Logic Times

Outcome-Based Elections

Posted by Aslan, 11/5/05, 1:46am. Comments (2)

Words in the U.S. Constitution instructing states on election rules

202

Words in the U.S. Constitution detailing rules for the election of members of the Senate

287

Words in the U.S. Constitution detailing rules for the election of members of the House of Representatives

430

Words in the U.S. Constitution detailing rules for the election of the President

7,298

Words in the proposed Amendments to the Ohio Constitution to modify existing rules for state and national elections

When the Founding Fathers, in 44 efficient words, assigned the management of elections to the States in Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution...

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.

…they never could have envisioned such a befuddling descent into obfuscation and mischief as evident in the proposed "Reform Ohio Now" amendments to the Ohio Constitution. On November 8th, residents of the Buckeye State, arguably the most pivotal state in the next several presidential elections, will cast a vote on some of the most convoluted and preposterous language ever conceived:

Article XI, Section 4(F): The "average partisan index" for each precinct or congressional or general assembly district is calculated in the following manner: (1) determine the percentage of the vote received in the precinct or district for each of the two partisan candidates who received the two highest vote totals statewide in each of the three closest general elections, taking into consideration only the votes cast in the precinct or district for those two partisan candidates in each such election; then (2) average together the three voting percentages for the candidates with the same partisan affiliation by dividing the sum of the percentages by the number three to yield the average partisan index for that precinct or district for candidates of that partisan affiliation.

Article XI, Section 5(E1): The competitiveness number for general assembly plans shall be derived by adding together the competitiveness number for the house of representatives districts under the plan with the competitiveness number for the senate districts under the plan. With respect to each apparent prevailing plan for general assembly districts, the commission shall then evaluate whether it is possible to reconfigure the senate districts so as to yield a higher competitiveness number for the plan and, if such is the case, shall so reconfigure the senate districts. The reconfigured plan or plans with the highest competitiveness number shall become the apparent prevailing plan or plans.

If political science students were given a playful, end-of-year assignment to construct a parody of a ballot initiative, the sections above would win hands down. Sadly, it is not a parody, but an attempt to ensure that a reliably Republican state becomes a toss-up state in 2008 and beyond.

"Outcome-based education (OBE) is an educational philosophy that states that education ought to be aimed at producing particular educational outcomes" (Wikipedia Encyclopedia). The language above is an example of Outcome-based elections, which is an electoral philosophy that states that elections ought to be aimed at producing a particular electoral outcome. If you subject yourself to the full language of the amendment, you will find that this is a proposal that will require by law for elections to be close. Outcome-based education has apparently produced its first dividend in the real world: Outcome-based elections. In what other way can one describe an amendment that actually defines these terms:

"average partisan index"

"measure of competition"

"competitive district"

"balanced competitive district"

"unbalanced uncompetitive district"

"competitiveness number"

The humor, dampened by the risk, completely vanishes when some of the plainer, more lethal language in the amendments is understood:

Article XI, Section 5(F4): If no qualifying congressional or no qualifying general assembly plan is submitted that conforms to the provisions of this Article, then the independent redistricting commission shall design and adopt a plan that conforms to the provisions of this Article and seeks to maximize the competitiveness number for the plan.

Human Translation: If redistricting plans submitted by a person or group - anyone at all - don’t measure up, the commission develops and implements its own plan.

Article XI, Section 7: The supreme court of Ohio shall have exclusive, original jurisdiction in all cases arising under this Article involving the redistricting of general assembly or congressional districts.

Human Translation: There is no recourse for abuse by the people’s representatives; only the courts can decide contested actions of the commission. At least we have the reassuring example of the Florida courts in 2000 to put our minds at ease.

Article XVII, Section 4(B): A board of elections may designate additional locations within the county for electors to receive and cast such ballots during hours set by the board.

Human Translation: There is no more election "day." Anytime, anywhere and for any reason as decided by a nine-member board and for 35 days prior to the election, you can vote.

Article XVII, Section 4(B): An elector’s ballot which is received by the board of elections by mail not later than the tenth day after the election, shall be treated as timely cast provided that it contains a postmark not later than the day of the election.

Human Translation: After preliminary results on the evening of the election, valid ballots from that 35-day period, which cannot be denied for any reason, can trickle in for 10 days and still be counted. The only protection against those ballots being fraudulent is......a postmark.

In the end, the liberal groups behind Issues 2, 3, 4, and 5 have conceded that they cannot win elections on merit in an absolutely critical state. So they want to change the rules. Don’t let them.

Comments

1: thomaspaul

November 5, 2005 6:11pm EST

How could this happen? Did these liberal groups get enough signatures to put this on the ballot? What kind of buzz is it getting state-wide? What are the chances of it passing?

{Aslan: Yes, they got enough signatures, but you don't have to get millions, just enough to meet the threshold for Ballot initiatives. One reason why ballot initiatives are a disaster. These Issues are getting a lot of buzz and looks like most will go down to defeat - even the local papers are 3:1 against, but a couple are still too close for comfort.}

2: Aperitis

November 7, 2005 5:42pm EST

The problem though, is that most people have no idea what Issues 2, 3, 4, and 5 are all about. I had to do some research in order to try and understand what was going on. The liberal ads that have been flooding the airwaves would lead one to believe that voting NO would be an injustice to democracy itself.

I presume that unless someone educates the voting public soon, it is very possible that these “Issues” will become law in this state. Now that is a scary proposition!

{Aslan: The cleverness of the Left is unending. It is a good reason why ballot initiatives, if they must exist at all, need to pass by something greater than 50%. I think a 60% threshold for amendments to the Ohio Constitution is a prudent idea.}