Ohio redistricting thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 06, 2022, 09:37:45 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Ohio redistricting thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54
Author Topic: Ohio redistricting thread  (Read 59884 times)
Southern Delegate and Atlasian AG Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,091
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1225 on: March 30, 2022, 04:05:30 PM »


Uhhhh, doesn't this have the rather obvious problem that Ohio is only entitled to 15 representatives now but the old maps have 16 seats? Can hardly see how it would be legal to elect 16 reps.
Maybe he means a least-change map?
I dunno what a least-change map even would look like, though. Which seat gets chopped? 7?
This is what I was able to do for a least change.



Your black district is illegal, splits multiple counties without having a whole one.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/b454c021-d754-4970-97eb-96e2da9d8f58
This may not be pure least-change, but it does try to err on side of it. Thoughts?
Logged
BoiseBoy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 963
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.05, S: -1.13

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1226 on: March 30, 2022, 06:14:37 PM »


Uhhhh, doesn't this have the rather obvious problem that Ohio is only entitled to 15 representatives now but the old maps have 16 seats? Can hardly see how it would be legal to elect 16 reps.
Maybe he means a least-change map?
I dunno what a least-change map even would look like, though. Which seat gets chopped? 7?
This is what I was able to do for a least change.



Your black district is illegal, splits multiple counties without having a whole one.
Hence the problem with doing a least change map.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,911


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1227 on: April 08, 2022, 11:26:22 AM »

Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,013
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1228 on: April 08, 2022, 11:34:27 AM »

Not hold a primary and just have a general election?   That sounds horrible, how would that work?

Would party officials just hand pick the candidates to go on the ballot?
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,111
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1229 on: April 08, 2022, 12:50:44 PM »

Not hold a primary and just have a general election?   That sounds horrible, how would that work?

Would party officials just hand pick the candidates to go on the ballot?

Make Smoke-Filled Rooms Great Again
Logged
Tintrlvr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,878


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1230 on: April 08, 2022, 02:57:19 PM »

Not hold a primary and just have a general election?   That sounds horrible, how would that work?

Would party officials just hand pick the candidates to go on the ballot?

Make Smoke-Filled Rooms Great Again

Tbh primaries are one of the worst things to happen to democracy in America. Europeans who push for them, be careful what you wish for.
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,487


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1231 on: April 10, 2022, 09:06:16 PM »

If this map does end up being the final map and stays in place for the decade, should Dems still be thankful to some degree? A maximal gerrymander even with the new laws would be 13-2. While there's a good chance this map would go 13-2 in 2022, OH-01 would be a very good pickup opportunity later on. After that, there's about 4 or 5 other seats they should be able to be competitive in, which isn't terrible considering that Ohio is getting pretty R overall.

Furthermore, a court drawn map would only last for 4 years at most (or 2 cycles), one of which is likely to be terrible for Dems anyways. After those 4 years the GOP could re-gerry to something more aggressive with what is very likely to be a more favorable court.

The main thing with the current map is even though there are quite a few narrow R leaning seats, basically all of them have been shifting rightwards or at best stagnant. Tbh Ohio as a whole is shifting right, but I could see how the current map becomes a pretty secure 12-3 by decades end.

Obviously not having a fair map is a huge L for Dems, I guess what I'm asking isn't this still better than a lot of outcomes as well?
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,911


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1232 on: April 11, 2022, 04:20:03 PM »



Lol tier VRA lawsuit demanding Youngstown be in a blue district.
Logged
BoiseBoy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 963
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.05, S: -1.13

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1233 on: April 14, 2022, 01:05:48 PM »

4th set of legislative maps just got killed by the court. It never ends.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,911


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1234 on: April 14, 2022, 01:53:18 PM »

They somehow managed to avoid contempt of court.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,447


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1235 on: April 19, 2022, 05:57:45 PM »

They somehow managed to avoid contempt of court.

1) Because they are not in contempt as matter of the right and wrong of it; and

2) Doing so would be a raw exercise in power, except, the in response, in a raw exercise in power, the legislature could impeach any, or all, judges voting for contempt.

The rulings have been a joke. "Fair redistricting" is a phantom that simply doesn't exist. A reasonable notion of "fair" would grant Cincinatti, Akron, and Toledo, one state senate seat for the Democrats, Columbus and Cleveland 2 each for the Democrats, a few swing districts centered in Dayton, and the Columbus suburbs. The rest of the state would be so overwhelming Republican that any randomly generated map would be a sweep, or near sweep for the GOP. The court is demanding that the people who are responsible for executing the laws of Ohio to willfully violate those laws by taking a series of decision to favor the Democrats by carefully cracking urban areas to maximize the number of Democratic seats, etc.

The court doesn't have the authority to issue a partisan Democratic gerrymander, and, lacks the courage to articulate that that is what they are demanding.
Logged
GALeftist
sansymcsansface
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,133


Political Matrix
E: -7.29, S: -9.48

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1236 on: April 19, 2022, 10:24:13 PM »

They somehow managed to avoid contempt of court.

1) Because they are not in contempt as matter of the right and wrong of it; and

2) Doing so would be a raw exercise in power, except, the in response, in a raw exercise in power, the legislature could impeach any, or all, judges voting for contempt.

The rulings have been a joke. "Fair redistricting" is a phantom that simply doesn't exist. A reasonable notion of "fair" would grant Cincinatti, Akron, and Toledo, one state senate seat for the Democrats, Columbus and Cleveland 2 each for the Democrats, a few swing districts centered in Dayton, and the Columbus suburbs. The rest of the state would be so overwhelming Republican that any randomly generated map would be a sweep, or near sweep for the GOP. The court is demanding that the people who are responsible for executing the laws of Ohio to willfully violate those laws by taking a series of decision to favor the Democrats by carefully cracking urban areas to maximize the number of Democratic seats, etc.

The court doesn't have the authority to issue a partisan Democratic gerrymander, and, lacks the courage to articulate that that is what they are demanding.

There is a constitutional requirement for proportionality. Personally, I think this requirement kind of sucks, but I didn't put it there, and neither did the court.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,447


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1237 on: April 20, 2022, 09:28:26 AM »

They somehow managed to avoid contempt of court.

1) Because they are not in contempt as matter of the right and wrong of it; and

2) Doing so would be a raw exercise in power, except, the in response, in a raw exercise in power, the legislature could impeach any, or all, judges voting for contempt.

The rulings have been a joke. "Fair redistricting" is a phantom that simply doesn't exist. A reasonable notion of "fair" would grant Cincinatti, Akron, and Toledo, one state senate seat for the Democrats, Columbus and Cleveland 2 each for the Democrats, a few swing districts centered in Dayton, and the Columbus suburbs. The rest of the state would be so overwhelming Republican that any randomly generated map would be a sweep, or near sweep for the GOP. The court is demanding that the people who are responsible for executing the laws of Ohio to willfully violate those laws by taking a series of decision to favor the Democrats by carefully cracking urban areas to maximize the number of Democratic seats, etc.

The court doesn't have the authority to issue a partisan Democratic gerrymander, and, lacks the courage to articulate that that is what they are demanding.

There is a constitutional requirement for proportionality. Personally, I think this requirement kind of sucks, but I didn't put it there, and neither did the court.

And, there is a Constitutional requirement not to favor either political party in redistricting.  The requirements are self-contradictory, and, can only be reconciled by 1) acknowledging that the GOP has a more efficient distribution of voters, and, therefore, is apt to win a larger percentage of the seats; or 2) produce a Democratic gerrymander.  The Court is demanding the latter, but, is failing to be intellectual honest about it.

Nor, can I let pass without comment the false notion that the interpretation the Court asserted concerning "proportionality" is written in the Ohio Constitution. South Australia has the same provision, which has always been understood to mean that if you win a clear majority you are very apt to win, and a tiny majority, you ought to win. But, if you fall short of the majority, it never asserted that 46% is entitled to 46% of the seats. In single-seat, winner-take-all multi-district elections the drop off can be quite steep.
Logged
GALeftist
sansymcsansface
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,133


Political Matrix
E: -7.29, S: -9.48

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1238 on: April 20, 2022, 12:51:10 PM »

They somehow managed to avoid contempt of court.

1) Because they are not in contempt as matter of the right and wrong of it; and

2) Doing so would be a raw exercise in power, except, the in response, in a raw exercise in power, the legislature could impeach any, or all, judges voting for contempt.

The rulings have been a joke. "Fair redistricting" is a phantom that simply doesn't exist. A reasonable notion of "fair" would grant Cincinatti, Akron, and Toledo, one state senate seat for the Democrats, Columbus and Cleveland 2 each for the Democrats, a few swing districts centered in Dayton, and the Columbus suburbs. The rest of the state would be so overwhelming Republican that any randomly generated map would be a sweep, or near sweep for the GOP. The court is demanding that the people who are responsible for executing the laws of Ohio to willfully violate those laws by taking a series of decision to favor the Democrats by carefully cracking urban areas to maximize the number of Democratic seats, etc.

The court doesn't have the authority to issue a partisan Democratic gerrymander, and, lacks the courage to articulate that that is what they are demanding.

There is a constitutional requirement for proportionality. Personally, I think this requirement kind of sucks, but I didn't put it there, and neither did the court.

And, there is a Constitutional requirement not to favor either political party in redistricting.  The requirements are self-contradictory, and, can only be reconciled by 1) acknowledging that the GOP has a more efficient distribution of voters, and, therefore, is apt to win a larger percentage of the seats; or 2) produce a Democratic gerrymander.  The Court is demanding the latter, but, is failing to be intellectual honest about it.

Nor, can I let pass without comment the false notion that the interpretation the Court asserted concerning "proportionality" is written in the Ohio Constitution. South Australia has the same provision, which has always been understood to mean that if you win a clear majority you are very apt to win, and a tiny majority, you ought to win. But, if you fall short of the majority, it never asserted that 46% is entitled to 46% of the seats. In single-seat, winner-take-all multi-district elections the drop off can be quite steep.

Article XI, Section 6(B) of the Ohio Constitution:

"The statewide proportion of districts whose voters, based on statewide state and federal partisan general election results during the last ten years, favor each political party shall correspond closely to the statewide preferences of the voters of Ohio."

The "statewide proportion of districts," it says, not "the overall winner." There is no way to possibly twist this language to service your interpretation of proportionality; it's very clear that the amendment intends for true proportionality to be in effect, and not whatever weird interpretation of it they allegedly have in South Australia.

I additionally take issue with your characterizing correcting for a geographic bias as "gerrymandering." Firstly, Ohio's geographic bias isn't even that bad now since so many of the rurals have sprinted right. Secondly, it's clear that the Ohio constitution doesn't agree with your definition of gerrymandering, or else it wouldn't have included the proportionality clause. It would make no sense to demand proportionality if one characterizes any attempt to do so as "primarily favor[ing] or disfavor[ing]" a political party! For all the bellyaching about textualism from conservatives, you sure seem remarkably willing to bend over backwards in service of absurd textual leaps when it services your own interests.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,013
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1239 on: April 20, 2022, 02:21:19 PM »

Also if the maps are proportional and the follow all the county/municipal splitting rules, how exactly are you arguing the map favors a political party?
Logged
GALeftist
sansymcsansface
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,133


Political Matrix
E: -7.29, S: -9.48

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1240 on: April 20, 2022, 03:43:55 PM »

With all that being said, I've been playing around with the Ohio Senate map and the county rules do make it really annoying to get to the magic number of 15 blue districts. There are a number of obvious/pretty easy ones:

- 4 from Franklin
- 4 from Cuyahoga + Lake
- 1 from Summit
- 1 from Hamilton
- 1 from Montgomery
- 1 from Lucas

That still just leaves you at 12, though. The easiest one to do next would be another Hamilton blue district, which is fair, except you can't split Warren or Clermont and Butler needs a district wholly within it. I think the easiest thing to do here is put the Butler district in the east and then stretch a district from Preble south through a strip of leftover Butler in the west to the red parts of Hamilton, which lets you make the second Hamilton district blue. Due to county split rules in NEOH, the only real feasible way to get another blue district there is to combine the city of Akron with Portage, leaving the rest of Summit district narrowly blue. Finally, you have to compensate for not being able to do a Mahoning/Trumbull district; the only way I could find was to really cherrypick for the blue precincts in Toledo and combine that with Wood, Ottowa, Erie, and some of Sandusky for another narrowly blue district.

Honestly, both the county split and proportionality rules are dumb. You can tell what a fair map is without these strict rules.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,911


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1241 on: April 20, 2022, 06:01:11 PM »



Seems like its over, only question now is if Ohio Democrats want to work with the GOP to reduce the # of swing D seats in exchange for more solid D seats which might be a serious possibility, rumor is the GOP caucus didn't like the maps much either but Democrats obviously don't want to have like 28 house seats.
Logged
GALeftist
sansymcsansface
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,133


Political Matrix
E: -7.29, S: -9.48

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1242 on: April 20, 2022, 08:53:19 PM »



Seems like its over, only question now is if Ohio Democrats want to work with the GOP to reduce the # of swing D seats in exchange for more solid D seats which might be a serious possibility, rumor is the GOP caucus didn't like the maps much either but Democrats obviously don't want to have like 28 house seats.

Wait, how can the court order a map which the OHSC said violates state law?
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,911


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1243 on: April 21, 2022, 09:18:49 AM »



Bruh. Majority leader.
Logged
BoiseBoy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 963
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.05, S: -1.13

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1244 on: April 21, 2022, 11:30:51 AM »


Bruh. Majority leader.
If you're going to gerrymander, please don't be a malicious smug c*nt about it.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,911


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1245 on: April 21, 2022, 06:38:24 PM »

They somehow managed to avoid contempt of court.

1) Because they are not in contempt as matter of the right and wrong of it; and

2) Doing so would be a raw exercise in power, except, the in response, in a raw exercise in power, the legislature could impeach any, or all, judges voting for contempt.

The rulings have been a joke. "Fair redistricting" is a phantom that simply doesn't exist. A reasonable notion of "fair" would grant Cincinatti, Akron, and Toledo, one state senate seat for the Democrats, Columbus and Cleveland 2 each for the Democrats, a few swing districts centered in Dayton, and the Columbus suburbs. The rest of the state would be so overwhelming Republican that any randomly generated map would be a sweep, or near sweep for the GOP. The court is demanding that the people who are responsible for executing the laws of Ohio to willfully violate those laws by taking a series of decision to favor the Democrats by carefully cracking urban areas to maximize the number of Democratic seats, etc.

The court doesn't have the authority to issue a partisan Democratic gerrymander, and, lacks the courage to articulate that that is what they are demanding.

There is a constitutional requirement for proportionality. Personally, I think this requirement kind of sucks, but I didn't put it there, and neither did the court.

And, there is a Constitutional requirement not to favor either political party in redistricting.  The requirements are self-contradictory, and, can only be reconciled by 1) acknowledging that the GOP has a more efficient distribution of voters, and, therefore, is apt to win a larger percentage of the seats; or 2) produce a Democratic gerrymander.  The Court is demanding the latter, but, is failing to be intellectual honest about it.

Nor, can I let pass without comment the false notion that the interpretation the Court asserted concerning "proportionality" is written in the Ohio Constitution. South Australia has the same provision, which has always been understood to mean that if you win a clear majority you are very apt to win, and a tiny majority, you ought to win. But, if you fall short of the majority, it never asserted that 46% is entitled to 46% of the seats. In single-seat, winner-take-all multi-district elections the drop off can be quite steep.

Article XI, Section 6(B) of the Ohio Constitution:

"The statewide proportion of districts whose voters, based on statewide state and federal partisan general election results during the last ten years, favor each political party shall correspond closely to the statewide preferences of the voters of Ohio."

The "statewide proportion of districts," it says, not "the overall winner." There is no way to possibly twist this language to service your interpretation of proportionality; it's very clear that the amendment intends for true proportionality to be in effect, and not whatever weird interpretation of it they allegedly have in South Australia.

I additionally take issue with your characterizing correcting for a geographic bias as "gerrymandering." Firstly, Ohio's geographic bias isn't even that bad now since so many of the rurals have sprinted right. Secondly, it's clear that the Ohio constitution doesn't agree with your definition of gerrymandering, or else it wouldn't have included the proportionality clause. It would make no sense to demand proportionality if one characterizes any attempt to do so as "primarily favor[ing] or disfavor[ing]" a political party! For all the bellyaching about textualism from conservatives, you sure seem remarkably willing to bend over backwards in service of absurd textual leaps when it services your own interests.

Partisan symmetry isn't part of the Ohio constitution and it is absurd to use it when demanding PR .
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,013
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1246 on: April 21, 2022, 08:13:42 PM »



Wait, how can the court order a map which the OHSC said violates state law?

This is the federal court,  the two Trump judges voted to override the OH constitution and mandate the Republican's map if no compromise map is made by May 28th.

IMO Ohio has had the absolute worst commission process in the country,  slightly worse than New York.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,911


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1247 on: April 22, 2022, 06:34:26 AM »
« Edited: April 22, 2022, 06:59:05 AM by lfromnj »



Wait, how can the court order a map which the OHSC said violates state law?

This is the federal court,  the two Trump judges voted to override the OH constitution and mandate the Republican's map if no compromise map is made by May 28th.

IMO Ohio has had the absolute worst commission process in the country,  slightly worse than New York.

The congressional process in theory would have resulted in fair maps  but COVID delayed the census by just enough.

Legislative is an absolute disaster with the court insisting on PR with partisan symmetry. This is along with the court having no power unlike the congressional maps
Logged
UncleSam
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,452


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1248 on: April 22, 2022, 11:13:37 AM »

The problem is that the Ohio constitution also has several other rules that supercede the proportionality one - compactness, county lines requirements, etc. itís literally impossible to satisfy them all at once.

Hell, the Rs actually did a good faith effort at trying to satisfy them, making a map that voted 54-46 Trump, and the court still turned it down. I donít blame them for refusing to comply with the process further, the court has shown a basic ignorance of the political geography of Ohio or the mapmaking process in general.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,911


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1249 on: April 22, 2022, 11:18:18 AM »
« Edited: April 22, 2022, 11:28:43 AM by lfromnj »

The problem is that the Ohio constitution also has several other rules that supercede the proportionality one - compactness, county lines requirements, etc. itís literally impossible to satisfy them all at once.

Hell, the Rs actually did a good faith effort at trying to satisfy them, making a map that voted 54-46 Trump, and the court still turned it down. I donít blame them for refusing to comply with the process further, the court has shown a basic ignorance of the political geography of Ohio or the mapmaking process in general.

They aren't just ignoring political geography of Ohio but in general they are bringing up partisan fairness measures which just make no sense to use. Partisan symmetry is something to be used in model approaching the square rule or the like. To use such a model when demanding a PR split is beyond absurd. The Democrats will be Democrats trying to maximize their advantage but it is weirder to see the more "non partisan" groups demanding this when regarding the congressional maps they said they are willing to accept the 2nd GOP map with a redraw for Ohio 1st and a more compact Columbus.

IMO other than Dayton* the GOP proposed map is the only legal one if one takes PR as required. Otherwise you clearly are drawing individual districts to favor Democrats.

Mostly regarding the state senate, a few other areas can have D complaints just like West Cleveland to a small degree but Dayton is the only stand out issue. In the state house a few more issues like Delaware county exist.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.069 seconds with 11 queries.