Libertarian Party of Ohio Joins Coalition in Support of Redistricting Reform Initiative in Ohio

Posted on by October 11, 2024

Thanks to the LPOH for joining this coalition. Yesterday, I blogged a Christian Science Monitor story about the former Chief Justice of Ohio Supreme Court’s support for Issue 1, even though she is a Republican, while the Ohio GOP opposes the measure.

Here is the story on the LPOH’s support for Issue 1 from Independent Political Report.

Comments

Libertarian Party of Ohio Joins Coalition in Support of Redistricting Reform Initiative in Ohio — 46 Comments

  2. The Ohio LP is obviously run by communists. This is what this group ends up electing in every state it is created.

  4. Loopytarians are undercover feds and or commies pretty much every time. The partyarch monstrosity needs to be killed off for good, although it’s killing itself as it is – just not fast enough.

  12. What would a map that benefits Libertarians even look like in Ohio? They must be scattershot in Ohio.

  13. One issue I see with this is, there’s still supposedly a “bi-partisan” filter so to speak. The committee that selects the committee.

    From the proposed amendment:

    Section 2. Establishment of Bipartisan Screening Panel; Screening of Applicants; Formation of the Commission

    (A) A bipartisan screening panel is hereby established upon the effective date of this article to review and screen applicants interested in serving as members of the commission. The bipartisan screening panel shall consist of four retired judges, two of whom affiliate with the First Major Party and two of whom affiliate with the Second Major Party.

    (B) In the initial 2024-2025 redistricting cycle and in each subsequent redistricting cycle, members of the bipartisan screening panel shall be selected as follows:

    (1) The four members of the Ohio ballot board who were appointed by members of the general assembly shall convene to oversee selection of the bipartisan screening panel. All administrative and operational support for this selection shall be provided by the Department of Administrative Services.

  14. Whether done by the legislature, or so-called “independent commissions” legislative redistricting is too open-ended, Some parameters need to be written into the constitution

    For instance, some lower unit of government must be the foundation of the districts, as states are for the US House. In Ohio, given that there are 88 counties, these should be the basis of reapportionment, and no county should be divided. There are 99 seats in the Ohio House, so each county that has at least 1/99 of the state’s population gets 1 seat, and any county with any additional 99th of population gets that many more seats. Smaller counties would be combined, but each county could have a veto over any district of which it doesn’t want to be a part. This might result in creating discontinuous districts, but is that bad if it the counties are happier in the districts which they prefer?

  15. Also, if any populous county ends up with more than one rep, there are ways of choosing them that doesn’t require creating sub-districts within the county. They could all be elected at-large with approval, cumulative, or ranked voting, or single-member overlay county-wide districts can be created in any county with more than one rep.

  16. Another thing that should be considered is that Ohio’s House of Representatives is too small per the cube root rule. Given that Ohio currently has a population of 11,800,000, there should be at least 228 members in the Ohio House of Rep, but there are only 99.

  18. Expanding the size of the legislature makes them more accountable to the people. In the 1970’s Massachusetts reduced the size of its House of Reps from 240 to 160, allegedly to make them more “professional”. Well, they because more professional in the worst possible way. More remote from the people, and more open to scandal.

    New Hampshire, on the other hand, has had the good sense to keep its House Reps at 400 members, even tho New Hampshire is a lot smaller than Massachusetts, their “amateur, part-time” legislature has kept taxes low, and people happier in that state.

  19. For that matter, the US would be better if we expanded the US house of Reps. At 435 members, its already too small. The disparity in population between the small states and the large states creates significant distortion in apportioning the House with only 435 members. At a minimum, the Wyoming Rule, which would increase the size of the US House by 120-150 members, would have to be adopted to bring proportionality to the House.

  20. IMO, the big mistake that the LP Ohio made in supporting this measure was not going bolder, and proposing more radical reform of the state legislature

  21. The NH legislators get $100 (per year or term?) and some travel expenses. That’s more important than their number.

  22. Indeed, paying legislators enough to live on, are the other persists error of having legislators in session every year and or throughout the year, is never good

  23. I like the idea of legislators meeting nude in the forest during hunting season and being fitted with antlers and subject to normal deer bag limits etc, but attendance would not be required – they need only “run” such a risk if they wish to actually introduce or vote on any legislation. Session would coincide with deer season exactly.

  24. Obviously, federal congress ought to be likewise encumbered until we can abolish it altogether along with the other federal branches; but perhaps D.C., along with having insufficient forest to make this interesting – Rock Creek park isn’t large enough for what I have in mind – ought to be moved to the current geographic center, which iirc is in North Dakota when Alaska is taken into consideration – Kansas would serve a likewise function were it only the lower 48

  25. Since there’s no difference between the Libertarian and Republican parties anymore, and a diminishing number of people in either party or outside of both fails to realize it, this may be as good a place as any to ask: why is Trump campaigning primarily in blew states like California and Colorado right now? Wouldn’t it make more sense for him to deploy in the states which could conceivably decide the election if it should turn out to be close, and perhaps those which might determine control of the federal Senate if it ends up being close there?

  26. Indeed, that was a lesson we learned the hard way with the George Wallace campaign in 1968. Governor Wallace insisted on campaigning in Yankee states during clutch time, against almost all of our advice, rather than winnable states just south of the old Mason-Dixon line. The latter would have given us enough electors to achieve the campaign goal of throwing the election into the House, giving us far greater leverage albeit not the presidency itself in all likelihood.

    Of course, I only worked on Governor Wallace’s presidential campaign at all because I didn’t realize at the time that he was a liberal LARPer, essentially nothing but an actor. Not an aboveboard actor like Governor Reagan had been before politics, but an actor within politics itself, portraying a man he wasn’t with views he did not actually hold, specifically because he was addicted to the adulation that came with campaigning for and holding office.

    In reality, Governor Maddox, whom I personally knew much better as a then fellow Georgia resident, family friend, and personal and political mentor, was thoroughly the man that the actor George Corley Wallace surreptitiously portrayed.

    Donald Trump, perhaps not coincidentally, was an actor prior to politics, as the lead actor on the “reality” television show The Apprentice. I’ll leave it to others to connect any dots here, but as someone said, I think it was something like, history doesn’t repeat but oftentimes it rhymes.

  27. Donald Trump is the name of a screaming orange demon
    Which wants to murder all the immigrants and grab on all the women

  28. Defund the police Kamala is a prime example of a deportable piece of trash that needs to be deported along with all the other deportable brown trash during the upcoming second Trump term, and hopefully will be.

  29. Cumala Harris is a whore that’s always creamin’
    While making money taking Negro and Jew seamen

  30. What else can I say y’all except Trump, White Power?!
    All you untermenschen subhumans need to go take a shower!

  31. COMMIE HARRIS – FASCIST TRUMP

    DO NOT VOTE FOR EVIL.

    HOPE FOR A MINORITY RULE PREZ VIA POPULAR VOTES
    —
    PR
    APPV
    TOTSOP

  32. Harris is much more fascist than Trump, as well as obviously being much more communist.

  33. Why isn’t White Power on pure automatic?!
    Crazy aunt Cumala should be kept in the attic!

  35. I notice that my comment breaking down the ballot-approved phrasing of the issue, and pointing out how many of these points are variously incompatible with libertarianism, has not been placed on either of Mr Redpath’s BAN posts about it.

    My similar post (not identical verbatim, but no different in overall content) at IPR was placed and is still there since yesterday. My experience is that BAN is less censorious than IPR, so I’m curious as to why my comment has not been placed here?

    Is it because I linked directly to a PDF hosted on the Ohio SoS’s website containing the certified text of the ballot issue? Is it because I asked how long the LPO’s executive committee, which unanimously voted to endorse this issue, had been run by uniparty plants? Or what?

  36. Did your comment contain links? Perhaps no one has been reviewing the comment moderation queue? I notice Mr. Redpath never comments here, unlike Mr. Winger, so maybe looking at the comment moderation queue is just not a thing he does? If Mr. Winger or anyone else looks at it for Mr. Redpaths articles, maybe he just hasn’t gotten to it?

    Suggestion: maybe try just posting a link to your ipr comment and see whether that will post.

  37. Usually I can post a single link (or two) to domains that have previously been cleared. But posting a bunch of links, or a link to a new domain gets the comment flagged for moderation.

    In addition, putting links in the “Website” field can lead to trouble in some circumstances. For example, if the link contains a #, then it typically cannot be placed in the “Website” field without the entire comments disappearing (without any notification that it is held for moderation). I suspect, but am not certain, that such comments also do not show up in the moderation queue to be cleared.
    However, it isn’t simply as cut and dry as that either, because links to IPR containing a # can be pasted in the “Website” field, whereas (most) other links (e.g. to Wikipedia) cannot.

    So what I think might have caused the comment not to be placed, is my linking to a PDF file rather than a webpage, in the “Website” field. Or to put it another way, I wonder whether BAN (unlike IPR) automatically either deletes or hides comments if they have a .pdf file extension in the “Website” field. And if so, which of the two.

    But enough of my waffling. Here is the link to my post on IPR:

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2024/10/ohio-libertarians-join-coalition-in-support-of-redistricting-amendment/#comment-2742085

    Cheers!

  38. @WZ,

    Ohio should go back to its system of temporally weighted representation.

    (1) Go with your cube root rule of 228 representatives. Apportion representatives among the counties. If a county is entitled to less than three representatives, combined it with neighbors so that these multi-county districts are entitled to between 3 and 6 representatives.
    (2) Quantize the apportionment to the nearest 1/5 using Sainte-Laguë (e.g. 3.4 or 5.6 or 4.0)
    (3) If a county is entitled to more than 6 representatives, diving into two or more districts based on towns and cities. Divide larger cities (Columbus into 3; Cleveland into 2; Cincinnati is OK with 1, using prominent geographic features. The Cuyahoga River might be used for Cleveland.
    (4) Determine which elections over a decade an extra representative will be chosen. For example a district entitled to 3.4 representatives will be entitled to elect three representatives in 3 elections, and four in the other two. Distribute these so that variation over larger areas is minimal.
    (5) Elect multi-member districts using STV (New Zealand method). If a voter chooses less than all candidates, and their ballot is exhausted, adopt the preference order of their first choice for remaining preferences.

  39. TOTAL VOTES / TOTAL MEMBERS = RATIO = EQUAL VOTES TO ELECT

    PRE-ELECTION CANDIDATE RANK CHOICE ORDER LISTS OF ALL OTHER CANDIDATES IN ALL DISTRICTS

    SURPLUS VOTES MORE THAN RATIO DOWN – REPEAT

    LOSER LOSER VOTES UP – REPEAT

    ALL VOTES COUNT — BOTH MAJORITY RULE AND MINORITY REPRESENTATION

  41. WZ/JR

    DIVIDE ALL HIGH POP STATES WITH TOTAL VOTES / TOTAL MEMBERS OVER X ???

    SOLVE FOR X.

    MAX MEMBERS IN A STATE LEGIS BODY = Z

    SOLVE FOR Z

  43. Jim Riley on October 12, 2024 at 9:32 pm —

    EXACT PR — DISTS = 1 OR MORE POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS / PART OF 1 SUBDIVISION / SQUARE-ISH — LONGER TERM

    CONDORCET WINNERS HAVE VOTING POWERS = VOTES RECEIVED

  44. I put Kamala Harris out on the track months ago. Bitch better have my election win.

  45. @ JR:

    Your proposal is a bit more complicated than it needs to be. What New Hampshire does now would be sufficient for most places:

    1. Have a very large number of Reps; at a minimum the number that the cube root rule indicates.
    2. Keep cities and towns united in any district.
    3. Have large cities with multiple reps choose them in multi-member or overlay districts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.