I have been part of many political discussions lately, and regardless of the topic, or the spin, one single thought keeps occurring to me. ‘ This would be less of a problem if Gerrymandering was not allowed. ‘ I am going to write several posts about Gerrymandering and why I want to hunt the Gerrymander down and kill it. To illustrate why I feel this way I’ll reference gerrymanders in my local area, past and present, whenever possible.
Topic #1: Marginalization.
Gerrymandering is the practice of drawing voting boundary lines to control an aspect of the voting populous within the boundary. Drawing the boundary so that a specific social, political or economic minority is a majority within the boundary and has a clear voice and clear representation does seem like the moral thing to do. It some cases it can be a good thing, other times it isn’t. You see, drawing the same boundary can be used to isolate a community.
For example there used to be a historical subdivision of my county township. It was known as East Jackson Township. This division was used to marginalize a racial minority. The rest of the Township had a higher population and by isolating them within a single low population subdivision of Jackson Township their political voice within the entirety of Jackson Township could be ignored. The remainder of Jackson Township spoke for them and thus this community was silenced politically. Remnants of this political subdivision existed as part of the school system in the county into the 1970s, when the small, ignored, poorly funded, community school was finally fully absorbed into the Waverly City School District.
This marginalizing of citizens does occur at a higher political levels. Non-economic social marginalization (hopefully) is rare, but political party marginalization is not. The redistricting of Ohio’s Congressional districts, based on the 1980 Census, placed a large low population area containing several of Ohio’s southwestern counties under the direct political sway of high population Cincinnati suburbs. Initially the district was mostly Republican, but the ensuing thirty years have seen the most poor and rural of these counties swing further towards the Democratic party. This is evidenced by the election of Democratic county commissioners, Sheriffs, and by the percentage of Congressional, Senatorial, and Presidential votes cast for Democratic candidates. What this means is, especially for the Ohio 2nd Congressional District issues, the carefully drawn district boundary that includes small area, high income, heavily Republican, suburban neighborhoods of Cincinnati carved out of Hamilton and Warren Counties speak for the vastly larger rural area. Issues unique to the rural areas within the district are ignored. Our representative in Congress speaks for her base; for the area near Cincinnati. The rest of the district has been marginalized. We don’t really have a voice in the House of Representatives. A good example is that Pike County was in desperate need of Health Care Insurance reform, yet our representative would not even discuss the issue with her Democratic counterparts, let alone vote for legislation that her high income Cincinnati suburban constituents do not see a need for. Another good example is the loss of jobs. On top of double digit unemployment figures it was already suffering, it was recently announced that Pike County”s largest employer is closing shop. People would like to blame the President and Ohio Governor, but what about our Representative? She should have been our voice for the the past five years. She is more to blame for the economic woes because she has been in office longer and should have done deeds to help the poor areas of her district.
Don’t get me wrong, there are many Republicans in rural areas. At present there is a good mix of both major parties within Pike County. This is a good thing, because this causes true debate and forces our locally elected officials to reach out and really work with those who may not hold the exact political viewpoints as they do; to work together for compromise and the good of all.
This leads into my next post topic — entrenched partisanship — which I will post in the near future.
Filed under: Feel Free to Disagree, The Political Lamp is Lit | Leave a Comment »