Redstate

In a polarized nation, why on earth is it considered "fair" to have a bunch of moderate-leaning districts?

At any rate, I think one thing you are missing is the VRA -- there will necessarily be at least one ridiculously strong minority-majority Dem Cleveland district, which can't be easily made up elsewhere in the state.

Also, what do you think is the effect on Kaptur?

I think this is all terribly interesting, but I guess nobody else does, haha.

You're right about the majority-black district, and I had a little trouble working around it when I made my map. But it's compact and as long as it's "balanced" by a heavy Republican district, no points off as far as the amendment is concerned.

Kaptur will survive--Lucas County is 450k and went 60% for Kerry. It would have to be pretty ridiculously sliced up to not succeed in offsetting whatever Republican counties they put in with Toledo.

As for the basic question of fairness, I don't really know why the competitiveness requirement was included. I'm pro-redistricting reform in general, Ohio, California, Texas, Georgia. Partisan redistricting is anti-democratic and hurts America. But it doesn't seem like you need to create competition where it shouldn't necessarily exist.

Recommended.

I guess I'm not certain why this is the case.  If the problem is that it entrenches incumbents, then fine, I'm all for term limits.  But slapping a bunch of partisan Dems in a district with partisan Repubs to elect a moderate that doesn't represent either of them doesn't strike me as any more democratic, or as the right answer (or more likely a partisan Dem/Rep that only represents 51% of the district, like the old CA-22).  Similarly, putting a bunch of suburban voters in with working class voters in the name of "compactness" doesn't strike me as a good way to do things either.

Partisan redistricting has been with us almost literally since the founding; the recent gross district lines have more to do with one-person-one-vote than with an increase in partisan districting efforts.  It may well be that it is the worst way to do things, though, except for all the other ones.

If we want competitiveness, we first need to cut out all the free speech restrictions, that tend to favor incumbents.

Repeal all limits on campaign financing,  Go ahead and leave the disclosure requirements, though, if you want, but get rid of the fundraising restrictions that favor someone who can spend a full 2 years as an incumbent doing it.

No one wants a 300-mile-long district with 100k voters in central Cleveland, 300k in the suburbs, and 200k in rural farmland and small towns. But the strategy of spreading R's and D's so that in several districts one party has just enough advantage to consistently win elections doesn't represent the people either. Tell me why Franklin County, which voted 55% for Kerry, should be represented by three conservative Republicans. I'm not saying this as a partisan, and I'll gladly admit that what the Democrats did in Georgia is even worse. I also think the Dems' vitriol with DeLay and the Texas redistricting is misplaced--he was right. The districts didn't represent what Texans really wanted. And that's what needs to be fixed, no matter where it is or who's doing it.

on your objections, but I think they are somewhat intrinsic to the nature of representative democracy.  A better idea might be some sort of proportional representation by state vote.  keep the issues somewhat local and maintain the goals of federalism, while ensuring the overall partisan makeup of the delegation fairly represents the state.

And, on a gut level, I actually tend to agree with you and somewhat disagree with what I wrote.  I just think that the Left (with some abetting from the Right)  is getting ready to set us down a path that pretty radically changes how we select our representatives, with little thought as to what the consequences will be, or even what our real values we're trying to support would be.

To use the Kaptur analysis, take it to the next redistricting when Ohio loses another seat(s).  Is Toledo best served by a compact, competitive district that takes in a lot of the farmland around it?  Or by the current, serpentine district that winds along the Lake Erie shoreline, which is ugly and uncompetitive, but takes in similar towns, like Sandusky ("brothers gotta hug!").  

I don't know the answers to this, but I've seen precious little debate about them (unfortunately).

I also think that if we are doing this, it should be nationwide by Act of Congress (per Art. I, sec. 4), not just in a few select places where ACORN or Arnold can get redistricting reform through.

One way to respond to my question about Franklin County would be to say, why should we assume that a county that voted 55% for Kerry should have a liberal Democrat representing it? Why should every geographical and demographical subdivision be perfectly in tune with the ideology and party affiliation we'd expect? If you follow my advice too far, your expectations become self-fulfilling, and people really do have their representatives picked for them.

The RON people's argument has an unacceptable corollary at the state and federal levels...people who live in Austin, TX can't stand that they're represented by Jon Cornyn and Rick Perry, and anybody who voted for Kerry can't stand that they're represented by George Bush. But that's how democracy works, of course, and they just have to live with it and hope to beat em next time.

There's a fine line between making sure people have a chance to pick the representatives they really want and forcing them to. Hopefully we can stay on that line.

Are you from Toledo? We stopped there on a cross-country road trip, took in a Mud Hens game, saw the reviving waterfront. It looks like it's beginning to fare a little better than the rest of the Rust Belt.

I just love Tommy Boy (Sandusky).  That, and I think Kaptur's district is one of those interesting districts where an urban jungle will probably be drowned in a sea of red cornfields eventually, unless the number of congressional seats is drastically increased.  Kinda like Visclosky's in (Gary) Indiana.

1. You say there will be a vote in November.  Who will be voting? The public or the legislature?
   
2. Do you have a congressional district map of Ohio?  Could someone find one?

The nation is about 1/3rd D, 1/3R, 1/3 other.  And even among the big 2, a big slice of folks are not as partisan as the average RS poster.  

Maybe the rest of us would prefer districts that forced compromise, didn't ensure lifetime appointments for hacks like Maxine Waters and even gave independant candidates a chance.

Letting incumbants design their own districts such that they can completely ignore 40-45% of their constituents is a key factor in the deepening and widening of the great divide.

I'd like to know how you rated district 2 (I grew up there, my mom & brother still live there.) I would say that it was not competetive for Rob Portman's six victories, but the recent special election to replace him went ~52R-48D, with what were probably unusual circumstances - weak R candidate and Iraq war veteran D candidate with a loud and somewhat vulgar mouth. (I did call Mom on that election day to remind her to vote for Jean Schmidt.)

My own impression of the three southwestern counties - Butler, Hamilton and Warren - is that they are very conservative, Mayor Jerry Springer not withstanding. I remember that at one time it was illegal (either in Cincinnati or Hamilton County, can't remember which) to buy a Playboy magazine. IIRC, another Cincinnati mayor, Simon Lease (very conservative), pushed for that while he was mayor and earlier Hamilton County Sheriff.

I note that the huge rally (~50K) Bush had in the spring of 2004 at Voice of America Park was only a mile or so outside that district, and his rally at the Golden Lamb in Lebanon (where he met Ashley Faulkner) was only a little further away. Bush is very popular in that area.

My own impression may not be up to date, since I left the area 22 years ago, but I do go back to visit every year.

1. Assuming there are no problems (the supporters say they're "not putting up yard signs yet"), the public will vote in November. Prospects for passage are the subject of debate--some think the amendments are too complicated and people will vote no without reading them, others think that with the current state of affairs in Ohio, people will see "reform" and vote yes without reading them. Of course, some people may actually read them...you never know.
   
2. Here. (PDF)
   

That's just it.  I reckon that Maxine Waters represents her district fairly well, and having Compton (actually Juanita Millender-McDonald's district, IIRC) represented by a middle-of-the-road New Democrat or Main Street Republican doesn't make a lot of sense.  And regardless of partisan affiliation, most people have pretty strong feelings about the R vs. D party, as shown by the persistently low number of undecideds in the  Kerry-Bush race. I think there's a much smaller slice of true "moderates" than you would think.

And for all the fuss about California districts, their delegation actually does a reasonable job of accurately reflecting the state, in terms of political affiliation, ethnic composition, and even ideology (though there is a lot more ideological diversity among the Ds than the Rs, esp. now that Horn is gone).

Personally I think a much better answer are term limits and at least doubling the size of Congress, so that districts can be more carefully targetted to constituencies.

There are no counties with a strong enough Democratic population to make even a competitive district there. District 2 would, in some form, survive as a heavy R district.

For Cincinnati, it depends on who you put with the large black population (I think about 25% of the city) and other Democrats in the city. If you cut it in half and stick it with Butler like it is now, Chabot wins easily. If you leave it all together, a moderate Democrat could win.

would definitely help in Maxine's case. She just earned the LA Times' honor of one of the most corrupt members of Congress, one of I think 2 Democrats to make the list. Impressive.

Boehner represents the 8th District, which is north of Cincinnati and goes up past Dayton in southwest Ohio (encompassing most of heavily Republican Butler County).  He isn't anywhere near Columbus.  That said, good post.

What I envision is a ripple effect in the rural counties, where if Columbus gets a district to itself, Dists. 12 and 7 lose half their population and need to absorb more rural counties, so those districts need to absorb other rural counties, and eventually someone is squeezed out. It will mostly depend (as with all incumbent-incumbent races) on whose home base is included, who's been there longer, etc. Almost any of the incumbents could be done in by this, including half the Democrats.

I hear Cincinnati actually has a football team again. Go Bengals!

(Sorry for being off topic.)

They are called elections.

Just because some idiots keep sending other idiots back to Congress doesn't mean that I shouldn't be allowed to send my guy back as well.

I happen to like some of our longer serving Members - Henry Hyde, David Dreier, John Boehner, Bill Young, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Sam Johnson, Joe Barton, Lamar Smith, Frank Wolf.  The list of Members serving over 3 terms in the House is pretty impressive.

who become increasingly distant and entrenched from the populace they serve due to the length of their tenure in Washington, then term limits are a better answer to the problem than redistricting reform that aims for creating "balanced districts" to artificially knock these people out on occasion.  That's all I'm saying, and like I've said, I don't necessarily agree with the premise underlying redistricting reform.

FWIW, I agree that a 3-term limit for House is absurd, and am ambivalent about them for longer periods of time.

splitting the city up in 3 parts only makes sense in a gerry-mandered world controlled by the state house GOP--it might be good for the party, but it's not good for the PEOPLE.

I lived in Columbus for 6 years, and thought it ridiculous how the districts were drawn.

Who has the majority will change, be it Rep or Dem, and I support these types of amendments to remove politics from the drawing up of lines.  

Remember, this could work in favor of the GOP too in states like Mass or NY, right?

I think that gerrymandering is contributing to voter apathy.

But anti-gerrymandering initiatives must be done with a genuine interest in fairness, not just a desire to put more members of a given party into office.

I would vote no on this proposal if I lived in Ohio.

I favor Governor Schwarzenegger's proposal to have retired judges redraw the lines in California.

Although these people may be unaccountable to voters, I have a hard time seeing how the current legislature is accountable to voters given the lines which they've drawn.  

Any intelligent person could sit down with a detailed map of the state and some racial/partisan data and come up with a map that radically favored one party over another.

The simple solution is to cluster the other side's voters into a small number of major majority clusters (so that each of the other party's representatives represented a district that was 80 to 90% members of that rep's party) and to draw districts that give each of your party's reps a 55% majority district.  55% may not be a rock-solid majority, but it allows you to maximize the your party's degree of representation in the legislature.  Too much of this stuff goes on.

Why should people vote for their legislature if the power to make a meaningful choice has been taken away from them?

I support non-partisan drawn districts that are draw for cohesion and compactness.  I particularly prefer districts that "nest" so that communities can easily remember their elected officials from state rep to US Congress.

I will have to look at the initiative in more detail before I decided how to vote.  I don't think competitiveness should be built in.  I would rather just draw the districts as compact and as whole as possible (keep like communities together) and let the chips fall where they may.

What is unfortunate is that this package of ballot issues has been put together and marketed it in such a partisan way that it undermines the one good idea (redistricting).  The other issues are horrendously bad and should be opposed wholeheartedly.