Your example is literally what is being illustrated.
The graphic literally illustrates that one of two teams “wins”. In the “perfect” case that is blue.
here is some disconnect you are suffering. There isn’t only one seat they are competing for.
The disconnect being that the above example mentions nothing about the red districts getting anything.
That is an assumption you are making based on some real world system that is not depicted here.
My comment is based only on what the image shows. I understand that the real world may be different but the real world is not what I am commenting on.
I dont get why you have a problem with the end result.
I don’t criticize the result. I just don’t think it’s perfect.
People here keep telling me the system is bad but it’s the best we have.
If that is your definition of perfect that I suppose we just have a vastly different understanding of perfection.
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 3 days ago
They win majority of the district. Not all of the seats. I don’t know why you’re are being so obtuse about this. It’s pretty apparent to everyone else. And it is exactly how districts in real life work
Yes, becuase the purpose of this info graphic is to show how Gerrymandering works in real life. Gerrymandering has nothing to do with taking individual seats. Ever. Period. It is about taking outweighed control of a multi-seat body. That is the ENTIRE point of gerrymandering, a subject that is not obscure in the slightest.
What then would be the “perfect” result between only two parties running, and 60% support going to the blue party? Whether for 1 seat or for 5 as IS SHOWN in this graphic?
I most certianly did not say that this is the best system we could have, but you confusion is because you are conflating vastly different things. When people are talking about different voting systems that would be better, that assumes that there is more than 2 choices in the matter. If there are only two, such as is in this example, the voting system resolves to being identical to First Past The Post, so it doesnt matter, FOR THIS ONE EXAMPLE. In real life, things are not that simple, but that doesnt matter when we are talking about a simplified hypothetical like this. That is the point.
geissi@feddit.org 3 days ago
Yes, by changing voting groups in such a way that one party achieves a maximum of individual “wins” to achieve an overall “win”. That is all it shows, there are 50 people split into two colors, five districts and one winner. No seats anywhere.
Right, because it it the process of rearranging voting groups to affect the overall outcome and has nothing to do with what the winner gets.
in other words
or
or
Ok please take a big red marker or a graphic tool of your choice And draw a circle where on the graphic it SHOWS that red gets anything, besides abstract districts.
If you could highlight the fabled seats, that would certainly convince me that they are shown somewhere.
Whether the districts impart any sort of political influence beyond the tally of which team gets to be the overall winner, depends on completely different factors not part of the graphic.
I am not conflating anything. I am deliberately ignoring anything not in the info-graphic that presumably wants to teach us something.
It only shows how different district shapes affect the outcome of which team “wins”.
You are the one conflating the abstract presentation on this graphic with some specific real-life situation.
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Districts each get a seat. That is the part you are not getting. That is what gerrymandering manipulates. You seem to think that the districts are voting blocks with equal say (1 vote each) in an election of a single seat (thus why you think Blue wins it all) but that is NOT how districting and gerrymandering works in the US. I dont know why you are quoting definitions at me like I dont understand the concept.
You specifically brought up that other people are saying that there are better systems, which is exactly what I was responding to and saying you were conflating with the “perfect” term used in the info graphic. So no, this is bull.
The abstract presentation in the graphic is a hypothetical that EXPLAINS the real-life situation. Gerrymandering is not a concept in a vacuum. It is a thing that happens and show a simplified version of it here demonstrates how manipulative it is in a digestible way. That is the point. It’s not a mathematical or logical axiom that exists purely in and of itself. It is a pretend situation meant to parallel a real life one and demonstrate a form of political manipulation.
geissi@feddit.org 2 days ago
They do not in the example. The example only knows a single winner.
I think that blue wins because the example literally tells us that blue wins.
And if the infographic said “Gerrymandering as it specifically works in the US only” then that would be relevant.
But it only explains it a general abstract concept. One that can also occur outside the US. This general concept can also occur without US electoral districts that get some seats. It can occur in any voting situation where the overall population is divided into subgroups.
Yes, it explains one specific mechanism. Namely changing district shapes to affect the outcome. And the outcome in the example is one color winning.
I do not care how things are in real life, because my comment has nothing to do with the real life situation, only the one depicted here.