Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure

[greenforest32]

If Democrats don't want Republicans to have a lock on the House for the next 10 years, they'd pass automatic voter registration in states they control and redistricting commission initiatives in Michigan, Ohio, and Florida: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/States_with_initiative_or_referendum



Talk about being incompetent...

[greenforest32]

Who's backing gerrymandering? I've always favored stripping state legislatures of the ability to gerrymander by federal law but that's obviously not going to happen right now and unilaterally disarming means those who play dirty will win.

The fact is Republicans have more seats gerrymandered in OH/TX/FL/NC/PA/etc than Democrats do in Illinois/Maryland/etc and Republicans certainly are not going to back redistricting commissions after the one they did in California and its associated results because it would mean they lose seats.

The only commissions adopted recently were done by ballot measure and as you can see from the map above, not all states allow for initiatives and even the ones that do would probably need a constitutional initiative to avoid the state legislature tampering/overturning it.

[greenforest32]

The problem is there is no way to do this nationwide.

Ask yourself which party in Congress would be more opposed to passing a federal law mandating independent commissions in every state.

The status quo does not benefit the parties 50:50 and when working on a state-by-state basis, it should be done in order of removing the most unfair which means starting with the Republican gerrymanders.

[greenforest32]

You can't avoid considering the political concerns here. There's 4 options:

1. Federally mandate independent redistricting in every state at the same time
2. Implement redistricting commissions done as soon as possible in any state with no order
3. Implement redistricting commissions in a specific order
4. Leave everything as it is

The reality is option 2 is not the most fair (option 1 is) when you consider the status quo and that not every state has the opportunity to set up commissions but because no one is going to do option 1, we're going to have to rely on option 2/3 and the courts until it becomes so lopsided that everyone demands option 1. That's probably the only way for the Electoral College to die as well.

And the parties suck, I'd like to pass proportional representation alongside the federal redistricting law to allow multiple parties but that's even less likely than independent commissions in every state.

This country's electoral system is terrible.

[greenforest32]

We know option 3 is going to turn into option 2 once both parties get involved but, again, there are 25 states with no initiative system and unless the federal government gets involved through a federal mandate, those 25 states are unlikely to get commissions. More likely in those states will be a federal court imposed map due to lawsuits or deadlines not being met because of split  legislative control/gubernatorial vetos. Which means the problem persists as the court decisions can be partisan too.

Even if we got commissions in Illinois, Maryland, Ohio, Michigan, and Florida, Democrats would probably have a net gain and we get 5 more states without legislative redistricting which is why I was complaining about them being incompetent by not pushing for those commissions in states where it's an option.

[greenforest32]

Yeah but the states that did have those commissions without a ballot measure (New Jersey, Iowa) were set up a long time ago. It was not a recent development and it's unlikely other states will voluntarily give up their control. Plus the problem with relying on the courts is they have refused to hear most gerrymanders. The North Carolina, Florida, and Illinois maps passed through the court system.

The best solution is a federal independent redistricting mandate.

[greenforest32]

I was directing my comments to the situation that exists today and while tampering with the electoral system to benefit both parties has been a bipartisan effort (look how Democrats/Republicans shut out third parties via FPTP/Top-two runoffs/high filing fees or signature requirements/etc), Republicans have certainly loved pushing measures that making voting and governing harder than necessary (supermajority requirements, unlimited campaign spending, restrictive voting time/registration periods, etc).

Neither of them is innocent, but one is worse than the other. All the more reason to strip them of the ability to tamper with it.

[greenforest32]

Yeah, one low-turnout midterm election where 50%+ of registered voters didn't vote and a further 20-30% of the electorate wasn't even registered to vote means the party that wins that election should be able to draw maps that keep them in power for the next 10 years? It would be just as wrong if Democrats did that and I would support independent redistricting in that flipped scenario.

The parties should not be able to draw their own seats. It just reinforces our terrible two-party system. I don't like Democrats much at the end of the day but if there's one party that puts 'party before country' it's the Republicans. Just look at them in the Senate.

[greenforest32]

You can't avoid considering the political concerns here. There's 4 options:

1. Federally mandate independent redistricting in every state at the same time
2. Implement redistricting commissions done as soon as possible in any state with no order
3. Implement redistricting commissions in a specific order
4. Leave everything as it is

The reality is option 2 is not the most fair (option 1 is) when you consider the status quo and that not every state has the opportunity to set up commissions but because no one is going to do option 1, we're going to have to rely on option 2/3 and the courts until it becomes so lopsided that everyone demands option 1. That's probably the only way for the Electoral College to die as well.

And the parties suck, I'd like to pass proportional representation alongside the federal redistricting law to allow multiple parties but that's even less likely than independent commissions in every state.

This country's electoral system is terrible.

I'm a bit puzzled by the part I've bolded. Most studies I have read would argue that moves to a true proportional system tend to strengthen partisanship over individual representation. Italy is sometimes cited as an example where proportional voting leads to voters ignoring the candidates in favor of the label after the name. Is that the direction you prefer?

On the other hand your goal seems to be multiple parties, which can be accomplished with FPTP systems such as in Canada. The need to form majority coalitions in the legislature tends to drive two of the parties to major positions in any system. The question is how to best provide for alternative views.

As far as I understand it most countries that use proportional representation still have districts via a hybrid system of districts for geographical representation + an at-large distribution of the popular vote for the remaining number of seats so that part of my comment was referring to that lower level of districts and my disdain for the U.S. Democratic/Republican parties.

And whether the system is focused on the individual representative or the party, I don't care too much. I'm more concerned about the issues and FPTP's disproportionate results between the popular vote and the seat distribution gets in the way.

A 10-15% swing (15% more seats than votes) is not uncommon in FPTP, add in some gerrymandering and it can be even worse.

Canada with FPTP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2011#Vote_and_seat_summaries

[greenforest32]

The swing is a predictable result of the statistics making selections based on districts. When a population is divided into districts and one selects one or more representatives from that district it is more probable that a representative from a larger segment of the population will be selected. Voting reflects the majority(s) within a district so those are enhanced.

This impacts the redistricting process as well. You are correct that gerrymandering can force the sing more than would happen naturally, but even without gerrymandering the swing will occur. For example in an evenly divided state like OH it is easy to implement rules for partisan balance to create a set of districts that reflects the political balance of that state as a whole. However in a state like MA it is nearly impossible to implement similar rules to get a split of districts that reflect the overall political leaning of the state simply due to the statistics of the majority.

This is also a problem in many states with minority populations large enough to support the creation of a district under the VRA. In some cases the population is too statistically spread to create a viable district to elect a minority candidate of choice except through extreme gerrymandering. Proportional representation for parties doesn't solve this either, since using a larger area (like the whole state) violates the VRA. The use of large multi-member districts in the south to elect a bunch of white Dems despite a significant black population was a reason the VRA was passed.

Yeah the swing is to be expected because of the nature of district selections but is the sum of these district elections as fair or legitimate as an at-large election? The non-majority vote within those geographic districts is not represented which is not the case with a proportional system where, barring a usually 1-5% vote floor of no representation to avoid clutter or something, xx% of the vote = xx% of the seats.

There are systems out there that correct for the aforementioned swing via a proportional allocation of additional seats that have no geography which is something the U.S and Canadian systems do not have with or without gerrymandering. I think it's one of the many electoral reforms we should adopt in addition to barring legislators from drawing their own districts and it could be done as an update to the VRA if we have to remove any existing legal conflicts.

Quite frankly I wonder why even have geographic representation at all? Why not just have a single at-large election for every seat? Would legislators really ignore the needs of an area just because they don't individually geographically represent it? I suppose it would be confusing as to which representative you're supposed to write to but is that it?

As a (timely) example, a suburban city here in the area is currently debating a ballot initiative to switch the city council from an at-large model for the councilors to a divided geographic district model and the main complaint from proponents for changing it seems to be that all of the current councilors live in the same area. I could see how that bothers people but honestly if I lived there I would probably vote no on the change.

[greenforest32]

Well even if it was a big deal on levels above city/county, that's a purely 100% proportional system which as far as I know is not used by any state or country?

The hybrid model most proportional representation (PR) countries use of local districts below an-large distribution to correct for the FPTP swing eliminates the problems of the non-represented minority vote in geographic districts and the overlooked geographic areas in pure PR systems.

Aren't there examples of pure FPTP extremes? Like the Chicago City Council where all 50 members are from the same party?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_City_Council

[greenforest32]

Well there are other examples like the Massachusetts Senate (~90% Democrat) or the Hawaii Senate (95% D with 24D-1R). A 60% popular vote might be realistic in some cases but what good comes from an artificial 90% seat distribution?

A swing from 3/5 or 2/3 to 3/4 or 4/5 won't bother people as much as a swing from 2/5 to 50%+ because the first didn't change the outcome of the election (ignoring supermajority requirements such as amending constitutions) but I don't see why we even need to tolerate this disproportionate swing when there are electoral systems out there that can eliminate it.

FPTP is low on the bar for fair representation. I don't think any country should adopt it for its legislature(s).

[greenforest32]

I find it hilarious that you can conveniently pretend that you know me far less then you actually do in order to get in a ridiculous jab such as that.

In case you didn't notice, greenforest wasn't the only one that I criticized in this thread.

I believe his point was that you considered adopting automatic voter registration, something that only guarantees more eligible voters will participate in elections, a Democratic equivalent to Republicans being able to keep a gerrymander that nets them at least 2-4 seats they would otherwise not have. It implies less people voting is the partisan Republican goal, which does seem to be the case nowadays.

Have you thought about cumulative voting as a way to provide some proportionality while maintaining local districts? IL used it quite successfully from 1870 to 1980.

I'm open to any system that gets as close to being proportional as possible without having downsides that outweigh the upsides but I think the reality is we're not going to be able to talk about real electoral reform if we can't even get independent redistricting to remove blatant gerrymanders. I honestly doubt the U.S. will structurally change its electoral system anytime in my lifetime. We might see some advances in automating voter registration or improving the vote window with early/postal voting and maybe undoing the Electoral College, but with the speed we're going at, I doubt FPTP really gets touched.

[greenforest32]

If you're talking to me, I think it's interesting. I'm certainly no expert on electoral systems but I think the point of this thread is that the U.S. isn't going to touch anything like that given that the two parties benefit from the status quo and voters are unlikely to ditch FPTP on their own.

It looks like the only thing we might see in 2012 is a referendum on Maryland's maps and maybe Ohio getting this commission on the ballot to redraw maps for 2014 and on which is not going to solve the problem nationally. Absent a Supreme Court ruling mandating changes to the redistricting process or electoral system, I don't think we're going to see much change.

[greenforest32]

Just to be clear when I said "It implies less people voting is the partisan Republican goal, which does seem to be the case nowadays.", I wasn't referring to Marokai's comment making that implication, but to your first post (the third post in the thread) directed at me and krazen somehow equally advocating for changes that benefit our party at the expense of the public or the integrity of the system.

The changes I called for (automatic voter registration and redistricting commissions in 3 states) would only increase the legitimacy of the system from where it is now whereas Krazen is hoping the OH commission fails and Republicans keep the existing 12R-4D gerrymander.

[greenforest32]

I stated that opposition to commissions in one state based on what is happening to one's party in other states, was sacrificing the integrity of the system for the benefit of one's party.  I never said anything about any other proposals you had made. My problem was with this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which was followed by a list that didn't include Illinois. It came off as a partisan approach to a problem caused by such partisanship, with the aim of benefiting a party primarily and not benefiting the system. Therefore, you and Krazen appeared to be different sides of the same disturbing coin, which is what motivated my first post in this thread.

You stated opposition as if there's a realistic alternative (50 commissions in all states at the same time or the two parties agreeing to eliminating legislative control of redistricting) to the deeply partisan-at-the-expense-of-the-system status quo where Republicans do have a gerrymandered lock on the House (and many state legislatures) for 10 years, especially if the Ohio commission fails.

I mentioned that because it's the reality with the sum of all the partisan redistrictings and while taking out two to three only Republican gerrymanders (and leaving Illinois) in favor of redistricting commissions might seem unfair in the context of just those three states, it's quite fair in the context of all 50 states combined where there are more Republican gerrymanders than Democratic gerrymanders and many of the states with the worst Republican gerrymanders are "safe" from the threat of independent redistricting.

Unfortunately redistricting is a dirty game at this point and unilaterally disarming is not going to increase the legitimacy of the system, it's just going to allow the people who do want to take advantage of things at the expense of the system or the people to do it.

[greenforest32]

That is why most reforms, if functional, have a good chance at success once on the ballot.

Most the recent reform has come from initiatives. It's nice to be optimistic of non-initiative states reforming but it won't be anytime this decade which leaves us with the status quo of a Republican house for 10 years, something Democrats didn't have after 2000 even with both parties' gerrymanders back then. It is something a lot of people are going to have issue with.

Anyway, it wouldn't be such a problem if Republicans in Congress were actually interested in governing somewhat responsibly and solving national problems. The way things are going, the best case scenario looks like a decade of the 2011-2012 congressional session. It's going to be such a waste.