43 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Pretty sure he did not underperform in Hamilton County. Where did you get that? 

Sorry meant to say city of Cincinnati where he underperformed not necessarily the county. He  did better in Anderson and some other Republican areas of the county than democrats have in the past and did better in Warren county. But he did 16000 fewer votes in the city than the 2020 candidate. 

45 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Sorry meant to say city of Cincinnati where he underperformed not necessarily the county. He  did better in Anderson and some other Republican areas of the county than democrats have in the past and did better in Warren county. But he did 16000 fewer votes in the city than the 2020 candidate. 

 

But 2020 was a presidential year. Apples to oranges. How did he do percentage wise? How did he do compared to 2018?

5 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

But 2020 was a presidential year. Apples to oranges. How did he do percentage wise? How did he do compared to 2018?

2018 was a blue wave year with high dem turnout in the city. 
 

I don’t think you can get a pure apples to apples in the sense you are looking for. 

plus Chabot won big in Warren county in 2018 and Aftab won big in the city that year, so 2020 followed a similar trend when you look at city of Cincinnati only. I don’t think you draw conclusions from the lack of the city vote, it is more about Anderson becoming more blue and more interestingly, is Warren county becoming more purple ?

2 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

2018 was a blue wave year with high dem turnout in the city. 
 

I don’t think you can get a pure apples to apples in the sense you are looking for. 

plus Chabot won big in Warren county in 2018 and Aftab won big in the city that year, so 2020 followed a similar trend when you look at city of Cincinnati only. I don’t think you draw conclusions from the lack of the city vote, it is more about Anderson becoming more blue and more interestingly, is Warren county becoming more purple ?

 

Sure. I think Anderson and other Eastern burbs are becoming more blue/purple. I also think Warren is heading that way. I just don't think there's any data showing Landsman did worse in the city. 

6 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Sure. I think Anderson and other Eastern burbs are becoming more blue/purple. I also think Warren is heading that way. I just don't think there's any data showing Landsman did worse in the city. 

per wetterich , landsman was 16000 votes short in the city than candidates in prior elections 

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2022/11/09/analysis-greg-landsman-victory.html

22 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

per wetterich , landsman was 16000 votes short in the city than candidates in prior elections 

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2022/11/09/analysis-greg-landsman-victory.html

 

I see. Turnout we down in the city. It's not that Chabot got a higher percentage. I thought that's what you were saying. 

13 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I see. Turnout we down in the city. It's not that Chabot got a higher percentage. I thought that's what you were saying. 

Right, which makes the seat Even harder to flip during a presidential cycle unless Landsman’s suburban support collapses completely. Even if he goes back to 2018 levels in Warren county, it does not account for the increased votes coming from the city. It would take close to 75% of the Warren county vote to probably flip the seat

Ohio's General Assemly, Supreme Court and Governor now have the opportunity to run amok, and no one will stop them including Ohio's uneducated voters.

 

 

On 9/12/2022 at 10:11 AM, Luke_S said:

 

The court can say a law is unconstitutional or the application of a law is application of a law is unconstitutional; redistricting being the later case. The court has no enforcement mechanism in either case other than the authority granted by the other two branches respecting the decisions (or as you call them opinions) of the court. This erodes the very basic separation of powers of our government. 

 

Keep in mind that changing the Ohio Constitution is a matter of a referendum, and referenda need not be practical or reasonable.

 

Also, I'm not a lawyer but IIRC the Voting Rights Act supercedes any state redistricting laws.   While a "majority minority" district can be broken up, it's tough to do and pretty much guarantees a lawsuit.   Demographic patterns make it very tough for one to be below 70% Democratic.

Welcome to democracy demolition day

 

 

17 minutes ago, KJP said:

Welcome to democracy demolition day

 

 

 

More like checks and balances day.

 

The fact that the state Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in a referendum largely defeats the purpose of even having one.   Such referenda as the 2006 smoking ban or even this redistricting amendment need not consider implementability.    Things are often easier to say than they are to do.   Keep in mind that DeRolph could (and IMO probably should) be vacated by a simple majority vote.

3 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

More like checks and balances day.

 

The fact that the state Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in a referendum largely defeats the purpose of even having one.   Such referenda as the 2006 smoking ban or even this redistricting amendment need not consider implementability.    Things are often easier to say than they are to do.   Keep in mind that DeRolph could (and IMO probably should) be vacated by a simple majority vote.

 

Constitutional amendments are the check to our corrupt state legislature. Them making it harder for the majority to impose new rules is solely to keep them entrenched in power, nothing more.

 

Ohio GOP Expected to Keep Gerrymandered Voting Maps in 2023

 

New Ohio Statehouse and U.S. Congressional maps are due this year, just like they were last year. But political scientists in the state aren’t holding out hope that major changes are coming.

 

“It really is the ultimate political Groundhog Day without the redeeming learning that Bill Murray had,” said David Niven, political science associate professor with the University of Cincinnati.

 

In September 2021, the redrawing of voting districts that used to happen every 10 years began, in what became a two-year long battle between the elected officials who made up the Ohio Redistricting Commission and a slim majority of the Ohio Supreme Court.

 

After five attempts at Statehouse maps and two at Congressional maps, a federal court intervened to allow a set of an unconstitutional maps go forward for the 2022 election.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohio-gop-expected-to-keep-gerrymandered-voting-maps-in-2023-ocj1/

 

9 hours ago, ColDayMan said:

Ohio GOP Expected to Keep Gerrymandered Voting Maps in 2023

 

New Ohio Statehouse and U.S. Congressional maps are due this year, just like they were last year. But political scientists in the state aren’t holding out hope that major changes are coming.

 

“It really is the ultimate political Groundhog Day without the redeeming learning that Bill Murray had,” said David Niven, political science associate professor with the University of Cincinnati.

 

In September 2021, the redrawing of voting districts that used to happen every 10 years began, in what became a two-year long battle between the elected officials who made up the Ohio Redistricting Commission and a slim majority of the Ohio Supreme Court.

 

After five attempts at Statehouse maps and two at Congressional maps, a federal court intervened to allow a set of an unconstitutional maps go forward for the 2022 election.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohio-gop-expected-to-keep-gerrymandered-voting-maps-in-2023-ocj1/

 

 

State level "unconstitutional".   In a case like this, IIRC federal law prevails and the courts can intervene.

 

 

Given the Ohio Supreme Court elections, keeping the maps the same is a "least-worst" solution available to Ohio.  I just hope that the moderate House speaker means they approve the status-quo maps and don't make them worse.

Fingers crossed…

 

We should just have the minority party in every state draw the boundaries. Keep rules about breaking up counties/municipalities, and make sure it doesn't violate the VRA or any other thing, but every state should let the minority party draw the lines. It would probably lead to really competitive races in every state.

 

That might mean that Alabama always has Democrats drawing the lines, and New York always has Republicans drawing the lines, but it would probably be fairer than it is now where you can get power, and then rig the system to keep power.

9 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

We should just have the minority party in every state draw the boundaries. Keep rules about breaking up counties/municipalities, and make sure it doesn't violate the VRA or any other thing, but every state should let the minority party draw the lines. It would probably lead to really competitive races in every state.

 

That might mean that Alabama always has Democrats drawing the lines, and New York always has Republicans drawing the lines, but it would probably be fairer than it is now where you can get power, and then rig the system to keep power.

I hope that someone will be able to develop a computer program that is bipartisan enough to be adopted nationwide and parties accept the results before knowing them.  But with people's fear of technology, I doubt that would ever happen.

4 minutes ago, cle_guy90 said:

I hope that someone will be able to develop a computer program that is bipartisan enough to be adopted nationwide and parties accept the results before knowing them.  But with people's fear of technology, I doubt that would ever happen.

The computer system will be rigged anytime a map favors Dems, just like elections 🙄

13 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

We should just have the minority party in every state draw the boundaries. Keep rules about breaking up counties/municipalities, and make sure it doesn't violate the VRA or any other thing, but every state should let the minority party draw the lines. It would probably lead to really competitive races in every state.

 

That might mean that Alabama always has Democrats drawing the lines, and New York always has Republicans drawing the lines, but it would probably be fairer than it is now where you can get power, and then rig the system to keep power.

I don't hate this idea.   Im sure plenty could still go wrong, but it's better than sending the likes of Jim Jordan to Congress. 

14 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

We should just have the minority party in every state draw the boundaries. Keep rules about breaking up counties/municipalities, and make sure it doesn't violate the VRA or any other thing, but every state should let the minority party draw the lines. It would probably lead to really competitive races in every state.

 

That might mean that Alabama always has Democrats drawing the lines, and New York always has Republicans drawing the lines, but it would probably be fairer than it is now where you can get power, and then rig the system to keep power.

It is very much possible to pack voters of the party with more votes into fewer districts and give the minority party a winnable majority of districts. This means the minority party gets control of the legislature. That would be very undemocratic (small d).  That’s essentially what they have in the Wisconsin senate right now. This is not a workable proposal. 

 

For small d democracy, the party that wins the most votes has “earned” control, but the level of control should be proportional to their margin. That proportionality is where we’re really out of whack in Ohio. 

 

Independent redistricting commissions with defined rules to follow is a system that works. It would have worked here if our “commission” of elected officials had simply adopted the maps that the independent consultants they hired had created. Then they also would have had maps that complied with the Ohio Constitution. 

The problem with independent commissions is that they can theoretically be captured. That could be by one party, special interest group, or even organized crime. It might still be better than what we have now and there is probably ways to safeguard against this, but my preference would just be to define a limited algorithmic approach leaving few to no ways for representatives to put their weight on the scales. 

 

One example is the shortest splitline method. This may not be the best one, but it is easy to explain. See below video from CCP gray. 

 

3 hours ago, Cleburger said:

I don't hate this idea.   Im sure plenty could still go wrong, but it's better than sending the likes of Jim Jordan to Congress. 

You mean Gym “a law’s not going to change anything so let’s do nothing” Jordan isn’t our best and/or brightest??

2 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

It is very much possible to pack voters of the party with more votes into fewer districts and give the minority party a winnable majority of districts. This means the minority party gets control of the legislature. That would be very undemocratic (small d).  That’s essentially what they have in the Wisconsin senate right now. This is not a workable proposal. 

 

Oh, I'm suggesting the minority party in the state house/Senate should draw the lines, not registered voters.

 

Since the elected reps draw the boundaries currently in most states, just flip it so whichever party has fewer members in the state legislature draws the boundaries. 

 

This would prevent a party from consolidating power, because as soon as a party gains the competitive edge by gerrymandering the other party is given the keys to redistricting. If Wisconsin is 45%D and 42%R in registered voters (I have no idea the real numbers), but the state house is 64%R and 36%D, the next redistricting cycle is controlled by the Dems, and they make maps that give them control.

 

No one could maintain control of both the seats and the process, so they can't rig the system to maintain control. 

 

This idea will never happen, but it would be a much simpler method to a end the consolidation of power in a state, even if you aren't ending gerrymandering. Gerrymandering would only help a party until the get the majority.

Are we also upset about states where affairs are rigged in the other party's favor?  

45 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

Oh, I'm suggesting the minority party in the state house/Senate should draw the lines, not registered voters.

 

Since the elected reps draw the boundaries currently in most states, just flip it so whichever party has fewer members in the state legislature draws the boundaries. 

 

This would prevent a party from consolidating power, because as soon as a party gains the competitive edge by gerrymandering the other party is given the keys to redistricting. If Wisconsin is 45%D and 42%R in registered voters (I have no idea the real numbers), but the state house is 64%R and 36%D, the next redistricting cycle is controlled by the Dems, and they make maps that give them control.

 

No one could maintain control of both the seats and the process, so they can't rig the system to maintain control. 

 

This idea will never happen, but it would be a much simpler method to and end the consolidation of power in a state, even if you aren't ending gerrymandering. Gerrymandering would only help a party until the get the majority.

I knew what you meant regarding voters vs elected officials, but I wasn’t considering redistricting every single election cycle. I’d be concerned about the chaos of redistricting every cycle and the undemocratic-ness of a party winning an election and not being able to govern because they didn’t win a majority of seats. I think there are a bunch of better solutions than this. 

 

24 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

Are we also upset about states where affairs are rigged in the other party's favor?  

From a state legislature perspective, yes.  From a Congressional perspective. absolutely not. Democrats in Congress made good faith efforts to advance legislation that would have made the gerrymanders illegal for Federal House elections, which would have eliminated this problem in the House. Federal Republicans refused to even consider the legislation. It would be very stupid for D’s to not gerrymander Congressional seats in states where they control the process while R’s aggressively gerrymander states they control. One party is trying to fix this, the other is not. In the mean time, D’s have to play the game in order to mot put themselves in an artificial, self-created disadvantage. 

We are ready have the Constitutionally mandated gerrymander that is the Senate; we can’t afford having it in the House of Reps too.

 

Furthermore, I don’t particularly care about what is happening at a state level in other states - I’m focused on Ohio since this is where I live and what impacts me. Our state government is quite bad and I’m looking for solutions. 

I think the political realities dictate that any algorithm or any outside-the-box solution, no matter how simple or fair, is just never going to work without trying other things first. Michigan has shown that a solid independent commission can be done, if even just for this one cycle. That has to happen first, so the legislature is close to proportionate, before a more precise or useful measure can be implemented.

 

But I am biased because I think single-member districts by themselves are bad. We're never going to get good results with legislatures that only have single-member districts. Australia has had both forms of RCV for a century and it is still a duopoly. Ultimately, we need the states and Congress to move to a unicameral proportionate system of some kind, whether that be OLPR, MMP, or multi-member districts with STV.

Edit to add: legislatures are too small in the US. This exacerbates gerrymandering and inherently reduces proportionality. Increasing their size is going to be required at some point whether as a standalone reform or as part of a larger package. The Wyoming Rule and the cube root law are two common examples for Congress.

Edited February 2, 20232 yr by Dev

Quite a statement from a person who could have been part of the solution but instead chose to violate Ohio’s Constitution. 

 

^LOL (translating Politician to English), is he really saying, "How we do that, though, to make sure it is done in a way that preserves a GOP advantage, is a difficult challenge."😄

Edited February 16, 20232 yr by urb-a-saurus

Hard to not be skeptical. If our state legislature is proposing changes, it has to somehow be worse than the current system. 

IMO DeWine knows what's right and wrong but also is still going to play the game. I think the difference with him vs most of the Ohio GOP is he has a conscience which sets an upper limit on playing politics. For most Ohio Republicans that limit does not exist. They will push their advantage to no end and their only goal is complete domination over their opponents 

 

Edited February 17, 20232 yr by NW24HX

I don’t know anything more about this Fair Districts volunteer webinar, but it looks interesting:
 

March Fair Districts All Volunteer Huddle

Mar 8, 2023 06:00 PM

 

 

I cannot get away from the simple fact that in 1981, the Dems firmly and loudly opposed a similar proposal:

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/11/04/Ohio-voters-Tuesday-soundly-rejected-a-proposal-that-would/8427373698000/

3 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

I cannot get away from the simple fact that in 1981, the Dems firmly and loudly opposed a similar proposal:

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/11/04/Ohio-voters-Tuesday-soundly-rejected-a-proposal-that-would/8427373698000/

Dude - FORTY TWO years ago. That’s ancient history. We have massive problems in the state today and many are a direct result of the fact that far too many of our elected leaders have to get votes from far too few residents thanks to gerrymandering and party-based primaries. The current system caters to extremists. We have to react and adapt to the situation of today.

19 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Dude - FORTY TWO years ago. That’s ancient history. We have massive problems in the state today and many are a direct result of the fact that far too many of our elected leaders have to get votes from far too few residents thanks to gerrymandering and party-based primaries. The current system caters to extremists. We have to react and adapt to the situation of today.

 

Exact same circumstances, very similar proposal.  The difference is the parties flipped.   

9 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Exact same circumstances, very similar proposal.  The difference is the parties flipped.   

The other thing that is often overlooked by many of the partisans on this board is that back in 2009/2010 the Dems had the governor mansion, SOS, atty general, treasurer (pretty much every office but auditor), they also had one of the branches in the statehouse. The GOP came to them at the time to propose a fair redistricting plan so that it would offer the minority party a say in the redistricting process in 2010. The Dems at that time told the GOP to go screw themselves because they were reading the tea leaves that pointed to a Strickland re-election and gains at the statehouse. THey were betting on controlling the whole redistricting process and gerrymandering in their favor. Well, instead they got curb stomped in 2010 and the GOP was able to control the process. While normally, I would agree that the GOP should have shown mercy, in this case, the Dems got to reap what they sowed and they absolutely deserved what they got in 2010. 

31 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The GOP came to them at the time to propose a fair redistricting plan so that it would offer the minority party a say in the redistricting process in 2010. The Dems at that time told the GOP to go screw themselves because they were reading the tea leaves that pointed to a Strickland re-election and gains at the statehouse. THey were betting on controlling the whole redistricting process and gerrymandering in their favor.

Got a link to the actual offer?  I looked but can't find it.  But as I recall it was a short-term "fix" that wasn't as "fair" as the Dems thought it should be.

 

The point remains that a fairer system is needed.  Republicans should want this too because eventually the state will flip again.

8 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The other thing that is often overlooked by many of the partisans on this board is that back in 2009/2010 the Dems had the governor mansion, SOS, atty general, treasurer (pretty much every office but auditor), they also had one of the branches in the statehouse. The GOP came to them at the time to propose a fair redistricting plan so that it would offer the minority party a say in the redistricting process in 2010. The Dems at that time told the GOP to go screw themselves because they were reading the tea leaves that pointed to a Strickland re-election and gains at the statehouse. THey were betting on controlling the whole redistricting process and gerrymandering in their favor. Well, instead they got curb stomped in 2010 and the GOP was able to control the process. While normally, I would agree that the GOP should have shown mercy, in this case, the Dems got to reap what they sowed and they absolutely deserved what they got in 2010. 

 

From someone who turned 18 immediately following the 2010 elections, this is spiteful. I had no say in what went on at that time and I continue to have no say in the state government due to anti-democratic policies. 

 

18 hours ago, E Rocc said:

I cannot get away from the simple fact that in 1981, the Dems firmly and loudly opposed a similar proposal:

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/11/04/Ohio-voters-Tuesday-soundly-rejected-a-proposal-that-would/8427373698000/

 

Democrats were wrong to oppose anti-gerrymandering laws then. How does it make it okay for Republicans to oppose those same efforts now?

Edited March 6, 20232 yr by Luke_S

9 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

While normally, I would agree that the GOP should have shown mercy, in this case, the Dems got to reap what they sowed and they absolutely deserved what they got in 2010. 

I definitely understand the sentiment when you think about it as two opposing teams, but unfortunately the rest of us regular folk are the losers with this mentality between the parties.

Dems were wrong then. Repubs are wrong now. Everyone should support fixing it. Next question. 

1 hour ago, Enginerd said:

I definitely understand the sentiment when you think about it as two opposing teams, but unfortunately the rest of us regular folk are the losers with this mentality between the parties.

 

27 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

Dems were wrong then. Repubs are wrong now. Everyone should support fixing it. Next question. 

I agree with your point. I do think it needs fixed now as the Dems have suffered enough. But back in 2010, I do believe the Republicans were justified in their efforts to stack the deck the way they did since 1) The Dems turned down a reasonable offer when they had a chance to consolidate power and lost and 2) the greedy deserve to be punished for that.

 

Now it has been over 10 years since that occurred. Reasonable minds should meet and make things fair. 

9 hours ago, Foraker said:

Got a link to the actual offer?  I looked but can't find it.  But as I recall it was a short-term "fix" that wasn't as "fair" as the Dems thought it should be.

 

The point remains that a fairer system is needed.  Republicans should want this too because eventually the state will flip again.

There were a lot of articles out between 2010-2015 talking about this issue. I have not seen anything lately and I am not going to scour the archives to try and pull it up, but there were a lot of articles written on this topic. Many had pretty much acknowledged that the Dems were to blame for the mess that was created and that it could have been easily avoided if, when they held power, agreed to a reasonable plan. 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

There were a lot of articles out between 2010-2015 talking about this issue. I have not seen anything lately and I am not going to scour the archives to try and pull it up, but there were a lot of articles written on this topic. Many had pretty much acknowledged that the Dems were to blame for the mess that was created and that it could have been easily avoided if, when they held power, agreed to a reasonable plan. 

I doubt it.

1 minute ago, Foraker said:

I doubt it.

You can find it yourself, They are there. I am not going to waste 30 minutes trying to prove it to you. If you want to read the history going back to 2009-2016 range (when the initial amendment to change how redistricting works was passed) there is a lot of history on it. 

The only difference in your example would point out is 40 years ago the Democrats held majorities in the numbers of registered voters, as well as the number of votes received.  So the representation was at least proportional.  

 

Today the GOP uses the tactics to maintain it's minority rule.   Democrats still hold an advantage in registered voters and often receive more statewide votes, but the  districts ensure a healthy GOP majority.   

8 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

Democrats still hold an advantage in registered voters and often receive more statewide votes, but the  districts ensure a healthy GOP majority. 

That is not true. Dems may have an advantage in voter registration over Republicans in Ohio (but Independents have broken toward the GOP lately).   However, it is patently false to say that Democratic candidates receive more statewide votes. If that were the case you would have: Senators Sherrod Brown & Tim Ryan, Governor Nan Whaley, SOS as a Dem, Treasurer as a Dem, Atty Gen as a Dem, Auditor as a Dem, you would have Jennifer Brunner as Chief Justice and a Dem majority on the Supreme Court.  

 

If Dems received more statewide votes in Ohio, they may actually have won at least one statewide election in the last 3-4 cycles (Yes, I know SHerrod has won and they won a couple SC races but in general they are not performing well on statewide races)

The sad part is every ballot measure that passed are issues supported by Dems, hated by GOP. This just shows that if you gave someone a scantron and asked them to check for/against on issues they’d align with todays US dem party by heavy margins even in Ohio. Goes to show the media hype and chaos plays into GOP hands and them suppressing vote and gerrymandering keeps them relevant.

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

You can find it yourself, They are there. I am not going to waste 30 minutes trying to prove it to you. If you want to read the history going back to 2009-2016 range (when the initial amendment to change how redistricting works was passed) there is a lot of history on it. 

I already noted that I was unable to find it.  Maybe it doesn't exist.

41 minutes ago, Foraker said:

I already noted that I was unable to find it.  Maybe it doesn't exist.

There are articles that exist, they likely have been archived or something. If you care to spend the time to find them again you are welcome to do so. 

15 hours ago, Foraker said:

Got a link to the actual offer?  I looked but can't find it.  But as I recall it was a short-term "fix" that wasn't as "fair" as the Dems thought it should be.

4 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

You can find it yourself, They are there. I am not going to waste 30 minutes trying to prove it to you. If you want to read the history going back to 2009-2016 range (when the initial amendment to change how redistricting works was passed) there is a lot of history on it. 

24 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

There are articles that exist, they likely have been archived or something. If you care to spend the time to find them again you are welcome to do so. 

You've been very helpful.  But not very convincing.