The first black president gets most of the black votes in a country that openly oppressed blacks for centuries?  OMG!  They're all racist!

 

And the president who has been the most openly hostile to religious believers somehow has trouble securing the votes of religious believers?  OMG!  They're all bigots!

Every time I see the Stars & Bars, I immeidately think of pilgrims. 

To each their own.  I think of Lynyrd Skynyrd.

Gridlock likely in a house divided

 

This article from the Enquirer basically says nothing will probably get done in the next two years because Congress and the President has not changed. Pretty pessimistic outlook, but probably correct. Here is a real gem of a quote from the chairman of the Butler County GOP in the article:

 

David Kern, a Liberty Township resident and chairman of the Butler County GOP, said it’s better for Congress to do nothing than to do the wrong thing, and raising taxes would be very much the wrong thing.

 

“The Democrats’ concept of working together has no compromise – it’s a ‘take it or leave it’ attitude,” Kern said. “Thank God the Republicans held firm, and I hope they continue to hold firm. (A tax increase) will do further harm to the economy.”

 

Summary: The Democrats won't compromise on ANYTHING! Thank goodness the Republicans won't compromise on anything!

Ohio statewide voted

President 50% 48% Democrat won

Senate 50% 45%  Democrat won

 

 

but at the congressional race level the OHIO Delegation will be 12 Republicans and 4 Democrats

 

 

Why does this surprise you at all?  Deomcrats live in concentrated areas, basically around cities.  State reps are split regionally by precinct.  If you look at a county by county map, most of the counties are Republican.

 

Not to mention, it is possible to vote for Brown as Senator and a Republican for your state rep.

Why does this surprise you at all?  Deomcrats live in concentrated areas, basically around cities.  State reps are split regionally by precinct.  If you look at a county by county map, most of the counties are Republican.

 

Under this theory, representation is apportioned by livestock. 

 

Under the one man / one vote principle, 50k people living in a city should have just as many representatives as 50k people spread across 4 counties.

Why does this surprise you at all?  Deomcrats live in concentrated areas, basically around cities.  State reps are split regionally by precinct.  If you look at a county by county map, most of the counties are Republican.

 

Under this theory, representation is apportioned by livestock. 

 

Under the one man / one vote principle, 50k people living in a city should have just as many representatives as 50k people spread across 4 counties.

 

I think what he is getting at is that you’d have to gerrymander districts to get them to be anywhere near an even political split.  Of course districts in urban Cleveland are going to be 70% democrat, whereas suburban districts may be split near 50/50, while rural districts are likely 55-60% republican on average.  Every district has the same population, it’s just that democrats live densely with other democrats in cities, and there is no republican counter to that.  It makes perfect sense, geographically, that Ohio would end up with a few heavily democratic districts, and a plethora of slightly republican leaning districts.

It only makes sense that way if gerrymandered.  When the population is split about 50/50 politically, the representation should also be.  Only by drawing the lines to exacting specifications could there be such a divergence as we currently have. 

 

Population density does not change each person's right to representation.  Has nothing to do with it. 

I think what he is getting at is that you’d have to gerrymander districts to get them to be anywhere near an even political split.  Of course districts in urban Cleveland are going to be 70% democrat, whereas suburban districts may be split near 50/50, while rural districts are likely 55-60% republican on average.  Every district has the same population, it’s just that democrats live densely with other democrats in cities, and there is no republican counter to that.  It makes perfect sense, geographically, that Ohio would end up with a few heavily democratic districts, and a plethora of slightly republican leaning districts.

 

Ram,

 

You're using a slightly different definition of gerrymandering there, and it's worth exploring because it was one of the fatal flaws of Issue 2.

 

Basically, any system that results in Ohio being anything other than 8-8 is unrepresentative, as I noted above, given the way we're split.

 

Gerrymandering for maximum partisan advantage is how the GOP gets as 12-4 edge with the current lines; they surrender those 4 safe-Democratic districts and then divide the rest of the state into 12 districts that don't have to deal with the major, concentrated Democratic population centers.

 

One could also district for 8 "safe" districts for each side, just by basically doing what the GOP has done for its 12 districts for 8 districts, and then doing the same for the Democrats and giving them 8 safe districts.  Thus, in a 50-50 state, you'd have about 8 districts drawn to go 67-33 Republican and 8 districts drawn to go 67-33 Democrat.

 

You could also try to draw 16 districts that were each as close to 50-50 as possible, which could produce wild, wild swings because a small wave could carry the same party to victory in lots of those districts, i.e., a lot of 52-48 wins for a single party, and a 12-4 split basically like we have now (or a 15-1 or 16-0 split, even).

 

The problem with Issue 2 was that it tried to force all of the above results simultaneously.  It directed the Board to try to keep contiguous, recognized communities together.  That would result in many safe districts for each party, because keeping Dublin together will not get you a 50-50 split.  However, Issue 2 also proposed to mandate that the commission try to achieve close partisan balance in each district.  Mathematically, the only way to do that is to break up the large, heavily-Democratic cities and blend them into districts containing the more conservative suburbs and exurbs.  In other words, the mandate for partisan balance and the mandate for community preservation were fundamentally at odds, because our communities are seldom balanced 50-50.

It only makes sense that way if gerrymandered.  When the population is split about 50/50 politically, the representation should also be.  Only by drawing the lines to exacting specifications could there be such a divergence as we currently have. 

 

Population density does not change each person's right to representation.  Has nothing to do with it. 

 

Population density has everything to do with the likelyhood of being represented by someone who shares your view.

 

It's not that different than the electoral college where 48% of people in Ohio voted for Romney, but 100% of the votes went to Obama.

 

Republicans won a lot of tightly contested districts where a lot of Democrats will be represented by Republicans.  You can argue its gerrymandering, but historically its been leaning Republican despite the state being pretty split.

Just some numbers I thought were interesting about the state of Ohio politics and the direction it's going.

 

On a county basis, Democrats lost an average of 1% support vs 2008 while Republicans gained and average of 3%.  D 42% to R 56% was the margin this election. 

 

Here are the top 10 counties that moved the furthest Right 2008-2012.

 

1. Monroe County: 16%  This county was won by Obama in 2008, but Romney took it this time.

2. Harrison County: 12%

3. Tuscarawas County: 12%  Obama in 2008, Romney in 2012.

4. Van Wert County: 12%

5. Mercer County: 11% The epicter for Republicans in Ohio, Romney won by 55%, the highest margin of any county.

6. Auglaize County: 10%

7. Homles County: 10%

8. Putnam County: 10%

9. Noble County: 9% 

10. Shelby County: 9%

 

Hmm, mostly coal counties or Amish Country. Do the Amish vote?

^ What if there are electronic voting machines?

I think what he is getting at is that youd have to gerrymander districts to get them to be anywhere near an even political split.  Of course districts in urban Cleveland are going to be 70% democrat, whereas suburban districts may be split near 50/50, while rural districts are likely 55-60% republican on average.  Every district has the same population, its just that democrats live densely with other democrats in cities, and there is no republican counter to that.  It makes perfect sense, geographically, that Ohio would end up with a few heavily democratic districts, and a plethora of slightly republican leaning districts.

 

Basically, any system that results in Ohio being anything other than 8-8 is unrepresentative, as I noted above, given the way we're split.

 

 

The only way to do that is to not have actual districts.  Critics argue district re-drawing cost the Democrats 2 spots.  If so, that just takes it from 12-4 to 10-6. 

The only way to do that is to not have actual districts. 

 

Not clear how you arrived at that conclusion.  And if that were true, why would the Republican party and its surrogates be so intent on keeping political balance away from the redistricting process?  Doesn't add up.

If the idea of the House of Representatives is to be the majority-rules balance to the Senate's minority-protecting chamber, getting rid of districts really might not be a bad idea at all. I don't know what the best alternative would be, but some system for proportional representation would seem to capture that character more than the current system. For example, a parliament-style system where one votes for a party rather than individuals. Then the party gets a number of seats proportional to the vote received.

 

Having such a system might also be a good way to get some viable third parties in the door of mainstream American politics, without overhauling the entire political system.

The national popular vote wasn't quite 50/50 and neither was Ohio's.  Electorally, the difference is substantially wider.  And that's WITH a non-quantifiable bigotry edge against the winner.  Just imagine without.  I'm perfectly fine calling the Democrats a regional fringe party, so long as we recognize that their region is where most of the people live and their fringe is the majority of the electorate.

We had the advantage of of the best political scientist in history as our candidate.  His messaging and organization was like nothing America has ever seen.

 

We won't have that in 2014.  We will be playing against billions of dollars of unrestricted corporate money fed into the Republican campaigns.

***now this***

Americans Actually Voted For A Democratic House

 

Although a small number of ballots remain to be counted, as of this writing, votes for a Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives outweigh votes for Republican candidates. Based on ThinkProgress’ review of all ballots counted so far, 53,952,240 votes were cast for a Democratic candidate for the House and only 53,402,643 were cast for a Republican — meaning that Democratic votes exceed Republican votes by more than half a million.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/07/1159631/americans-voted-for-a-democratic-house-gerrymandering-the-supreme-court-gave-them-speaker-boehner/?mobile=nc

I believe the best solution to ending the Gerrymandering in Ohio is to establish a "run-off" primary for the House of Representatives. The top two vote-getters in the primary for each district will run against eachother, whether that's two Democrats, two Republicans, two Independents, or some combination. This gives Democrats a voice in District 1 in Hamilton County and it gives Republicans a vote in District 11. This way moderates can actually be elected to a gerrymandered district, even if the count is still 12-4 technically.

I live on the west side of Cleveland and my representative is from Toledo? How does that make any sense?

 

Oh yeah let cram all those libs in Lakewood, and the union autoworkers together in one district.

Of course the Dems held onto the house in the 80s by Gerrymandering even after the political winds moved right.

 

 

Man, that was weird. Ohio was pretty much all Democrats including the governor in the '80s. Of course, here in Seabus we had a long string of Republican mayors to offset things. I can't picture the city of Columbus having a Republican mayor today.

I live on the west side of Cleveland and my representative is from Toledo? How does that make any sense?

 

And not too far to your west----Elyria & Norwalk are represented by some guy from the Dayton area.  My mother was not too happy when they sliced Erie County in half (for that snake-y liberal lakeside district LOL) and she was moved out of Kaptur's district and into Jim Jordan's.  Doesn't make much sense to me.

The only way to do that is to not have actual districts. 

 

Not clear how you arrived at that conclusion.  And if that were true, why would the Republican party and its surrogates be so intent on keeping political balance away from the redistricting process?  Doesn't add up.

 

I think you get hung up on the idea that margin of vitory doesn't matter.  Elections are "all or nothing" propositions.  Whether a district is split 90/10 or 51/49, the representation all goes to the winner.

 

So, to make it simple, let's say Ohio has a population of 100 with 10 districts of 10 people each.  Among the 100 people living in Ohio, 52 are Democrats and 48 are Republicans.  Here is a breakdown of how the districts voted:

 

1 - 8 D, 2 R

2 - 8 D, 2 R

3 - 8 D, 2 R

4 - 6 R, 4 D

5 - 6 R, 4 D

6 - 6 R, 4 D

7 - 6 R, 4 D

8 - 6 R, 4 D

9 - 6 R, 4 D

10 - 6 R, 4 D

 

That would result in representation of 7 Republicans and 3 Democrats even though there are more Democrats in the state than Republicans.  And while this is overly simplistic, it's not that far off if you figure districts 1-3 are the 3 C's and the remaining districts are the rest of the state.

 

The point is, mathmatically it's not unreasonable to see how you could get an unbalanced result especially if there is a concentration of people in one area rather than evenly split throughout the state.  And the fact is, urban areas of Ohio - especially Cuyahoga County - is disproportionately Democrat.

 

Now, certainly the bias in drawing district lines should be removed but Issue 2 missed the mark.  It tried to do too much all at once making it overly complicated for people to understand.  So if people don't understand it, they won't vote for it.

Now, certainly the bias in drawing district lines should be removed but Issue 2 missed the mark.  It tried to do too much all at once making it overly complicated for people to understand.  So if people don't understand it, they won't vote for it.

 

^ and v... Strongly agree.

Now, certainly the bias in drawing district lines should be removed but Issue 2 missed the mark.  It tried to do too much all at once making it overly complicated for people to understand.  So if people don't understand it, they won't vote for it.

SOS (and POS) Jon Husted made the verbiage on the ballot excessively long in order to make voters not like Issue 2.  Hence it failed.

Now, certainly the bias in drawing district lines should be removed but Issue 2 missed the mark.  It tried to do too much all at once making it overly complicated for people to understand.  So if people don't understand it, they won't vote for it.

SOS (and POS) Jon Husted made the verbiage on the ballot excessively long in order to make voters not like Issue 2.  Hence it failed.

 

Boreas, it was Voters First Ohio--the group supporting the amendment--that filed a lawsuit seeking to make the description longer.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/09/ohio_supreme_court_says_ballot.html

 

They won that lawsuit.

Wrong-O.

That article from September 12 predates the writing of the verbiage that we saw on the ballot on November 6.

--

 

But Democrats said using language from the full proposal -- especially to describe how the commission is appointed -- was unnecessary and confusing.

***

Ann Henkener, of the League of Women Voters of Ohio and Voters First, said the new language is not helpful to voters.  "They don't have time to stand there for 10 minutes in the voting booth to try to figure out what the ballot language means," she said.

 

Henkener said there isn't much time for another court challenge. Ballots must be ready for military and overseas voters by Sept. 22.  "They technically did the very minimum that the court said needed to be done. I think they followed the letter of the court's opinion. They did not follow the spirit of the court's opinion," Henkener said.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/09/ohio_ballot_board_approves_new.html

Ballot language is meant to be a summary; that was a novel and an off-spec absurdity.  More shenanigans from Husted.

Yes, and I'm sure you'd have preferred ballot language along the lines of "Vote yes to make gerrymandering unconstitutional!"

 

Next time, reformers can hopefully learn from this and draft a proposal that can be summarized more succinctly without running afoul of state law.

What?  The "summary" drafted by Husted's staff ran afoul of state law.  Please see state law.

 

BTW, interesting position taken by the OSBA on Issue 2.  Another case of an orgainzation taking people's money and using it to make statements with which the donors disagree.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/print-edition/2012/09/07/opposition-by-state-bar-garners.html?page=all

 

"Please see state law" ... one of the most brazen ducks I've ever witnessed.

 

The new, longer language was the language that complied with state law.  The old, shorter language was what VFO challenged successfully, only to have it become a case study in being careful what you wish for.  VFO has no one to blame but themselves.  As I said, next time, they can try writing a less convoluted and internally contradictory proposal, and I might even support it.

Have you?  I wrote my note about Ohio ballot language standards.

 

Cutting and pasting the text of a statute or amendment makes ballot language meaningless.  It certainly does not constitute a summary by any available definition.  All Husted needed to do was play games until press time.  Didn't matter what ridiculous iteration we were on then, as long as we were on one.

 

EDIT:  Having now re-read that note, I can elaborate...

 

The same standards, or “terms and conditions,” apply to ballot language for any purpose, whether statute or amendment.  Most importantly, “(t)he ballot language shall properly identify the substance of the proposal to be voted upon.”  Note that the actual ballot language is different from the three-hundred word “explanation” favoring or opposing an issue that may also be posted.  Original jurisdiction in ballot language cases goes to the Ohio Supreme Court, and the Court may only invalidate language with an effect “such as to mislead, deceive, or defraud the voters.”

 

Thus, Husted's first iteration of the ballot language (the short one) was seen by our 6-1 Republican Supreme Court as an attempt "to mislead, deceive, or defraud the voters."  That's how we got to the point of needing another version close to press time.  It would appear that Mr. Husted overcompensated, lest the Supreme Court find his actions to be fraudulent a second time. 

 

ORC 3505.06(E) states that "[a] condensed text that will properly describe the question, issue, or an amendment proposed by other than the general assembly shall be used as prepared and certified by the secretary of state for state-wide questions or issues or by the board for local questions or issues."  I cannot see how Issue 2's final ballot language (the long one) was in any way a "condensed text" as required by statute.

 

However, the same statute also allows the entire text of the proposal itself to be included on the ballot.  I'm being generous by saying it's allowed, because the actual wording is that the ballot "need not contain" it.  But I'm fairly certain that's not what Husted did either, and the statue does not appear to provide him with a third option.

Husted did what any scurrilous Republican Secretary of State would do: he ran out the clock.  Husted pulled the same trick on the detail of who is responsible for filling out provisional ballots.  He issued an edict on the Friday before the election.

 

Blackwell pulled the same dirty tricks.  Republican election officials are contemptuous of the American voters.  Our elections are run worse than Venezuela's elections.

Did VFO actually submit their own proposed text at any point?

Blackwell would issue byzantine webs of conflicting orders, just to keep you on your toes.  Or something.  And this was during his own gubernatorial campaign, when you might think he'd want blacks to vote.  Or not.  It was a time of great confusion.

 

I don't know if VFO submitted anything for this, since the ballot language is supposed to be done by an honest SOS.  But they probably put a decent (albeit favorable) summary on their own petitions. 

No, it is the SOS' responsibility to write the summary.

I'm very disappointed about Issue 2, but I realized it had no chance when I saw that it took up a page and a half on the ballot.  That don't fly.  If not for gerrymandering the Republicans are a regional fringe party. 

 

A satisfying theory, I'm sure, but in order to be able to gerrymander for federal races, you've got to be able to win at the state level.  The Ohio Apportionment Board is always composed of one Republican chosen by the General Assembly, one Democrat chosen by the General Assembly, the governor, the secretary of state, and the state auditor.  In other words, whoever wins two out of the three elected positions on that list, since the automatic Republican and Democratic representative balance each other out.

 

There's no gerrymandering in statewide elections.  You either win or lose the entire state.  You can't say that the GOP would be a regional fringe party without gerrymandering when they're winning the un-gerrymandered elections as well.

 

I get it you are a lawyer.

 

you were right about the issue being too long on the ballot, I give you that.

 

what you are saying has no bearing on the truth, which is to take poltiics out of redistricting.

 

28% of ohioans are registered independent, how does a system that rewards either party at the expense of the other help Ohio or the country. 

 

Great article in the plain dealer about the Results of Redistricting

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/11/in_evenly_split_ohio_redistric.html

 

Ohio Republicans have made the redistricting process work to their advantage in recent years after gaining full control of the process in both 2000 and 2010. Despite voting patterns that show a fairly even division between the parties, Republicans have secured a greater number of the congressional seats. Here is a comparison of the votes following the four most recent redrawings of the congressional maps.

 

So while you continue to pontificate of the legaleze of the debate the will of the people is being obstruted, for political gain.

 

48% of ohio voters voted for a democrat canidate for US House of Represeantives.

 

yet 25% of house seats are democrats.

 

right is right and wrong is wrong. 

 

Maybe a bunch of Democrats need to switch to Republican, get appointed to key positions including on redistricting panels, make changes, and then switch back to Democrat.

 

Better idea: ban political parties because groupthink sucks.

Every time I see the shape of District 1, I want to throw things. Any reasonable and fair way of drawing districts would yield a blue district in SWO.

Every time I see the shape of District 1, I want to throw things. Any reasonable and fair way of drawing districts would yield a blue district in SWO.

 

There is way to do this.  basically mixing in the rural districts with the urban districts.

 

I can forsee a new and improved issue 2 on the ballot next year, the Outragouesneess of republican gerrymandering, will garnder more attention and more money in the future.

If all of Cincinnati were contained in the same district, the district would likely be Democratic. If all of Hamilton County were in the same district, it would almost definitely be Democratic. The way District 1 and District 2 split the city is ridiculous, and obviously done just to preclude a Democratic district. The silly jog from western HamCo to Warren County is completely absurd. And then there's that little tail thrown in for good measure (off the jogging portion), which I really don't know what that's all about.

I can forsee a new and improved issue 2 on the ballot next year, the Outragouesneess of republican gerrymandering, will garnder more attention and more money in the future.

 

They need to keep throwing this thing on the ballot until it passes.  I have zero confidence in either party, but particular the Republicans because they stand to lose so much, to get it right.

 

On another note, I am a bit concerned about the implications of the Voter Rights' Act.  It's my vague understanding that the Act actually drives some of this gerrymandering because the VRA requires a certain number of a minority-majority House districts in states with large percentages of minorities...or something along those lines. 

And then there's that little tail thrown in for good measure (off the jogging portion), which I really don't know what that's all about.

 

That is to put Indian Hill and Montgomery into the 1st district. I guess they didn't want to be included in the 2nd district. 

 

The Plain Dealer has the district maps layered on Google maps. http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2011/12/ohio_congressional_district_ma.html

Did district 11 really vote 100% democrat? How is that possible?

Did district 11 really vote 100% democrat? How is that possible?

 

Marcia Fudge ran unopposed.

I can forsee a new and improved issue 2 on the ballot next year, the Outragouesneess of republican gerrymandering, will garnder more attention and more money in the future.

 

They need to keep throwing this thing on the ballot until it passes.  I have zero confidence in either party, but particular the Republicans because they stand to lose so much, to get it right.

 

On another note, I am a bit concerned about the implications of the Voter Rights' Act.  It's my vague understanding that the Act actually drives some of this gerrymandering because the VRA requires a certain number of a minority-majority House districts in states with large percentages of minorities...or something along those lines.

 

that would create one minority majority district. 

 

the thing is , it doesn't have to be 90-100 percent black nor 100 percent democratic to meet this objective.

 

you could blend this district in with Geauqa county and Still have a minority majority district.

On another note, I am a bit concerned about the implications of the Voter Rights' Act.  It's my vague understanding that the Act actually drives some of this gerrymandering because the VRA requires a certain number of a minority-majority House districts in states with large percentages of minorities...or something along those lines.

 

That was what a lot of people on both sides of the aisle thought, too, actually, but the Supreme Court held that the Voting Rights Act actually does not require racial gerrymandering to create majority-minority districts.  That case wasn't decided until 1996, though, so it was a long time after the VRA:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Vera

Hopefully Ohio can follow the lead of Arizona and institute a redistricting commission. We can, and should, learn from other states to end gerrymandering. There was a poorly written amendment in 2013 (I believe) that would have created almost impossible requirements for an independent board in Ohio.

 

Supreme Court upholds creation of Arizona redistricting proposal

 

The Arizona commission has five members, with two chosen by Republican lawmakers and two by Democratic lawmakers. The final member is chosen by the other four. Republican lawmakers have complained that the commission’s latest efforts favored Democrats.

 

The Republican-led State Legislature sued, saying the voters did not have the power to strip elected lawmakers of their power to draw district lines. They pointed to a provision of the federal Constitution that says, “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”

 

A divided three-judge panel of the Federal District Court in Arizona ruled in favor of the commission, saying the Constitution’s reference to the “legislature” included ballot initiatives like the 2000 measure.

 

“The elections clause does not prohibit a state from vesting the power to conduct congressional redistricting elsewhere within its legislative powers,” Judge G. Murray Snow wrote for the majority.

No Ohio politicians will work to make this happen, and these sorts of "boring" issues don't get passed by voters. Most likely, it will only happen here if someone sues the state, like how the League of Women Voters sued the state of Florida to get some of the unfairly drawn districts changed.

No Ohio politicians will work to make this happen, and these sorts of "boring" issues don't get passed by voters. Most likely, it will only happen here if someone sues the state, like how the League of Women Voters sued the state of Florida to get some of the unfairly drawn districts changed.

 

The Ohio GOP and black Democrats (backed by the Civil Rights Act) pretty much run the process at this point.  That last part pretty much dooms any lawsuit that can make a difference.

Florida:

 

Republicans in the legislature claimed that that district was only drawn that way to make it a majority-minority district, to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act, as the state Senate president testified. However, the Senate GOP's lead redistricting expert cast doubt on this claim when he testified that putting more African Americans in the district was "not a necessity."

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/9/8922811/florida-gerrymandering-supreme-court