Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

My horse in the race did not win. It wasn't HRC. However the feeling I get is a lot of her voters are in disbelief she lost and can't understand the opponent having won. It feels as if they felt entitled to a result that didn't pan out. If HRC had won, we would not be seeing these calls for reform gain attention.

That said, gerrymandering has two effects, one negative, one positive. On the negative side, there is little competition, on the positive side, the vast majority are happy with the result. Moreso than that of a 51:49 split.

If you ask me competition is healthy, if I look at the previous election, people don't like close elections.

View on HN

Gerrymanding also gets used to deny the majority representation, it doesn't just get used to make safe seats.

(Take an outcome matching the rightmost example at the top of this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/01/this-... )

edit: Actually, no need to say "majority" above, the 2 rightmost examples end up with people being denied representation.

What's the frequency of the "red wins" scenario? versus typical gerrymandering?

You should read OP. It's about making districts with multiple representatives, not changing districts with the current system.

You would be hard pressed to find a political scientist who believes races for the legislative branch are deeply competitive. Seat turnover has been less than 5 percent excluding incumbents retiring.

HRC has nothing to do with this.

By that line of reasoning, this proposal is great because not only the first but also the second and third candidate are elected, making an even later portion of the voters happy

That's a fair point and it has merit. I however don't think the big two will care for it as it does two things, weakens their positions and two give fringe/radicals on both sides voices, of course regular run of the mill third parties (who would syphon votes from the big two).

Of course they wouldn't like it, they loose the boogeyman of "if you vote third party you're just helping the party you really don't like!"

Ranked choice gives smaller parties a chance while preventing them from being a spoiler, I think it's great because it would actually force the two incumbent parties to actually work for their vote instead of assuming you have no real choice (hey, you're pro-choice/pro-life so you HAVE to vote for us or the other guys will have their way, ha ha).

If this made the entire state one giant district, then it would give real power to third parties. But a district with just 5 representatives is not enough to pose a huge threat. They would get some more power, but surely not much. Or perhaps I'm missing something. (When it comes to politics, I'm usually missing something, often something big.)

> the vast majority are happy with the result

See the congressional job approval numbers http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx

> If HRC had won, we would not be seeing these calls for reform gain attention

Does it matter what inspired people to ask for reform? They have a valid point that for solidly held districts, the minority's voice is completely erased in Congress.

If HRC had won, we would not be seeing these calls for reform gain attention.

This proposed legislation has nothing to do with presidential elections and the debates, legislative fights, lawsuits, calls for reform have been going on for many years. You're confusing something you hadn't noticed with something not receiving much attention.

What? My rep is of the party of my choosing and I'm not happy at all. I think most people care about the power they have on the national level, not just or even much who their personal rep is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com