Solitaire, Voting And The Monte Carlo Method

[L. Coyote]

Last edited Wed Sep 9, 2015, 09:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Solitaire, Voting And The Monte Carlo Method
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinknudson/2015/09/08/solitaire-voting-and-the-monte-carlo-method/

........... Duke University mathematician Jonathan Mattingly and his student Christy Vaughn created a model. Congressional districts in a given state must divide the population evenly and be “compact.” There are roughly 102785 possible maps that could be drawn in North Carolina (talk about a big number!). So to get a sense of what sorts of outcomes are likely they had to use a Monte Carlo procedure to estimate the probabilities of various results. The upshot: out of 100 randomly chosen districting maps, about 80% had seven or eight Democratic candidates elected, and all 100 had between six and nine. Not once did only four Democrats win. So it seems that the state’s districts might not be drawn fairly after all. ............

========================
Redistricting and the Will of the People
Jonathan C. Mattingly, Christy Vaughn
http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8796

We introduce a non-partisan probability distribution on congressional redistricting of North Carolina which emphasizes the equal partition of the population and the compactness of districts. When random districts are drawn and the results of the 2012 election were re-tabulated under the drawn districtings, we find that an average of 7.6 democratic representatives are elected. 95% of the randomly sampled redistrictings produced between 6 and 9 Democrats. Both of these facts are in stark contrast with the 4 Democrats elected in the 2012 elections with the same vote counts. This brings into serious question the idea that such elections represent the "will of the people." It underlines the ability of redistricting to undermine the democratic process, while on the face allowing democracy to proceed.

[underpants]

1. Fascinating

[SaveTheMackerel]

2. I think most are deliberately not. But it is more complicated.

How would you define a fair division? One that makes the parties win 50-50? The question and options go deeper.


If the Democrats in those right leaning districts move further to the right, they could pull off some centrists. The next question is how many voters actually read local party or candidate platforms, and how many just show up and vote for the (Dem) or (Rep) and leaven without thinking.


I designed a voting system that takes care of all that without worry how the districts are drawn. California has a prototype version. They put several candidates on an open primary. All voters of all parties vote for 1 candidate. The top 2 go the general election, even if it is 2 democrats or 2 republicans. The intent is to elect moderates who hold the average values of that district, so that gerrymandering does not matter as much.


Top 2 failed in Oregon by 2:1. The unstated reason, I think, is parties don't like having their primaries open. In California, there were races with 10 candidates in one party split each other's vote, throwing the race to the other party. They still got to pick between that party's 2 candidates.


My solution to get it passed and avoid vote splitting is to only allow 4 candidates on the general ballot, with the top 2 getting a runoff. 4 is small enough to avoid vote splitting. Let the parties hold private conventions. To get on the ballot, you need to find people who donate $5 to your campaign, not just sign a petition. All candidates should have to do this, with or without the help of a convention, and the top 4 with the most $+5 donors get on the ballot.


The key to beating gerrymandering is to give the moderates a chance to represent the district. The current closed primary system just leads to candidates running unopposed.