Hsinchu County has unequal districts too!

This is unbelievable. The CEC’s plan for Hsinchu County is terrible. Remember, Hsinchu County just increased from one to two seats, so they are not even maintaining an old district that has grown unbalanced. They are designing a brand-new uneven districting plan. The CEC doesn’t care at all about equal populations. This is inexcusable.


The gory details. Hsinchu County has 13 towns. The current plan is as follows:


District 1 竹北市 181419 312702
  新豐鄉 56800 (+17.9%)
  湖口鄉 77500  
District 2 Other 10 towns 217712 217712


Could I do significantly better without violating the sanctity of township district lines, geographical contiguity, traffic patterns, and the rest? Yes, it took me about 5 seconds to figure this out.

District 1 竹北市 181419 236461
  新豐鄉 56800 (-10.8%)
District 2 Other 10 towns 217712 293953
  湖口鄉 77500 (+10.8%)

Please note that most of the growth in Hsinchu County is concentrated in 竹北市, so the current plan will get worse and worse over the next decade. My revised plan would get more and more equal over the next decade.


This one isn’t hard. It’s supposed to be the Central Election Commission’s job to do common sense policy like this.

What the hell is wrong here?


3 Responses to “Hsinchu County has unequal districts too!”

  1. Austin Wang Says:

    By adding 湖口 in District I, DPP is…less likely to win in both District 1 and 2


  2. Frank Says:

    I think this is a compromise between equality and traditional political landscape. Traditionally Hsinchu county consists of two political (and geological too) regions 溪南 and 溪北 (separated by 鳳山溪)溪北 consists of 竹北、新豐、湖口、關西、新埔。關西 and 新埔 were unbundled in this mapping I guess becuase they are geologically more close to 溪南. But if we take out 新豐 too then I think there will definitely be local politicians crying foul.

    And of course, CEC shouldn’t take this into consideration but you never know.

    • frozengarlic Says:

      Thanks for the added context. I would be all for keeping the traditional regions together if they could do so without violating equal populations. It would have been great to keep all the traditional Hakka areas in Miaoli together as well. Unfortunately, Hakka areas make up 2/3 of Miaoli, so they had to put some in together with the (traditionally Min-nan) coast. This should be a similar case. Population is first, maintaining whole administrative districts (townships) is second, and all of the traditional groupings are the third priority. Or at least that’s the way I understand the law and the way it was implemented last time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: