It\u2019s not just about Trump<\/p>\n
*note \u2013 this one gets in the \u201cweeds\u201d of politics in Ohio<\/p>\n
Flynn resigns, Russian connections: how different would Trump world be if the Democrats had a majority of either the House or the Senate. The Affordable Care Act would still be intact, there already would be investigations of the administration, and several of the Cabinet picks, particularly DeVoes, Mnuchin, Sessions, and Price (as well as Pruitt at EPA) might not have gotten through.<\/p>\n
The changes brought about by the Presidential election of 2016 are more than momentous. The fact that the Democratic Party failed so miserably at every level of government means that there are few checks on what Trump can do.<\/p>\n
Why did it happen?<\/p>\n
The Republican Party (well before Trump was even an official \u201cRepublican\u201d) did a tremendous job of taking control at the state level. This was through a series of steps, starting in the early 2000\u2019s. The first was the use of \u201cwedge\u201d issues to drive up the Republican Party identification, and Republican turnout in the election. An example of this was the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio, George W Bush versus John Kerry. The then Republican Ohio Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, played a pivotal role in Ohio in two ways. First, he was the main statewide official supporting an amendment to the State Constitution outlawing gay marriage. That amendment was on the statewide ballot at the same time as the Presidential vote, and helped drive up the Republican turnout throughout the state. Kerry lost to Bush by 2% of the vote.<\/p>\n
\u201cWedge\u201d issues not only increased the amount of Republican voters to the polls. It also caused many voters who had traditionally been economic Democrats to switch to the other side. The Republican Party was essentially able to label the Democratic Party as anti-traditional Christian, the party of minorities and of big cities. Scioto County (Portsmouth, Ohio) is a good example of this. In 1996, Scioto went 48% Clinton, 37% Dole, and 14% Perot. In 2004 it was Bush 52%, Kerry 48%. 2008 it went McCain 52%, Obama 46%, and in 2016 Trump 66%, Clinton 29%.<\/p>\n
The Republican Party used this \u201cwedge\u201d issue tactic to drive up votes and party identification throughout the country. The second method used by the GOP was to press for more restrictive voting and identification laws, called by Democrats \u201cvoter suppression\u201d. Limited time to vote and the requirement of photo identification almost always favored economically better-off voters, and therefore makes it more difficult for economically disadvantaged voters, many of whom were minorities, to vote. The net effect: drive down the voting percentage, therefore increasing the percentage of Republican voters.<\/p>\n
Both of these techniques were very effective in the first decade of the 21st century, and allowed Republicans to gain complete control of the Ohio state government in the 2010 election (Kasich-R versus Strickland-D). This gave Republicans what they wanted most: control of re-apportionment. They were able to control how voting districts would be drawn, both on the Congressional level, and for state legislative seats.<\/p>\n
Elbridge Gerry, the Democratic-Republican Governor of Massachusetts in 1810, gave his name to the process of drawing legislative districts to favor one political party or the other. Gerrymandering has been a long time political art, but with the advent of the computer, it has become a science. With Republicans in charge of all phases of the re-districting planning in Ohio, the drawing was done carefully to minimize Democratic strongholds and maximize Republican dominance.<\/p>\n
The most obvious example is the 9th Congressional District of Ohio, currently a Democratic district. It stretches for downtown Toledo to downtown Cleveland, barely edging from the Lake Erie shore (a some points contiguous by only a bridge), over one hundred miles. It put the inner cities of Toledo and Cleveland in the same district, taking two old (and generally Democratic) districts and throwing them into one.<\/p>\n
This was done at the state legislative level as well, generally guaranteeing a Republican majority in both houses of the legislature.<\/p>\n
Unintended Consequences<\/p>\n
The unintended consequence of this re-apportionment is that by creating such Republican and Democratic districts, there were no longer any \u201cmoderate\u201d seats. The general election (Dem versus Rep) was not the one that mattered anymore, its outcome was a foregone conclusion. What mattered was the primary election. In a primary, where voting participation is down, the \u201ccore\u201d of the political party has sway over the outcome. The consequence was that the \u201chardliners\u201d were able to control the primary process, and the moderates, who might have had more sway in a less slanted electorate, were driven from office (on both sides).<\/p>\n
It makes sense then that the hardliners are unable to negotiate with each other when it comes to the legislature (and as this has happened throughout the country \u2013 at the national level as well). Not only are they less likely to anyway, but if they do, they risk getting \u201cPrimaried\u201d in the next election, out flanked by an opponent who can use their compromising as a campaign issue.<\/p>\n
What can be done?<\/p>\n
This makes the next couple of election cycles so important. To reverse this cycle of polarization, districts need to be made more competitive again. This is even recognized by the current \u201cmasters\u201d of re-apportionment, the Ohio Republicans. Secretary of State John Husted has pushed for re-apportionment reform to allow more bi-partisan input into the process. But for Democrats to make real headway, they have to win elections. However, with current Districting, what elections can be won?<\/p>\n
Statewide \u2013 Ohio is still a \u201cpurple\u201d state. The Governor and Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, and Auditor are all up for election, as is a US Senate seat (Sherrod Brown-D). They are all statewide, where re-districting doesn\u2019t matter. Under Ohio\u2019s new apportioning law, the Governor, Auditor and Secretary of State are members of the Board. Also members: a majority and a minority party appointment of the state House of Representatives, and the same from the State Senate. Therefore whichever party wins the most statewide seats in 2018, controls apportionment.<\/p>\n
It’s a long way back for the Democratic party. But winning control of statewide offices will be the first step to gaining some control, and making Ohio\u2019s government more representative of a \u201cpurple\u201d state rather than the \u201cred\u201d state it appears. The problem: finding candidates that can succeed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"