Bonus points. If you think of something you would add to the new constitution.

  • DomeGuy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Having all of Congress be at-large would essentially eliminate gerrymandering by just letting any majority in a state decide everything.

    I think thats the single worst change we could make, beating out term limits. ~Because if only lobbyists and staffers can be long-term careers we’d never have principled professional politicians, just short-term figureheads~

    • Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      What does “be at-large” mean?
      We’re talking about a kind of stagered multi-member districts.

        • Steve@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          23 hours ago

          It’s not the only way. Larger multi-member districts also work.

          And while we’re re-writing the whole constitution, we could do lots of things. Like requiring algorithmically generated districts, to remove the possibility of any arbitrary bias.

          • DomeGuy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            23 hours ago

            Algorithmically generated districts just give a sharper target, and allowing the existing systems to include multi-member districts just makes gerrymanding easier.

            The only way to prevent gerrymandering is with either districts that don’t change (statewide), or changing the rules of the legislature so gerrymandering doesnt matter

            My favorite potential fix is direct proxy voting. Tie vote weight in the legislature to how many citizens voted for you, and send either the top N vote-getters or everyone who gets at least X% of the votes cast to the legislature.

            • Steve@communick.news
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              22 hours ago

              Don’t know what you mean by sharper target.

              You can pick a specific algorithm based on nothing but population, without any demographics. Thus impossible to gerrymander. The Shortest Splitline is one. Another I don’t remember the name of draws circles around the densest population centers as big as they need to be to include the required number of people.

              • DomeGuy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                21 hours ago

                Passing government functions off to a computer only encourages corruption and distortion in either the implementation, the input, or how the output is handled.

                It’s like trying to engineer anti-cheat on a system where not only does the user own their own hardware but also the marketplace vendors, the courts, the OS vendors, and your servers.

                • Steve@communick.news
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  21 hours ago

                  I think you’re thinking of laws.
                  Code is better.

                  You can’t game how many people live where.

                  • DomeGuy@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    16 hours ago

                    I don’t know whether it’s cute or terrifying that you think you can solve a political problem with software.

                    Humans can and will game how many people are reported as living where. And they’ll intentionally misinterpret the algorithm you write. And they’ll lie about what your magic box says. And if they’re ever caught doing it they can and will be either ignored by the humans who enforce laws or just be given pardons by the governing humans who wanted the system mucked with in the first place

                    The only thing in our species’ history that has ever served as a check against the selfish creativity and audacity of humans is the selfish creativity and audacity of other humans.