Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1889-07-25
THE AMENDMENTS
Legislative Single Districts.

to be voted upon at the coming NoveIp-
ber election. A change in the organic
law OF State, is matter of the grav-
est moment, and invokes the most en-
llghtened judgment, and the highest
duty Of citizenship. Such a change
should only be made for wise and COM
manding reasons. 'sa
The three amendments now submit
ted are; first, upon the question of ..'tax-
ation;" second, "biennial elections;'
third, the division of the larger coun-
ties into Legislative single districts"
In this article we propose to discuss on
ly the latter proposed amendment, af-
fecting legislative districts.
The advocates of the single district
proposition, claim that the manner of
electing Representatives, in the large
counties, Is unjust to the people in 9TH
er portions of the State. For instance
in Hamilton county the ten Represent
atives and four Senators, are voted for,
upon the general ticket, throughout the
whole county; that is, each voter casts
his ballot for, say, ten Representatives
and four Senators; while in the small
counties the elector votes for but one
Representative and one Senator. This
Ia held to be unfair. But what great
wrong is done? And if injustice is
wrought, will the proposed amend
ments be far more fair::and equitable to
the whole people? ....
Say, for instance, that 10000 is the
ratio for a Representative, under the
present Constitutional provision, and
that Scioto county has 10000, and Ham,
ilton county 100000 population. The
former secures one Representative, the
latter ten. In Hamilton county these
ten Representatives are voted for in ev-
cry precinct in the county; every elec-
tor casts his ballot for ten candidates.
This is the complaint. But does it re-
ally make much difference how those
100000 people elect their Assembly
men, as long as an equitable ratio is OBJ
served?
But, admitting that this may not be
fair and proper, let us examine this
amendment providing for "single dis
tricts," and see if greater injustice is not
done to the people. Under the present
system, at the beginning of each decen-
nial period-after the taking of the fed
eral census-the whole population is di-
vided by one hundred, and thequotient
constitutes the ratio for a Representa-
tive. Then the population of each coun-
ty Is divided by this ratio to find how
many Representatives that county is
entitled to. Whatever fraction remains
is multiplied by five, (the number of
General Assemblies in each decade)
and If the multiple thus obtained equals
one ratio, or two ratios, that county
would be given one or two additional
members during the decade-known as
i'hoaters."
Thus the people of every county get
the full representation to which they
are entitled. the surplus, or fraction un-
represented, being reduced to the
smallest possible minimum. To illus
trate: the ratio during the present de-
cade has been 81 1881. Ross county at
the last census had q population of 40,-
307. This was fraction over the ratio
of 8,926. Multiply this by five, and 1t
will give Al $3.50, more than one full ra-
ito, but less than two. This would give
Ross one floating Representative within
the decade. She has had one Repre-
sentative in the four general assemblies
since 1880, but in the next and fifth she
will have two, thus securing to her the
additional member to which her frac-
tion of ratio entitled her. The same
rule works out in the case of Lawrence,
Licking, and other counties. In Mus
klngum county, her population, 49, ,7SO,
entitled her to two floaters during the
ten years under the same provision.
But how will it work under the pro-
posed "single district" amendments?
For full understanding of the ratio"
system, we quote two sections:
Sec. 8. The population of the State. as ascertain.
ed blythe proceeding Federal census or in such 9TH
er manner as the General Assembly shall direct
shall be divided by the number cone hundred and
ten and the quotient shall be the ratio of repre-
sentatlon in the House Of Representatives for the ten
years succeeding such apportionment.
Sec. 4. Each county sball be entitled to at least
one Representatives each county containing such ra.
to- and one half over shall be entitled to two repre-
sentatives; each county containing two and one
half times such ratio shall be enttledto three repre-
sentatiyes, and so on.
i Apply this to the same counties and
see the result. Ross and Lawrence
county, each with large fraction, not
being one half, however, would have
but one representative during the en-
tire ten years. Muskingum county,
with but few thousand more popula-
tion, would have two members, double
the represention of Rbss That is to
say 40,307 people in Ross county would
have one member, while 49,7S0 people
in Muskingum would send up two
members.
Nearly 10000 people in the former
county would be virtually unrepresent-
ed for ten years. And yet this great in
Justice is to be perpetrated to do away
with the alleged unfairness of letting
each voter in Hamilton, Cuyahoga and
other large counties, vote for the full
number of members such is entitled to.
But the amendment proposes q much
greater wrong-an outrage-by which
thousands of citizens would go without
voice or representation.
Look little further. 1t says that
each county shall be entitled to at least
one representative. Under this provis-
ion little Geauga, with but Il, ,255 popu-
lation, and Lake with only 16, ,326 popu-
lation, would each send up one repre-
sentative, while populous counties like
Licking, Ross, Mahoning, Lawrence
Washington and Tuscarawas, with
more than double the population Of
either Lake, Geauga or Vinton, would
have but the same representation
, Trnmbull county with a population Of
1882 and Summit with 43,7SS, each
with three times the population of eth.
| ar nf tho oot,ofioo noontiopad u-ould