Ohio's Redistricting Victory
There were two stories from last night's election results that were immediately spun as "wins" for Democrats and progressives: a ballot measure in Ohio concerning state legislative redistricting, and three Democrats winning state supreme court seats in Pennsylvania. But only the Pennsylvania one is really a partisan victory -- the Ohio measure is instead a victory for representative democracy itself (even if Democrats will be the ones to benefit from the change).
Redistricting is about as wonky a subject as can be imagined in American politics, and it only gets attention from serious partisans because they know it can affect their party's chances in overwhelming ways. Most people only have a vague idea of the concept of redistricting, although pretty much everyone knows the term "gerrymandering."
Redistricting is exactly what it sounds like -- redrawing the lines of legislative districts. On the national level, it happens once every ten years, right after the U.S. Census. Depending on the population shifts among the states, some states get more seats in the House of Representatives, and some get fewer. All states, however, get a chance to redraw the lines for all the House districts within their states (well, all states that have more than one member of the House, to be technically accurate -- after all, if there's only one district, it has to be the shape of the state itself). Also redrawn are state-level districts, for the state senate and the state assembly.
It's a wonkish subject, to be sure. But the results can be alarmingly tilted towards one party at the expense of the other, which is why it is a subject people should care about. Redistricting, to use the most obvious example, is why Democrats are not likely to take the House back until 2022, when the new districts are redrawn after the 2020 Census. Gerrymandering by Republicans has pretty much locked in a majority until then.
Which is why the victories in Ohio and Pennsylvania are so important. Ohio voted for President Obama, twice. So did Pennsylvania, by even bigger margins (Obama won the state by five points in 2012 and a whopping 11 points in 2008). However, the current makeup of the House seats from Ohio is 12 Republicans to four Democrats. In Pennsylvania, it is 13 Republicans to five Democrats. Even though both states voted Democratic in 2012 and 2008. That's the power of gerrymandering.
At the state level, the problem is even worse:
Take the example of the 2012 election. Democratic candidates for the Ohio House received over 55,000 more votes than the Republicans. Yet gerrymandered districts led the Republican Party to win a supermajority of 60 out of 99 seats.
When you look at Congressional districts, this distortion is even more extreme. Republicans won 75% of the seats after having received just 52% of the vote in 2012. They held onto 75% of the seats with just 57% percent of the vote in 2014.
There's an obvious answer to the problem, and that is to take the power of redistricting entirely away from the politicians. This has been slowly happening, in state after state, mostly through ballot measures. The practice was upheld in a very important Supreme Court decision last year, which opened the door for other states to join the growing movement to end (or at least lessen) all the rampant gerrymandering for political gain.
It's not that hard to draw fair districts. Computer programs can do so very easily. Keeping district lines simple is really just a matter of basic geometry (with a little cartography thrown in). I strongly support all such efforts, and have for quite some time. California, where I live, passed a redistricting reform which seems to be working out just fine. You'll note that California is a dark-blue Democratic state, which means the redistricting hanky-panky here used to benefit Democrats. Reform benefited Republicans, at least initially. That doesn't matter to me, because I support non-political redistricting on principle alone -- no matter which party stands to benefit from any particular reform effort.
The election results in both Ohio and Pennsylvania do not constitute true and complete reform, however. In Pennsylvania, the result will be indirect. The state supreme court gets to appoint the deciding vote on a five-person redistricting panel. With the court in Democratic control, that will give Democrats a clear advantage. This will, hopefully, rectify the imbalance in the state's House delegation to some degree or another. But it's not really reform, it's just the Democrats now getting to stack the deck instead of Republicans. So while the partisan part of me cheers, the non-partisan part is not very impressed.
In Ohio, the reform is real, but it is (so far) of a limited nature. The ballot initiative only dealt with state district lines, meaning the balance of power in the state legislature could be swiftly corrected. But instead of just rigging the process the other way, the districts will be drawn without regard to partisan gain -- meaning Democrats will probably initially pick up seats, but all districts may become more competitive for both parties. But, again, the reform only deals with the state legislature, and not the districts for the U.S. House of Representatives.
Still, the Ohio ballot measure's victory is a big step in the right direction. It shows the citizens are in favor of fairness over partisanship. Hopefully, in a future election, a successful ballot measure will apply the same system to the U.S. House district lines as well (hopefully, this will happen before 2022).
Redistricting reform shouldn't even be a partisan issue. It's a question of fairness, and competitiveness. Rather than picking "safe" districts, packed with one party's voters, districts should be drawn geographically, to keep regions together within compact district lines. However, since redistricting is always a partisan issue, in each state that attempts it the party in power will push back hard on any reform ideas.
This isn't anything new. The word "gerrymander" was coined in 1812, to describe a district the governor of Massachusetts had created (his name was Gerry, it looked like a salamander; hence the term) for partisan advantage. It's been a part of American politics since the very beginning, in other words. But "we've always done it that way" is not really a valid reason to continue a system that is patently unfair to one party or the other. California, Arizona (where the Supreme Court case arose), and over 10 other states have already reformed the process to varying degrees. Ohio will now join them, at least for the state-level legislative districts. This is good for democracy. Voters should pick their politicians, not the other way around.
If this movement continues to grow, it will disadvantage Democrats in some states, and Republicans in others. I don't care. Let the chips fall where they may. If, sooner or later, every state de-politicizes the process of drawing district lines, then the House of Representatives will get a lot closer to an accurate representation of the makeup of the American electorate. Gerrymandering will become a quaint term that only political historians even recognize. And that will be a victory for everyone.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I have to give TheStig credit for pointing this out to me. I might have missed it otherwise. Thanks!
-CW
If this movement continues to grow, it will disadvantage Democrats in some states, and Republicans in others. I don't care. Let the chips fall where they may.
Unfortunately, you are somewhat alone in this...
As we have clearly seen, especially in the case of big money in elections, the Left Wingery only wants redistricting when it benefits the Left..
For example.. What's your opinion on the court case which would change the Census to count only CITIZENS... IE VOTERS... and not people when determining voting districts and representatives??
Michale
"It's not that hard to draw fair districts. Computer programs can do so very easily. Keeping district lines simple is really just a matter of basic geometry (with a little cartography thrown in)."
The mathematical challenge is significant (to start, see Coastline Problem). I would rephrase your conclusion to "It's not that hard to draw fairer districts."
Wikipedia has good entry on Gerrymandering. Ultimately, the US Constitution sets limitations to equal representation. Politicians have had 200 + years to game the system.
"In Ohio, the reform is real, but it is (so far) of a limited nature." It is my understanding that Ohio limited reform to the State Legislature due to the Supreme Court case you link. In addition, Boehner had objections to reform at the national level(his district is a marvel of Gerrymandering) and threw his weight around. Given the magnitude of the victory for Issue 1, I think Ohio will revisit how it draws US Congressional Districts, but voters won't see the impact until 2020. Ohioans are well aware that the outcome in most districts is rigged, and a majority (Blue and Red) seem unhappy about it.
Ohioans are well aware that the outcome in most districts is rigged, and a majority (Blue and Red) seem unhappy about it.
To be more accurate, Red Ohioans are unhappy about it when it benefits BLUE Ohioans and versie vicie... :D
Michale
M-5
I'm sure there was some of that v&v effect, but the vote went just short of 3:1 for:against Prop 1. Most Ohio districts are rigged, and most voters don't seem happy with the quality of representation they get when there is no meaningful competition.
Interestingly enough, the anti-monopoly measure Two barely passed. Now, the little known Ohio Ballot Board gets to decide which monopolies are good and which are bad....which doesn't sound good to me. The Board wasn't created to do anything like this. Corruptutopia! I suspect a lot of folks will want a seat on that board.
Pot went down by a 2:1 margin, so Measure Two proved unnecessary.
Hey CW
The "why Democrats are not likely to take the House back until 2022, when the new districts are redrawn after the 2020 Census" suggestion seems to imply a good possibility... but the "likely" will only be possible if they win the elections that allow them to control the redistricting process after the 2020 census... and they blew those campaigns in 2010.
The establishment politicians also seem almost content with the status quo.
I haven't seen Obama use his bully pulpit to draw attention to the problem, nor noticed any efforts by the DNC.
Wingnuts resorting to cheating to "win" (gerrymandering, ballot shenanigans and voter id) has been a regular theme among activists and certain pundits, but you have to wonder what's going on when the "leaders" of the party choose to remain silent.
As you pointed out, this is about the basic fairness of our elections, and would seemingly deserve their attention.
A
It's funny to hear the Left Wingery whine and complain about "fairness" in elections and then brag about how they game the Electoral College to their benefit and how they are getting millions of illegals to vote...
Something about a pot and a kettle come to mind... :D
Michale
And now for a humorous interlude...
http://img.memecdn.com/awesome-prank_webm_3042619.gif
:D
Michale
TS,
I'm sure there was some of that v&v effect, but the vote went just short of 3:1 for:against Prop 1. Most Ohio districts are rigged, and most voters don't seem happy with the quality of representation they get when there is no meaningful competition.
I'll believe it when I hear a Lefty or a Righty complain about it when THEIR Party is benefiting.. :D
Howz that??? :D
Michale
TS,
Don't get me wrong.. I believe what you are saying.. Our own David has made the case for Ohio "rigging" quite effectively..
My point is that the Left (and the Right) only make the case when it's their own Party that is at the disadvantage...
When the Left makes the same case when it's ADVANTAGE to their own Party, THEN I'll believe it's a bi-partisan issue.....
Michale
Michale -
This is a total non-sequitur (note: I haven't even read the comments, above, to this article yet), but check out this WashPost article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/11/05/trump-starts-to-attack-carson/
Halfway down, pointing out Ben Carson is all over the map on his policy ideas, is the line:
"Got all that? It gets more unintelligible from there. Sorry, but this sounds like Fizbin, as if he is making it up as he goes along."
Cue Spock: "Ri-i-i-i-ght."
Heh.
-CW
That's awesome!!! :D
Makes me actually like Trump a little..
Because, if a man is a Trekker, he can't be ALL bad...
My only beef is that the reporter spelled it wrong..
Fizzbin...
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Fizzbin
:D
But that's a minor nitpick..
*ANYONE* that can integrate a Trek reference into a conversation deserves a nod... :D
Michale
Michale -
And a fairly obscure one, at that. The columnist (I can't bring myself to call her a "reporter") is actually a staunch conservative. She's one of those on the right who are horrified at the prospect of either Trump or Carson winning.
Yeah, I've seen many Trek references before, but I think this is the first Fizzbin one I've ever spotted. And used correctly, too -- it was a pretty good metaphor!
-CW
Speaking of off-off year elections..
This week's elections in Kentucky and Virginia reveal the Democratic Party's peril
Kentucky and Virginia have been treading opposite political trajectories for the past 20 years, but on Election Day 2015 they came together to deliver a clear warning that the Democratic Party is in a much weaker political position than most of its supporters realize. The Kentucky result, in which a reasonably popular Democratic attorney general was bested by a Tea Party favorite last seen getting crushed by Mitch McConnell in a primary, has garnered more attention. But it's Virginia that's the more profound sign of the party's rot.
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/5/9672706/kentucky-virginia-democrats-denial
Michale
Re #13...
OK My mistake.. I thought it was TRUMP that used the Trek reference but it was the er... 'reporter' (;D)...
My bust.....
Michale
"This week's elections in Kentucky and Virginia reveal the Democratic Party's peril"
I don't think that Bevin proves much. Like I said a while back, I thought that he could maybe ride the current Trump wave of "outsider" idiocy right into office even if Trump can't sustain it for another year. Allison Lundergan Grimes was easily re-elected and the Governor Beshear's son was elected AG.
McConnell said that Bevin is a pathological liar and an East Coast con man, but there he was working to get Bevin elected governor. It's easy to see why Terd Cruz doesn't trust Mitch.
I don't think that Bevin proves much.
I know you don't..
Kentucky isn't really the bellwether...
It's Virginia that really shows how much trouble the Democrat Party is in...
Michale
i think something similar should be done nationwide in every state. no matter which way the voting public leans, they're entitled to districts that are not gerrymandered in any way.
JL
I was flipping through the channels the other day and I came across Star Trek: The Next Generation. I wanted to see what episode it was so I hit the info button and it came up "No Data". I said "Oh...that episode".
hehehehehehehe
Now THAT was funny!!! :D Kudos..
I also posted this Trek reference as a question for Overtime on Bill Maher and would appreciate anyone that would help me out by "liking it", however it is that you do that.
Be happy to.. :D
Do you have a direct link?? Google was less than helpful..
Michale
Ahhhhh I'll check it out..
Such awesome humor deserves recognition.. :D
Michale
Michale,
Don't you have anything to say about Don's original post here?
I'm surprised by the non-response he has received on this site, generally speaking.
I did respond in this thread but the comment was lost and then I thought, as a Canadian, I should probably hold those thoughts until you and others of your fellow citizens here chimed in. But, I'm still, curiously, waiting ...
Don't you have anything to say about Don's original post here?
I'm surprised by the non-response he has received on this site, generally speaking.
As am I....
For myself, things have been really hectic around here business and personal wise, so I haven't had the time to really digest the link that Don mentions...
But any activities such as that are doomed to failure because the professional politicians have too much invested in keeping things the way they are right now..
That problem is compounded by the point I make in comments #10 and #11...
To whit, the Left only complains about it when it benefits the Right and versie vicie...
Political Independents (such as myself) will have to become a whole lot stronger as a Party before such a thing as Don proposes is even REMOTELY possible..
The funny thing is, is that if Independents and NPAs *WERE* to become strong enough to make something like that happen, it wouldn't be NEEDED... :D
Too many people on the Right and Left have too much vested interest into keeping the status quo...
It's a nice idea... But as long as people refer to political opponents as "enemies" or "terrorists" or "traitors" it will never happen in the political partisan climate of the here and now...
Michale
That's great, Michale ...
You think Don's idea is a good one but that it can't be achieved in the current political climate. And, if the political climate improves, then Don's plan won't be needed.
Speaking of climate ... :)
You think Don's idea is a good one but that it can't be achieved in the current political climate. And, if the political climate improves, then Don's plan won't be needed.
Ironic, iddn't it..
Speaking of climate ... :)
Oh don't get me started...
The Salem Witch Trials have begun...
Michale
Don,
Wow, doesn't that sound kind of desperate and pitiful?
Join the club.
That was a little joke. :)
Seriously, I think you have a very interesting site and nascent movement. I'm wondering if you have made contact with any other similar efforts because I'm thinking that the kind of change you are talking about needs a great number of ripples to build a current strong enough to break down the mighty wall of a corporate/media/political system sustained by big money, to make reference to a favourite Robert Kennedy quote.
While your site makes a good argument about what individual citizens can do and how they can do it, it has been my experience with projects like this that there needs to be people involved who can lend a certain credibility to the cause and who can encourage more like-minded people to participate.
In that vein, I'm wondering if you've had a chance to check out former Senator Gary Hart's blog, Matters of Principle - or his books! - as he often writes about the corrupting influences on the political system and what the Republic needs to do to prevent an irreversible turn from what the Founders envisioned for America.
Here is just one example of the kinds of pieces you'll find at his blog:
http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=1189
Don,
I view it like losing weight..
It's easier to lose weight if you see results, no matter how small, right away...
Without positive re-enforcement on a continuous and on-going basis, Joe and Jane Sixpack will just mutter to themselves, "why bother?"...
The will to make changes is simply not there...
I have made this argument here time and time again..
As long as the Left Wingery keeps rewarding bad people by putting them in office, said bad people have absolutely NO INCENTIVE to change their ways..
And the Right Wingery is the same way...
It would take a more powerful NPA Wingery to make the changes you seek...
And, as I mentioned above, if the NPA Wingery is powerful enough to make the changes, the changes wouldn't NEED to be made...
Personally, I would like to abolish Partys altogether...
The last thing this country needs is MORE division...
Michale
Don,
I can relate to how frustrating it can be to get people on board for such a worthy cause as yours, having been involved with Aboriginal rights in Canada as a non-Aboriginal Canadian.
As for Senator Hart, I don't know that he'll be the one to help get a movement like yours started but, he sure believes it to be an important enough issue to have devoted the vast majority of all of his writing towards drawing attention to it. So, I don't see why he wouldn't jump at the chance to at least give you some advice and encouragement.
Keep in mind that Senator Hart is a busy guy, you know, and can't always respond to participants on his site but he sure gives it the old college try!
Also, Matters of Principle is definitely NOT CW.com in that it can take days before your comment passes through moderation - mostly because the poor guy does all the moderating himself! (Wait, so does Chris!) But, Senator Hart apparently doesn't trust even his regular contributors enough to allow comments to pass through without moderation. Oh, and he's also a very formal individual, even going so far as to refer to me as Ms Miller. Ms Miller! Argh. Heh.