranks, he can afford to drive his S class to the country club.
The point is that avenues of investment and entrepreneurship that are open to the middle classes are barricaded against the poor. Hosts of people can't afford a house - the best first investment, and need to work menial jobs with little room for advancement to survive - you don't go from mail-boy to CEO simply by working your way up, not even Hollywood tries to sell that. The only ways you get middle-upper type money or above is investments (which the poor can't afford) or found a wildly successful (read fortune 1000) company (which the poor have neither the resources or the time for), or inherit it. You simply don't earn that kind of money by climbing a corporate ladder or even very successful entrepreneurship. Poverty is a self-defeating cycle - and to blame them for it is to endorse societies ills.