On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:53:45 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > From: Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Agreed that redistricting should be based only on the decennial > > census - what was done in Texas needs forbidding. > > Btw, what is your opinion on having districts setup so that a minority > group can get a reasonable number of seats ?
If you are asking about larger districts, with multiple legislators elected from each - I am all enthused: If it happened that a minority was 20%, they would normally be able to elect about 1 in 5. This thread still applies to district boundaries. Those setting up districts still know nothing of registration or voting. > >> Likewise what they were doing about safe seats. Still, any formula > > based on parties is dangerous, for there is > >> too much temptation to make it favor the formula writers. > > > I agree, the rules generally shouldn't refer to parties. However, I > couldn't see how you > would figure out what the expected vote would be in each district as the > computer > balances them. I CANNOT trust the programmers who tell the computer how to "balance". I can accept larger districts as above, letting the significant minorities elect legislators per their strength. I argue, sometimes, for proxies instead of electing: Whole state, or whatever, allows voters to give a proxy power to represent them. Likewise, proxies can be multiple level. Proxy holders sit in the legislature with power according to proxies held. According to power: Too weak and no power. A bit stronger and can vote in legislature. Those with most proxies (gets enough warm bodies to make legislate workable) get this power. But, a limit on voting power - don't want some super holder becoming dictator. > >> What happens if Frisco is heavily Dem and LA is heavily Rep? > > > In both places, alot of the districts would be balanced 50/50 and also > the party with the most support > would have a few districts where it has higher support. For example, if > there was 10 seats, 5 might be "safe" > and the other 5 would be optimised to be reasonably close to 50/50. Who does the deciding as to which are to be safe? > >> So I favor neutrality, based on the formulas not being allowed to > > KNOW anything about registration or voting. > >> BUT, I would expand "contiguous" - some initial thoughts: >> Hudson River: Lower Hudson is not crossable, so should be considered > > a solid wall > >> when measuring distances. It is crossable at bridges, so consider > > them an expense to cross. > >> Other boundaries such as lakes, railroads, and expressways - consider > > crossability. > >> Manhattan - count most of the bridges and tunnels a solid wall. >> Staten Island - water around it is mostly a solid wall except, if it > > is worth 2.5 districts, count > >> the bridge to Brooklyn as connecting two half districts. >> County boundaries: >> Need a bit of porosity, for some counties cannot hold whole > > districts. > >> Need some resistance, to discourage excessive crossing. >> Other boundaries such as towns and cities - still trying to favor > > keeping communities > >> together - and having districts share boundaries. > > > What about > > - the centre is the point inside the district that minimises the total > distance from residents to the centre > - distances are calculated as travelled by road > - 1 mile (or some distance) is added to the distance for every boundary > passed through (county/city) > > This would mean that the all else being equal, the district boundaries > would not cross > county boundaries. Thanks for hearing my point - would need more thought to complete. > > I would still like a way to make it so that all districts are reasonably > competitive. > > What about the following: > > Voters are also asked who they would have voted for if they were to vote > in the nearest > neighbouring district. This would mean that information would be > available on what would > happen if a specific polling booth was to be swapped from one district > to that neighbour. > > This could allow the districts to be updated after each election, > keeping them as close to > un-safe as possible. Aside from the complexity, another complaint. Even though I would LIKE a legislator from my party, I ALSO LIKE having a legislator who understands my area's needs, so let's think on continuity. > > This would make the government very dependant on "swing" since the > previous election. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026 Do to no one what you would not want done to you. If you want peace, work for justice. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info