|
Executive
Summary
Introduction
Competition
Congress
State
Senate
State
House
Geographic
Communities
Political
Representation
Historical
Redistricting Results
Appendix
|
Download
the full report
COMPETITION
Congress
| To measure
the inherent general election competitiveness of a political
district, we examined the vote for president in each of Ohio’s
congressional districts. We believe that the presidential vote
in a hotly contested election year is the best indication of
the partisan preferences of the voters in that district. Despite
a very close competition nationally and within Ohio between
John Kerry and George Bush, most of Ohio’s congressional
districts were drawn to include a strong majority of either
Bush or Kerry voters.
In only four of eighteen
congressional districts did a presidential candidate win by
fewer than five percentage points. These districts, shown
in grey on the map, are predisposed to be comptitive between
the two parties at the congressional level. The actual elections
held in these districts may or may not be close, depending
on other factors such as incumbency and campaign fundraising.
|
|
Nine of Ohio’s
congressional districts were drawn to advantage Republicans.
Six of these districts , shown in red, were carried
by President Bush by ten or more percentage points,
and 3 of them, shown in pink, were carried by Bush by
5-10 percentage points.
Five of Ohio’s
congressional districts were drawn to advantage Democrats.
All five of these districts were carried by John Kerry
by ten or more percentage points. There were no districts
created that leaned Democrat, where Kerry won by 5-10
percent of the vote.
A list of the
least competitive congressional districts appears to
the right. Six are safe Republican seats and four are
safe Democrat seats.
We then analyzed
how each winning congressional candidate did in relation
to how their district was predisposed. In every congressional
race but one, Representative Oxley’s, the winning
congressional candidate had a stronger comparitive showing
than their party’s presidential candidate.
|
download
PDF of this map
|
This would suggest that
either the winning congressional candidates in Ohio were strong
candidates who ran more competitive campaigns than either
President Bush or John Kerry, or that the losing candidate
was a comparitively weaker campaigner. Given that both President
Bush and John Kerry ran extremely strong campaigns in Ohio,
we suspect the latter explanation -- many congressional challengers
are relatively weak candidates. The design of congressional
districts may be one reason why both parties have trouble
recruiting strong candidates. Why would somebody drop their
private life and subject themselves to the rigors of a campaign
to run in a district that has been drawn to virtually assure
the election of your opponent?
Gerrymandering was remarkably
successful in determining general election results. In all
of the fourteen districts that we rated as either safe or
leaning toward one party, that party’s congresssional
candidate won.
In seventeen out of
eighteen congressional races, the congressional candidate
who was advantaged by the way district boundaries were gerrymandered
won the election. The one exception was Ted Strickland, a
Democrat who was unopposed even while running in a district
that slightly favored President Bush.
In addition to Mr. Strickland,
Stephanie Tubbs Jones ran unopposed, meaning that 11% of Ohio’s
congressional races saw not even token competition.
|
 |
| Ohio
Senate |
Only five out of thirty-three
Senate districts are rated competitive -- meaning that they
were won by either presidential candidate by a margin less than
five points. These districts are shown in grey on the accompanying
map. Three of these five districts were won by the party whose
presidential candidate carried the district.
|
| Thirteen
senate districts are safe seats for Republicans, shown in red,
where President Bush won by 10 points or more. Another three,
shown in pink, lean Republican because President Bush carried
them by 5 to 10 points. Republican senate candidates won in
all sixteen of these districts -- in other words, the gerrymandering
was 100% successful in these districts.
Ten districts are safe
senate seats for the Democrats, shown in dark blue, and another
2 lean Democratic, shown in light blue. Democrats won all
ten of their safe seats, but in an anomaly Republicans won
both of the two seats that lean Democrat.
Of the ten safest seats
in the Senate, five are Democrat and five are Republcan. Note
however, that four of the top 5 safest seats are Democratic
seats -- an indication that Democrats may have been intentionlly
packed into very safe districts so as to dilute their strength
outside of those districts. This could also have the effect
of advantaging extremely liberal candidates and disadvantage
moderates in the Democratic primaries that are held in those
safe Democratic seats.
Four of thirty-three
Senate districts were uncontested in either 2002 or 2004,
or 12%. All were safe seats.
Only six of the winning
senate candidates preformed worse in their elections than
their party’s own presidential candidate. Of the ten
worst preforming winning Senate candidates, none were from
competitive districts and eight were from safe seats.
|
download
PDF of this map
|
This is an indication
perhaps that safe districts lead to weaker winning candidates who
don’t need to work hard to win an election.
In comparison, only four of
the top ten best performing Senate winners came from safe seats
while five came from competitive districts. Three of the top four
best performing Senate victors represent competitive districts.
Ohio
House
Fifteen of the 99 districts
for the Ohio House are competitive, meaning that there is a roughly
equal split between Democratic and Republican voters as evidenced
in their support for presidential candidates. We rated any district
with a margin of victory less than 5 points in the presidential
race as competitive. These districts are shown in grey on the accompanying
map. Only 33% of these competitive seats were won by the Ohio house
candidate whose own party’s presidential nominee also carried
the district.
Fourty-five districts,
shown in red, are rated safe Republican districts and another
seven, shown in pink, are rated as leaning Republican. Of these
52 districts, Republicanswon 90% of the races.
Twenty-seven House districts,
shown in dark blue, are safe Democratic seats and another
five lean Democrat. Of these 32 seats, Democrats won 88% of
the races.
Taken in combination,
this means that of 84 non-competitive seats, the party who
was favored by the district lines won 77 races. The gerryandering
was 92 percent effective for Ohio House races.
All of the top ten safest
House seats are rated as safe Democratic seats. This provides
additional evidence that Democratic voters have been packed
into a smaller number of highly Democratic districts in order
to dilute their strength in surrounding districts.
There were 22 members of the Ohio House who face no competition
at all in the last election. All but two of these came from
safe seats and only one was from a competitive seat. Another
three winners face no major party opposition.
Of the ten best performing
candidates compared to their own party’s presidential
nominees, only two came from safe districts. However, all
ten of the weakest performing House winners came from safe
districts.
These results bolster
the theory that uncompetitive districts lead to weak candidates
of both parties. In a heavily gerrymandered district, the
minority party has trouble finding a strong candidate to run
because it is nearly hopeless for that candidate to prevail
when the odds are stacked against him or her. But conterintuitively,
the majority party can also get by with weak candidates precisely
because the deck is stacked in their favor. When the opposing
minority candidate is weak, the majority party need not field
a strong candidate to prevail.
|
download
PDF of this map
|
|
|
|
|
