i realize over the years i've become derisive and condescending toward your efforts, and for this i apologize. i share your passion for limiting the influence of economic power on politics, and i really do admire your stubborn streak when it comes to advocating for your beliefs.

the trouble is, your current strategy isn't working. worse, it's turning people off who would otherwise support you. i have many ideas that i think might help, but other than a few grammar and website nitpicks, most of my suggestions would require you being open to some major changes in tactics. so, when i tell you certain things are problematic, please understand that i don't mean your project is necessarily doomed, just that it currently isn't constituted in a way that will be successful.

to get 20% of eligible voters to participate, you'd have to somehow convince 47 million people to join you. it's not necessarily a personal failing on your part that you're significantly below that watermark, but getting from point A to point B would require logistics and resources on a herculean scale. nothing anyone here could do or say, CW included, would make a significant change, and would be tilting at a very large windmill.

the biggest specific problem with one demand, perhaps ironically, is no demand. in the economic sense, demand for a good or service requires not only that people want something or think it would be good, but also that they can afford to pay for it and are willing to sacrifice both resources and opportunity-cost to get it. the biggest challenge you face is the same challenge NHrebellion faces, the fact that campaign finance issues are low on most voters' lists of priorities. NHR are aware of it and have taken steps to address it by campaigning for public awareness. people need to move beyond simply agreeing with a point of view and begin actually caring about it. that's a slow process, but it drives public opinion in the right direction. once enough people care, perhaps your ideas would be better than NHR's, perhaps not. regardless, that's not where society is at the moment. i realize this is tough to swallow, but there's simply no shortcut to making millions of people care.

yes, if 47 million people were suddenly to support you, that would be great and i'd be the first one cheering. however, until the issue of campaign finance jumps up the list of voter priorities, asking any blogger or journalist to debate a specific tactic to address it is putting a very large cart before a very small horse.

i hope i've managed to communicate here in a way that is respectful and sinks in, and i wish you every bit of luck in your campaign.

best,
JL

DH-15 Correct, at least 50% of the majority and 50 % of the minority must vote in favor of the map. Balletopia ha a good summay of Ohio Issue 1 2018.

Same here.

Step 1: Legislature determines 10 yr map, but requires 50-50 consensus among legislators from the 2 parties. All office holders voting on the map reflect past redistricting decisions, but a strong consensus is required to adopt a new
map, so even a bit of wavering within the majority party can kill the deal.

If Step 1 fails go to step 2

Step 2: Seven member redistricting commission determines 10 yr map. Four of the seven members are state officials elected at large (NOT PRODUCTS OF PAST REDISTRICTING, AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO AT LARGE VOTER WRATH). One additional member is effectively going to be from the majority party, another from the minority (PRODUCTS OF PAST REDISTRICTING, but EQUALLY BALANCED AGAINST EACH OTHER). Two members from the minority must agree to the new map. Ramrodding a decision has real consequences for those high in the food chain politicians who are subject to at large review and reprisal in the next election cycle.

If Step 2 fails go to step 3

STEP 3: Basically similar to Step 1. Legislature determines 10 year map, but 29% of the minority legislators are required to enact the new map. Note that these 29% may be elected by a substantially larger fraction of the total electorate. These voters can put considerable pressure on those commission members elected at large (see step 2)

If Step 3 fails go to step 4

STEP 4

Legislature determines a 4 year map, by simple majority of legislators who reflect past redistricting decisions. However, there are new legal safeguards in place that constrain step 4 decisions(but not steps 1-3). Egregious behavior is likely to result in a protracted sequence of court battles that will be open to public scrutiny, and once again, putting extreme stress on government officials who are
elected at large.

It's Rube Goldberg Device to be sure, but seemingly carefully crafted to encourage fairer distribution of power in the State of Ohio. Play nice, or suffer the consequences. I am cautiously optimistic.

To place the Bipartisan Congressional Redistricting Reform Amendment on the ballot, the coalition of redistricting reformers will need to collect at least ten percent (10%) of the total vote cast for the office of governor at the last gubernatorial election (305,591 valid signatures).

Ohio also has a distribution requirement for the signatures. Petitioners must submit signatures equal to five percent of the county’s total number of gubernatorial votes cast in the last election from 44 of Ohio’s 88 counties. For example, if in 2014, 6,100 votes were cast for gubernatorial candidates, the campaign would be required to collect 305 signatures.

https://www.fairdistrictsohio.org/blog/how-many-signatures

By February some 200,000 signatures had been collected. This apparently galvanized Republicans in the Statehouse to respond as they realized LWV was 2/3 there and would probably succeed at having enough signatures for November 2018.

LWV and others responded to outreach and decided to support the compromise effort which - as a ballot proposal? I'm not sure why - didn't need to comply with signature requirements, etc. They gave provisional support saying they felt the Ballot Initiative was pretty good and was more likely to get Republican votes than their amendment. Or so they thought anyway - this passed with a big margin so who knows? But they figured we should put it to the vote and see what happens. They said they'd continue collecting signatures and if the May Initiative failed they'd proceed with their Amendment in November. But it passed.

Their Press Release from Tuesday night said, in part:

LWV Ohio Statement on Issue 1 Passage
Date of Release or Mention:
Tuesday, May 8, 2018

Columbus, OH - Tonight the League of Women Voters of Ohio celebrates passage of state Issue 1, a constitutional amendment to reform the way congressional districts are drawn.

"After decades of advocacy from the League of Women Voters on redistricting, and over a year of public education and signature collection, we are thrilled that Ohio voters have put new rules to end partisan gerrymandering into our constitution," said Mary Kirtz Van Nortwick, LWV Ohio Co-President. "This victory is a testament to the hard work of so many League members and redistricting reformers throughout both this campaign and past efforts."

"We thank the thousands of people across the state who collected signatures, handed out flyers, and spread the word in so many ways," added LWV Ohio Co-President Alison Ricker. "The legislature came to the table and reached a compromise on this proposal because of public pressure, so this win truly belongs to the committed reformers and their hard work. Issue 1 is the reform we have been looking for, and we will now lay down our clipboards and turn to implementing these new rules and making sure they work for Ohioans."

I don't know if they could continue - going for the perfect over the good - but evidently they're not going to.

What was unclear to me in the stories I read is: "what happened to the initial push for the commission-only initiative?"

How was it blocked by the other one? Is there still a chance it'll be on November's ballot anyway, or is it now dead?

If you know the answers to these, I would love to hear.

Don Harris [2] -

While you didn't say it outright, it appears that you think that achieving a balance between the Democrats and Republicans is solving the problem of gerrymandering.

Nope. I see ending gerrymandering as a good thing no matter what. In fact, I would turn over all redistricting to a computer program which had as its sole objective keeping districts both geographically consistent and not breaking up communities as much as possible.

Such a program wouldn't be all that hard to write, either.

good trickle [4] -

Thanks for the link, I will check it out. Top two jungle primaries suck rocks....

TheStig [5] -

I certainly didn't look it up or anything, but perhaps someone has used the term "mutually-assured gerrymandering" before, I dunno.

But thanks for the kind words, I did kind of think it rolled off the tongue well when I wrote it!

:-)

I agree about the sunshine and lawsuits comment, as well. Even if the politicians essentially ignore the new system and ram through what they want, at least the public will be more aware of what they're doing this time around.

I just read an interesting article about how GOP gerrymandering might come back to bite them -- one goal of gerrymandering is to create districts that are comfortably safe for your side, but not overwhelmingly so -- say, a 55-45 district. But if a Dem wave appears that shifts the vote by 10 or more, then what it means is that there are a whole lot more districts that could be open to flipping. I can dig up the link, if you're interested.

nypoet22 [7] -

Now that's an interesting take on it...

OK, gotta post today's (rather long) article, so I'll just sign off here.

-CW

i spent a decade in south dade, and the problems with florida democrats go well beyond mere lack of organization. it's a problematic state institution on many different levels, not least of which is that it's infused with quite a few dixiecrats (who, needless to say, do not see eye to eye with the current democratic platform).

JL

Republicans still dominate in the state House though. University of Florida political science professor Dan Smith said Republicans are better at fielding candidates and running campaigns, particularly in about 30 truly competitive districts. "Republicans have done a good job of targeting those areas and getting good candidates and putting a lot of money into marginal districts, which they tend to win," he said. Likewise, he said state Senate maps are drawn fairly, but Democrats under perform in districts they should win. Part of the problem with Democrats is institutional. The party has no discipline and doesn't recruit candidates as aggressively as it should.

If you coined the term "mutually assured gerrymandering" (MAG), congrats, it's a good one!

While gerrymandering can be used to produce ultra safe districts for senior congress people, the real power comes from managing risk. The majority party dilutes the power of the minority by cramming as many of them as possible into one or two ultra safe districts for the minority-but creating many more reliably safe districts for the majority party. It's statistical gamble, but the odds strongly favor the majority party.

It's nice that small states are signing up for reform, but the real action is in the bigger states with more potential for creative vote dilution.

While the Ohio legislation is a bit too crafty for my taste, it does have the advantage of creating a number of potential public hearings which will presumably draw press coverage, with potential for court dates that draw more press coverage. Sunshine is good disinfectant etc. Lawsuits are also good disinfectant.

This might be an intersting story to follow in regards to the "jungle system".

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/09/duncan-hunter-republican-california-midterms-572911

But we'll hope it helps make this state a lot more "representative" than it is now.