Comment on YSK that Gerrymandering allows politicians to choose their own voters. In many countries, it's illegal. Gerrymandering is common in the United States

geissi@feddit.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• zalgotext@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  When there’s just two “teams”, yeah. What’s more fair than majority rule in that situation?

  source

  • geissi@feddit.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Maybe proportional representation instead of winner takes it all?

    source

    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      For district seats, that is proportional representation. It doesnt say it is winner take all. When it says that blue or red wins, it is just saying that they won the majority, and have dominate power over whatever government body they represent.

      source

      • geissi@feddit.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        I just took the graphic literally without trying to guess which body (presumably in the US) this might represent.
        If I need more information to understand the implication of this graphic than it imparts on me, then it’s not very informative.

        At no point does it imply proportional representation or that blue has a majority in some form of parliament.
        So if blue just “wins” then red isn’t represented at all. And I’m pretty sure there are election systems like this, including the US presidential election, or am I mistaken there?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  When there is one seat, and you’re using First Past the Post voting (which is a terrible voting system), yes. They perfect out come is majority win. When distributing multiplw district seats, proportional representation is the perfect outcome, which that also acheives.

  source

  • geissi@feddit.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    When there is one seat, two parties, and you’re using First Past the Post voting (which is a terrible voting system that inevitably causes the two party divide), yes

    So we can agree the system is inherently bad at representation?
    Sounds more like that outcome is the “least bad” rather than “perfect”.

    source

    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      First Past the Post is objectively a problem in general. However, if there are only two candidates, and thus only possible outcomes, with one possible seat, all forms of voting will be functionally identical to FPTP in result. So in this given example, “least bad” and “perfect” are synonymous.

      Now if there was a third+ party or more candidates from the two parties, and alternative forms of voting, then things do get more complicated. But the point of the example is to show, in simplist terms, how districting works in an ideal world, and how Gerrymandering can warp the end results to give either the advantage.

      source

      • iglou@programming.dev ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Except that the lack of a third candidate is partially because of the FPTP system. It’s a waste of time, money and energy to try to compete with the Dems and the Reps. In a ranked voting system, or even a two-round system like we have in France, I guarantee you you’d see more candidates, because people then wouldn’t just “vote useful”.

        source

        • -> View More Comments