Regarding your Nov. 16 news story, “Does the GOP’s latest rout in Ohio change the math?,” the concept of congressional districts rests on the tacit assumption that political interests are aligned with geography. The concept of “proportionality” rests on the assumption that political interests are aligned with some other factor, such as class, race or party affiliation.
The problem lies in the fact that these assumptions are in conflict. The result is that achieving proportionality, regardless of the criterion, requires gerrymandering. That’s what gerrymandering is – manipulating geography to achieve proportionality. Differences of opinion about how to construct congressional districts arise not from disagreements about whether or not to gerrymander, but from disagreements about the criterion for proportionality.
Nothing in the U.S. or Ohio constitutions requires that congressional districts be defined by geography. If one insists on proportionality, the simplest solution is to define congressional districts by the criterion for proportionality. For example, districts for Republicans, Democrats and independents in proportion to their numbers; or districts for Blacks, Latinos, whites and mixed-race people in proportion to their numbers. That would force those advocating for particular ways for constructing congressional districts to be honest about their intentions.
Eric Klieber,
Cleveland Heights