The Rational for a Proportional System

At this point I have written more than once in favor of adopting a proportional electoral system over our current first-past-the-post (or winner-take-all) system, and even over a ranked choice electoral system. So, I thought it might be a good idea to quickly articulate why my preferences are what they are. To be clear, I do not disfavor a ranked choice system. In fact, I think it is necessary in certain cases when there is not anything to apportion—say in US Senate or Governor elections. And if I had the power to implement a new system of elections in this country with the snap of my fingers, but the only choice was between a ranked choice system and maintaining the status quo, I most definitely would choose the ranked choice system.

Although both a proportional and a ranked choice system are different means to achieve most of the same objectives—increasing ideological representation, increasing voter engagement, and breaking the two-party power structure—ranked choice retains some of the structural advantages for the two parties that exists in our current system. Namely, the two parties have a presence in every state to be competitive in most elections up and down the ballot. This includes donor lists, volunteers, a bench of candidates, relationships with pollsters and advertising agencies, party employees, and anything else needed to run a campaign. This will not necessarily be true of every other party as they may have difficulty even fielding a candidate in every race. The second benefit that the major parties have is name recognition. Voters may know the Libertarian and Green parties, but how many other third-parties can they name? In the 2020 election there were about 90 named third-parties included on ballots across the country. Even if voters recognize the party name, would they know the party's platform? So, even if their primary preference was for a third-party what would voters’ choose as their second choice? Likely the more recognizable candidate/party, which would probably be a Republican or Democrat.

Source: FEDERAL ELECTIONS 2020: Election Results for the U.S. President, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C., October 2022

Now you might rightfully point out that most of the structural advantages I just outlined would still be present in a proportional system. However, the last point is where I think these two systems pull apart and a proportional system benefits third parties more. While I can take election results and distribute seats proportionally based on those results, it is more difficult to game-out ranked choice results (and to be fair, I made it easy on myself when apportioning seats by throwing all third-party votes into one bucket which overstates the actual results of any one third-party). This is difficult because while I could make some assumptions about who a voter’s second and third choice may be, voters are idiosyncratic and those assumptions may very well be wrong. Furthermore, when you change the election rules and incentives, voters will change their voting behavior accordingly. To take this one step further, if I were to retroactively apply a ranked choice system to all elections where a majority was not obtained, making assumptions along the way, the results likely would not drastically differ as the two major parties will have a substantial lead—in part because voters were not casting their ballots with a ranked choice system in mind.

With that said, I think we can intuitively work this out. Let’s set up a fairly simple example; there is a state with four districts. The state is roughly split between conservatives and liberals and districts are drawn fairly. After the election is held the vote tally is as follows: 

Under our current system two Republicans and two Democrats are elected to the House of Representatives.

But, as I said earlier, if you change the rules of the election, voters will change their behavior. Let's now assume this same state adopted a ranked choice electoral system. With no third party infrastructures in the first or third districts and no candidate pool to pull from, those two districts remain a race between the Republican and Democrat. So, looking at districts 2 and 4 only, the results of the election are:

After the first round no one has an out right majority, and the third-parties did better—15 points better. But they are still last, so when this goes to the next round and the Libertarian votes in District 2 are distributed to their second choice, the Republican, and the Green votes in District 4 are distributed to their second choice, the Democrat, the outcome of the election will be the same. This state will have two Democratic Representatives and two Republican representatives.

This is a simplistic model for illustrative purposes, but we can see how this has played out in reality. Maine adopted a ranked choice electoral system in 2018. Since then it has held two elections for the US Senate and six for US House (three election years for two House seats); electing an Independent and a Republican to the Senate, and two Democratic Representatives each year. In fact, only once in those eight elections has a ballot gone to the second round—on the first ballot for district 2 in 2018 no candidate had a majority and so an instant runoff was held between the Republican and Democratic candidates who had received the most votes. It should also be noted that Angus King is the Independent Senator who was elected in 2018. However, he was an incumbent who previously had identified as an Independent and was caucusing with the Democrats. As such, I do not think we can credit his electoral victory in 2018 to the ranked choice system. In 2022 Alaska joined Maine in adopting a ranked choice system. In that election Alaska sent a Democrat to the House of Representatives and a Republican to the Senate.

Let’s return one more time to our hypothetical state. This time the state has gotten rid of its districts in favor of one, multi-member district with seats distributed proportionately by party to the percentage of votes won. This time the results are as follows:

Based on these proportions, Democrats are awarded two seats and Republicans and Libertarians are awarded one each. Under the other two systems third-parties may have had support in all districts but may not have been able to field a candidate to run in every district. Further, a third-party may have broad support in a state, support enough to win a seat under a proportional system, but not enough in any one district to win a majority.

We should also take a minute to consider what the implications of this are for voters. Voters in Districts 1 and 3 that might support a third-party candidate are forced to either decide between voting for a candidate for one of the parties running or not to vote at all. These voters rightly feel under-represented because they are presented with a false dilemma. The only reason this is any dilemma at all is because our winner-take-all system forces us into the false choice between two ideologies; conservatism as represented by the Republican party and liberalism as represented by the Democratic party. The American electorate is much more diverse than this dichotomy.

The outcome between our second hypothetical and our last hypothetical illustrates how, I believe, a proportional system is more potent in enabling third-parties to gain representation within our government. I should point out, in fairness, that in Maine the third-party candidates did not gain enough votes (even when combined) to win a seat under a proportional system, suggesting an optimism in my final hypothetical. Though, to repeat my refrain, voter behavior may change to a sufficient degree for a third-party to win representation if Maine were to adopt a proportional system instead of a ranked choice system. 

When we are considering electoral systems we should not think of them as isolated systems in their individual silos. More voters turn out to vote in Presidential election years, but those additional voters are not only voting for the President, they also cast their vote in Senate and House elections, and on down the ballot. Turnout is generally higher. It stands to reason then, that if we were able to increase voter turnout for one branch of government due to increased representation resulting from a more responsive electoral system, then turnout overall would increase.

As I stated earlier, I believe a ranked choice system is better than our current system. Given time, I may be proven wrong by the electoral results from Maine and Alaska as parties, candidates, and voters adapt to the new system. I hope I am wrong. I hope we begin to see more diverse representation from these states, and as a result increased voter turnout.

It is for the very reason that individual elections affect one another that my ideal would be to adopt a proportional system for state general assemblies and the House of Representatives, and a ranked choice system for Governors and the US Senate. I believe these systems would reinforce one another.

Proportional systems would give third-parties a better shot at gaining representation within the government. By merely winning an election third-parties would gain a credibility with voters that they have struggled to gain in the past. Winning an election would also increase the profile of third-parties so the party and its platform are more familiar to voters and voters would actually be able to see how the party's ideas translate into practical governance. 

When it comes time to cast a ranked choice ballot voters are more familiar with third-parties, their candidates, and their platform. Voters also view certain third-parties as more credible after the party has won representation for itself in an election and voters can see how the party operates in the government. Perhaps, then, after the ballots are counted, third-parties have a larger share of votes in the first round and are not the first party eliminated from the ballots. Maybe third-parties are also voters second and third choices above Republicans and Democrats. And so, maybe third-parties win more ranked choice elections.

What I am describing is a virtuous cycle. As third-parties win more elections they become more credible and known. As those parties become more credible and known they win more elections. The more elections that third-parties win the more ideologies and perspectives are represented. As more ideologies and perspectives are represented within the government citizens begin to see themselves better represented in their government and observe more responsive elections. As this perception increases more citizens begin to participate and voter turnout increases. With increased voter turnout, support for third-parties increases, and so on.

But to kick off this cycle something is needed to breakthrough the two parties hold on power. I do not think a ranked choice system is strong enough to do this. Although I believe a proportional system would be able to do this, it has limited applications—you cannot apportion votes for a single Senate seat or Governorship. And while I think a proportional system would still have an effect on these elections, the effect would inherently be limited because the candidate with the plurality of votes would win the election, reinforcing the two party system. Both are needed if we truly want to change our system for the better. 

Cleveland's Problem with Democracy

There is an old saying, “all politics is local”, but increasingly politics has been nationalized. This increasingly nationalized politics has been attributed, at least in part, to the decline of local journalism. With fewer options for news coverage people replace their lost local options with national news organizations like The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, or Fox News. In the event that these outfits do cover local news it is local for them—The New York Times will cover New York political news, but not a mayoral race in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. 

The rise in national media, and corresponding decline in local journalism, has quite a few effects beyond the nationalization of politics as Joshua Darr writes for FiveThirtyEight, “in the absence of local news, people are more likely to vote for one party up and down the ballot”. Not only are voters becoming more partisan in their political preferences, but voters’ views have become calcified as they are less likely to switch their vote between parties from one election to the next. And the effects do not end there; Darr continues, explaining that, “a growing body of research has found that government is worse off when local news suffers. In fact, inadequate local news has been linked to more corruption, less competitive elections, and weaker municipal finances and a prevalence of party-line politicians who don’t bring benefits back to their districts”.

Keeping the spirit of the old saying alive, I wanted to take a look at local politics. Specifically in my hometown of Cleveland, Ohio. Cleveland, and Ohio more broadly, was not spared from these national trends. According to the UNC Hussman School of Journalism and Media, from 2004 to 2019 Ohio lost 39% of its newspapers and saw a 51% decrease in circulation. Ohio does not have any counties without a newspaper, but has 38 with only a single newspaper. Perhaps predictably then, Ohio sees its highest voter turnout for Presidential elections—an average of 69% turnout from 2000 to 2020. This falls to 59% for Ohio US Senator, down to 57% for Ohio US Representatives, down to 48% for Ohio Governor, and down to 54% for the Ohio General Assembly. Note that the General Assembly sees a higher turnout than Governor because half of the General Assembly elections fall during Presidential election years when turnout is generally higher and Governor is always during non-presidential years—the General Assembly average for non-Presidential years in the Ohio House is 46% and 44% in the Ohio Senate.

Ohio has also, to some extent, seen calcification. In modern American politics Ohio has been considered a swing state and a bellwether for Presidential elections. From 1964 to 2016 no President had won the White House without winning Ohio; the longest streak of any state. That streak came to an end when Ohioans cast their ballots for Donald Trump in 2020, beating Joe Biden in the state by 8% but losing the Presidency. 

Ohio has also certainly seen its fair share of corruption during this period. From the State's unconstitutional school funding system to the $117 million dollar charter school choice fraud scheme; to the $60 million bribery scheme involving First Energy and Ohio Speaker of the House, Larry Householder to pass a bill to bail out the energy company; to Ohio's redistricting process which resulted Ohioans voting in 2022 using unconstitutional district maps after the Ohio Supreme Court ruled the state district maps unconstitutional five times and federal district maps unconstitutional twice.



Cuyahoga County, where Cleveland is located, has lost ten newspapers since 2004 according to UNC. With only five papers remaining, the county has one daily paper—The Cleveland Plain Dealer/Cleveland.com. However, that would have to be considering its electronic, non-union version, Cleveland.com. The Plain Dealer has cut back its print distribution to Wednesday and Friday – Sunday. What’s more, The Plain Dealer was the home of Local 1 Newspaper Guild, the first newspaper guild in the country, before it fired the remaining union staff in the spring of 2020. 

Consequently, Cleveland has seen corruption in its local governments as well—as council-people improperly awarded city contracts or misappropriated funds, and corruption and fraud was uncovered in County Executive Office.

There is a silver-lining though, non-profit newsrooms like The Land and Signal Cleveland, and the launch of a local network of Marshall Project, have stepped up to fill the void left by the loss of local legacy news organizations.

The broader effects of the decline in local news, and subsequent nationalization of politics, has been felt in Cleveland as well. From 2010 to 2020 Cleveland’s average voter turnout in Presidential elections is 58%. That average falls to 33% in non-Presidential years. Local elections in Cleveland fall even further to an average of 22%. See Figure 1 in the support linked below for further details.

A couple important items to note about Cleveland elections. First, Cleveland elects its Mayor and its full 17-member City Council on the same cycle to four-year terms. These elections are held on odd years, where the state and federal elections are held on even years. Second, until the most recent Mayoral election in 2021, Frank Jackson had been re-elected four times and had served as Mayor for 16 years. One might reasonably assume that by the time of Mayor Jackson’s fourth election in 2019 voters’ enthusiasm would have waned and turnout would have fallen, weighing down the average turnout above, but turnout was 23% in 2021 just as it was in 2019. Also worth noting, turnout in the Mayoral elections is slightly higher than turnout for City Council members.

As the discussion above would suggest, I think part of this can be explained by the decline of local journalism in Cleveland and the associated broader national trends. However, I’m not sure a 36% differential in turnout between Presidential elections and local elections in Cleveland is entirely explained by a decline in local news coverage.

I have also looked at the effects of gerrymandering in Ohio. Earlier I pointed to the decline in local journalism to explain the decrease in voter turnout as you move down the ballot. What that does not explain, however, is why Ohio’s turnout at 69% is consistently below the national average of 86% when the decline in local journalism is being observed nation-wide. It is true that gerrymandering is pervasive in this country as well, though many states have adopted independent, non-partisan redistricting commissions to prevent gerrymandering in their state. According to FiveThirtyEight redistricting in eight states had an independent commission control the 2022 redistricting process. In another nine states control was split between the two parties. That means that approximately 42% of districts were not drawn by partisans from a single party. For the most part, where an independent commission controlled the redistricting process fairer maps were drawn, and more competitive districts which leads to higher turnout.

Looking at Ohio’s four largest cities—Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo—voter turnout is lower than statewide turnout, year-to-year (Figure 2). This is despite generally higher registration rates in these cities (Figure 3). Likely due, in part, to voter disenfranchisement resulting from gerrymandering. But because there is rarely ever just one cause is complex systems, the increasing nationalization of politics also likely has an impact. What political attention is not taken up by national politics the State has seemingly gleefully stepped in to claim. From local ordinances on guns, fracking, traffic cameras, and residency and construction projects the State Government has ignored the home rule provision within the State Constitution which is supposed to give local governments the latitude to self-govern, and overturned these local ordinances. When this happens repeatedly, in cities across the state, and for a broad spectrum of laws—including the seemingly mundane and inconsequential laws like a flavored tobacco ban—voters could be forgiven for getting the impression that local governments hold no real power in the state and, therefore, local elections are of little consequence.

While I do believe all of these factors play a part in the depressed voter turnout in Cleveland, still, I do not believe they are enough to fully explain what is going on with turnout in Cleveland. According to UNC each of the counties of Cincinnati, Columbus, and Toledo have lost local news rooms and each only has one remaining daily newspaper. Each city has also been similarly subjected to gerrymandering by the Ohio General Assembly and overreach by the state government's violation of home rule. However, when comparing voter turnout in Cleveland to its peer cities it lags behind (Figure 2) despite having comparable registration rates (Figure 3). This suggests something unique is going on in Cleveland.

As mentioned earlier, Cleveland elects its Mayor and City Council in off-year elections. Moving the municipal elections to correspond with statewide and national elections would almost certainly help improve turnout in the Mayoral and City Council elections. However, the issue, as I see it, is a bit more subtle; after all, Cleveland is already lagging its peers in turnout for statewide and national elections and those peer cities also hold their municipal elections in off-years. The difference is, Cleveland only elects its Mayor and City Council. Cincinnati, Columbus, and Toledo also elect a City Attorney and a City Auditor. Furthermore, 93% of school boards in the US are elected rather than appointed, but all nine members of the school board of Cleveland Metropolitan School District are appointed by the Cleveland Mayor.

There is an irony here. Municipal elections in Cleveland are seemly unimportant because Clevelanders are only voting for the Mayor and a Council person, whereas if they were also voting for a City Attorney, City Auditor, Police Chief, School Board, or some other positions within the government the election may seem more consequential. However, because Clevelanders are not able to elect these officials that power is retained by the Mayor—power that is concentrated in this position making the selection of the Mayor that much more important. If Clevelanders select an incompetent Mayor who, in turn, selects an inept City Attorney, City Auditor, or Police Chief and appoints unqualified School Board Members, that has a much more far-reaching effect than if Clevelanders were to elect an incompetent Mayor while selecting qualified candidates down ballot.

Furthermore, Cleveland has a history of undemocratic norms and traditions within its politics. Cleveland has long been a Democratic city, and behind the elected officials runs a political machine with a few individuals pulling the levers of power. The leaders of this Democratic Machine select their preferred candidate for County Executive, Cleveland Mayor, Congressional Representative, or whatever other position they sought to fill and the establishment would fall inline behind. Endorsements would follow, PACs would be established, fundraisers planed, money raised, speeches broadcast in support of the selected candidate. Outgoing Cuyahoga County Executive Armond Budish, ex-Mayor Frank Jackson, and ex-Congresswoman Marcia Fudge were all beneficiaries of this Machine. However, Justin Bibb defeated the Machine's preferred candidate, Kevin Kelley, to become the current Mayor of Cleveland. And when the Machine failed to coalesce behind a candidate to run against Chris Ronayne for County Executive, Ronayne won that election. Though only a couple of elections over a few years time, these recent events hopefully suggest the collapse of the Democratic Machine in Cleveland in favor of a more democratic process.

Cleveland City Council has its own set of undemocratic tendencies. One such norm; if a Council Member vacates their seat in the second half of their term the Member will recommend their replacement to serve out the remainder of their term for appointment by the Council instead of holding a special election to fill the vacancy. Phyllis Cleveland did this when she recommended Delores Gray to fill her remaining term representing Ward 5 in May of 2021 and Matt Zone did this when he recommended Jenny Spencer to serve his remaining term representing Ward 15 in September of 2020. When the vacancy comes in the first half of the Member's term the member still recommends a replacement for appointment by the Council, however, a special election will be held the following November. This is the case for Brian Mooney's recommended replacement, Danny Kelly.

This matters because incumbency comes with electoral benefits. For one, it likely means an easier primary election for the recommended replacement who has, at least, the implicit endorsement of party establishment. Second, a current councilperson will likely have higher name-recognition due to their position on city council. In a low-information election—which local Cleveland elections are due to the state of local media—name-recognition is a benefit which a potential challenger likely does not have and will likely struggle to gain.

In addition to council members selecting their heir to inherit their seat, City Council has been closed to Clevelanders. Constituents were able to contact their Council Members directly, and meetings were open to the public. However, for most of the existence of City Council Clevelanders have been unable to make public comments during City Council meetings. That finally changed in October 2021.

The opening of City Council to public comment at least appears to be the opening of the Cleveland government to broader civic involvement. The new Mayor of Cleveland, Justin Bibb, has also seemed to embrace citizen involvement in the government. During his campaign he publicly supported Issue 24 which would create a civilian oversight board of the city police department. Mayor Bibb also restarted the Urban Forestry Commission that had been defunct since the early 2000s, which includes three seats on the 15 member board for residents. Advocate groups have also been pushing for the adoption of a participatory budgeting process, specifically as it relates to federal stimulus dollars distributed in response to COVID-19, though there have been no concrete steps toward making this a reality.

While improvements have been made, the take away here is the city government has not only not asked, but not welcomed civic engagement from the residents of the city. One could point blame to the national and statewide factors discussed above; and for the most part I would agree! But it should be no surprised that when it comes time for Clevelanders to vote in municipal elections less than a quarter turn out when the city government is dismissive of its constituents. Cleveland has a weak culture of civic engagement, and that starts with the foundation of local elections—this is where government is supposed to be most responsive and citizens can be heard and see the effects of their petitions.

Cleveland is faced with more than a few difficult problems it needs to address; it is one of the poorest cities in the nation and one of the most racially segregated. If we hope to solve these problems equitably and fairly then those who are adversely affected by the status quo will need to have their voices heard, their experiences seen, and their perspectives understood. One of the best way we can do this is to democratize our city government so that it is open for everyone so those in power can hear, and can see, and can understand all of their constituents. 

Ohio Gerrymandered: A Decline into Single Party Rule

The Problem:

It is December of 2022 and it has been an eventful year, politically, for Ohio. The first national election after the decennial census will invariably generate additional attention as map makers work to draw new districts for the upcoming election—whether it is partisans in the state legislature, a non-partisan board, or a bi-partisan commission; as was the case for the first time in Ohio.

You see, after the 2010 census Republican’s held control of the Ohio legislature and so controlled the redistricting process. With that power they carved up Democratic territory in northeast Ohio and in the city of Columbus—and its surrounding suburbs—cracking and packing districts to maximize the number of Republican held seats in the State Senate, State House, and US House. One particularly egregious example was Ohio’s newly drawn District 9 which was designed to pit incumbent Democratic Representatives Marcy Kaptur and Dennis Kucinich against one another, eliminating a Democratic seat in the process. This new district, which spanned from Toledo to Cleveland along the shore of Lake Erie, was given the name “Snake on the Lake”. Fun fact about this district, it is technically not contiguous when Lake Erie water levels are high!

In response to this flagrant abuse of power, Ohio citizens expressed support for amendments to the State Constitution to reform the redistricting process. In 2015 an amendment was passed to move redistricting power for state legislative maps from the legislature to a bipartisan commission with 71% support. By 2017, the League of Women Voters, along with other groups, gained the necessary signatures to put forward an additional amendment to be voted on by Ohioans during the 2018 mid-term election. However, because the political environment was looking tough for Republicans, and seeing that redistricting reform was likely to be adopted in some form, Republican’s in the state legislature cut a deal with Democrats to put forward an amendment of their own for citizens to vote on during the 2018 primary. It is important to understand that citizen led amendments can only come forward for a vote during general elections; however, legislatively proposed amendments can be voted on during primaries—allowing Republicans to get ahead of the citizen led amendment and retain control of the process. Ohioans turned out and passed the amendment overwhelmingly; 1.2 million people voted for the amendment, which was 75% of those who voted. Readers should put a pin in this, thresholds for amendments (and particularly primary amendments) will come up later, so it is worth keeping these 71% and 75% thresholds front of mind.

So, what did these amendments do? As mentioned above, the 2015 amendment turned over the process of redistricting state legislative maps from the legislature to seven-member bipartisan commission consisting of the Governor, Auditor, and Secretary of State, as well as one member appointed by each of the Senate President, Speaker of the House, Senate Minority Leader, and House Minority Leader.

The 2018 amendment further reformed the redistricting process, this time for US House districts. The amendment changed the threshold for approval from a simple majority to three-fifths and requiring support from at least half the members of both major parties. If a map could not be agreed to then the process would be handed over to the seven-member commission created by the earlier amendment that is responsible for drawing state legislative maps. At this stage at least two minority-party members would have to agree to adopt the new maps. If the commission fails to come to an agreement as well, the redistricting process is handed back over to the legislature for approval by simple majority, however support from one-third of both parties would be required. At this point, if the two parties are unable to come to an agreement after three efforts at compromise, the legislature can pass a map with a simple majority; however, this map will only be valid for four years at which time this process would start again. The 2018 amendment also includes restrictions on how often counties and local governments can be split in order to promote compact districts. It further declares that maps must not unduly favor or disfavor a political party or its incumbents.

The 2015 and 2018 amendments seemed like the State had adopted good processes for redistricting; promoting and incentivizing bipartisanship, and setting limitations on how districts can actually be drawn. However, the final step in the 2018 amendment is its fatal flaw. This allows the majority party in power to pass gerrymandered maps and revise those maps every four years! 

In 2022 Democrats were expected to win only two of fifteen US House seats. They ended up winning five. Democrat Greg Landsman unseated incumbent Republican Steve Chabot in southern Ohio’s district 1 that includes Cincinnati. Marcy Kaptur—remember her? Republicans eliminated a Democratic seat by combining her district with another Democratic district and they returned in 2020 in an attempt to finish the job. Marcy beat Republican challenger J.R. Majewski. Lastly, Democrat Emilia Sykes defeated Republican Madison Gesiotto Gilbert to represent Ohio’s 13th district that includes Akron.

This in a year when Republicans swept statewide elections, including the US Senate seat, and Governor Mike DeWine defeated his opponent by 26 points. Part of this comes down to candidate quality; Majewski’s campaign was riddled with scandals and neither Majewski or Gilbert had previous elected experience. On the other hand, their opponents were known entities in their respective districts. Marcy Kapture has served in the US House of Representatives since 1983, making her the longest-serving women in the US House. Emilia Sykes has served in the State House since she took her father, Vernon Sykes', seat in 2015 and served as Minority Leader from 2019 to 2021. Steve Chabot’s defeat, however, cannot be explained by candidate quality as he was a 13 term Representative of District 1, serving from 1995 to 2009 and 2011 to 2023. The changing demographics of Cincinnati might explain Chabot’s defeat, but DeWine carried Hamilton County by 3 points.

The point being, Democrats won these three races by an average of 8 points; there is every reason to believe Republicans will try to draw these Democrats out of office again in four years.

But I am getting ahead of myself. We should look at the redistricting process that took place this year before looking forward to elections four years from now! I guess I also spoiled the ending of the story; bipartisan maps could not be agreed to and so four-year maps were adopted, but how did we get here?

The redistricting process begins with the decennial census. The most recent census began on April 1, 2020, which corresponded with lock-downs across the country in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic, along with interference from the Trump administration, resulted in a disorganized and chaotic 2020 census. Given these issues, the release date for census results was postponed from March 31, 2021 to September 30, 2021.

In fairness to the redistricting officials, the delayed release of official results meant that they lost six months that they could have otherwise been working on drawing districts. This meant that officials had to rush to get districts drawn and in place to allow candidates to register in their respective districts for the upcoming primary on May 3, 2022. However, the state legislature could have decided to push back the primary and registration dates to give themselves more time to complete the map making process (readers, pin another one).

The long and short of Ohio’s redistricting process in 2022 is this; Republicans who held five of the seven seats on the redistricting commission controlled the process. The commission was made up of Republican Governor Mike DeWine, Auditor Keith Faber, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, Senate President Matt Huffman, and Speaker of the House Bob Cupp; and Democratic Senator Vernon Sykes and House Minority Leader Allison Russo. 

These five Republican members rammed through five different sets of state legislative maps, locking the Democratic members out of the process almost entirely. Why five maps? Because five times voting rights groups took their case before the Ohio Supreme Court who found the state legislative maps were unconstitutional. The Ohio Supreme Court found that the state’s federal legislative maps were unconstitutional twice as well, though voting rights advocates dropped their suit against the second map due to the upcoming election. Why didn’t the commission draw a sixth state legislative map? Because the US District Court’s Southern District of Ohio issued an order that the commission’s Map 3 was to be used in the upcoming election, meaning that the Republicans on the commission could simply ignore the State Supreme Court and use their preferred map.

To add a bit of flavor to this saga. After the court invalidated the commissions second attempt at a map, the members of the commission were called to appear before the court to argue why they should not be held in contempt. During this hearing Governor DeWine, Secretary of State LaRose, and Auditor Faber made a startling admission; House Speaker Cupp and Senate President Huffman control the budgets and employ the Republican map-making experts, which effectively meant that these two men were in control of the entire map making process. Around this same time the commission received aid from Ohioans who submitted their own versions of district maps, though ultimately the commission was not receptive to the submissions. After the third set of maps were rejected, the commission hired two independent map makers to aid them in drawing fair maps for their fourth submission. The commission declined to accept the independent map makers map, instead submitting another version of a Republican drawn map. When this was rejected requiring a fifth submission the Republicans opted to not draw a new map at all and instead resubmit the previously rejected Map 3.

As this process drew on Republicans grew increasingly frustrated and began calling for the impeachment of Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor over her decisive votes to reject the commissions' maps. Among those entertaining Chief Justice O'Connor's impeachment; Secretary of State and commission member Frank LaRose. Republicans were silent, however, while Justice Pat DeWine—son to Governor and commission member Mike DeWine—refused to recuse himself from the lawsuits against the redistricting commission, and by extension his father. The difference, presumably, being that Republicans were happy with how Pat was voting, but not Chief Justice O’Connor.

If you thought I was simply being an alarmist when I raised concerns that Republicans would try again to draw districts to eliminate the three Democrats that won upsets in 2022, consider this; the key vote in the 4-3 Ohio Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Republican gerrymandered maps was cast by Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, a Republican, joining with the three Democrats on the bench. She was term-limited out of the court and replaced by another Republican, Justice Sharron Kennedy. Governor DeWine will appoint a Republican Justice to fill the vacancy left by Justice Kennedy meaning that Republicans will maintain their 4-3 majority on the Ohio Supreme Court, but Justice O'Connor's swing vote in these cases will be gone. The result being, Republican in the legislature will have nothing to check their blatant power grab in future redistricting efforts.

Oh, and because the commission was unable to draw fair maps, Ohio held two separate primaries in 2022. The first on May 3 and the second on August 2 for state legislative candidates. The second primary cost Ohio tax payers more than $30 million dollars.

The Effect:

Now then, we are caught up to the 2022 election where Ohioans went to the polls to vote using unconstitutional State Senate, State House, and US House maps. We have identified the problem—gerrymandering. And despite Ohioans’ best efforts to try and fix the problem, Republicans flaunted their power to ignore the will of the citizens they were elected to represent and went on gerrymandering. Before we get to the solution(s), I’d like to first take a look at the effects. It may help frame our later discussion.

Since the 1991 election Republicans have enjoyed control over both the House and Senate of the Ohio General Assembly, with the brief intermission of a Democratically controlled State House for one session after the 2007 election. Similarly, the Governor of Ohio has been held by a Republican since George Voinovich was elected to the office in 1989—noting the exception of the single four-year term of Ted Strickland from 2007 to 2011. This control over the legislature and executive branches gave Republicans control over three redistricting cycles; 2000, 2010, and now 2020.

The results of those electoral successes in the early 1990s beget later successes. We can quibble over how productive or successful Republicans have been in governing over their tenure, what I do not think is in doubt is that Republican success in Ohio has less to do with governance and everything to do with control over the redistricting process. But let’s look at some data to parse this out.

I will be looking at elections since 2000 as this the first time Republicans had the opportunity to fully control the redistricting process. In statewide elections during this period Republicans have, on average, won 51% of the vote to Democrats 47%. Both parties had an average margin of victory of 12%-13%. What this translates to in electoral outcomes is Republicans winning the Governor’s office 80% of the time, and a US Senate seat and the Presidential popular vote 2/3rds of the time.

So, when looking at results at the statewide level, Republicans are clearly outperforming Democrats, but not dramatically. I bring up the statewide election results for two reasons. First, the statewide results show that Democrats can, and have, won with popular support in Ohio and so are more competitive than the district level results may suggest. Second, though gerrymandering does not directly affect statewide elections by diluting or concentrating votes, it does have a knock-on effects on voters’ willingness to turnout to vote. Let’s test this claim a bit though.

Ohio’s voter participation in Presidential election years since 2000 is around 70%. This is well below the national average voter turnout of 86% during the same period. Even at 86% of registered voters, I would argue that voter turnout in this country is too low. In fact I have argued elsewhere that electoral participation in this country is suppressed, in large part, by disengaged voters who describe their reasons for not voting as they were “not interested, felt vote would not make a difference” or “did not like candidates or campaign issues”. In gerrymandered districts voters may not have more than one candidate to chose from, or may not believe their candidate has a legitimate chance of winning the election. In either case the voter may not like the candidate(s) or believe their vote will make a difference and instead chooses not to vote.

A quick aside—another significant reason respondents say they do not vote is voter restrictions. And with control of the state legislature Republicans have enacted the most aggressive voter-purge system in the country where a voters' registration is removed from the rolls if they fail to vote in two consecutive elections. In the current lame duck session of the Ohio General Assembly, Republicans are considering a bill limiting drop box locations, shortening the time-frame for requesting and returning early ballots, and requiring a photo ID to vote. All under the guise of preventing voter fraud despite Republican Secretary of State, Frank LaRose, reassuring Ohio voters that Ohio elections are secure.

But let’s set voter restrictions to the side and return again to gerrymandering, and specifically continue testing the supposition that gerrymandering can hurt the top of the ticket by suppressing voter turnout down ballot. We have already seen that voter turnout in Ohio is lower than the national average for Presidential elections.

Sticking with statewide elections; Ohio turnout of US Senate elections drops off a bit from the Presidential average to 59%. If instead we look at only Presidential election years, US Senate voter turnout is a comparable 68%—though still below the national average. In non-Presidential election years Senate voter turnout is 55%. Turnout for Governor elections drops even further to 48%—note that Ohio never votes for governor during presidential years when turnout is the highest. There are a lot of potential explanations for why turnout in Ohio is lower than the national average (see enacted voter restrictions above), but gerrymandering should be seriously considered as suppressing and disenfranchising voters.

Looking now at district level elections we see further drop off in participation. Average turnout for US Representative elections is 65% during Presidential election years, and 48% in non-Presidential election years. This is 3% and 7% lower than Senate election participation in Presidential and non-Presidential election years, respectively. The average voter participation rate continues to drop when looking at state district elections. An average 46% and 44% of voters turnout for the Ohio House and Ohio Senate, respectively. Though voter turnout for the Ohio House and Ohio Senate does increase to 62% and 63%, respectively, during Presidential election years—again, below the national average voter participation rate in Presidential elections. This means that when Ohioans are coming out to vote in Presidential election years, they are choosing not to cast a ballot for State Senators or State Representatives. When its not a Presidential election year, fewer voters are turning up to vote at all. See Figure 1 in the linked support below for further detail.

“Felt [my] vote would not make a difference”. That was one of the responses citizens gave for not voting. In Ohio from 2000 to 2022 an average of only seven State House districts changed parties. That is only 32 districts of 99 over the course of eight elections; or, in other words, 4% of general elections for Ohio State Representatives being of consequence—most elections being decided during primaries. Further, only 18 of these districts changed more than once during this period. Note that I excluded the election years 2002, 2012, and 2022 as these are outlier elections with changes in elected representation due to redistricting and not voter preference. See Figure 2 for additional detail.

Beyond just uncompetitive districts where the primaries are more important than the general election, in many cases voters do not have a choice between multiple candidates. This is not an issue in the statewide races for Governor or US Senate, or even really for the US House of Representatives. However, on average there are 16 districts a year with only one candidate running in the Ohio House and three a year in the Ohio Senate. This is an issue for both parties, though Republicans are running unopposed slightly more often. Which should not be surprising since they are drawing districts that favor their candidates. See Figure 3 for additional detail.

So, what is the result of these unopposed candidates and unshifting district affiliations? Well, based on voter share it means that Republicans are holding an average of about 2.5 more seats in the US House and Ohio Senate and 7 more in the Ohio House than they would under fair maps. It means that Democrats are holding an average of roughly 2.5 fewer seats in the US House and Ohio Senate and 6 fewer in the Ohio House. It means that Republicans can win a majority of seats without winning a majority of the popular vote; in 2000 and 2006 in the US House, in 2002 and 2018 in the Ohio Senate, and in 2006 and 2012 in the Ohio House. It also means that third-parties have been under represented in the Ohio House by a seat. See Figure 4 for additional details.

This last point, I think, is very important. Voters do not neatly fall into one of two camps; Conservative or Liberal. Voters have idiosyncratic beliefs developed from a wide range of lived experiences, and our electoral system is not representing that diversity of beliefs.

This is the underlying issue. Redistricting is preventing Ohioans from being adequately and accurately represented in our legislature at all levels. And because of this, would be voters are discouraged; whether its because there is only one candidate to vote for in their district, because the district is gerrymandered and the outcome of the general election was determined during the primary, or because voters feel under represented—because in a lot of cases they are! And so, Ohioans are staying home. They are choosing not to participate in a system that is not working for them. And the extent to which they are staying home is greater than the voter participation rates above would suggest! Those rates are based off of registered voters, not all voting aged citizens.

The Solution:

Voting rights groups, many of the same groups that pushed for the original reforms, have once again taken up the cause to reform Ohio’s redistricting process. This time advocating for an independent redistricting commission. The hope being that with an independent, and non-partisan, redistricting commission self-serving partisan actors will be removed from the process so that fair (and constitutional) maps may be drawn for Ohio voters.

However, Republicans are again trying to get ahead of redistricting reform; this time by amending the threshold for citizen led ballot initiatives. Secretary of State, Frank LaRose, is backing a proposal to increase the threshold for adopting ballot issues from 50% to 60%; arguing that “something as serious as amending our constitution should really demand the kind of consensus necessary to get 60%”. Keep in mind that the Republican General Assembly is trying to pass this legislation during the lame duck period between the general election and the beginning of the next legislative session. Further, the Republican General Assembly that is proposing this amendment does not have support of more than 60% of Ohio voters, despite gerrymandering! Ironically it will also take 50% of voters to raise the threshold to pass future amendments to 60%.

During hearings on the proposal, co-sponsor Rep. Brian Stewart said, “we’re not trying to make amending the Constitution impossible. We’re simply trying to require that you—in a diverse state of 11-plus million people—that you get more than 50% of the 25% that might show up to vote in a sleepy May primary.” If you remember, it is only legislative ballot initiatives that can be brought for a primary vote, not civilian initiatives. So, Brian is adding another layer of irony on this proposal as he wants to amend the Ohio Constitution in the exact way he says we should not be amending the Constitution. What’s more, Brian ran unopposed in the 2022 general election, which means he was elected in a "sleepy primary". A primary where he also ran unopposed and still only received 0.32% of votes in his district!

I alluded to my solution above, I would propose that Ohio should do away with all districts and adopt a proportional system for allocating seats to parties. I believe a proportional system for distributing Electoral College votes, US Representative seats, Ohio Senate seats, and Ohio House seats, along with a ranked choice system for the US Senate would vastly improve representation in Ohio. I have laid out my arguments in detail for a proportional system here and a ranked choice system here, so I will not fully rehash them. In summary, this would eliminate the ability of partisan actors to gerrymander for their own gain. It would also increase ideological diversity of representation as third-party candidates have legitimate odds at holding office. You can refer to my analysis in Figure 4 for more detail. I should note that when performing my analysis, I did group all third-party votes together, so the percentage of any one party is likely overstated. However, I believe that in a system where these candidates have a legitimate chance of holding office and voters view casting ballots for third-parties not as throw-away or spoiler votes, their vote share will increase. Further, success begets success, and as third-parties increase their representation they will draw more support.

Whether it is adopting an independent redistricting commission or instituting a proportional and ranked choice system, the status quo of elections in Ohio is untenable. Republicans in the state have not been accountable to voters for too long, and electoral accountability is a necessary condition for democracy. Take from that what you will.

Data:

Ohio Gerrymandered 

Ohio Election Data: 2000 - 2022