OH: Reform Ohio Now goes on major ad blitz...

[Joe Republic]

The other results thread was getting swamped by the VA and NJ races, and rightly so.  Anyway, the current results are:

State Issue 1
Yes       115,609    53.89%
No       98,928    46.11%
Total Votes    214,537    
 
          Votes    % Of Votes
State Issue 2
No       141,888    63.32%
Yes       82,208    36.68%
Total Votes    224,096    
 
          Votes    % Of Votes
State Issue 3
No       147,432    66.67%
Yes       73,701    33.33%
Total Votes    221,133    
 
          Votes    % Of Votes
State Issue 4
No       155,586    71.17%
Yes       63,039    28.83%
Total Votes    218,625    
 
          Votes    % Of Votes
State Issue 5
No       153,532    70.70%
Yes       63,624    29.30%

[TheresNoMoney]

WTF? What is wrong with Ohio voters?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

WTF? What is wrong with Ohio voters?

They voted for Bush?

[Jake]

Thank you Ohio

[Sam Spade]

As I posted on the other thread, I read through the initiatives last night and couldn't make heads or tails of what they were trying to do (even though I knew what they were already trying to do).

If I can't decipher the initiatives, chances are the voters are not going to be able to decipher the initiatives, and people naturally vote against that which they do not understand.

[Storebought]

The other results thread was getting swamped by the VA and NJ races, and rightly so.  Anyway, the current results are:

State Issue 1
Yes       115,609    53.89%
No       98,928    46.11%
Total Votes    214,537    
 
          Votes    % Of Votes
State Issue 2
No       141,888    63.32%
Yes       82,208    36.68%
Total Votes    224,096    
 
          Votes    % Of Votes
State Issue 3
No       147,432    66.67%
Yes       73,701    33.33%
Total Votes    221,133    
 
          Votes    % Of Votes
State Issue 4
No       155,586    71.17%
Yes       63,039    28.83%
Total Votes    218,625    
 
          Votes    % Of Votes
State Issue 5
No       153,532    70.70%
Yes       63,624    29.30%

Those are some powerful, stifling rejections. Ohioans and their dogs might as well have pissed on these amendments while they were walking out the voting booth.

I know that most of these amendments were sponsered by some shifty Democrat group, but I don't know any more than that.

[RJ]

Another year, another disgraceful result here in Ohio. I really wanted that redistricting thing. Oh well. We get rid of taft next year;)

Without looking at any polling data, my prediction was that they'd all pass. But hey, I still don't feel as bad as this guy:

Kaine is HIGHLY unlikely to get more that 48% of the vote, and Kilgore is HIGHLY unlikely to get less than 45% of the vote.

[TheresNoMoney]

It's really too bad, as these amendments really could've helped clean up the state.

Looks like we will have another messy election in Ohio in 2008 to look forward to.

[Moooooo]

Man, we took an asswhoopin in OH.

[TheresNoMoney]

I have no idea what Ohio voters were thinking. Maybe they didn't understand the amendments?

[Sam Spade]

I have no idea what Ohio voters were thinking. Maybe they didn't understand the amendments?

As I posted on the other thread, I read through the initiatives last night and couldn't make heads or tails of what they were trying to do (even though I knew what they were already trying to do).

If I can't decipher the initiatives, chances are the voters are not going to be able to decipher the initiatives, and people naturally vote against that which they do not understand.

[TheresNoMoney]

Good call, Sam.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Four dead in Ohio...and their names are: Issue 2, Issue 3, Issue 4, and Issue 5.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Now this is a redistricting proposal I'm pleased to see fail (unlike California...)

[TheresNoMoney]

Now this is a redistricting proposal I'm pleased to see fail (unlike California...)

Why?

[AuH2O]

I talked to a couple Ohioans. They weren't confused at all-- my roommate said he voted for prop 1, and that the rest were "some MoveOn sh**t" and voted against. It appears voters did that on a consistent basis given the similarity of results between 2-5.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Now this is a redistricting proposal I'm pleased to see fail (unlike California...)

Why?

Because it promotes gerrymandering. I'd like to see fair districts based around reasonable geographical areas not bizarre bacon-strips that cut from blue-collar industrial townships, through white collar Columbus suburbs (maybe adding a bit of the city itself as well) and ending up somewhere in the middle of the cornbelt.
Such districts would break the link between a Representative and his constituents and would encourage mindless party-line voting; even worse the delagation would go from lopsidedly Republican to lopsidedly Democratic and vice versa pretty much every election cycle.

[TheresNoMoney]

Because it promotes gerrymandering.

Huh? Ohio is already incredibly gerrymandered and this proposal would've made the districts less gerrymandered and more competitive.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ohio is already incredibly gerrymandered

Well... it's badly gerrymandered yes, but I reserve the term "incredibly gerrymandered" to the horrors of PA, MD, GA (not from 2006 though), IL, FL, TX (although the Democrats map in the early '90's was even worse. There's something in the water I swear...) oh and California as well...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not so. It would have made them more gerrymandered.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, that is true. But should competitiveness be the main factor in drawing electoral districts?

[jimrtex]

Are those maps for real? They may be competitive, but they look just as horribly gerrymandered as the old Georgia maps from 2002 did.  Say what you will about Ohio's current map, but many of those districts are fairly compact.

The maps are for real.  The middle one was commissioned by the group pushing the amendment.  I don't know if they did it advance, or in response to maps drawn by the opposition.

The redistricting proposal was portrayed as bringing in an independent commission, when the basic idea was to score plans submitted by the "public" according to an objective measure.  The more extreme the plan, the higher the score.  The independent commission was obligated to accept the highest scoring plan.

The RON people had either playtested the scoring rules, and knew that this was the type of district that would result; or there failure to playtest them was grossly negligent.

[jimrtex]

Are those maps for real? They may be competitive, but they look just as horribly gerrymandered as the old Georgia maps from 2002 did.  Say what you will about Ohio's current map, but many of those districts are fairly compact.

The 2nd one looks like a straw man.

If it was the highest scoring, the independent commission would have to accept it.  One way to get a high score would be to have a Republican district that was a strongly Republican as the mainly black Democratic district in Cleveland (+63% Democrat).  But you can't do that by simply including counties, since the most Republican district under the current plan is only (+30% GOP).  You have to pick out strongly Republican areas over a large area.  That explains the district stretching from Cincinnati up the west side of the state.


  You have to pick out heavily Republican precincts

[jimrtex]

Another year, another disgraceful result here in Ohio. I really wanted that redistricting thing. Oh well. We get rid of taft next year;)

Do people pronounce the name of the county that Cleveland is located in as: Kaigacounty.  There was a telephone recording by the Democrat county chairman where he was opposing the RON votes.

DiMora opposes 3, 4, and 5 (.wav file)

[muon2]

I hear Ohio will now have an independent commission drawing their maps... I think they should hire Muon as an advisor...

I guess I'm out of a job now.
I was looking forward to creating a RON 28 map based on jimrtex's analysis in Sept.

[jimrtex]

I guess I'm out of a job now.
I was looking forward to creating a RON 28 map based on jimrtex's analysis in Sept.

I've colorized the 22 point map that was prepared for RON, and included a spreadsheet of the district's political complexion.

Some notes: It is based on the 2000 presidential election, using a geographic database that had been built for the 2000 redistricting.  This should not have too significant of implications for the 2004 election, though Dave's swingometer shows a slight increase in polarization with E Ohio swinging more Democratic and and W Ohio swinging more GOP.

The 22 point map does balance the 2 uncompetitive Democrat districts in Cuyahoga County (10,11) with 2 uncompetitive Republican districts, one in western Ohio (5) and the other in the Cincinnati suburbs extending northward towards Dayton and Columbus (5).  There is an additional unbalanced uncompetitive GOP district (2) in the Cincinnati suburbs extending northward into the Hamilton (city) area; and an other (5-15%) GOP district (4) starting in Summit County (Akron) extending to the west.

A 28-point plan is probably impossible for the 2000 presidential election.  The statewide 2-party plurality was 3.42%.  Multiplying by 18 produces a cumulative plurality of 61.56% (ie if the state were politically homogeneous, then each district would have a 3.42% plurality).  Pairing a 4.99+% and a 0.00-% district produces a 5.00-% total plurality for a pair of balanced competitive districts.  A 35% and a -30% non-competitive district can form a pair of balanced uncompetitive districts also with a 5.00-% total plurality.

The 28-point plan would have 7 pairs of balanced competitive districts and 2 pairs of balanced uncompetitive districts.  7x5% + 2x5% is 45%, far short of the 61.56% GOP margin we have to absorb.  But if we convert a balanced competitive pair into a 5.00-% and a 15.00-% district, we are left with 1 non-balanced competitive, and 1 other (5-15%) district with a total plurality of 20%.  This would be a 25-point plan.   6x5% + 2x5% + 1x15% + 1x5% = 60%, which is just short of 61.56%.  But I might be able to bridge the difference if the Republican leaning districts have slightly higher levels of voter participation.  This would be an extreme plan with large number of township splits.

If we start from the 22-point plan that was drawn for RON, we could convert District 4 from a 13.0% GOP plurality district to a 5.0% GOP plurality district, and convert 6 from a 24% GOP plurality district to a 15% GOP plurality district.  Elsewhere other districts will have to be pushed extremely close to the thresholds.

Because the 22-point plan included an extra unbalanced GOP district (38.4% plurality) which absorbed almost 2/3 of the necessary 61.56% plurality, it could be fairly relaxed elsewhere, not doing too many township splits, and using most of the county splits to provide pathways out of the northeast part of the state, or to equalize population.

Note: The 26-point plan that was in the Columbus Dispatch was not a 26-point plan because it counted as balanced 2 non-competitive districts that were within 5% on their partisan index (eg. 60% GOP and 65% Dem) rather than 5% on the index of competitiveness, which is the plurality (eg. 25% GOP plurality and 30% Dem plurality; which correspond to 62.5% GOP and 65% Dem).

For 2004, the GOP 2-party plurality was only 2.12%, which is equivalent to a 38.16% cumulative plurality.  It should be relatively straightforward to produce a 28-point plan, since the difference between 45% and 38.16% provides a 0.38% cushion per district (the GOP competitive districts could average 4.62%, with the Dem districts at 0.38% majority).  We may be able to greatly reduce the number of county splits.