←back to thread

491 points anigbrowl | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.416s | source
Show context
parpfish ◴[] No.43981035[source]
Tangent:

I’ve often thought that it would be great to let people design their own political districts to reduce gerrymandering

At the polling place you’d get a map with your census tract and then be asked “which two or three adjacent tracts are most similar to your community”. Eventually you’d end up with some sort of gram matrix for tract-to-tract affinity, and then you could apply some algorithmic segmentation.

Two problems:

- this is far too complex for most voters to understand, much less trust, what’s happening

- the fact it’s “algorithmic” would give a sheen of pseudo objectivity, but the selection of the actual algorithm would still allow political infouence over boundaries

replies(7): >>43981047 #>>43981067 #>>43981210 #>>43981302 #>>43981389 #>>43982345 #>>43994001 #
abdullahkhalids ◴[] No.43981210[source]
Comment 2: I have actually had the same idea as you in a slightly different context. My country is in urgent need of creating new smaller provinces by dividing the existing ones. But there is wide disagreement on what the boundaries should be.

One method would be to decide the capitals of the new provinces, and then ask people in each district which province they would most like to join. If there is contiguous land to the winning provincial capital for every district, then the solution just pops out.

replies(2): >>43984810 #>>43994019 #
1. bluGill ◴[] No.43984810[source]
Borders should be simple - either natural geography (rivers) or squares that are some fixed increment of a km.
replies(1): >>43987167 #
2. abdullahkhalids ◴[] No.43987167[source]
Well, the districts are already there and have been mostly unchanged for decades. There is a lot of administrative history tied into specific districts. So splitting a single district across two provinces will not do. So the new provincial borders have to across existing district boundaries.