
Let Math Save Our Democracy - Amorymeltzer
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/opinion/sunday/let-math-save-our-democracy.html
======
nitrogen
Any time the subject of democracy or voting comes up, I like to post this old
link that I found in someone else's HN comment long ago:
[http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/](http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/)

It shows how different voting systems behave in different multi-candidate
scenarios where candidates differ on more than one axis (as they always do, a
fact which is not represented by our linear left/right political narrative). A
better voting system would do more for democracy than better districting.

~~~
smoyer
Unfortunately, there's often no one I'm interested in voting for on the
ballot. How do I vote then? Should I vote at all? I don't think I'm an outlier
as more and more people aligned with both parties feel disenfranchised, but
you don't stand a chance at having a reasonable candidate for most races with
the amount of money required to mount a campaign. If you can't get media
attention, you're out!

~~~
nitrogen
Approval voting would make it safer and easier to run more candidates, as you
wouldn't have the vote splitting problem. It does have the problem that
running 10 similar candidates makes their viewpoint more likely to win, if I
recall correctly, so a party-based system might still be useful in that case.

------
sbuttgereit
Hmm.... this seems extremely naive on the part of the author.

Let's take his approach for a moment. How do we look at the statistics he
proposes? Do we look at the last election or the last decade or since the last
redistricting? His analysis showed single sets of races, but US states have
bicameral legislatures... do we somehow combine those results or pick and
chose? Do we, as the author did, discount third party participation and if so
isn't that also biasing redistricting efforts in favor of two parties that are
not as different as most would like to admit? Do we choose our time frame ad
hoc at the time of redistricting?

How do we deal with this problem: we have a district that was itself
gerrymandered at one point in time to ensure that a significant racial
minority had sufficient electoral clout in at least some districts (including
our example). Now that district votes for Party A consistently, but the mean
vs. average approach shows that the redistricting unduly favors Party B... do
we meet the aims of inclusion or do we try to ensure that political parties
are not advantaged/disadvantaged at redistricting time?

The real problem here is that democracy has become this important at all.
Rather than worry about how to best preserve the rights of each individual
from undue interference from anyone (including government officials) we are
more worried about ensuring that we are not unduly disadvantaged in having
access to the force that government represents: and in so doing ensuring that
we can use it against those we don't favor for the benefit of those that we
do.

------
brianolson
This is a good article with lots of links that I'm going to have to follow.
One 'danger' with the types of statistical tests that the author favors is
that districting may be subject to gerrymandering towards supposedly good
goals like making the popular vote and the elected seats match up; but if
we're going to try for that we should instead use a proper Proportional
Representation system (
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation)
)﻿

------
mtgx
Multi-winner ranked choice voting would do much more good to the democracy of
US than ensuring the Democrat and Republican seats are "fair", and it would
also solve the gerrymandering problem as a consequence:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-
theory/wp/2015/10/23/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-
theory/wp/2015/10/23/lets-move-beyond-winner-take-all-elections/)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI)

~~~
eru
> [...] than ensuring the Democrat and Republican seats are "fair", [...]

Yes. You can only call the system fair, once third parties have a chance at
all.

------
alienjr
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem)

~~~
Rhapso
Honestly, this likely presents the constraints too tightly. Dictators are
likely ok (in the jargon of this proof)

~~~
jerf
I interpret Arrow's theorem as a statement that there is no universally-
agreeable definition of "fair". You can create local definitions of "fair",
you can get people to agree to operate with them, but somebody else can always
propose a different, sensible definition of "fair", and that definition _may_
produce a different outcome. It also means that it's reasonable to debate the
effects of different definition of "fair".

I'd say the entire point is precisely that these constraints, quite
surprisingly, are too tight. You _must_ loosen them. You have no choice.

It doesn't mean it's the end of all hope, it just means that it may not be
quite as easy to "turn a crank" and get universal answers as we'd like.

I think a lot of people miss that Arrow's theorem is less a political
statement than a _mathematical proof_ , and end up bringing a lot of baggage
to it that is not justified. It is what it is; it isn't morally "right" or
"wrong", it isn't that it "misses something" or unfairly focuses on something
else, it's just "true". What you do with it is up to you, but you won't change
its truth or falseness value by arguing with it any more than you can any
other proof.

~~~
wfo
There are a few odd mathematical theorems which almost just seem to draw
cranks like moths to a flame: I don't think I've ever seen a reference to
Godel's incompleteness theorem outside of a mathematics textbook which isn't
eye-rollingly cringeworthy. Similarly with this one; we have very technical
theorems that take years of study to fully understand, and they almost touch
on other fields or have some kind of "wow factor" which makes them
irresistible to pop lit writers like Gladwell, Hofstadter, etc.

------
ColinWright
Discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10684118](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10684118)

------
cryoshon
I posted this comment last night when this story was on HN for the first time:

I've come to expect this kind of painfully unhelpful commentary from the rag
that is the NYT. On par with their myopic mainstream-ism, this article's
purpose is to confuse and pacify readers with a narrative that states we can
continue on our current government's course, if only we were to allow for a
minor change of our political system's vote-counting partitions. We cannot
save or rekindle democracy with such pathetic incremental changes, nor are
"we" as citizens empowered to make such changes anyway-- purge this article's
idiotic train of thought. To be explicit: changing who gets elected via more
neutral partitioning won't change a single thing, because the titanic problems
of American "democracy" (in realistic terms, oligarchy or perhaps autocracy)
occur post-election outcome, and occur regardless of whether it is Democrats
or Republicans who win.

Redistricting won't save democracy; at best, algorithmic or "mathematical" (a
fool's term for neutral and objective) redistricting will allow for the voters
to pick candidates that are proportionally and geographically anchored to
their districts. Geographical picking of representatives isn't broken beyond
repair within the political system, nor is the physical counting of votes to
determine which representatives win, though the electronic voting systems
leave the latter terrifyingly unverifiable and unquestionably anti-democratic.

The slaughter of democracy in our time is an intentionally engineered result
of post-election corruption as effected by bribes of lobbyists, raping the
power of the vote in the name of capital flow to those that are already
morbidly obese with riches. You cannot have democracy when money is allowed to
have a coercive power that eclipses any feasible democratic comeuppance.

Let the banishment of money from the election component of political activity
exist as an iron law in any new democracy which is established. That would be
the start of having a fighting chance for democracy, which America has long
since discarded.

~~~
eru
> [...] and occur regardless of whether it is Democrats or Republicans who
> win.

That's why it would be useful to have a system, like approval voting, that
would allow non-Democrat, non-Republican candidates to get support.

------
known
Fundamental issues are
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_selling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_selling)

------
jlund
I wanted this article to be about encryption.

------
amai
“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”

(Joseph Stalin)

~~~
hamstergene
There are elections for which it is true, and there are elections for which it
is not. No doubt Stalin loved the former kind. He also loved to say "death is
the universal solution: no man, no problem" and lived up to that to the full
extent. I don't see how that's related to the article though.

If you have doubts about fairness of voting in U.S. political system, why not
voice them directly. Last I checked they don't arrest people for that.

~~~
amai
I have doubts about the fairness of voting in general. I would prefer
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition)
to select members of the parliament. And to add another smart quote:

"It is accepted as democratic when public offices are allocated by lot; and as
oligarchic when they are filled by election." (Aristotle)

------
EGreg
This is also related to Simpson's Paradox

------
ZoeZoeBee
The US is not a Democracy, was never meant to be a Democracy, and the founders
went to great lengths to ensure the citizens of the US were protected from a
Democracy by the framework of the Constitution.

Maybe some day the average citizen of this nation will be informed and
intelligent enough to participate in a functioning Democracy. Until then
politicians will continue to manipulate the misinformed masses and throw
around the word Democracy to make the plebs feel as though they matter.

~~~
devinhelton
It is not a republic either. At least it is not a republic in a way that the
Greeks, Romans, or American Founders would have understood it. It was meant to
be a republic, but it is no longer.

The US is actually one-half mandarinate (rule by a permanent government
comprising the civil service and academia) and one-half spoils-system
kleptocracy (rule by organized factions who get the government to give them
money or favorable law). Elections are used mainly as a legitimacy mechanism.
You can think of them as almost a religious ritual, like taking communion.
Elections are a way of giving people an illusion of control, and of proving
overall buy-in in the system, while in reality popular influence is kept quite
limited.

~~~
ZoeZoeBee
Your knowledge of history is quite terrible as well as your definition of
words

~~~
devinhelton
Your knowledge of my knowledge of history is quite terrible. I am quite well
read, and could defend any of my sentences above. In government, it is quite
often that the reality of power does not match the official language used to
describe it. Rome, for instance, was officially a republic, long after in
reality it had come to be ruled by an emperor.

------
dbg31415
Here's sort of how this went sour.

Democrats, "Man, I can't wait to get in power... when I do, everything is
going to be so 'fair' and it's going to be paradise."

Republicans, "Once I get in power I'm going to use the rules to my advantage
and make sure I stay in power."

Democrats, "Aww shucks, you beat us by using the rules we all agreed to! Man,
I never saw that one coming."

Republicans, "We told you we hated government... see how backwards it is...
come vote for us next time and we'll do something about it. Also Jesus."

Democrats, "Ok! Once we turn 40 we're there!"

And thus, Gerrymandering is here to stay.

