Proposed Redistricting Procedure

Good luck in the voting period (but not too much luck). ---------- My opponent's main concerns seem to be as follows: 1. Happiness should not be maximized, because there is still "dishappiness" among the minority views. 2. There will still be a minority of voters who are unhappy and unrepresented. 3. Small, geographically spread out parties are denied representation. 4. He seems to suggest that this system would give more power to party insiders. Response: 1. Of course there will be "dishappiness" among some with any system. The purpose of this system is to MAXIMIZE the number of people who are happy with their representative and their system of government. The system in its current state would result in more unhappy constituents - as much as 49.9% at the outset. Under the proposed system, those unhappy constituents decrease to around 20% or lower. Short of making every district 100% in favor of one party, there will be some unhappiness. This is inevitable and unavoidable. The goal, as I mentioned in the past round, is to maximize happiness and minimize unhappiness. The proposed system reaches this goal. 2. As I mentioned in point one, it is inevitable that some unhappy and unrepresented citizens will remain. The goal of reforming the system is the minimize both of these. As I have already shown in round two, the proposed system maximizes happiness, representativeness, and attentiveness. 3. Small parties are not necessarily precluded from such a system. As I mentioned, districts can be drawn to include them. However, Con is correct in saying that geographically spread out ideologies are at a disadvantage and do not receive as many benefits as more mainstream ones. I would like to point out that under the current system, they receive no benefits. In the proposed system, at least, there will be SOME improvements. Additionally, if the law were changed regarding redistricting to allow drawing districts that are not connected, then this would no longer be a concern. Finally, I would like to bring attention to the reader that Con failed to address the 'big tent' philosophy of the two major parties. There is room in each of them for such a wide variety of ideologies. Only the most extreme and radical are generally not welcome - and those typically do not have enough support to earn a representative anyway (I am talking in numbers here). The two parties include ideologies from Democratic Socialists on the left all the way to libertarians on the right. 4. I am not quite certain where Con picked up the idea that party insiders, or the party elites would gain any extra power over the nominating process. He suggests that the increased importance of the primary at the expense of the general election is the cause. How this gives them more power is not explained. With the rise of primary elections, party elites have lost most of their control. Anyone with enough signatures can get on the ballot for any party. Then it is up to the people to determine who they want as their representative. Basically, the amount of power that party elites have over the nominating process will be the same as in the current system. Con has offered nothing to sugest otherwise. *#*#* Con's main concern seems to be that this system still results in a minority of people going unrepresented. I feel it is important to once again emphasize that there will always be some people unrepresented. Competitive districts perform worse in this category. Uncompetitive (packed) districts, minimize those unrepresented better than the current or any other proposed system. Con seems to have missed this point in his response. He is worried about people going unrepresented, yet he strictly opposes a system that significantly decreases the number of people who go unrepresented. ========= My Source: First let me note that all of my sources (except for Buchler) are indeed available free of charge on the internet. I guess Con just didn't have the time to search for them. They can be accessed by googling the article title: (Burnell - . http://journals.cambridge.org...) (Anderson and LoTempio - . http://journals.cambridge.org...) (Buchler - . http://politicalscience.case.edu...) Con questioned the usefulness of the McCarty study. McCarty, et al. did indeed use simulations under different scenarios. What he seems to have missed is that they compared their simulations to the current state of affairs. What they found was that gerrymandering has such a tiny influence on polarization as to be negligible. In short, polarization is not a concern. I would like to also note that Con did not explain that polarization in the ungerrymanderable Senate, nor did he explain the polarization in past eras when gerrymandering was not common. His sources, with which he is attempting to make a point: 1. 30% of Americans are independent. I would tend to think that the majority of this 30% are independent because they agree with some points of both mainstream parties - not because they represent some huge unrepresented minority. In a sense, they are both Democrats and Republicans. The rest of that 30% have views that are likely consistent with of the smaller third parties. They could join forces with those parties to bolster their numbers. 2. It is unfortunate that Con has seen fit to post a source that s inaccessible to me or the reader, short of purchasing the book outright. He could have outlined Dr. Mann's points and evidence, but he did not do so. Obviously doing so in the final round will not help either, since I will not have the opportunity to analyze the argument and respond. ========= CONCLUSION ========= This debate has shown how the proposed system maximizes voter happiness, representativeness, and legislator attentiveness. It has further shown that polarization is not a concern. Finally, it shows that small parties will have the opportunity to receive at least some benefits, compared to the zero benefits they receive in the current system. Con has failed to provide any valid reason why this system is not superior to the current system. He has also failed to introduce any other system that might outperform he proposed system. In fact, he agrees that voter happiness and representativeness are important factors to our system of government. Despite this, he opposes a system that increases voter happiness and representativeness. I would like to close by thanking my opponent for a worthy debate.