From my understanding “winner takes it all” is on state level, so the winner gets all the votes people. I only know this from the US.
“First past the post” is when there is one elected person per district and they need a relative majority which is also true in the UK.
In other countries like France, you have more than one round or need an absolute majority. Still gerrymanderable but not “first past the post”.
angrystego@lemmy.world 4 days ago
The last one would be unfair in most systems using districts.
AA5B@lemmy.world 3 days ago
The last one might be the most fair, if it were based on criteria other than voting tendencies. Complex districts are meant to let different voices be heard, but what those voices are makes it challenging.
Let me make a hypothetical scenario. Consider a state where half the people are urban and half are rural, and has two representatives. Those groups has different priorities so districts drawn only for simple shapes means that someone’s voice is not being heard. It would be better to have one representative elected by urban voters and one by rural voters. Now picture those urban areas following a winding river because that follows historical settlement patterns. The most fair choice might be a complex shape following population density to result in one representative speaking for rural voters and one speaking for urban voters, but indistinguishable from gerrymandering.
Of course that same exact result might just be a proxy for political affiliation, which is unfair. This is why preventing gerrymandering is impossible: whether it’s good or bad depends on what you’re trying to do not how you do it
tyler@programming.dev 3 days ago
not in proportional representation… If half the people are rural and half are urban and vote for different people then 50% of the representatives represent each side, no matter how the land is divided.