Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Badin graduation
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > December > 31
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Jon Husted: Ohio’s hyper-partisan redistricting rules can be changed
(State Sen. Jon Husted, R-Kettering, who wrote this piece, is expected to run for Ohio secretary of state in 2010.)
To most people, this is not a very appealing reform. Rather, it seems like a partisan system that protects the interests of political parties over the wishes of voters. In fact, the above description is not a new reform at all — it is Ohio’s current system.
And it is considered one of the most partisan in the nation.
In the four decades this system has been in place, it has not served Ohio well. It has largely led to one-party control of state government for decades at a time and immunized many legislators from competitive elections.
Further, this system has contributed to the hyper-partisan atmosphere in state government (and in Congress) because the political leaders who run it can serve their partisan interests and arguably have more power in elections than the voters. It doesn’t have to be this way. We can reform the system. The time to act is now.
The Census, followed by the 2010 elections, will once again commence the redrawing of both legislative and congressional districts. Several constitutional amendments to reform the present system have been proposed.
I sponsored one proposal, Senate Joint Resolution 5, which has passed the Ohio Senate and awaits action in the Ohio House.
The reforms in this proposal would create a seven-member, bipartisan board that would require a supermajority vote for the drawing of new districts.
It would require bipartisan compromise for the drawing of legislative and congressional districts, and would limit the ability of map-drawers to gerrymander by including a requirement to keep communities together when drawing district lines.
The deadline for passing this idea is Feb. 3 if it is to be placed on the ballot for consideration by voters in May.
Instead of the current system that serves as a winner-take-all partisan power grab, Ohioans can speak loudly to demand bipartisanship and empower voters at the expense of the politically powerful.
Redistricting reform will return elections to the accountability system they were intended to be. By establishing more competitive districts, voters will be given a greater opportunity to voice their support or displeasure with their elected officials at the ballot box.
With the prominent place Ohio plays in presidential elections every four years, we should set an example for the nation by acting as a leader in redistricting reform.
If we want our public officials to cast aside partisan goals in favor of bipartisan cooperation, we must do more than change the people in public office. We must change the system.
Permalink | Comments (9) | Post your comment | Categories: Elections, Guest Columns, Ohio government, Ohio politics
Editorial: Great decade for celebrity watchers
Sometimes it seems like the news in the first decade of the 21st century built to a crescendo, with the climax being the Tiger Woods story. That event was bigger even than the Jon & Kate-plus-8 divorce, the Obama family dog, Brangelina and Jennifer Aniston, and the decline and revival of Britney Spears.
At this time of a decade, the media pause to take note of the biggest stories of the decade. But maybe this time it’s also worthwhile to take note of the rise of a particular kind of story.
The current generation didn’t invent obsession with celebrity. By the 1930s, some of the biggest names in journalism — Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons — got rich by reporting tidbits about Hollywooders.
Some big thinkers back then said the public’s obsession with the lives of movie stars represented a desire to escape from the Great Depression.
And yet, when the bad times went away, the taste for celebrity gossip didn’t. In the 1950s, you might hear it described — by those big thinkers, again — as an escape from the humdrum existence of daily life.
But daily life doesn’t get described as humdrum so much anymore. Yet the celebrity-gossip thing just gets bigger. Now there are television programs that discuss the gossipy news that other programs — by the dozens, it seems — dispense.
Perhaps it’s all best seen as part of the “reality” television phenomenon, a newer phenomenon than celebrity fixation. Perhaps what’s at work is an interest in the individual lives of real people, as opposed to societal problems or fictional people.
Partly as a result of the reality shows, this decade became famous as the decade of people who are famous mainly for being famous; the Paris Hilton phenomenon.
Most likely, our fascination with the famous should be seen not just as a flight from reality — as the term was understood before reality TV — but as a flight from controversy. And not so much as a flight, but a respite.
We can talk about Tiger Woods with each other with little fear of stepping on toes, or of getting caught up in an argument, especially an argument for which somebody else might be better prepared.
Mr. Woods is somebody we all have in common, without being say, president of the United States. One unites, the other divides, even at best, even when things are going as well as they can go.
Those who worry about the public’s fascination with gossip often worry most about it crowding out more serious matters. But evidence is scant that the people who will watch a program about Tiger Woods would, if that weren’t available, dig deeply into the specifics of the health care legislation pending in Congress.
The heart of the explanation for interest in the Tiger Woods affair (so to speak) is, of course, that it is simply interesting. How can a person not take note when a guy who has it all — including a family and universal admiration — risks it all?
In some people, surely, the fascination with the “gossip” goes to extremes. But of what interest is that not true?
Like it or not, the fascination of people with the lives of people they’ve heard of is here to stay. Although the concluded decade seems to smack us in the face with its absorption in such news, a more remarkable development would be the waning of such fascination.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Martin Gottlieb, Offbeat
