This is what a lot of people miss. Gerrymandering doesn't only affect the number of Ds and Rs, it affects the views of those Ds and Rs, and how centrist or fringe they are. Gerrymandering gets you wackjobs who don't reflect the actual mainstream views of the population.

 

Yes, which is why the state Republican Party is amenable to taking the bite out of gerrymandering: it's a blessing for the establishment. But making both parties more moderate is not a silver bullet, either. It reinforces the ol' boys club and helps to maximize the number of issues which both parties agree on -- reducing the marketplace of ideas and increasing disenfranchisement for those who disagree with the monothink. Maine is experimenting with instant runoff voting (though it's being fought by the establishment). This would be a step away from duopoly and toward a more representative delegation.

You are correct - but personally I would take the set of problems you describe over the extremists gerrymandering has given us (such as Jim Jordan) any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Instant runoff or any other innovative voting methods could hopefully be implemented in the future.

I think you might be correct. The only reason I'm not sure is that gerrymandering only affects some offices (those with changing districts), whereas first-past-the-post voting affects all (president, governor, senate, etc). There's also the issue that a major function of state boundaries in the modern day is to gerrymander in favor of rural interests.

In the loosely derived words of George Patton, don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

Anything actually loosely derived from the words of George Patton will probably get a user banned here for excessive profanity.

There's also the issue that a major function of state boundaries in the modern day is to gerrymander in favor of rural interests.

 

I don't think that's just a modern day function, I'd say it was one of the main reasons our legislative branch was designed the way it was.

There's also the issue that a major function of state boundaries in the modern day is to gerrymander in favor of rural interests.

 

I don't think that's just a modern day function, I'd say it was one of the main reasons our legislative branch was designed the way it was.

 

Yes, but there's more to it than that.

 

First, it's probably more accurate to say the legislative branch was designed to protect southern interests. Protecting slavery was an important part of the design, but that was not part of the rural north's interests. Rural interests and southern interests were and are related, but aren't the same.

 

Second, the original states' boundaries were not created with that idea in mind (important in the context of my quote you're replying to). And certainly states introduced after the 13 colonies didn't have to be divided the way they were. Those lines weren't drawn in some grand scheme to protect rural interests.

They were, however, drawn for a certain amount of administrative convenience in an era before modern telecommunications and transportation.  Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakotas could theoretically be all one state (landwise I'm not even sure that would hit the size of Alaska).  Today.  But that would have been administratively nearly impossible when physically reaching a state capital was much more important for certain official business.  Even as things stand, for the few tasks that still do require reaching a state capital, those states are enormous in ways that people who haven't traveled them can barely appreciate.  The entire country of Spain is only 33% larger than the state of Montana alone.

^Similar to how Ohio can definitely start merging some rural townships and counties together (and this probably will start to happen in the next few decades).

I don't expect counties to merge. Townships - maybe.

I don't expect counties to merge. Townships - maybe.

 

True.  Although there is no real need for 88 counties anymore it will be nearly impossible to merge them.

But it's the perfect number to substitute counties for piano keys.

Possibly, but there's going to be less urgency for that because in Ohio, counties just don't do all that much.  Some other states actually run school districts at the county level, for example.  We don't.  The state court system still goes county by county but I think that's actually going to be a source of resistance to consolidation--you could consoldiate largely-rural Richland, Ashland, and Wayne Counties into a fairly people in Wayne and Richland Counties, for example, would probably prefer not to have to drive to Ashland for court business.  Maybe you'd devolve more power to muni courts in that scenario so that you'd actually have the Mansfield or Wooster muni courts doing more business.  Still definitely unlikely to create momentum in that direction.  (The "if it ain't broke" rule would come into play.)

 

As for townships, quite honestly, I'm not even completely sure what townships in Ohio do and don't do.  I should know more about this.  But there are no township courts.  There are no township sewer systems (I think).  I guess I see township fire departments.  Even back on topic for this thread, I don't think townships are directly relevant to state legislative districts, are they?

I was actually doing a thought experiment re: townships the other day with a friend. Are their any practical benefits to monster townships like West Chester remaining unincorporated beyond the township taxation structure? Not that it would ever get signed into law and there's probably all sorts of other legal issues with this idea, but would there be any good reason to force incorporation of a township if it reaches a certain population or population density?

^^Yeah, and sorry for taking it off topic, but thinking about it again, having counties merge is a long shot. I do think townships will start to merge as I have heard township trustees, clerks, etc, for small townships discuss it before and say things like "in twenty years there won't be all these townships anymore."

 

The really rural ones don't do much, it's basically roads. A lot of them just pay the county engineer to do the work anyways so they basically exist to get their share of the taxes and road dollars distributed by the state and the county and then just turn around and pay it back to the county. There is local control in terms of what roads get done, which is probably the justification, but some of these counties are so small there's no reason that couldn't happen directly at the county level. A lot of times the township staff don't know what they're doing. Not always because they're stupid but just because it's a side gig, they only see certain issues arise once in a decade, etc.

 

^West Chester specifically pays the Butler County Sheriff's Office to do all their policing, they probably have Greater Cincinnati Water Works for utilities, so they have no need for incorporation. It's a pretty anti-tax area so they've basically just done things the way they have so they don't have to pay income taxes.

^Sorry for continuing to take this off topic, but as a follow-up, why don't any of the surrounding cities try and annex parts of West Chester? I know the threat of annexation by Dayton is why Kettering, Riverside and Trotwood all ended up incorporating, but no one seems to "want" West Chester, unless townships have some legal method of staving off annexation that I'm unaware of, or Fairfield or Hamilton just don't have the means to take on parts of the township.

Those lines weren't drawn in some grand scheme to protect rural interests.

 

They kinda were though.  The national priority back then was to claim as much territory as possible, before someone else did.  Frontier states were favored to encourage their settlement.  Then as the old frontier fills up, the advantage fades from there and passes to the new frontier.

I was actually doing a thought experiment re: townships the other day with a friend. Are their any practical benefits to monster townships like West Chester remaining unincorporated beyond the township taxation structure? Not that it would ever get signed into law and there's probably all sorts of other legal issues with this idea, but would there be any good reason to force incorporation of a township if it reaches a certain population or population density?

 

The reason suburban Ohioans like to live in townships is because townships can't have an income tax like cities can. I think this is absurd. Once you have a certain level of population, the local government needs to provide basic services to them, and should incorporate as a city, or be annexed by an adjacent city.

 

Michigan takes it a step further in the wrong direction. They allow townships to incorporate as a "charter township" which prevents them from being annexed by nearby cities.

There's also the issue that a major function of state boundaries in the modern day is to gerrymander in favor of rural interests.

 

I don't think that's just a modern day function, I'd say it was one of the main reasons our legislative branch was designed the way it was.

 

Yes, but there's more to it than that.

 

First, it's probably more accurate to say the legislative branch was designed to protect southern interests. Protecting slavery was an important part of the design, but that was not part of the rural north's interests. Rural interests and southern interests were and are related, but aren't the same.

 

Second, the original states' boundaries were not created with that idea in mind (important in the context of my quote you're replying to). And certainly states introduced after the 13 colonies didn't have to be divided the way they were. Those lines weren't drawn in some grand scheme to protect rural interests.

 

The reason that North Dakota and South Dakota were admitted as two separate states was to "gerrymander" the Dakota Territory, and make sure it had 4 Senators instead of 2.

Seems like the major dailies in Ohio are in favor of Issue 1, with the only major opposition coming from the ACLU who says it doesn't go far enough. 

 

http://www.acluohio.org/archives/blog-posts/our-position-on-state-issue-1-faq

 

 

Seems like the major dailies in Ohio are in favor of Issue 1, with the only major opposition coming from the ACLU who says it doesn't go far enough. 

 

http://www.acluohio.org/archives/blog-posts/our-position-on-state-issue-1-faq

 

They say they aren’t “opposing” even though they kind of are.

It seems nearly certain that Issue 1 will pass. Here's a refresher on the new redistricting process that it will put in place:

 

1. [*]To start off, the Ohio legislature would be tasked with drawing a new map. But they could no longer pass it with a simple majority vote. They’d need three-fifths support and the support of at least half the members of both major parties, in each chamber, as well as the governor’s signature.[*]If there’s no deal, the congressional map-drawing would be punted over to the seven-member Ohio commission that exists to handle the state legislature’s redistricting. Here, again, bipartisanship would be necessary — at least two minority-party members would have to agree to approve a new map.[*]If the commission fails, the job would be tossed back to the Ohio legislature. In that case, the threshold for success would fall, but bipartisanship would still be necessary to pass a map — at least one-third of each party’s members would have to vote for it, to pass it and send it for the governor’s signature.[*]Finally, if all these efforts fail, the legislature would be permitted to pass a map with simple majority support. But the catch is that this new map would only last four years, rather than the usual 10. And again, the governor’s signature would be required.

Issue 1 did indeed pass, by a 75/25 majority. 

 

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/05/08/ohio-issue-1-gerrymandering/580679002/

I wouldn't be opposed to the Fair Districts Ohio group submitting petitions for this November and to get a better plan in place instead of what Issue 1 did. This is still an improvement, though.

When you have something with zero opposition, it is pretty safe it will pass

There's a reason why Vox labeled Ohio's plan "moderate gerrymandering reform." It's better than the current system but still leaves plenty of room for political manipulation. Especially if the same party controls both the executive and legislative branches.

It was a nice start, but I'd rather have some non-partisan group drawing the maps in an ideal world.  Then again, I don't know if there is such thing as a truly "non-partisan group." 

 

I'm curious if any of the current gerrymandering cases at SCOTUS will have an impact on this if/when they rule on it.

Anytime you have people involved in the process you will have bias creep through. There is no way to truly remove the people from the process. Even designing a computer program is going to have some level of bias

Anytime you have people involved in the process you will have bias creep through. There is no way to truly remove the people from the process. Even designing a computer program is going to have some level of bias

 

^ Truth.  I think the idea of reform that was just passed is good in theory because it requires more people form both parties to approve.  The best practice should be to minimize how much bias ends up in the district boundaries.

I'm so fed up with it (on both sides) I'm ready for some sort of parliamentarian style representation.  Ok Ohio you have 16 representatives.  Democrats got 60% of the vote so they get 10 reps, GOP gets 6.  Now go to Congress and fight for what you believe in. 

^ proportional representation.  this allows the best chance for third parties as well.

Ok Ohio you have 16 representatives.  Democrats got 60% of the vote so they get 10 reps, GOP gets 6. 

 

That's actually not how it typically plays out.  A rough math estimate in your scenario (D = 60% of statewide vote) would be for Democrats to win 70% of the seats/districts, or 11 reps of the 16. 

 

Podcast on it - https://art19.com/shows/today-explained/episodes/54e8a8ad-8d89-4ef6-a84a-fadc53035b49

 

Another one - https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/whos-gerry-and-why-he-so-bad-drawing-maps/

 

If you're a big time math nerd, the efficiency gap can be found here - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.10812.pdf and here - https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1946&context=public_law_and_legal_theory

 

Some more math - https://www.wired.com/story/the-math-behind-gerrymandering-and-wasted-votes/

 

More - https://www.wired.com/story/what-i-learned-at-gerrymandering-summer-camp/

 

I don't know about recent Ohio elections, but I know a common example used is Pennsylvania in 2012, where Democrats won 51% of the popular House vote but only won 5 out of the 18 House seats - less than 1/3.  The Wisconsin state map is another where in 2012 and 2014 Republicans won ~50% or less of the popular vote, but took more than 60% of the seats.

I'm so fed up with it (on both sides) I'm ready for some sort of parliamentarian style representation.  Ok Ohio you have 16 representatives.  Democrats got 60% of the vote so they get 10 reps, GOP gets 6.  Now go to Congress and fight for what you believe in. 

 

I would love a system like this, but it would be illegal per current federal law. Currently each district is only allowed to have 1 representative. I think if would be great if Ohio could have 4 congressional districts and the top 4 vote getters in each district became our US reps. This would strike a nice balance between representing the unique needs of each geographic region of the state, making gerrymandering irrelevant, and making sure that minority political parties still have a voice.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/aclu-ohio-partisan-gerrymandering-lawsuit

 

ACLU Sues Ohio Over U.S. Congressional Map

I will have to donate some money to the ACLU.  Does anyone know if they sell your personal info to 3rd party marketing affiliates?  I would fear the worst from them...

I will have to donate some money to the ACLU.  Does anyone know if they sell your personal info to 3rd party marketing affiliates?  I would fear the worst from them...

 

I was a member for about 4 years, but that was in the early aughts and things could be different now.  Back then, yes, I did get mail (hard copy mail ... those were the days ...) from third parties that would be generally identified as ideological fellow travelers of the ACLU, and I can only assume based on the timing of when I started receiving those mailings that it was related to my signing up for an ACLU membership.  Americans United for Separation of Church and State was a big one I remember.  There were a few others.  I don't remember it being a huge burden, though, just a little bit more junk mail to recycle.  These days it would probably be mostly more easily ignored e-mails, though I'm guessing a greater volume simply because e-mail is so cheap to send.

I gave a small donation to them on November 10, 2016, and they sent a ton of "DONT LET TRUMP DESTROY OUR DEMOCRACY... GIVE US MONEY" mail through 2017. Seems to have slowed down now. Don't recall any third party stuff.

Looks like the proposal to split California into 3 states is an attempt to gain Republican senators and break up the 55 Democrat electoral college votes. 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44471277

^ I support splitting California if you also #MergeTheDakotas and admit Puerto Rico as a state.

I gave a small donation to them on November 10, 2016, and they sent a ton of "DONT LET TRUMP DESTROY OUR DEMOCRACY... GIVE US MONEY" mail through 2017. Seems to have slowed down now. Don't recall any third party stuff.

 

I meant to donate to their foundation (501©3 vs 501©4 - the latter is not tax deductible) and I think it went to the 501©4.  Either way, I got a little sticker and a member card and a pamphlet asking me to subscribe to stay up to date, yada yada yada.

Looks like the proposal to split California into 3 states is an attempt to gain Republican senators and break up the 55 Democrat electoral college votes. 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44471277

 

That could seriously backfire.  I wouldn't consider it outside the realm of possibility that the Democrats would pick up 5 or even 6 of the 6 Senate seats between the three Californias.

Looks like the proposal to split California into 3 states is an attempt to gain Republican senators and break up the 55 Democrat electoral college votes. 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44471277

 

That could seriously backfire.  I wouldn't consider it outside the realm of possibility that the Democrats would pick up 5 or even 6 of the 6 Senate seats between the three Californias.

 

Yea, if you click through to the actual study you see that Hillary would've won all three Californias. Northern California and California would be the most Democratic states in the country. Southern California would be a battleground state but still lean Dem (and getting more Democratic every day).

 

It won't backfire if the states are Coastal California, Inland Primercamaro and San Diego M.Z.

 

Boom, instant 4 more R Senators

It won't backfire if the states are Coastal California, Inland Primercamaro and San Diego M.Z.

 

Boom, instant 4 more R Senators

 

That's not what's being proposed though. They're proposing Northern California centered around the Bay Area, California centered around LA, and Southern California centered around San Diego.

Splitting off San Bernadino and Orange Counties into a completely separate state from L.A. County seems like it would have some major economic consequences.

Topic: Ohio Congressional Redistricting / Gerrymandering

It won't backfire if the states are Coastal California, Inland Primercamaro and San Diego M.Z.

 

Boom, instant 4 more R Senators

 

It would be a wash. You add 2 states. One dark blue the other one purple. Assuming the purple state is 2 GOP Senators, there is a zero net gain.

 

It is actually good for both parties. The GOP can win because it puts in play a portion of CA electoral votes and they get the chance to secure additional house and senate seats in the state.

 

The Dems can gain by getting 2 additional senate seats and grow their house advantage

bfwissel makes a good point.  Plus we even actually already have a thread lurking around for dividing California:

 

https://www.urbanohio.com/forum/index.php/topic,29425.0.html

https://www.cleveland.com/expo/news/erry-2018/11/0f32e762411182/ohio-democrats-outpolled-repub.html

 

Quote

Ohio Democrats outpolled Republicans in Statehouse races, but will remain in the deep minority

 

2 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

https://www.cleveland.com/expo/news/erry-2018/11/0f32e762411182/ohio-democrats-outpolled-repub.html

 

 

 

It was interesting to see the “good” and “bad” maps that were produced following the new rules.

 

I would be ecstatic if something like the best case scenario map was produced. Only time will tell I guess.