Thursday, January 28, 2010
Political Mayhem Thursday: The cost of safe districts
Last Saturday, I fell into conversation with Ash Cruseturner, one of the more astute observers of politics I have known. He observed that the gerrymandering of Congressional districts into a series of "safe" districts for each party has real negative consequences. It means that few members of Congress face real threat when they are up for re-election, and thus are not motivated to act in a way that is responsive to the people in their district. It is undeniable that incumbency is a very strong force in the House, which is odd-- it is the Senate where we are supposed to find the people who don't have to worry about frequent re-election.
Perhaps more that anything, the contrast to this is shown in my own Congressman, Democrat Chet Edwards, who seems to be very active and responsive to his fairly conservative district.
Like almost everyone else, I am disappointed with this Congress. Might safe districts have something to do with it?
Perhaps more that anything, the contrast to this is shown in my own Congressman, Democrat Chet Edwards, who seems to be very active and responsive to his fairly conservative district.
Like almost everyone else, I am disappointed with this Congress. Might safe districts have something to do with it?
Comments:
<< Home
Do you mean to say you are dissapointed with Congress because they have safe districts or are you dissapointed because they suck and that is due to the safe districts?
I say yes to both.
I do however believe that there won't ever be a solution to the problems. Even if you let computer models map the districts based on population you will get safe districts. 1) the urban population centers will end up being mostly democratic safe havens while the rural swaths will end up being conservative. 2) someone has to write the algorithyms that the computers will use to draw the models, these in turn can be tweaked by the party in power because "the program isn't "working right."
I would also point out that the drawing of districts, boundaries of jurisdictions, have always been drawn to support those currently in power, even before America was founded. In fact, you can claim the states are the shapes that they are because of this process.
I just don't know that there's a viable solution, but i'm sure the Razors will try.
I say yes to both.
I do however believe that there won't ever be a solution to the problems. Even if you let computer models map the districts based on population you will get safe districts. 1) the urban population centers will end up being mostly democratic safe havens while the rural swaths will end up being conservative. 2) someone has to write the algorithyms that the computers will use to draw the models, these in turn can be tweaked by the party in power because "the program isn't "working right."
I would also point out that the drawing of districts, boundaries of jurisdictions, have always been drawn to support those currently in power, even before America was founded. In fact, you can claim the states are the shapes that they are because of this process.
I just don't know that there's a viable solution, but i'm sure the Razors will try.
# posted by 
: 9:25 AM
: 9:25 AM
I say yest ot both, too!
I do think there could be some non-partisan commission who could draw the 'real' district lines and saw *&^% ^%$ to the political machine. Of course these people would then need to be entered into the witness protection program.
You should see how some of the ditrict lines are drawn in the Tampa Bay area. Ridiculous!
I do think there could be some non-partisan commission who could draw the 'real' district lines and saw *&^% ^%$ to the political machine. Of course these people would then need to be entered into the witness protection program.
You should see how some of the ditrict lines are drawn in the Tampa Bay area. Ridiculous!
Safe districts are also, in my opinion, at least partially responsible for the rise in partisanship and bickering. The districts are so finely tuned to one party that the "real" congressional races are in the primaries. Only the most enthusiastic partisans vote in the average primary resulting in the most partisan candidates being selected to run, and win, against whatever poor sap is running on the other parties ticket - if there's even an opponent. As a result, we've got a congress full of more conservative republicans and more liberal democrats. There's littel room left for moderates, and little middle ground between the idealogues.
# posted by : 10:36 AM
: 10:36 AM
Yes.
See my proposed Constitutional amendment.
Gov. Schwarzenegger tried to get California to switch to an Iowa system through a referendum. Both parties opposed and the idea was rejected at the polls.
See my proposed Constitutional amendment.
Gov. Schwarzenegger tried to get California to switch to an Iowa system through a referendum. Both parties opposed and the idea was rejected at the polls.
This depends on one's philosophy of representation. Some believe that our Congresspeople are merely conduits for the individual will, a vote by proxy on legislation.
Others believe that we elect a person because we trust that person's judgment and character, and give them free reign to vote as they see fit, while others prefer a hybrid of the two.
In this way, you could see liberal, conservative or progressive districts vote against traditional party lines as long as they fit in Category 2 or 3 for representative philosophy.
The problem with gerrymandering or setting up districts in general is, like Dallas_ADA said, you will end up with safe districts regardless due to demographics. I am not so sure an "at large" system for representatives (much like we do for Senators) is not a better idea.
Others believe that we elect a person because we trust that person's judgment and character, and give them free reign to vote as they see fit, while others prefer a hybrid of the two.
In this way, you could see liberal, conservative or progressive districts vote against traditional party lines as long as they fit in Category 2 or 3 for representative philosophy.
The problem with gerrymandering or setting up districts in general is, like Dallas_ADA said, you will end up with safe districts regardless due to demographics. I am not so sure an "at large" system for representatives (much like we do for Senators) is not a better idea.
This "Ash Cruseturner" sounds like a wise fellow.
I would tweak the safe district point to add that gerrymandering and "ghettoizing" conservatives and liberals establishes fiefdoms. While I am against term limits as a Constitutional amendment, ensuring that the districts were more volatile would cut way down on the problem of the "old bulls" who become Washington institutions, party icons, and increasingly less connected to constituents.
In re Lane's point: actually the Lower House is designed to be more receptive to the voters (shorter terms, direct election, etc.). While Congressman ought to be ready to lose an election on principle, the House of Representatives is really designed to be the "People's House" and act as a representative body.
The statesman as trustee (rather than representative) is really figured into the architecture of the Upper Chamber. Senators are elected for six year terms, two-thirds of the Upper House are perpetually NOT up for reelection, and originally state legislatures chose Senators--not the voters.
I like it when Congressmen reflect the will of the voters. The Senate is the saucer--and it tends toward caution, but let the House rage with democratic fever.
Post a Comment
I would tweak the safe district point to add that gerrymandering and "ghettoizing" conservatives and liberals establishes fiefdoms. While I am against term limits as a Constitutional amendment, ensuring that the districts were more volatile would cut way down on the problem of the "old bulls" who become Washington institutions, party icons, and increasingly less connected to constituents.
In re Lane's point: actually the Lower House is designed to be more receptive to the voters (shorter terms, direct election, etc.). While Congressman ought to be ready to lose an election on principle, the House of Representatives is really designed to be the "People's House" and act as a representative body.
The statesman as trustee (rather than representative) is really figured into the architecture of the Upper Chamber. Senators are elected for six year terms, two-thirds of the Upper House are perpetually NOT up for reelection, and originally state legislatures chose Senators--not the voters.
I like it when Congressmen reflect the will of the voters. The Senate is the saucer--and it tends toward caution, but let the House rage with democratic fever.
<< Home
