Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The US Redrawn As 50 Equally Populated States

Daniel_Stuckey (2647775) writes | about a year and a half ago

United States 3

Daniel_Stuckey writes "Bam! For anyone that's paid a speck of attention to the tedium of political redistricting, which happens while a state grows unevenly, (and must dynamically respond to density, electorate disparity, natural resources and ridgelines, etc.), this is straight out of some psychedelic dream. For Democrats, it could be straight out of a nightmare. That's because Freeman's map necessitates 50 equally populous United States. His methods for creating the map are explained thusly:

"The algorithm was seeded with the fifty largest cities. After that, manual changes took into account compact shapes, equal populations, metro areas divided by state lines, and drainage basins. In certain areas, divisions are based on census tract lines... The suggested names of the new states are taken mainly from geographical features."

The new 50 states would be equally potent in terms of voting, but how many would be red? I made this layered GIF of Romney vs. Obama by county to try and figure things out."

Link to Original Source

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Or ... (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | about a year and a half ago | (#42925243)

Equal sized states only change the Senate, and you could fix that easy enough by changing the Senate's voting system so that each Senator casts the votes from his election; it could be the votes that Senator won, or all the votes cast in his election, including opponents. I kind of like only the votes cast for the Senator himself, since it encourages them to win as many votes as possible, but that's a small matter.

Or if you are set on changing state / district size, let border property parcels change state / district at each election; this can be up to the property owner alone, much the simplest method, or it could be by vote of ll residents, which might cause family troubles for single family houses, but would be more fair for apartment blocks.

UK tries to have 'equal populace' members. (1)

eionmac (949755) | about a year and a half ago | (#42930773)

UK constituencies are redrafted every so many years to try to keep members of Commons House of parliament with equal constituents. It causes many problems as each government tries to adjust boundaries to ensure a "safe seat" for its party . Latest proposals 2012 not accepted by house so next possible adjustment in 5 years time. The geopgraphy is not redone. The boundaries of the political constituencies are redrawn - they do not necessarilly align with shires or county sub divisions of the country. I see no reason why a US member of a house should be tied to a specific 'state' but to a 'nominal state' with overlaps or underlaps to secure equal numbers.

This won't fly. One simple alternative (1)

macpacheco (1764378) | about a year and a half ago | (#42932225)

Not the same, but here goes a far less radical approach:

No winner takes all elections for president. The electoral college is multiplied by 100, so a state that currently has one electoral vote, now has 100, while a state with 21, now has 2100. With fully proportional allocation.
So winning 50,1% of Texas votes or 80% have a huge difference in the electoral college.
All states with large population become important, cause getting a few % more of the vote will make some difference.

Finally, states get a proportional number of Senators to their population versus the entire US population. An exponential scale to keep the largest states from having overwhelming power, but much more than the current equality between Wyoming and California for instance.
California, Texas, New York would have 5 or 6 senators, while WY, ND, SD, AK would have just one.
Perhaps throw in also per capta income, to help California and New York get a fair share of their economical output.
In some sense this might help increase California's federal budget allocation, since gets back less from the federal govt than it gives in federal taxes.

I don't believe this alternate would fly either, but at least it's a lot less radical.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?