Quote:And just how do you think this math based system is going to get implemented? With the support and the votes of the people that are going to get kicked out of office by the change? That would require a lot of altruistic politicians, a breed that, if not mythical, is at least extinct.
No kidding. But if the starting point is that politicians aren't going to vote for anything that disrupts the incumbents' status quo, so why even propose any such things, then you start at the finish line: perpetual unfair political gridlock.
Earlier in the thread, you said:
Quote:I'd dearly would love, and would support, changes to our laws to make the situation better.
Why even bother saying things like that, if the political reality is that such changes are basically impossible? "Better" for you means something along the lines of more representative, and the whole point of the existing Gerrymandered mess is to make it less representative in favour of either one party or another, or just incumbents (almost all Dems and Reps, natch) generally.
This also contributes to the serious problem of third parties gaining traction. You may put down the idea that third parties are locked out as "ignorance", and that's even strictly true in the historical sense. but there are modern safeguards laid down by both parties, in terms of funding, districting, media coverage, and all sorts of other stuff that make it even less likely today than in the past. New major parties coming into play three times in nearly two and a half centuries is not exactly evidence of a fertile ground for change. The largest changes in the political parties have been less emerging new parties, but rebrandings of existing ones, or parties that formed with much the same people out of the ashes of old ones. (Democratic-Republicans through to Dems, Whigs to Republicans.) Also, there has been no change in the Democratic/Republican split for the two largest parties since the time of Lincoln. So, yes, it's techincally true that third parties and new parties have come into existence, and old ones (Federalists) have died out. But the basic history is a fairly static two party system, at least for the last 150 years.
The splitline system at least offers an "everyone puts down their guns at once" solution that bypasses what has been the biggest political hurdle for redistricting reform: If "red" states do it before "blue" states, or vice versa, one side loses big until the other side decides to play fair, which will of course be sometime after hell freezes over. And so even people who favour fair districting in the abstract are not sufficiently naive to do it first. This, at least if it were adopted federally, would overcome that hurdle.
Quote:It's not the technology, it's the implementation that becomes a political issue. Whether based on math or science or voodoo or magic, all political solutions are first and foremost based on *politics*. Those who forget that fail.
Well, yeah, of course it will be. Is this not a sub-thread about political districting? I mean, geography and demographics and all sorts of other mathy apolical stuff is already used to determine districting. Why is this so different?
If the states went with TJ's solution of a new constitution every few presidencies, as you said, maybe something like this would get a fair shot every few decades. As it stands, I'm hardly holding my breath waiting for it to happen (in Canada, the US, or anywhere) but it would be a hell of a lot easier to implement than a piecemeal anti-Gerrymandering reform across 50 states based on who-the-hell-knows-what criteria.
-Jester