250 likes | 336 Views
Some Thoughts on Redistricting Reform in Ohio. Tom Brunell University of Texas at Dallas. Ohio Redistricting .
E N D
Some Thoughts on Redistricting Reform in Ohio Tom Brunell University of Texas at Dallas
Ohio Redistricting • Representational Fairness is the most important part of any reform. Using the proposed text of the Voters First proposal would be a great start. “Balance number of districts to closely correspond to preferences of voters of Ohio.” • No state, to my knowledge, has anything like this. This paragraph, properly instituted, solves many problems.
Representational Fairness • Measuring partisan balance in state is key factor. • Proposed using statewide elections. This is a good idea. • Will have to have some selection criterion, for instance do you count blowout elections in average? • OPOV, contiguity, VRA and fairness are all you need.
Items That Should Change • Ohio’s restrictions on when a plan ought to keep counties or municipalities whole is really stringent. I would recommend doing away with this requirement. • Counties and cities are governmental units designed to deliver public services, not communities of interest per se. • When they are communities of interest it involves parochial issues – money, etc.
Communities of Interest • Look at 2012 presidential election by county. • A handful are 70-30 or so. • Most are far closer to 50-50 break between the two major candidates. • Counties are NOT cohesive communities of interest. • Don’t be constrained by geography, communities of interest are ideological.
Population Deviations • For legislative districts – I recommend limiting population deviations to either zero, or as close to zero as possible. It’s the only non-arbitrary cut point. • There are no really good reasons to allow plus or minus 5% deviations. • Deviations are easily used for partisan advantage. • One person, one vote is critical
Commissions? • I am not a fan of using commissions to draw districts. The smaller commission with members appointed by elected officials is better than the Voters First model. • Redistricting is political and I’d rather get stabbed in the chest, than stabbed in the back. • When elected officials draw maps, we know the motivations. When citizen commissions do it, everyone wonders “was it fair?”
Competition • Virtually everyone agrees we need more competition – I do not. • Competitive elections maximize the number of losing voters and fundamentally hurt the ability of a representative to represent his/her constituents. • Competition and partisan fairness are incompatible principles.
Hypothetical Redistricting Imagine a state with 4 Congressional Districts Exactly half the state is Republican and the other half is Democratic. Two “Ideal Types”of districts.
What should the outcome look like? • The state has 4 seats and is half D and half R, there is only 1 right outcome: 2 Red seats and 2 Blue seats. • So let’s look at how the competitive scheme works in practice. • Assume each district really is perfectly competitive and the result is determined randomly, like a coin-flip.
Coin Flip Districts • Republicans win 4 – 6.25% • Rep win 3, Dem win 1 – 25% • Rep win 2, Dem win 2 – 37.5% • Dem win 3, Rep win 1 – 25% • Democrats win 4 – 6.25%
Competitive Elections do not lead to Good Representation • Two-thirds of the time (62.5%) a plan with all competitive districts gets the WRONG answer (i.e. unrepresentative delegations). • Even when it does yield fair outcomes, it unnecessarily puts half the population in a district in which they don’t like their representative. • Losing voters like their representative less, and they have a lower trust in government relative to winning voters.
Competitive Elections Maximize Number of Losers • SMD & wasted votes. • The more competitive the district the more losers you get. • The more competitive the district, the less of a community of interest it is. • Competition maximizes losing voters and minimizes the ability to represent a district well. • Neither of which we ought to be doing on purpose.
Ideologically Packed Districts This method gets the right answer EVERYTIME, and voters are well represented
Redefining • Competitive districts should be called “districts that usually lead to non-proportional outcomes and needlessly leave many voters poorly represented” • Ideologically packed districts should be called “fair redistricting” or “proportional redistricting”.
The (Alleged) Benefits of Competitive Elections • It increases “Responsiveness” • It is impossible to represent all the constituents • MC will try harder to please her 51 percent, but is this representation? • Competitive districts allow us to “throw the bums out” • We do want elected officials to be worried about getting reelected, but primary elections can take care of this.
What is Representation? • Lots of definitions (substantive, descriptive etc.) • I think it boils down to “did my representative vote the way I would have voted?” • Competitive districts make it less likely that voters feel well represented.
Competitive Districts = Bad Representation • Drawing districts to maximize competitiveness is no guarantee that there will be competitiveness. • Regardless of the presence of competition, drawing districts this way is BAD for representation. • Overemphasizes votes of swing voters.
An alternative approach • Draw districts packed with like-minded partisans. • Impossible to draw 100-0, but something like 80-20 is possible. • As long as both parties are “packed” at the same level, we get proportional outcomes. • Primary elections will be pivotal. • SCOTUS already “blessed” this approach (Gaffney v. Cummings).
Thank you • Questions?
Gerrymander Democrats have packed R’s in districts 1 and 2, and cracked them in districts 3-5, thus wasting many of their votes. R’s have 60 percent of the vote, with 40 percent of the seats.
Polarization • Redistricting not the chief culprit. • If the voters are polarized, the representatives should be too. • What’s wrong with polarization? We used to have lots of overlap between parties. • People complained, wanted “responsible parties”. Now we have them and we complain about them.