[Draft] Ban on Gerrymandering

[Thermodolia]

Title: Ban on Gerrymandering
Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong

Realizes that all elections should be free and fair.

Concerned that gerrymandering prevents elections from being fair.

Therefore declares that gerrymandering is the purposeful and willful act to distort electoral districts so that a certain outcome will always occur.

Demands that member states ban all forms of gerrymandering.

Creates the World Assembly Boundary Commission or WABC

Tasks the WABC to set the boundaries of electoral districts used to elect members to legislative bodies.

Declares that these districts must be compact, of equal population, and competitive

Suggests that member states implement independent districting commissions to set all electoral districts

Instructs the to Organization for Electoral Assistance (OEA) monitor all member states, their districting commissions, and WABC.

Notes that nothing in this act can be construed to require elections to take place in member states that do not have elections or those in which gerrymandering does not exist.

Here by enacts Ban on Gerrymandering

It’s been awhile since I’ve done one of these. I didn’t see anything like this in the list of resolutions, hopefully I didn’t miss anything

[Thermodolia]

Title: Ban on Gerrymandering
Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong

Realizes that all elections should be free and fair.

Concerned that gerrymandering prevents elections from being fair.

Therefor declares that gerrymandering is the purposeful and willful act to distort electoral districts so that a certain outcome will always occur.

Demands that member states ban all forms of gerrymandering.

Requires that member states implement independent districting commissions to set all electoral districts

Instructs the to Organization for Electoral Assistance (OEA) monitor all member states and their districting commissions.

Notes that nothing in this act can be construed to require elections to take place in member states that do not have elections

Here by enacts Ban on Gerrymandering

[Bananaistan]

"Why? What concern is it of yours if some member state runs some sort of sham election but the nations which hold no elections at all are free to carry on their merry dictatorial way?

"As always, we will strenuously oppose and actively campaign against WA restrictions on the internal workings of member states' democracies."

[Separatist Peoples]

"So long as there is a mathematical possibility of victory for the other side, nations can reasonably allege compliance while practically maintaining electoral superiority. I am concerned that any measures strong enough to prevent abuse would either deadlock a democracy or work for only a very particular system to the detriment of all others. Couched in legalese or not, I suspect this premise has little chance of succeeding."

[American Pere Housh]

"Why? What concern is it of yours if some member state runs some sort of sham election but the nations which hold no elections at all are free to carry on their merry dictatorial way?

"As always, we will strenuously oppose and actively campaign against WA restrictions on the internal workings of member states' democracies."

Vanny read the draft before looking the Thermodalian Ambassador,"We agree with our colleague's opinion that the WA has no right to interfere in the electoral process of a member nation. We will oppose this as well as we still hold planetary and local elections even though there is only one party that is legal and we ask that the WA kindly to butt out of our affairs concerning the elections."

[Nuweland]

Therefor declares that gerrymandering is the purposeful and willful act to distort electoral districts so that a certain outcome will always occur.

You want an 'e' on the end of "therefor" and one 'l' taken out of "willful" there. This also seems like a very narrow definition of gerrymandering. And of course, there will be some countries that hold free and fair elections but don't use any internal subdivisions as districts at all.

[Attempted Socialism]

Your definition of gerrymandering is lacking. If I have a large 50-50 area divided into 10 electoral district, where 8 are 60-40 and 2 are 10-90, have I distorted anything so that a certain outcome will always occur? Sure, in this example party A will likely get 8 seats and B 2 seats, but with swings in voters and so on those 8 seats are much swingier than the 2. And, unless I go on the record, how do you determine it was distorted, and willfully so? I might claim that it's based on regional interests or something like that.
This is part of the issue that made the SCOTUS reject a general ruling on gerrymandering, because there was no good standard to base borders on.
What should the independent commission use as their basis for setting electoral district boundaries? Should they prioritise competitiveness, or compact borders, or keeping together communities?

Further, independent districting commissions aren't sensible in PR systems, even ones with some version of local elections (Gerrymandering is also impossible in PR systems unless you mangle the PR system specifically to allow it). In Denmark districts are based on municipal borders and larger election districts but is PR overall, so an independent commission would be an absurd waste and a rubber stamp machine. In the Danish EU Parliament elections, there are no election districts at all (Or the entire country is one district, you might say). Why mandate something that isn't a perfect solution to gerrymandering in states where gerrymandering isn't an issue?

I think this needs a lot more work.

[Bananaistan]

... (Gerrymandering is also impossible in PR systems unless you mangle the PR system specifically to allow it)...

OOC: Not true.

[Attempted Socialism]

... (Gerrymandering is also impossible in PR systems unless you mangle the PR system specifically to allow it)...

OOC: Not true.

Errr... that looks distinctly like a mangled PR system (Constituencies so small that you won't achieve proportionality), though I guess I shouldn't have implied that the mangling is done to be able to gerrymander.

[Boston Castle]

"So long as there is a mathematical possibility of victory for the other side, nations can reasonably allege compliance while practically maintaining electoral superiority. I am concerned that any measures strong enough to prevent abuse would either deadlock a democracy or work for only a very particular system to the detriment of all others. Couched in legalese or not, I suspect this premise has little chance of succeeding."

“Without an independent observation of the process or the requirement of some kind of nominally independent commission it won’t work.”

OOC: if you’re looking for RL examples here OP, something like the Boundary Commission would work quite well, but even then, the specifics of how much/how many is chosen by the government. Another issue is that not all nations use some form of xPTP in any form. This would have next to zero effect in a system with elections that are nationwide, proportional, or weren’t in some way elect one with no redistributive system (be it STV or otherwise).

[Thermodolia]

*ignore this post*

[Thermodolia]

"So long as there is a mathematical possibility of victory for the other side, nations can reasonably allege compliance while practically maintaining electoral superiority. I am concerned that any measures strong enough to prevent abuse would either deadlock a democracy or work for only a very particular system to the detriment of all others. Couched in legalese or not, I suspect this premise has little chance of succeeding."

“Without an independent observation of the process or the requirement of some kind of nominally independent commission it won’t work.”

OOC: if you’re looking for RL examples here OP, something like the Boundary Commission would work quite well, but even then, the specifics of how much/how many is chosen by the government. Another issue is that not all nations use some form of xPTP in any form. This would have next to zero effect in a system with elections that are nationwide, proportional, or weren’t in some way elect one with no redistributive system (be it STV or otherwise).

STV, Two Round, IRV, and even district PR systems can all face gerrymandering.

[Thermodolia]

Your definition of gerrymandering is lacking. If I have a large 50-50 area divided into 10 electoral district, where 8 are 60-40 and 2 are 10-90, have I distorted anything so that a certain outcome will always occur? Sure, in this example party A will likely get 8 seats and B 2 seats, but with swings in voters and so on those 8 seats are much swingier than the 2. And, unless I go on the record, how do you determine it was distorted, and willfully so? I might claim that it's based on regional interests or something like that.
This is part of the issue that made the SCOTUS reject a general ruling on gerrymandering, because there was no good standard to base borders on.
What should the independent commission use as their basis for setting electoral district boundaries? Should they prioritise competitiveness, or compact borders, or keeping together communities?

Further, independent districting commissions aren't sensible in PR systems, even ones with some version of local elections (Gerrymandering is also impossible in PR systems unless you mangle the PR system specifically to allow it). In Denmark districts are based on municipal borders and larger election districts but is PR overall, so an independent commission would be an absurd waste and a rubber stamp machine. In the Danish EU Parliament elections, there are no election districts at all (Or the entire country is one district, you might say). Why mandate something that isn't a perfect solution to gerrymandering in states where gerrymandering isn't an issue?

I think this needs a lot more work.

Made some edits. Took a lot of your suggestions to heart

[Ardiveds]

OOC: Ummmm so does this force the adoption of an electoral system in all member states?
Edit: I meant like an electoral college system like US

[Bananaistan]

"This has gone from bad to worse and is simplistic and incoherent. Mandates some committee to take over and set boundaries yet suggest that people use these boundaries.

"The declares section is impossible. Nobody can ever guarantee that any election any where will be competitive. And why should they be compact and of equal population? What do these things even mean? If one district has 10000 people, and the next has 10002, do you split a household on the border?

"An answer to my previously posed question would also be nice: What concern is it of yours if some member state runs some sort of sham election but the nations which hold no elections at all are free to carry on their merry dictatorial way?

OOC: This is just more America-centric crap. NS =/= RL and RL =/= USA. And seriously, compact and "of equal population" is bullshit. Do some on various RL electoral systems before coming up with this one size fits nobody overreach. There's nothing undemocratic about multiseat constituencies where historical, administrative or geographical boundaries are respected.

[Groot]

"I am Groot," says Groot, wondering how this is an international issue.

[Attempted Socialism]

Your definition of gerrymandering is lacking. If I have a large 50-50 area divided into 10 electoral district, where 8 are 60-40 and 2 are 10-90, have I distorted anything so that a certain outcome will always occur? Sure, in this example party A will likely get 8 seats and B 2 seats, but with swings in voters and so on those 8 seats are much swingier than the 2. And, unless I go on the record, how do you determine it was distorted, and willfully so? I might claim that it's based on regional interests or something like that.
This is part of the issue that made the SCOTUS reject a general ruling on gerrymandering, because there was no good standard to base borders on.
What should the independent commission use as their basis for setting electoral district boundaries? Should they prioritise competitiveness, or compact borders, or keeping together communities?

Further, independent districting commissions aren't sensible in PR systems, even ones with some version of local elections (Gerrymandering is also impossible in PR systems unless you mangle the PR system specifically to allow it). In Denmark districts are based on municipal borders and larger election districts but is PR overall, so an independent commission would be an absurd waste and a rubber stamp machine. In the Danish EU Parliament elections, there are no election districts at all (Or the entire country is one district, you might say). Why mandate something that isn't a perfect solution to gerrymandering in states where gerrymandering isn't an issue?

I think this needs a lot more work.

Made some edits. Took a lot of your suggestions to heart

I'm not sure you did, to be honest. I don't see a change to your definition, so there's still an issue there. Your "declares" clause is, if we look past a strict interpretation of "equal population" (I.e. we interpret it as "roughly equal"), problematic since it assumes single-member constituencies (Most PR systems don't much care about "equal population", for instance; there's simply no need to factor it in) and you can't prioritise all three -- try making compact electoral districts in the US, and the cities will have seats with clear Democratic majorities, but then the elections aren't competitive. Meanwhile, if the cities are compact, rural areas can't be. While there are some methods for districting that can give you non-partisan and roughly compact districts, they can never promise competitiveness and, if we have a stark urban-rural divide will almost certainly make some districts non-competitive. Given a mandate to optimise for competitiveness, however, could require US redistricting every 2 years since we have new voting data after each House election. Since you assume single-member elections (Which often emphasise local representation), would such propensity for instability be an issue, in your view?

You have both a WA and national boundary commission. Why?

You also demand a districting commission for places where districts are nonsensical or based purely on administrative boundaries (Again, what use would a districting commission be in Denmark?).

I wrote an assignment on electoral systems and maps during my bachelor, and FPTP systems badly need abolishing, not small fixes. They are fundamentally flawed and inherently anti-democratic, but while district reforms can diminish the worst excesses, this draft applies to both FPTP and non-FPTP systems in the WA.

[Thermodolia]

"This has gone from bad to worse and is simplistic and incoherent. Mandates some committee to take over and set boundaries yet suggest that people use these boundaries.

"The declares section is impossible. Nobody can ever guarantee that any election any where will be competitive. And why should they be compact and of equal population? What do these things even mean? If one district has 10000 people, and the next has 10002, do you split a household on the border?

"An answer to my previously posed question would also be nice: What concern is it of yours if some member state runs some sort of sham election but the nations which hold no elections at all are free to carry on their merry dictatorial way?

OOC: This is just more America-centric crap. NS =/= RL and RL =/= USA. And seriously, compact and "of equal population" is bullshit. Do some on various RL electoral systems before coming up with this one size fits nobody overreach. There's nothing undemocratic about multiseat constituencies where historical, administrative or geographical boundaries are respected.

OOC: It’s not American centric. Several electoral systems can be subject to gerrymandering, even multi member districts like STV. Don’t forget that IRV, Two-Round, and other single member/multi member electoral can all be subject to Gerrymandering.

I never said that multi member constituencies where undemocratic, nor did I imply such. You unfortunately decided that because I am an American that I must think that all multi member constituencies are undemocratic, even though I think single member electoral systems are absolutely terrible.

OOC: Ummmm so does this force the adoption of an electoral system in all member states?
Edit: I meant like an electoral college system like US

No it wouldn’t. It doesn’t even set up an electoral college system

[Thermodolia]

Made some edits. Took a lot of your suggestions to heart

I'm not sure you did, to be honest. I don't see a change to your definition, so there's still an issue there.

Well how would you define it?

Your "declares" clause is, if we look past a strict interpretation of "equal population" (I.e. we interpret it as "roughly equal"), problematic since it assumes single-member constituencies (Most PR systems don't much care about "equal population", for instance; there's simply no need to factor it in)

Fair enough but how would you change it?

and you can't prioritise all three -- try making compact electoral districts in the US, and the cities will have seats with clear Democratic majorities, but then the elections aren't competitive. Meanwhile, if the cities are compact, rural areas can't be. While there are some methods for districting that can give you non-partisan and roughly compact districts, they can never promise competitiveness and, if we have a stark urban-rural divide will almost certainly make some districts non-competitive.

True though the compactness part is used in the US which tbh now that I think about leads to gerrymandering. I’ll remove that.

Given a mandate to optimise for competitiveness, however, could require US redistricting every 2 years since we have new voting data after each House election.

Fair enough

Since you assume single-member elections (Which often emphasise local representation), would such propensity for instability be an issue, in your view?

While single member was the main source it’s not the only thing I assume. SNTV and STV can both be subject to Gerrymandering. For both of them the gerrymandering begins when the number of representatives falls below 4.

Though I could try and fit that into the definition of gerrymandering

You have both a WA and national boundary commission. Why?

I rushed some edits and forgot to remove the national part

You also demand a districting commission for places where districts are nonsensical or based purely on administrative boundaries (Again, what use would a districting commission be in Denmark?).

Well I’d assume that Denmark would follow the “ or those in which gerrymandering does not exist.”

I wrote an assignment on electoral systems and maps during my bachelor, and FPTP systems badly need abolishing, not small fixes. They are fundamentally flawed and inherently anti-democratic, but while district reforms can diminish the worst excesses, this draft applies to both FPTP and non-FPTP systems in the WA.

While I’d like to get rid of FPTP I thought that would fall a foul of the ideological ban.

[Bananaistan]

"This has gone from bad to worse and is simplistic and incoherent. Mandates some committee to take over and set boundaries yet suggest that people use these boundaries.

"The declares section is impossible. Nobody can ever guarantee that any election any where will be competitive. And why should they be compact and of equal population? What do these things even mean? If one district has 10000 people, and the next has 10002, do you split a household on the border?

"An answer to my previously posed question would also be nice: What concern is it of yours if some member state runs some sort of sham election but the nations which hold no elections at all are free to carry on their merry dictatorial way?

OOC: This is just more America-centric crap. NS =/= RL and RL =/= USA. And seriously, compact and "of equal population" is bullshit. Do some on various RL electoral systems before coming up with this one size fits nobody overreach. There's nothing undemocratic about multiseat constituencies where historical, administrative or geographical boundaries are respected.

OOC: It’s not American centric. Several electoral systems can be subject to gerrymandering, even multi member districts like STV. Don’t forget that IRV, Two-Round, and other single member/multi member electoral can all be subject to Gerrymandering.

I never said that multi member constituencies where undemocratic, nor did I imply such. You unfortunately decided that because I am an American that I must think that all multi member constituencies are undemocratic, even though I think single member electoral systems are absolutely terrible.

OOC: "Of equal population" is the problem not your nationality.

IC: "We must ask again as it appears to be continually overlooked, what concern is it of yours if some member state runs some sort of sham election but the nations which hold no elections at all are free to carry on their merry dictatorial way?"

[Attempted Socialism]

I'm not sure you did, to be honest. I don't see a change to your definition, so there's still an issue there.

Well how would you define it?

Honestly, if I had a good operational definition that wasn't "I know it when I see it", I'd publish a paper on it and win grand acclamation. The change from an abstract definition to one that is usable in practise is, to my knowledge, not yet settled (And has been litigated before SCOTUS without a universally applicable solution).
That's not to say there aren't steps to take, though. I would replace "so that a certain outcome will always occur." with "to gain partisan advantage.", potentially expanding partisan to include other usually protected groups -- ethnicities, races, religions, for instance. I would also reconsider the "willful" part, since such a definition can run into the problem of politicians claiming stupidity rather than malign intent. I don't have a good replacement, but something more akin to "apparent" distortion, perhaps? Neither change are particularly operational, though, so it won't be perfect.

Your "declares" clause is, if we look past a strict interpretation of "equal population" (I.e. we interpret it as "roughly equal"), problematic since it assumes single-member constituencies (Most PR systems don't much care about "equal population", for instance; there's simply no need to factor it in)

Fair enough but how would you change it?

Again, I don't know. I moved away from this topic and specialised in another field; I can spot and analyse the abuse of election reform, but I am not well-versed in the literature. Have you considered changing the phrasing to one emphasising voting power? I.e. a vote in district A with X candidates is proportionally impactful to a vote in district B with Y candidates?

and you can't prioritise all three -- try making compact electoral districts in the US, and the cities will have seats with clear Democratic majorities, but then the elections aren't competitive. Meanwhile, if the cities are compact, rural areas can't be. While there are some methods for districting that can give you non-partisan and roughly compact districts, they can never promise competitiveness and, if we have a stark urban-rural divide will almost certainly make some districts non-competitive.

True though the compactness part is used in the US which tbh now that I think about leads to gerrymandering. I’ll remove that.

Given a mandate to optimise for competitiveness, however, could require US redistricting every 2 years since we have new voting data after each House election.

Fair enough

I won't claim to be an expert, but AFAIK there are no nation-wide rules for districting. I'd personally like a districting system that is generally automatic, either a formula or PR following larger administrative boundaries (And thus agnostic to issues of competitiveness, compactness and local differences) but you'd meet resistance if you try to take people's feeling of local representation away.

Since you assume single-member elections (Which often emphasise local representation), would such propensity for instability be an issue, in your view?

While single member was the main source it’s not the only thing I assume. SNTV and STV can both be subject to Gerrymandering. For both of them the gerrymandering begins when the number of representatives falls below 4.

Though I could try and fit that into the definition of gerrymandering

Yeah, that was a brainfart. I was following from my own reliance on US examples.
I think an integration into the definition could be good, if you can make it work.

You have both a WA and national boundary commission. Why?

I rushed some edits and forgot to remove the national part

Fair. Can you expand on why you want a WA committee rather than a national one?

You also demand a districting commission for places where districts are nonsensical or based purely on administrative boundaries (Again, what use would a districting commission be in Denmark?).

Well I’d assume that Denmark would follow the “ or those in which gerrymandering does not exist.”

Are you sure that's not running afoul of the optionality rule? Though with the WA rather than national commission, I guess the infallible WA gnomes would simply check once that PR systems are decently set up and then ignore them.

I wrote an assignment on electoral systems and maps during my bachelor, and FPTP systems badly need abolishing, not small fixes. They are fundamentally flawed and inherently anti-democratic, but while district reforms can diminish the worst excesses, this draft applies to both FPTP and non-FPTP systems in the WA.

While I’d like to get rid of FPTP I thought that would fall a foul of the ideological ban.

I don't see how. It's not banning an ideology outright; rather, it targets a specific practise. Also, I don't see the ideology that could be banned. But perhaps GenSec has a different view.

Edit: Corrected quote BBCode.

[Liberimery]

I am concerned that the word “Gerrymandering” is a Real Life Reference rule violation since the term politically refers to the US practice of drawing political districts to favor the ruling party of a particular ruling party at time of redistricting. The US specific problem is that at the national level the constitution delegates election rule making powers to the states resulting in different rules between different states in redistricting. Some states let the governor or other executive office draw the map. Others let the legislature draw the map. Still others us a non-partisan council to draw the lines.

For the non-US folks this only affects the lower house of Congress’s outcome. The total number of seats in the house is at a cap and the number of seats a State gets is proportional to population of the states as determined by a Venus taken every ten years on years divisible by 10. States must adjust districts to reflect their new allocation. It does not affect the Senate (the number is always twice that of the States in the Union) nor the Electoral College, with each state getting electors equal to the number of their Congressional Delegation (so add number of representative districts plus 2 for their two senators.). With the exception of two states that allocate proportionally to district, all states allocate presidential electors by winner takes all popular vote.

[Thermodolia]

I am concerned that the word “Gerrymandering” is a Real Life Reference rule violation since the term politically refers to the US practice of drawing political districts to favor the ruling party of a particular ruling party at time of redistricting. The US specific problem is that at the national level the constitution delegates election rule making powers to the states resulting in different rules between different states in redistricting. Some states let the governor or other executive office draw the map. Others let the legislature draw the map. Still others us a non-partisan council to draw the lines.

Gerrymandering isn’t a US specific problem. It has occurred in France, Ireland, the UK, and any other nation that uses districts that aren’t based on administrative boundaries to elect their legislatures

[Tinhampton]

Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith: Opposed.

OOC: Opposed. I should hope that Thermodolia has any evidence at all to prove that:

• "[g]errymandering" has occurred "in France, Ireland, the UK, and any other nation" besides the USA (yes, I mean all three of those nations); and that
• "SNTV," "STV, Two Round, IRV, [and] District PR systems" have all been subjected to gerrymanderers in the real world.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: We don't need an OOC debate about electoral systems. Its not an unreasonable claim to state that NS government systems are susceptible to gerrymandering in some manner. If you want to debate gerrymandering in the US and in Europe, go to General.