Depending on where you live, your vote may really NOT count

Political Gerrymandering

The Supreme Court will hear a case involving political gerrymandering in Wisconsin in the fall of 2017.  Racial gerrymandering, the practice of drawing congressional lines along racially concentrated areas, has been ruled unconstitutional in some cases.

Political gerrymandering, or the drawing of congressional districts in order to mute the impact of voters for the party out of power, has not been ruled on.  The problem the judiciary has with throwing out non-racial gerrymandering is that there is no "workable standard for deciding when partisan line-drawing crossed a constitutional line."  (Brent Kendall, 6/20/17 Wall St. Journal)

Republicans gained complete control of the Wisconsin government in 2010 - a re-districting year.  The redrawn map helped convert very close state contests into wins for the Republican party.  In 2012, Republicans won 48.6% of the statewide vote, but gained 60 of the state Assembly's 99 seats.  In 2014, 52% of the vote yielded 63 seats. (Adam Liptak, 6/20/17 New York Times)

Wisconsin is not alone in this practice.  A lawsuit is pending in Pennsylvania against the Republican Party.  Pennsylvania has the infamous "Goofy kicking Donald Duck" district, which traverses five counties, and at one point is so narrow that it only encompasses the width of a restaurant.

Democrats also use political gerrymandering to advance their party.  Maryland is being sued, accused of depriving voters of their first amendment rights.

Any hope of finding gerrymandering unconstitutional may hinge on the concept of an  an "efficiency gap" - a measure of votes considered wasted in districts designed not to be close.  Two states where this gap occurs are Ohio and Massachusetts.

Some states are getting rid of political gerrymandering by using independent commissions to draw congressional maps.  Most states will not voluntarily give up biased districting until the judiciary tells them they must.

My letter to Tom Perez

I am sending a letter to Tom Perez, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and I am attaching it below:

June 22, 2017

Tom Perez

Chairman

Democratic National Committee

430 South Capital St. Southwest

Washington, DC 20003

Dear Chairman Perez:

I am a voter who is very concerned about the state of the Democratic party.  I believe that if the party continues on its current path, Democrats will not make strong electoral gains in 2018.

The Democratic party does not have a strong message.  Looking at the DNC website (as I have been doing since mid January), I am struck by the lack of a message beyond RESIST and DONATE.    Looking further into the website, I went to a section that included the 2016 party platform.  There I found the un-inspiring “Stronger together”.  What exactly does that mean?  Did that move anybody to vote for Hillary in November?  Why is that the message now?

Before the inauguration the Senate moved to start repealing the ACA.  I looked at the vote count, and said to myself “all we needed were two more Democratic senators and this wouldn’t have happened.”  I immediately went to the DNC website to see how I could help.  

What I found was sickening.  The website had not been updated since before the election.

I then decided to start a blog, which I have been posting to weekly since mid-January (you can find it at thinkandparticipate.blogspot.com.  

As part of my blog, I have been talking, and listening to people - most of them Trump supporters.  I have asked them if they think that the country is headed in the right direction.  The resounding answer is “NO”.    Then, almost all of them volunteer that things are not fair in the country (they are usually referring to illegal immigration.)  

It seems to me that the Democrats could use fairness in a strong, compelling message.  

Resist may work with the base; I don’t think it will work with people who voted for Trump in 2016 (and who may very well have voted for Obama in 2012).

Sincerely,

Joan Savitt, 2 Woodlawn Ave., Wellesley, MA

*******************************************************************

I am not especially hopeful that I will get a response, but I am going to continue to write to him, and try to contact others in the Democratic Party, who might be interested in what I have to say.


I CHANGED THE LETTER - THE ABOVE LETTER HAS THE WRONG ADDRESS - IT SHOULD BE: 430 S. CAPITAL ST. SOUTHEAST, NOT  SOUTHWEST.

Testing ... Testing

Trump's base is still devoted to him.

Have you ever wondered why Republicans in Congress still support Donald Trump?  People keep asking "how can Republicans support a man who loves Vladimir Putin, who doesn't want to get to the bottom of the Russia hacking/meddling scandal???"

If you watch as many news shows as I do, you have probably heard that "Republicans were so much braver during Watergate ... those were people with deep conviction and integrity."

Recently  a pundit/historian ( maybe Michael Beschloss) said on TV (maybe the Rachel Maddow show - I did try to find out)  that Republicans only got the courage to confront Richard Nixon when  they perceived that his supporters in their districts were becoming disillusioned with him. 

So, who knows, maybe Republicans will grow some courage ... when their constituents have told them they have had enough with the Donald Trump administration.

Scoring the communications of Democrats and the president

There is some hope

I was hoping that the Democrats would have understood by now the need to have a clear, concise message about why to vote for Democrats.  The record is mixed.  A saving grace is that the president's messaging, exacerbated by his lack of discipline, is completely chaotic.

In addition to talking and listening  to people  I am researching  how the Democratic parties in OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, MICHIGAN and WISCONSIN are forming and communicating  their message .

I am most disappointed with the Democratic party in Ohio.  I am from Ohio and have actually interviewed David Pepper, the Ohio Democratic party chairman.  Nowhere on the Ohio Democratic Party (ODP) website, especially not on the home page, is there a headline of purpose.  The closest they get is to state:  "Stand up for all Americans.  Join Ohio Democrats".  What does that mean, and is it supposed to motivate anybody to do anything?

The ODP website discusses redistricting reform - gerrymandering is a huge problem in the Buckeye state.  This effort is called "Resistance Summer", and is a fine, worthy, and needed thing to do.  It is not, however, a call and a reason to vote for Democrats in Ohio.

The Ohio website includes details about the 1618 PLAN, which is designed to help Democrats run for office in 2018.  Buried in a paragraph about this plan is a sentence about how the Ohio Democratic Party needs to improve its messaging about why it is important to be a Democrat.  So true!  PUT THAT MESSAGE FRONT AND CENTER ON YOUR HOMEPAGE!

The websites for the Michigan and Pennsylvania Democratic parties have a better, more clearly communicated message than does Ohio's.  They aren't great, though.  

Michigan's website has a statement  that reads "Our focus is on putting Michigan issues first, fighting for families, seniors, students and veterans...".  A good message - they still need a compelling headline.

At least Pennsylvania has a headline on its website's homepage:  "Continue the fight for what's right".

It is a headline, it is an active statement.  It doesn't however, "paint a picture", as marketing wordsmiths would say,  about what is "right", and why that matters to the ordinary voter.

Wisconsin is the clear winner.  Their headline reads "Fighting for Fairness and Opportunity", and it    achieves a few strategic goals.  First, it appeals to the average voter.  Everybody has a sense of what fairness and opportunity means to them.  Second, it is what I hear when I listen to people talk  about whether they think America is headed in the right direction.  Third, it can cover a lot of topics, from healthcare to tax reform to school funding.

It has the visceral impact of the odious "make America great again" without the  awful  dog whistles.  I hope that more state Democratic parties do what Wisconsin has done - devise a clear and compelling message, and communicate it forcefully.