Congressional districts are drawn up by population, not by number of votes. The population rules are very strict. You can't draw lines based upon who shows up on Election Day. This is "fuzzy math" at its best. In districts of high turnout, you get a high turnout of Rs and Ds, so naturally your total number is going to be different. In the lower-turnout D districts, you get an overwhelming % victory, but a very low turnout.
But, Kudos. You've obviously read Huff's "How to Lie with Statistics".
Also, if competetiveness is the first and most important rule in drawing political lines, cities and counties will be carved up. In the end, you're going to end up with an all-white, all-male general assembly regardless of which party is in control.
Publius, your arguments make no sense, when you see the sort of districts we got that meander across a quarter of the state. Those are not contiguous districts carved up like zip codes on population numbers and proximity. How on earth can you decide in advance what a "lower turnout" district or a 'higher turnout" district is? I can't even follow that argument or figure out its relevance. Talk about fuzzy!
Your argument that an all-male, all-white legislature is inevitable is moronic. We don't have that now unless you are talking strictly about the Republicans, and its's even less likely we'll have it with fairer and more balanced redistricting.
Take Franklin County as an example. In the Ohio House, it's 6-3 Republican, with 2 African American members, two women, and one Jewish member. Granted, the 6 Republicans have a great number of people in the suburbs and the 3 Democrats represent larger portions of Columbus.
If competetiveness were the primary goal for these 9 seats, Franklin County would look like a pie- carved up into wedge-shaped districts. The population would be higher and more Democrat leaning toward the tip of the pie, while the outer rim would be more Republican (and more white). Even if the indexes for these 9 districts were within a competetive margin, the population capable of giving the largest donations will reside in the suburbs. The party split may not be 6-3, but you're much more likely to have an all-suburban, all-white representation of Franklin County than you do today. Is an all-white, moderate R or conservative D, suburban legislature really an improvement?
Your urban centers will be represented by suburbanites. Who will stick up for the cities at the Statehouse? Who will be the minority voice?
I believe that the system works best when every group is represented. I don't think the RON initiatives create that atmosphere.
Republicans have been better at winning races in Ohio in the last 10 years. Is the ineptness of one party organization over the course of a decade supposed to convince us to change a constitution that has worked for 200 years?
Please keep in mind that Bill Clinton didn't have much of a problem in Ohio in 1996. At some level it comes down to organization and the quality of candidates. I think the ODP is getting better at organization. Candidate recruitment is another story.
I'm not crazy about the current state of affairs either, but I just don't believe it's a constitutional problem. Things go in cycles. The ORP has had it good for a while, and their noticably on the decline. Ohio Democrats should be scouring the state for quality, inspiring candidates rather than questioning the constitution.
Please forgive the spelling and grammar. I obviously typed too quickly. If one of my students had written the above comment, I would have used up the ink in my red pen.
Pluribus..All i can say is "huh?" LOL.
go back and read what hypo wrote again and look at the numbers.
If it was organization and candidates, how do you figure that the total vote difference is only 3% ?!
Clearly the districts are carved up in such a way as to make elections meaningless and hence those elected unaccountable.
Which in turn has led to the level of corruption we have seen.
Commenting by HaloScan
