Agreed, but the goal shouldn't be 50/50, but to properly represent the people. Each area is different, but generally speaking, urban areas should form a district with other urban areas, and rural areas should form a district with other rural areas.
If the goal is to match the statewide partisan split, we should just move to proportional representation.
Right, there are some legitimate reasons to not split everything by population or affiliation. This can end up destroying the voice that some isolated minority communities have.
It's a super hard problem to find the best solution, but also super obvious when people are proposing shitty solutions for obviously immoral reasons. It would be a decent first step if we could just get to where we don't have an obviously shitty, and ultimately unconstitutional, map
That's certainly possible, but it's probably better than the alternative.
I'm in Utah, and we passed an initiative where an independent commission proposes maps for the state legislature, and the legislature ignored all of them and passed one where every district includes a part of SLC to fracture the liberal vote. So now all four representatives could live within a mile or so of each other.
Yeah is something like 65/35 Rep/Dem, yet no district is feasible to win by a Democrat.
Maybe, but Dayton and Cincinnati are kinda close. In my state (Utah), it would be like Cleveland and Cincinnati sharing a representative. All of our districts share a piece of the main urban center, to the point where all of our representatives could live within a mile or so of each other.
Ohio's maps don't look obviously bad, but there are certainly some sus districts.
Agreed, but the goal shouldn't be 50/50, but to properly represent the people. Each area is different, but generally speaking, urban areas should form a district with other urban areas, and rural areas should form a district with other rural areas.
If the goal is to match the statewide partisan split, we should just move to proportional representation.
Right, there are some legitimate reasons to not split everything by population or affiliation. This can end up destroying the voice that some isolated minority communities have.
It's a super hard problem to find the best solution, but also super obvious when people are proposing shitty solutions for obviously immoral reasons. It would be a decent first step if we could just get to where we don't have an obviously shitty, and ultimately unconstitutional, map
That's certainly possible, but it's probably better than the alternative.
I'm in Utah, and we passed an initiative where an independent commission proposes maps for the state legislature, and the legislature ignored all of them and passed one where every district includes a part of SLC to fracture the liberal vote. So now all four representatives could live within a mile or so of each other.
Yeah is something like 65/35 Rep/Dem, yet no district is feasible to win by a Democrat.
So you’re telling me a suburb of Dayton shouldn’t share a congressperson with Cincinnati?
Maybe, but Dayton and Cincinnati are kinda close. In my state (Utah), it would be like Cleveland and Cincinnati sharing a representative. All of our districts share a piece of the main urban center, to the point where all of our representatives could live within a mile or so of each other.
Ohio's maps don't look obviously bad, but there are certainly some sus districts.
Fair. But the. The government doesn't do that too greatly either though. But I do agree and that's my bad.