A Self-Enforcing Protocol to Solve Gerrymandering

In 2009, I wrote:

There are several ways two people can divide a piece of cake in half. One way is to find someone impartial to do it for them. This works, but it requires another person. Another way is for one person to divide the piece, and the other person to complain (to the police, a judge, or his parents) if he doesn’t think it’s fair. This also works, but still requires another person—­at least to resolve disputes. A third way is for one person to do the dividing, and for the other person to choose the half he wants.

The point is that unlike protocols that require a neutral third party to complete (arbitrated), or protocols that require that neutral third party to resolve disputes (adjudicated), self-enforcing protocols just work. Cut-and-choose works because neither side can cheat. And while the math can get really complicated, the idea generalizes to multiple people.

Well, someone just solved gerrymandering in this way. Prior solutions required either a bipartisan commission to create fair voting districts (arbitrated), or require a judge to approve district boundaries (adjudicated), their solution is self-enforcing.

And it’s trivial to explain:

  • One party defines a map of equal-population contiguous districts.
  • Then, the second party combines pairs of contiguous districts to create the final map.

It’s not obvious that this solution works. You could imagine that all the districts are defined so that one party has a slight majority. In that case, no combination of pairs will make that map fair. But real-world gerrymandering is never that clean. There’s “cracking,” where a party’s voters are split amongst several districts to dilute its power; and “packing,” where a party’s voters are concentrated in a single district so its influence can be minimized elsewhere. It turns out that this “define-combine procedure” works; the combining party can undo any damage that the defining party does—that the results are fair. The paper has all the details, and they’re fascinating.

Of course, a theoretical solution is not a political solution. But it’s really neat to have a theoretical solution.

Tags: ,

Posted on February 2, 2024 at 7:01 AM • 63 Comments

Comments

Alan • February 2, 2024 7:58 AM

Another way to solve the gerrymandering problem might be to alternate: one party draws a district containing D% of the population; the second party draws a district containing D% of the population, etc, until all of the districts are drawn. This would address the weakness you identified in the Define-Combine (that the first party could draw the lines so it has a slight majority in every area).

Winter • February 2, 2024 8:21 AM

Another solution would be to just pool all the votes and then allot them to the candidates in proportion, ie, proportional representation. But that does indeed break the link between the “representative” and their “constituency”.

Gerrymandering is a system where the elected representatives can select who can vote for or against them. Another solution to this conundrum would be that voters could select the district/candidate they want to vote in/for. Voters then can vote in the district their vote has maximal value.

That strategy was what broke the power shenanigans of PiS in Poland. But such a system would also break the voter suppression so beloved in the USA.

As the great thinker D. Trump already eloquently said:
‘https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/30/trump-republican-party-voting-reform-coronavirus

“The things [the Democrats] had in there were crazy. They had things, levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again,” Trump said during an appearance on Fox & Friends.

Beatrix Willius • February 2, 2024 9:12 AM

Why is Gerrymandering necessary at all? Is there a country other than Murica that does Gerrymandering? In Germany we have districts, the districts have a delegate and that’s it.

Conan the Redistricterian • February 2, 2024 9:33 AM

Crom ! There is always a way, if the desire be coupled with courage ! Gerrymander your political opposition, see them fail at the polls, and hear the lamentation of their women !

TimH • February 2, 2024 9:59 AM

The I cut/you choose works for cake, because the division is obvious by inspection and the parties involve directly benefit. Secondly, corruption (deliberately choosing the samller piece) is obvious to witnesses.

For districts, the approach presumes that stakeholders are fully knowledgeable about complicated population densities, and are not corrupt. And the decision making is difficult to inspect. I think this will only work if a TTP makes the districting, providing district data (with privacy implications), and the chooser shows the workings for the decision. If this sounds overly cynical, remember that gerrymandering (the problem) is caused by political dishonesty/corruption/jostling, so it is dumb not to plan for participants trying to game the system.

JonKnowsNothing • February 2, 2024 10:23 AM

There have been many attempts to alter the gerrymandering rules in the USA. We’ve had them for a long time and they have been confirmed by SCOTUS as legitimate methods for aggregating voters.

Part of the issue, is that some areas have very little population and some have huge numbers of people.

This is the same problem that divided our government into 2 sections, one based on population count (House) and one based on a fixed number (2) for each state (Senate).

Part of the gerrymandering process is how to apportion low population areas vs high populations: rural county and dense city.

The I cut/You chose version at some point you will will run into

  • “Hey look! Only a few people get a BIG piece! How can that be fair?”

This is the same often presented loaded argument about “entitlements”. We all share the same cake, we made it together and baked it together. Some people forget that aspect.

It’s the Little Red Hen Dilemma (1).

===

1)

h ttps : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Red_Hen

  • The Little Red Hen is an American fable first collected by Mary Mapes Dodge in St. Nicholas Magazine in 1874.
  • A hen living on a farm finds some wheat and decides to make bread with it. She asks the other farmyard animals to help her plant it, but they refuse. The hen then harvests and mills the wheat into flour before baking it into bread; at each stage she again asks the animals for help, but they still refuse. Finally, with her task complete, the hen asks who will help her eat the bread. This time the animals eagerly accept, but the hen refuses, stating that no one helped her with her work and decides to eat the bread herself.

Jamie • February 2, 2024 10:36 AM

I’m sorry, is this not super well-known? Anyone who has ever purchased a bag of pot to split with someone knows knows this protocol.

I’ve been calling this the obvious solution for years. I thought everyone knew this.

The problem, it also seems utterly banal to point out, is that one participant does not want a fair split.

Chelloveck • February 2, 2024 10:40 AM

@Beatrix Willius: Are the German districts ever changed? In the U.S. the district lines are changed every few years to adjust for demographic shifts. The lines are typically drawn by the party currently in power, which leads to maps clearly favoring that party. This is sometimes done to comical degree, with hour-glass shaped or even donut-shaped districts. (The word “gerrymander” comes from the 1812 map drawn by Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry who infamously drew a district shaped more or less like a salamander.)

It’s not necessary to draw gerrymandered districts, of course, but many of our politicians are not above doing whatever they have to to stay in power, and in many cases there are few laws restricting the practice.

Bob • February 2, 2024 11:10 AM

@Chelloveck

It seems to me that doughnut-shaped districts ringing around population centers would actually result in reasonably fair representation, provided it was done consistently.

Bcs • February 2, 2024 11:15 AM

I’d like to see something that generalized to as many parties as have non negligible support. (And not just political parties, but independent parties as well.)

Maybe if you have N districts to create, then you chop the map into some multiple of N parts with each party taking turns carving out a parcel in random order and getting a number of turns proportional to the last popular vote. Then take turns in the same way combining adjoining parcels till you get the right number of districts. All that’s then needed is a way to stop people from playing go and surrounding sections that can’t be made into valid districts.

Felix • February 2, 2024 11:17 AM

“We assume for simplicity that all people in the state vote in all elections” — I hope this isn’t a fatal flaw in the assumptions. Parties will know which areas have higher and lower rates of voting.

Gorgasal • February 2, 2024 12:06 PM

@Beatrix Willius, @Chelloveck: funnily enough, we are having exactly this situation right now. Bavaria needs to get a new district because of population growth. The local conservative party (CSU) is complaining that the left-green-liberal coalition in power on the federal level is influencing this process so as to give their side an advantage by carving the new district out of a less-conservative-leaning part of Bavaria.

Tammany Hall • February 2, 2024 12:17 PM

… Amusing that this ‘Security’ minded website does not even consider the probability that some of the human ‘parties’ conducting this ‘simple’ new process will attempt to unfairly game-the-system & fraudulently conduct the new nominal districting ‘process’.

WHERE are the opportunities for errors, mischief, and malice in this wonderful new system — many should be apparent

MUCH is at stake in elections — and we KNOW that government officials often will manipulate voting districts any way they can … unjust Gerrymandering has been standard U.S. political practice for 2 centuries

…. very naive crowd here

bl5q sw5N • February 2, 2024 12:18 PM

Actually parties were to be avoided in the US system. They can’t be recommended anywhere as they are the thin edge of the wedge to proportional representation, which since it empowers an organizational structure which has allegiance only to itself.

Winter • February 2, 2024 12:48 PM

@bl5q sw5N

They can’t be recommended anywhere

Funny, since most of the countries that are ranked above the USA in any list regarding freedom of the press and speech, transparency (not-corrupt), happiness, life expectancy, democracy in general (quality of representation), Ginny index, incarceration (lack thereof), etc, are representative democracies with multiple parties.

lurker • February 2, 2024 12:59 PM

@Beatrix
“In Germany we have districts.”

But where did the districts come from? Hand of God? In New Zealand we have districts too. They are drawn up by a third party (arbitrated), an Electoral Commission of supposedly incorrupt public servants. How long can this last? This year we dropped from second to third place in the Corruption Perception Index.

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023

Ray Dillinger • February 2, 2024 1:11 PM

Actually, no. While Thomas Jefferson did indeed speak about his hope to avoid the ascension of Political Parties, the constitution itself was written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. And the way the constitution specifies elections it’s clear that they planned and implemented a two-party system.

We have first-past-the-post voting in the districts, in which minority votes are ‘erased’ and those voters are represented by the candidate the majority voted for. And we have a national election in which the winner must get a majority, not a plurality, in the electoral college.

A two-party system is the only possible stable configuration under that voting regime. If there were three or more ‘viable’ parties, nobody would ever get a majority. And therefore states send one-party delegations, in order to maximize the likelihood of electing the candidate that the majority (of their districts, not their populations) voted for. And it’s always the same two parties because a vote for any party that’s not likely to win is “pointless.”

Give the elected people the power to draw the district boundaries, and gerrymandering is the inevitable result. While it’s POSSIBLE for a state to have proportional representation, it’s a ‘prisoners dilemma’ where cooperating with the majoritarian ideal in that way results in reduction of the state’s influence on national elections unless everyone else is also cooperating.

This version of cut-and-choose to select districts is interesting. But my prediction, under the constraints of our voting system, is that it will seldom or never be implemented, because each state still faces the very same prisoners’ dilemma.

A • February 2, 2024 1:53 PM

Does this also work for more than two parties?

The proposed process relies on the real world geographic distribution of voters and districts. It won’t work for all maps.

For example, it wouldn’t work for something like the map given on the wikipedia page for cracking and packing. On a map like that one, the parties could still force gerrymanders through the initial division. Blue can obviously force a gerrymander by making thin horizontal slices, and yellow can force one by making vertical slices on right side of the map and horizontal ones on the left.

So one answer to the question is that it doesn’t even work for two parties on every map. Another is that some kind of simple extension may work on some kinds of maps with more than two competitive parties, but that it’s going to depend on the map.

James • February 2, 2024 2:18 PM

It is very possible to create districts that dilute the less popular party of the state, effectively making the minority party have no winning hand.

The only solution to gerrymandering that I can see is to have a national computer tool used to create proper representative districts so that the outcome usually results in the proper division of each party’s representatives based on the last few election votes.

If a state has 10 House Representatives and in the last two election cycles, 60% of the popular vote was for GOP and 38% was for Dems, then the designed house representatives should result in 6 Reps and 4 Dems.

Since the Federal Department of Justice mandate to for this was removed a few years ago, my state legislature has been gerrymandering so much that a court has thrown out their new district maps 3 times.

Don’t forget that there are separate districts for US House, State House, State Senate, City Council, School Board, and a few others. I’m sad to say this, but gerrymandering is attempted and usually succeeds in every redistrict attempt. For example, my representative’s district was split so that it no longer existed. She needed to move her home to a new district which added more people of her party into a single district. No my vote for the new challenger of the same party is completely useless, as the redistricting is massively lopsided for the other party. To my eye, I’m unrepresented now with no chance of gaining representation this decade.

Jordan Brown • February 2, 2024 3:28 PM

Somebody above mentioned proportional representation, and lamented that it gave power to political parties. In some systems yes, but not in all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

Single Transferable Vote systems are district-free (as district is used in this discussion); they are self-organizing. If there are ten seats to fill, and 10% of the people want somebody who presents themselves as representing SomeTown, USA, they’ll get one of those seats. If 20% of the people want somebody who represents the Elbonian-American perspective, they’ll get two seats. If another 10% want somebody who represents left-handed rights, they’ll get a seat. I might vote for somebody local because they’ll represent my area, or I might vote for somebody from the other end of the state because they’ll represent my views on Big Tech.

One downside is that because there is not necessarily any physical locality, the candidate lists can get very large; a California congressional election could easily have several hundred candidates. Campaigning strategies would change dramatically.

If anything, STV decreases the power of conventional political parties.

David • February 2, 2024 3:31 PM

Here’s an easy way: Go back to the original form of Representation that existed until 1911: One rep for every 30,000 people. Sure, it will make the House huge and unwieldy (like it isn’t already?), but it will also make it more difficult for tyrants to take control of the House and pass anti-People laws.

bl5q sw5N • February 2, 2024 4:02 PM

@ Ray Dillinger

the way the constitution specifies elections it’s clear that they planned and implemented a two-party system

This is a misreading.

The Framers were concerned to prevent parties but knew that demagoguery, tricks, short term interests, and factionalism would be unavoidable.

Their attempt at mitigation was to structure aspects of the state and federal elections and lawmaking in a way to slow it down, to allow for ample time and opportunity to thoroughly debate issues from sll points of view, diluting the force of parties, and furthering advance to the common good.

Clive Robinson • February 2, 2024 8:02 PM

@ Winter, ALL,

Re ; Tally and proportion.

“But that does indeed break the link between the “representative” and their “constituency”.”

There are various types of proportional representation.

There is however a problem with many of them. Which is,

“Who gets a job and who does not and who decides?”

Put simply voters vote for people they want, not party selected favours.

If the voters want Mr White, because he’s seen as honest and progressive without fear or favour. But not Mr Black because he’s a croniest for lobbyist interests. But the party wants Mr Black because he brings in lots of “Party Funds”, guess who is the first to get a job…

This is not what the voters want, and for very good reason.

In fact quite often the voters knowing what will happen will “Tactical vote, to send a Message” and the worst possible candidate of the worst possible party will get a job instead.

Such is just one issue of the basic proportional systems.

Whilst there have been attempts to fix this, they have a habit of opening other issues.

Thus as with “covert side channels” in communications systems always existing voting appears to always have deficiencies that can be exploited in some way either befor, during or after the votes are cast.

Whilst Starlin’s observation was correct, there are other observations that need to be addressed.

The US systems in particular appear particularly open to the abuses of before, during and even after (with voting colleges).

The fact is that with a Presidency costing a candidate upwards of $1million/day for every day in the four year term, the incentive for corruprion or deferment to “money men” is a very real issue.

As Ralph Nader observed,

“The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. That’s the only difference.”

Getting the money out of US Politics might be more important now than fixing Gerrymandering in theory.

Winter • February 2, 2024 9:20 PM

@Clive

If the voters want Mr White, because he’s seen as honest and progressive without fear or favour. But not Mr Black because he’s a croniest for lobbyist interests.

In proportional representation, you still vote for a single candidate, eg, Mrs White. If Mrs. White gets enough votes to warrant a seat in parliament, she is in, even if she was placed too low on the party list. Most voters indeed cast their votes to the “party” by selecting the top candidate on the ballot. It is just that all votes for candidates of a single party are pooled and the seats they represent are distributed over the partie’s candidates that did not get enough votes individually to obtain a seat. That is, just minimal lost votes.

If Mrs White is not placed on the party list for the elections, she can easily start her own party and get elected. This happened two months ago in the Netherlands, where a new party was started by an ousted Christian Democrat MP who got 15% of seats in parliament in the fall elections.

But the party wants Mr Black because he brings in lots of “Party Funds”, guess who is the first to get a job…

You can also make funding parties illegal. Most democratic countries have very strict rules on party funding and corruption in general. The idea being that parties compete on votes and not on money.

echo • February 2, 2024 9:21 PM

The type of voting system you have can effect the dynamic as can rules of conduct and enforcement. Gerrymandering, and big data allowing voter profiles down to the street or house number, and lobbying and money are all part of it. A decline of “truth in media” and weak regulation and who owns the media are problems too. Then there’s the revolving door between politicians and media, and civil service and private sector organisations. That slides into structural inequality and nepotism. Also there’s the impact of public policy which might contain flawed or discriminatory elements to it which shapes population attitudes and demographics. All of the above is nothing new and has been extensively researched and commented on. There’s just a little lack of “do” in some quarters.

Aligned with gerrymanding is constituency and voting maps, and election campaign material. A sparsely populated area can appear more psychologically dominant. Presentation of voting can colour an area in the winning sides colour while the result may have been mixed. Then there’s election material which breaks the intent of law even if it doesn’t break it in a technical sense such as “free” newspapers which are campaign material, or stealing the colour of another party, and varying types of context free disinformation. One new wheeze is “surveys” which on the face of them are to gauge opinion on a critical issue while in reality they are to trick the voter into landing on a political parties database and provide profile information. How maps change perception and where a boundary cuts is a whole topic in itself.

So I think you need to consider constitutional and constituency boundaries and voting systems as an integrated whole.

https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/2023-review/

Submission of our final report and recommendations to the Speaker of the House of Commons concludes our involvement in the 2023 Boundary Review. Once the reports of all four Parliamentary Boundary Commissons have been laid before Parliament fby the Speaker, the Government must prepare a draft Order to implement the new constituencies for the whole UK. This should be provided to the Privy Council for approval within four months of the last report of the four Parliamentary Boundary Commissions for the UK being laid in Parliament. Once the Privy Council approves the Order, the new constituencies will be used at the next General election following that date (any by-election in the meantime will continue to use the existing constituency).

I’m not a fan of opaque flummery.

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/boundary-review-its-time-for-an-electoral-system-review/

The big difference between Elbridge Gerry’s maps and the situation in the UK, is that, thankfully, constituencies here are not designed by politicians themselves. The Boundary Commissions run an open process, with public feedback at each stage. After blocking the previous two attempts, MPs have now lost the ability to vote on whether to accept the results of this review or not.

This does knock vested interests out of the OODA loop.

And by ranking candidates on the basis of preference, you get not only political diversity but ensure that if your first choice can’t win, your vote isn’t entirely wasted.

The fact that the new boundaries will change election results isn’t a sign that it has been gerrymandered – it’s a sign that Westminster’s unfair system is working just as expected.

It’s high time we got rid of this outdated, unequal voting system. Let’s scrap First Past the Post once and for all.

I’m persuaded FPTP has to go. Studies indicate wellbeing is higher in countries with PR. The old consensus where the vested interests on one side would balance out the other began breaking down in the 1970’s and snapped during the 1980’s. Today who gets into power looks more and more an existential threat.

The Tories have been in power for 70+ out of the past 100 years with a minority of the vote. And look where that’s got us. In the US gerrymandering has enabled people like DeSantis to emerge from what is effectively a one party state disenfranchising both people and business.

I’ve been listening to Ben Hodges too much to think abolishing gerrymandering (and FPTP) is a “game changer” but it would encourage politics to consider the electorate more than a “base” which might pull things back closer to sanity.

Ian Z aka nobrowser • February 3, 2024 1:35 PM

Pure single member district based representation is unfair per se, no tweak can fix it.

We need some form proportional representation.

lurker • February 3, 2024 3:11 PM

@Winter, Ian Z
“In proportional representation, you still vote for a single candidate”

In New Zealand we had FPP, then replaced it, after a referendum with two questions (paraphrased from memory):
Which do you support, FPP or PR;
Of these four listed forms of PR which do you support …

We ended up with a system where the voter votes for a district candidate and a party, which can be mutually exclusive. 60 district representatives are boosted by 60 “party list” members apportioned according to the party votes totalled over the whole country.

In some of our local council elections Multi-Member districts are used where the voter selects m members out of n candidates. The votes for all candidates are tallied, and in order of votes cast the top m are declared elected.

In the referendum we rejected the Single Transferrable Vote system which is used in Australia. It was perceived as too complex for manual counting, as results often took three weeks or more to determine.

Jordan Brown • February 3, 2024 3:31 PM

STV complexity is an issue for humans, but the algorithm isn’t all that complex. It would be entirely practical to have multiple independent implementations. If they disagree on the results, some human would have to go figure out which one(s) have a bug.

Ray Dillinger • February 3, 2024 10:58 PM

My own idea on Gerrymandering was to have geometric rules that require the district maps to be relatively simple in shape. Like requiring all corners of each district be convex rather than concave, or banning districts whose area is less than five or six times the square of the perimeter, or both.

And yes, people would still gerrymander as far as those rules allow, but honestly they wouldn’t allow much of the most egregious or finely-targeted abuses we’ve seen.

ResearcherZero • February 4, 2024 11:49 PM

@Beatrix Willius

Is there a country other than Murica that does Gerrymandering?

Yes, and there are a number of ways it can be done. This solution solves the problem beautifully. It is an elegant solution that could also be applied in other countries.

The politicians may need to be reminded occasionally that the problem has been solved.

Aaron • February 5, 2024 1:04 PM

Gerrymandering could have been solved decades ago by ripping the functionality of it out of the hands of the buffoons who gained favor by doing it. It’s always been a fox guarding the hen house situation with too much of the voting population being unaware of the downstream consequences of it.

Meanwhile those same buffoons are still voting their own pay raises and again, the voting population is vastly unaware of the function.

Clive Robinson • February 5, 2024 11:52 PM

@ Aaron, ALL,

Re : To Gerrymander the other way.

“Gerrymandering could have been solved decades ago by ripping the functionality of it out of the hands of the buffoons who gained favor by doing it.”

Err no.

There are two ways to “adjust” the way the voting goes in any given political district,

1, Move the boarders around problem voter areas.

2, Move the problem voters out of the area.

In the UK the geographical boundaries were set independently of the political process which is what you are talking about.

So the Council in Westminster West London the politicians changed “social policy” and by selling off Council Homes etc moved out those at the bottom of the Socio Economic Lader by various tricks. These voters were considered the danger to the Council makeup. When what was done was brought to light it became a major Scandal known as “Homes for Votes”,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homes_for_votes_scandal

I’m sure that other not to dissimilar “change the voter colour” techniques have been tried at various other times. For instance inner London Councils building new housing stock away from their region and moving people.

For instance in North Ewell on the boarders of the River Hogsmill there was an area of land that had been vegetable and flower nurseries prior to WWII owned by the Ayers Family.

They had the land taken away from them for “war effort” and it was post WWII it was deliberately allowed to become wasteland.

Thus in the late 1960’s and into 1970’s there was increasing tension for the wasteland to be put to use… So it became a major Council Housing estate and hundreds of bottom of the socio economic ladder people were moved out of London. Forcing both types of Gerrymandering. Getting rid of problem voters in central London and forcing boarder changes in North Surrey that moved from being rural area to urban area and was massively changed as a result.

Samuel Johnson • February 6, 2024 8:29 AM

Assertions above that Proportional Representation with a single transferable vote (PR +STV ; or ranked choice voting as it’s known in the US) break the link between a constituency and a representative are wrong.

Ireland uses PR w STV in multi-seat constituencies (whose boundaries are not decided by politicians), typically with 3 or 5 seats. Voters elect several representatives and their votes ALWAYS count, providing sophisticated choices with voters able to prioritise issues, parties, and candidates as they see fit.

The Irish feel about it the way the NRA do about guns (“cold dead hands” etc) and regard the democracies off the east and west coasts with pity.

Having a choice of elected representatives, as invariably happens, is a good thing. If a representative of a party in office chooses to ignore representations the electorate has alternatives.

Sicher Sucher • February 6, 2024 11:08 AM

The root of all evil in the US (and UK) election system is the single-winner district. The problem of gerrymandering would be hugely reduced if we combined 10 current districts into one large districts with 10 seats. Then a real democracy would be possible.

The general principle should be that the number of seats a party gets in should be as close as possible to the relative number of votes the party got in the election, like in the Scandinavian countries.

Oh, and get rid of the primaries. Primaries exist for one purpose and one purpose only: To get rid of the disobedient and incorruptible candidates, while needing the least amount of money to achieve that goal.

Proportional representation is a must. I’m somewhat open various forms of voting principles, such as party lists, ranked choice voting (you get as many votes as there are seats maybe?), etc etc.

Winter • February 6, 2024 11:27 AM

@Sicher Sucher

Oh, and get rid of the primaries.

Or get two real rounds in the elections like France has.

The winning candidate needs an absolute majority of the votes. If no candidate gets 50%+ of the votes, a second round is done between the two top scorers.

That does not solve gerrymandering, but it ensures every candidate has real competition.

But the UK and USA states were designed to get a single, clear winner. FPTP is used to get there.

Bruce Schneier • February 6, 2024 1:15 PM

Q: “Does this also work for more than two parties? If so, how?”

My guess is yes, and — like cut-and-choose — it will be overly complicated.

Bruce Schneier • February 6, 2024 2:27 PM

@Jamie:

“I’m sorry, is this not super well-known? Anyone who has ever purchased a bag of pot to split with someone knows knows this protocol.”

Yes. Cut-and-choose is super well known, as you point out re “bag of pot.”

Devin • February 18, 2024 3:40 AM

Here’s your solution to gerrymandering, and most other election issues:

Everyone gets elected!

Seriously. Any candidate that gets more than a couple of percent of the vote in a region, gets in. The specific threshold can be set based on the maximum number of elected officials you want in a region. Then each “successful” candidate gets as many votes in the house as they received in the election.

Voter apathy – every vote adds more “strength” to your preferred candidate.

Gerrymandering – meaningless under this system

Strategic voting – why vote for the lesser of two evils, when your vote will actually count for the person you want

Vote splitting – doesn’t matter, if two identical candidates split the vote, they still have the same total “strength” as if it were one single candidate.

Candidates still directly represent their constituents – unlike in proportional representation.

The stranglehold of the two party system would be broken (this is why it will never be implemented in the US).

Problem solved!

Clive Robinson • February 18, 2024 10:05 AM

@ Devin, ALL,

Re : Democracy v Representative fraud.

“Everyone gets elected!”

That is what actual democracy is, every person gets a vote on the substantive matters of the day.

Rather than the con of voting for a suit to go play in the chimps bun fight on top of the hill above the swamp that much of the place is.

“Then each “successful” candidate gets as many votes in the house as they received in the election.”

Why put a power holder back in the process?

These supposed representatives will never vote the way you want them to, and they will always be subject to corruption.

Thus it won’t get rid of the “two party system” it will just demand more money to be put in the representatives pockets.

Worse it will make the hierarchical systems worse a lot worse.

Unless people are free to vote on substantive issues without a monkey in a suit pretending to represent them, then the will of the people will never transpire be it good or bad.

Thus the question arises as to how you give each person responsibility that they will,

1, Accept.
2, Not Abuse.

As always with societal systems, the seemingly near impossible technical side of the equation is but a drop in the ocean compared to the human side.

JonKnowsNothing • February 18, 2024 12:11 PM

@Clive, All

re: the “two party system”

I am frequently amazed by reports from UK, IRE (n+s), EU, AU of governments with many parties. It’s rather boggling. Yet they mostly get along, although Tyranny of the Majority still rules the day and the country.

The USA does have many political parties but the system is rigged so only two have any power, media coverage, funding. These other parties also have to cross extra hurdles to get on ballots. Sometimes the only way is by Write In Candidate vote, which if you do not know how to properly spell their full legal name will hit the reject pile.

There have been a few times when a 3d party will make inroads and then the existing two find “cooperation” at raising the barriers to election.

===

h ttps:/ /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_of_the_United_States

  • Despite keeping the same names, the two parties have evolved in terms of ideologies, positions, and support bases over their long lifespans
  • Political parties are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, which predates the party system. The two-party system is based on laws, party rules, and custom.

Winter • February 18, 2024 1:12 PM

@JonKnowsNothing

Yet they mostly get along, although Tyranny of the Majority still rules the day and the country.

I know this is a kind of Orwellian newspeak, but what do you actually mean with “Tyranny of the Majority”?

Except for the UK, all democracies have a written constitution protecting the rule of law that requires a super-majority to be changed. A tyranny under the rule of law seems rather odd.

Clive Robinson • February 18, 2024 2:17 PM

@ Winter, JonKnowsNothing, ALL,

“I know this is a kind of Orwellian newspeak, but what do you actually mean with “Tyranny of the Majority”?”

In a “representational democracy” you don’t get to decide who fills the line up of “monkeys in suites” you only get to chose the one you find least ugly of those selected by a party or funder.

In a referendum, it’s the person who sets the question and the choices that can tip the balance.

In short we live in a pretence of a democracy not an actual democracy.

Which brings us to,

“A tyranny under the rule of law seems rather odd.”

All rule of law systems are actual tyrannies at the best of times, at the worst they are horrors of oppression designed to keep those in power in power.

Winter • February 18, 2024 2:37 PM

@Clive

All rule of law systems are actual tyrannies at the best of times, at the worst they are horrors of oppression designed to keep those in power in power.

You think no rule of law is better? You obviously have not lived under such a system.

Winter • February 18, 2024 4:37 PM

@Clive

a referendum, it’s the person who sets the question and the choices that can tip the balance.

If every law and amendment has to be run through a referendum, we would be in the voting booth every day of the year. We would even not have the time to read all the information about the laws needed to even understand what we would be voting on.

There is a reason totally direct democracies on a million people country scale are not there.

JonKnowsNothing • February 18, 2024 4:39 PM

@Winter, @Clive, All

re: what do you actually mean with “Tyranny of the Majority”?”

Tyranny of the Majority refers to situations where “The Most Votes Win”. Most votes go to the Majority View on an issue, but the Minority View, the losing side, gets no say at all. It’s the situation were “one voice” (the smallest minority view) is never heard because it is drowned out by all the others.

The Western Economic Countries are based on Winner Take All or Winner Take Most. This entrenches the rejection of views or issues raised by Minority View groups. Even where coalitions are formed, it’s to the exclusion of another group view.

This can be racially based, religious based, economic based, gender based anything where the Majority Wins. It’s even in families but it is not necessarily hierarchical.

Consider:

  • Pie or Cake (see explosion of opinions)
  • Ice Cream: Vanilla, Chocolate, Strawberry, Neapolitan or Other (see explosion of opinions)

In a cooperative view, all views are valid and all views are acknowledged.

  • We can have both Pie and Cake – by alternating turns

  • We can have all flavors of ice cream – take turns selecting

However, not everything is divisible or shareable in proportional hunks. Lots of folks do not want to share at all, plus there’s not enough strawberry ice cream for everyone.

When those who do not want to share, control the view, that’s where the Tyranny can be found.

  • There shall only be [fill in the blank]

It’s one reason behind gerrymandering.

===

h ttps://en.wiki pedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

  • The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions.

Winter • February 18, 2024 5:59 PM

@JohnKnowsNothing

The Western Economic Countries are based on Winner Take All or Winner Take Most.

I do not see the “Take All” part often.

In most democratic countries with coalition governments, every politician knows he will most likely need the support of the opposition in the future. If one party in government thinks it will never need the opposition, it’s coalition partners will, if only to keep their negotiating position. That limits the “take all” as you need to appease your coalition partners and not totally aleniate the opposition to make sure you have other options next time.

Also, it is not often that a simple majority actually is that hostile towards the simple minority. In most cases you do not want to see your parents, children or friends suffer because they voted for the other party. So if your party makes them suffer, you won’t vote for them next time. And you can change your vote as there is choice from more than 2 options.

The really hostile power grabs tend to happen only when there is little social and family overlap between the camps, say in countries divided along ethnic, religious, or language lines. But that has little to do with democratic rules and more with an unwillingness to live together.

You can all point out the lines that divide the people of your own country and know why they want to make “the others” suffer, if they actually want that. Do not assume these reasons hold in another country.

JonKnowsNothing • February 18, 2024 6:56 PM

@Winter, @Clive, All

re: The really hostile power grabs tend to happen only when there is little social and family overlap between the camps

That’s precisely where the Tyranny of the Majority is at work. It runs throughout history and is more obvious under monarchies and feudal societies both ancient and modern.

The hopeful current status, is that more marginal voices are getting heard, and getting noticed, and getting some traction in public discussion. Some views are considered better than others.

RL Consider:

Humans like to name things. We name the rivers, the streams, the trees, the mountains and the stars in the sky. Each culture and group uses different names. Sometimes a name will last a long time, and sometimes it’s forgotten and replaced by a different name.

Within the group of forgotten names, some are remembered by a smaller group of people. It’s the name they prefer over official names. Official names are Tyranny of the Majority names. The majority sets the name and you have go with that.

RL Conundrum:

In the USA, many mountains and federal lands held names appointed by our government over decades as part of the European Migration Expansion Westward.

Now, many of those names have been changed. Their new names are reconstructions of original names or names that are considered “better” than European Settler assigned names.

For many years, minority groups objected to European Settler assigned names but the majority view point kept the European Settler names.

  • Winner Take All

Now, some of those European Settler assigned names have been changed. For the most part no one really cared what you called the mountain. The local people living there know where the mountain is and where the streams are. There are some objections.

  • In the USA, the Federal Government has the right to name Federal Lands and Parks whatever they want and change them whenever they want.
  • In California, the State Government has the right to name State Lands and Parks whatever they want and change them whenever they want.
  • Cities are incorporated under specific State laws, and the name is selected by the people living in the city.
    • Does the Federal Government or State Government have the right to rename Cities?

There are several cities in California that have names that are out of fashion. The people in the cities do not want the name changed.

  • Will they be allowed to keep their out-of-fashion name?

  • If the city is forced to change the name, who gets to pick the new one?

This is now a switch up in who has the Majority View.

  • Will it be Tyranny of the (new) Majority with Winner Take All?

  • Will the out of fashion names be retained by the (new) Minority View, people of the city ?

Tune in to the California Election 2024 to find out.

Clive Robinson • February 19, 2024 4:09 AM

@ Winter, JonKnowsNoting,

Re : One is unrelated to the other.

“You think no rule of law is better?”

I neither said or implied that.

The absence of something is not of necessity the opposite of something.

The opposite of a head/obverse face/side of a coin is it’s tail/reverse face, not having no coin at all.

Law should respect all as it applies to all. Law therefore should not be for only some be they a minority or majority group.

We see way to much of the “for one group” legislation in tax law which disproportionately forces taxation on those towards the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder in effect penalising for being poor and ensuring they stay that way.

Clive Robinson • February 19, 2024 4:25 AM

@ Winter, JonKnowsNothing,

Re : Quality not Quantity is the mark of a good system.

“If every law and amendment has to be run through a referendum, we would be in the voting booth every day of the year.”

That is a false argument.

First ask the very important question,

“As it’s a requirement that citizens know the law as ignorance of it is no defence in law, then why are we generating more legislation and regulation than even law professionals can stay on top of?”

The short answer is nearly all legislation and regulation these days is so poorly formed and made, it should not exist in the first place.

Our politicians or legislators should spend way way more of their time revising and removing legislation and regulation. It’s why I’ve said in the past every law should have a “sunset clause” where it automatically lapses unless voted back into law.

Winter • February 19, 2024 5:00 AM

@Clive

Law should respect all as it applies to all.

Isn’t this the definition of rule of law?

Law therefore should not be for only some be they a minority or majority group.

That is my idea of no rule of law.

Winter • February 19, 2024 6:29 AM

@Clive

As it’s a requirement that citizens know the law as ignorance of it is no defence in law, then why are we generating more legislation and regulation than even law professionals can stay on top of?

Because there are many aspects of modern life in an industrial society that require legal regulation. With (tens/hundreds of) millions of people, there will be very many laws to cover all relevant interactions and issues.

For example, I do not have to know the legal framework regulating how to start a company and build a production plant. But these laws are needed and will affect my life as a consumer and citizen. So these specific laws are important to me as their application affects my life even though I will never be required to actually know them myself.

It’s why I’ve said in the past every law should have a “sunset clause” where it automatically lapses unless voted back into law.

This would mean Parliament would have to schedule time to confirm obviously “eternal” laws against, eg, murder and stealing. Not to say all the laws that guarantee you own your house or car, and that you stay married while you both want to.

Sounds like a total waste of time.

JonKnowsNothing • February 19, 2024 9:19 AM

@Winter, @Clive, All

re: I do not have to know the legal framework regulating how to start a company and build a production plant

Ah…. Why not?

People go into and out of business all the time. Whether you are selling stuff at a flea market, arts & crafts event, selling consulting service. If you can buy it or access it, someone had to Start a Company.

Somewhere in the mix, a Production Plant was built too. It might be a living room where you glue pieces of colored glass together, scrounging in an attic (aka warehouse) for what was previously stored there (purchased and manufactured), buying books or accessing on-line information that someone put together for you. Someone, somewhere built a Production Plant.

There are laws on top of laws about every aspect of our lives.

In ancient times it was pretty easy: nearly everyone was a slave-serf and the few that were not slaves had to know the rules and requirements of owning slaves. Slaves had to know what they were allowed to do and where they could go but the number one rule was you had to do what your owner told you to do.

Modern rules are extremely complex. Most people do not know the rules. It may be a great idea and serve a purpose but some rule somewhere is there specifically so you cannot do your great idea.

Rules are about restrictions and not about empowerment.

RL anecdote tl;dr

A church group wanted to sell their baked goods to raise money (aka Bake Sale). They got permission from a large supermarket to put a small folding table in front of the store. The church members sat at the table. The cookies, cakes and pies on display were neatly wrapped in cling wrap.

The City Health Department decided this was a violation of health codes, since the church members where selling “for profit” (aka for money). They demanded a $300+ sales permit and required the church to bake their goods in an “inspected facility” (not at home baked).

The citizens of the city got a wee bit upset. In those days there was a local hard copy newspaper that explained why people could not buy those Great Cookies at the market anymore. So everyone in the city found out about the situation.

The City Health Department backed down on the $300+ sales permit but would not back down on the “inspected facility” rule. It looked like No More Cookies.

Another church with a bigger footprint, had a dining hall with full kitchen. It was an inspected facility. They generously offered the use of their kitchen to the other church so they could continue their Bake Sales.

We got cookies again.

  • There was a company idea to have a Bake Sale (idea, workers, organization, timing, plan for market and selling)
  • A production plant (flour, raisins, cinnamon, eggs, milk, berries, apples, lemon flavoring) all wrapped in cling wrap
    • The restrictive laws said you cannot cook it at home.

We also pay for the restrictions in a variety of ways: Sales Taxes, Property Taxes, Zoning Rules, Building Codes. All designed specifically so you cannot have a company and do not have the means of production even if you wanted to.

Cookies are complicated.

Winter • February 19, 2024 11:22 AM

@JonKnowsNothing

People go into and out of business all the time.

I don’t, and most people I know never did. Some do, and they contact a lawyer.

I never come within reach of 99% of laws. I have neither the knowledge nor the time to get involved with their formulation nor amendments. Me having to vote for or against them is not going to improve the law. The best I can do is pick someone who will advise me how to vote.

And that is what I do. I vote someone into Parliament who will look after my interests.

And that only covers the lawmaking. The Executive is even worse from a direct democracy standpoint.

JonKnowsNothing • February 19, 2024 1:25 PM

@Winter, ALL

re: Being in Business: I don’t, and most people I know never did

Well that is astounding.

You must be in the minority of people who have never ever dealt with tradespeople, gone to a store or shop, bought anything anywhere, gone on visit or trip, seen art galleries or museums. Generally the entire gamut of human activities are Businesses.

Most people are in business, they just don’t think of it as a business, they think of it as Part of Life.

  • It’s called getting a job, working for a company, or being an artist

The business is YOU.

You package yourself the best way possible, education if you can afford it, skills, knowledge, abilities. Then you sell that to someone who will buy it. If no one buys your offering, you have to re-tinker the advertis-ement. The Yourself Business is the only one that no one can take away from you.

We often compare ourselves to people on Wall$ or Big Pharma or Big Tech, or even work in those fields, but the difference is not the Idea for a Business, it’s the Capital Investment. When the Working Capital needed for an Idea is bigger than My Pockets.

You are in Business. You just do not have $7Trillion USD of Capital Investment. (1)

===

1) HAIL MSM reports that Sam Altman, OpenAI, has circular-sold the OpenAI company up to $80Billion USD. Next, the OpenAI pyramid is being sold to UAE for $7Trillion USD.

Search Terms: OpenAI, $80 Billion, $7 Trillion, UAE, Feb 16-18 2024

Winter • February 19, 2024 1:54 PM

@JonKnowsNothing

The business is YOU.

But I am not legally recognized as such.

So I am not required to file documents about business, taxes, audits, and zoning. I also do not have to be certified, register, keep track of VAT, CE marking etc..

JonKnowsNothing • February 19, 2024 2:53 PM

@Winter, All

re: Business Documentation:

not required to file documents about business, taxes, audits, and zoning. I also do not have to be certified, register, keep track of VAT, CE marking etc..

This maybe just a semantic difference but for the most part, Individuals do have to keep similar records for tax purposes, they may not think they are the same but they are.

Taxation is generally applied to “profit” or when “money changes hands”. Generally, it is applied once per transaction.

Taxation really has little to do with Business per se, it is an application of a claw back of monies generated by the Business Activity (aka Idea); the Idea is independent of taxation issues.

  • If you never generate a profit there is no tax

However, there are fees like Business License, Health Certificates that have to be purchased, or like Peddler’s Fees or Beggar’s Licenses. These are Costs of Doing Business or Living and not officially lumped in with Income Taxation.

Individuals have to keep records too. It was previously commonly indicated that 5-7yrs of records were all that were needed in case the taxing authority challenged the valuations on your return. Most on-line bank statement records are destroyed after 7yrs.

Now, we are more aware that various government agencies are requiring 30 years of records. They can demand whatever they want, without providing details, and if you have no physical records of the time period, you are SOL.

We keep all sorts of records besides taxation related ones. Warranties, Insurance, Vehicle, Utility, Electricity Bills, Loans, etc. .

As a Self-Business, which is what an Independent Contractor is, and GigWorkers are, and people on Zero-Hours Contracts are, only differs from a Business Entity, in the upper ceiling of income you can earn alone by yourself.

Winter • February 20, 2024 1:40 AM

@JonKnowsNothing

This maybe just a semantic difference but for the most part, Individuals do have to keep similar records for tax purposes, they may not think they are the same but they are.

Our tax laws are somewhat different from the USA. As long as I don’t earn thousands of dollars on the side, I am not considered a business, I don’t need to pay VAT and di not need to register etc..

But my point was that most of the laws do not touch everyone. They work in specialized fields. And the idea of putting every new law up for a referendum is hugely inefficient is just a waste of time.

Leave a comment

Login

Allowed HTML <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre> Markdown Extra syntax via https://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.