Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Cule
I think they call gerrymandering impossible and any system that has electoral districts gerrymandering.
And why is this system more corruptible than another? A computer gives you a number and that's the constituency you vote in. There's no point in limiting the voting facilities at a particular location since the voters could live anywhere. There's still a point in making voter registration difficult for particular classes of people but that would probably be handled remotely by computers anyway.
|
To be precise, its very difficult to detect vote tampering.
The exact mechanism for assigning the number will be something people want to manipulate. How are the numbers assigned? We must run analysis to ensure that an equal number of men and women are assigned to each group! Lets use the first two numbers instead of the last two! Is there a difference in how naturalized citizens are assigned numbers as opposed to born citizens? Packing, cracking, and redistributing are still very possible. And I suppose packing and cracking are one thing they could call their versions of gerrymandering.
The devil is always in the details.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2
Localism, Up To Eleven
|
This could work with large enough districts, but at that point you're dealing with a military alliance rather than a system of government.
My alternate take on this would be to restrict ownership to within districts and limit contracts by time. A company can only own land, factories, and goods within the borders of their district. You can set up a web of contracts to build an alliance, but the ability of people to walk away (short term contracts only) keeps that from becoming too stable. you probably need to nerf copyright law as well.