1892
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2025
1892 points (99.2% liked)
You Should Know
40304 readers
907 users here now
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated.
If you file a report, include what specific rule is being violated and how.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
When there is one seat, two parties, and you're using First Past the Post voting (which is a terrible voting system that inevitably causes the two party divide), yes. They perfect out come is majority win. When distributing multiple district seats, proportional representation is the perfect outcome, which that also acheives.
So we can agree the system is inherently bad at representation?
Sounds more like that outcome is the "least bad" rather than "perfect".
First Past the Post is objectively a problem in general. However, if there are only two candidates, and thus only possible outcomes, with one possible seat, all forms of voting will be functionally identical to FPTP in result. So in this given example, "least bad" and "perfect" are synonymous.
Now if there was a third+ party or more candidates from the two parties, and alternative forms of voting, then things do get more complicated. But the point of the example is to show, in simplist terms, how districting works in an ideal world, and how Gerrymandering can warp the end results to give either the advantage.
Except that the lack of a third candidate is partially because of the FPTP system. It's a waste of time, money and energy to try to compete with the Dems and the Reps. In a ranked voting system, or even a two-round system like we have in France, I guarantee you you'd see more candidates, because people then wouldn't just "vote useful".
Right, that's what I said in my previous comment. Ranked Choice is an improvement, yes. Though, I think it still is too easy to push the winning vote to the more polar candidates. If the centrist doesn't rile up passionate supporters (because what centrist does), they are more likely to be dropped in the first round even though they were ranked 1 or 2 for nearly everyone. I prefer Approval voting as my ideal alternative. It does tend to push more toward center, but if the idea is true democratic representation, then that would be the natural result, right? But anything is better than FPTP.
So if improvements are possible then the current situation can by definition not be perfect, right?
As I said elsewhere, if there is only two parties/candidates running for each of these seats and the districts are divided this way then there is no functional difference between Ranked Choice, Approval, Proportional, or First Past The Post. The results would be 100% identical in any of those systems. In this specific situation, the result is "perfect", as it says. Under different circumstances, it would be less than perfect, but that is not how hypothetical work, my guy.
So, suppose these things were not immutable laws of nature, would a better representation the be possible?
If e.g. the candidates of our rectangle had 5 seats to compete for instead of one?
Your example is literally what is being illustrated. There is some disconnect you are suffering. There isn't only one seat they are competing for. There are 5 districts with 5 seats and depending on how you divide the districts, fairly or intentionally gerrymandered, you can get a fair outcome or outcomes that heavily favor one party. Even if they WERE competing for one seat, then blue winning that seat would still be the correct outcome in this case, so even if your misunderstanding the hypothetical were accurate, I dont get why you have a problem with the end result.
The graphic literally illustrates that one of two teams "wins". In the "perfect" case that is blue.
The disconnect being that the above example mentions nothing about the red districts getting anything.
That is an assumption you are making based on some real world system that is not depicted here.
My comment is based only on what the image shows. I understand that the real world may be different but the real world is not what I am commenting on.
I don't criticize the result. I just don't think it's perfect.
People here keep telling me the system is bad but it's the best we have.
If that is your definition of perfect that I suppose we just have a vastly different understanding of perfection.
They win majority of the district. Not all of the seats. I don't know why you're are being so obtuse about this. It's pretty apparent to everyone else. And it is exactly how districts in real life work
Yes, becuase the purpose of this info graphic is to show how Gerrymandering works in real life. Gerrymandering has nothing to do with taking individual seats. Ever. Period. It is about taking outweighed control of a multi-seat body. That is the ENTIRE point of gerrymandering, a subject that is not obscure in the slightest.
What then would be the "perfect" result between only two parties running, and 60% support going to the blue party? Whether for 1 seat or for 5 as IS SHOWN in this graphic?
I most certianly did not say that this is the best system we could have, but you confusion is because you are conflating vastly different things. When people are talking about different voting systems that would be better, that assumes that there is more than 2 choices in the matter. If there are only two, such as is in this example, the voting system resolves to being identical to First Past The Post, so it doesnt matter, FOR THIS ONE EXAMPLE. In real life, things are not that simple, but that doesnt matter when we are talking about a simplified hypothetical like this. That is the point.
Yes, by changing voting groups in such a way that one party achieves a maximum of individual "wins" to achieve an overall "win". That is all it shows, there are 50 people split into two colors, five districts and one winner. No seats anywhere.
Right, because it it the process of rearranging voting groups to affect the overall outcome and has nothing to do with what the winner gets.
in other words
or
or
Ok please take a big red marker or a graphic tool of your choice And draw a circle where on the graphic it SHOWS that red gets anything, besides abstract districts.
If you could highlight the fabled seats, that would certainly convince me that they are shown somewhere.
Whether the districts impart any sort of political influence beyond the tally of which team gets to be the overall winner, depends on completely different factors not part of the graphic.
I am not conflating anything. I am deliberately ignoring anything not in the info-graphic that presumably wants to teach us something.
It only shows how different district shapes affect the outcome of which team "wins".
You are the one conflating the abstract presentation on this graphic with some specific real-life situation.
Districts each get a seat. That is the part you are not getting. That is what gerrymandering manipulates. You seem to think that the districts are voting blocks with equal say (1 vote each) in an election of a single seat (thus why you think Blue wins it all) but that is NOT how districting and gerrymandering works in the US (where the word comes from and the only place it is really used, btw). I dont know why you are quoting definitions at me like I dont understand the concept.
You specifically brought up that other people are saying that there are better systems, which is exactly what I was responding to and saying you were conflating with the "perfect" term used in the info graphic. So no, this is bull.
The abstract presentation in the graphic is a hypothetical that EXPLAINS the real-life situation. Gerrymandering is not a concept in a vacuum. It is a thing that happens and show a simplified version of it here demonstrates how manipulative it is in a digestible way. That is the point. It's not a mathematical or logical axiom that exists purely in and of itself. It is a pretend situation meant to parallel a real life one and demonstrate a form of political manipulation.
They do not in the example. The example only knows a single winner.
I think that blue wins because the example literally tells us that blue wins.
And if the infographic said "Gerrymandering as it specifically works in the US only" then that would be relevant.
But it only explains it a general abstract concept. One that can also occur outside the US. This general concept can also occur without US electoral districts that get some seats. It can occur in any voting situation where the overall population is divided into subgroups.
Yes, it explains one specific mechanism. Namely changing district shapes to affect the outcome. And the outcome in the example is one color winning.
I do not care how things are in real life, because my comment has nothing to do with the real life situation, only the one depicted here.
I don't understand it well, but I like your 2 round system. What are some typical flaws with it that might not be obvious? I'm also curious what is the best thing about it, in your opinion
It is better than FPTP, but not a great system either. The flaws are similar to FPTP: The final winner may not be the candidate that would be most approved by the pooulation.
The main arvantage of it is that you can go wilder during the first turn, and pick a small party that you truly support, in hope it passes to the second turn. That happens often enough. And if it doesn't, then you vote for the least bad candidate in the second turn/the closest candidate to what you want.
That's what I like about it that I thought it would solve for me. I don't think the person I've voted for, in any election I've ever voted for, has won my riding (Canada)
I often have to choose between who I want to represent me, and voting for the strategic choice so that the leader of the country isn't the worst choice