I told you not to get me started
A response to a comment on redistricting
1. First of all, it's Abramowitz.
2. The article You Can't Compete With Voters' Feet fails to mention examples of Independent redistricting commissions, like Arizona. It is tunnel visioned in it's focus only on the party affiliation of the voters within the districts. In other words, it only discussed one aspect of redistricting and it only provided one side of that argument.
3. The main argument for redistricting given by this article is that those who are in favor of it believe it to be "the route to resurrecting competitive elections and resuscitating democracy." This is only one aspect of what redistricting can hope to achieve.
Even if an independent bipartisan redistricting commission proves to do absolutely nothing about increasing the competitiveness of elections it can have a plethora of other positive effects.
1) The commissions, like the one in Arizona, are open, transparent, bipartisan bodies that hold meetings on a regular basis that are open to the public. They encourage citizen participation and promote discourse. On the other end, the way in which redistricting occurs now is closed off from the public, conducted behind the scenes in a completely partisan manner. There is no dialogue created, there is no transparency, and there is little room for compromise or public participation.
2) It will decrease the amount of money spent on some elections. Case in point, the Colorado state legislature races of 2002.
Pollster Jim Laeur discussed at length the effects a 527 group had on a state legislature campaign in Colorado. The 527 group was siphoning money into legislature races in an attempt to buy power. Since it is the legislature that undertakes the task of redrawing districts the party that controls the legislature controls the redistricting process and ultimately wields the power to gerrymander districts favorable to their party. Hence, as Mr. Laeur demonstrated, these tiny little state legislature campaigns in square states IÂve never been to, and other states all around the country, are quickly becoming major political pawns. And with powerful 527 groups popping up, absurd amounts of money are now pouring into them.
It is extremely tunnel visioned to say that just because one article argues that districts are competitive that this means there is no problem with the current system of redistricting.
Even Tony Coelho, former head of the DCCC argued for a new way to undertake redistricting. This is somewhat odd considering you don't get much more "establishment" than an insider like Mr. Coelho and the current system of redistricting benefits the status quo.
His point was very similar to the one Mr. Laeur made, namely:
Fixing redistricting would have a viral effect that would spread to campaign finance by limited the 527Âs, and possibly even the nature of political discourse by taking some of the bitter partisan fighting out of the process.
1. First of all, it's Abramowitz.
2. The article You Can't Compete With Voters' Feet fails to mention examples of Independent redistricting commissions, like Arizona. It is tunnel visioned in it's focus only on the party affiliation of the voters within the districts. In other words, it only discussed one aspect of redistricting and it only provided one side of that argument.
3. The main argument for redistricting given by this article is that those who are in favor of it believe it to be "the route to resurrecting competitive elections and resuscitating democracy." This is only one aspect of what redistricting can hope to achieve.
Even if an independent bipartisan redistricting commission proves to do absolutely nothing about increasing the competitiveness of elections it can have a plethora of other positive effects.
1) The commissions, like the one in Arizona, are open, transparent, bipartisan bodies that hold meetings on a regular basis that are open to the public. They encourage citizen participation and promote discourse. On the other end, the way in which redistricting occurs now is closed off from the public, conducted behind the scenes in a completely partisan manner. There is no dialogue created, there is no transparency, and there is little room for compromise or public participation.
2) It will decrease the amount of money spent on some elections. Case in point, the Colorado state legislature races of 2002.
Pollster Jim Laeur discussed at length the effects a 527 group had on a state legislature campaign in Colorado. The 527 group was siphoning money into legislature races in an attempt to buy power. Since it is the legislature that undertakes the task of redrawing districts the party that controls the legislature controls the redistricting process and ultimately wields the power to gerrymander districts favorable to their party. Hence, as Mr. Laeur demonstrated, these tiny little state legislature campaigns in square states IÂve never been to, and other states all around the country, are quickly becoming major political pawns. And with powerful 527 groups popping up, absurd amounts of money are now pouring into them.
It is extremely tunnel visioned to say that just because one article argues that districts are competitive that this means there is no problem with the current system of redistricting.
Even Tony Coelho, former head of the DCCC argued for a new way to undertake redistricting. This is somewhat odd considering you don't get much more "establishment" than an insider like Mr. Coelho and the current system of redistricting benefits the status quo.
His point was very similar to the one Mr. Laeur made, namely:
ÂIf there was a different way to achieve redistricting, one that was completely bipartisan or better yet non-partisan, then we could have not only fair districts, but limit the 527Âs desire to target these state legislatures races, and therefore help to take the money and partisanship out of those local races and ultimately the redistricting process.Â
Fixing redistricting would have a viral effect that would spread to campaign finance by limited the 527Âs, and possibly even the nature of political discourse by taking some of the bitter partisan fighting out of the process.
2 Comments:
1) Agree with him or not Abramowitz is a highly respected political scientist.
2) I commented on another blog the other day, that among the three states that have independent commissions making the congressional districts, Iowa, New Jersey, Arizona, only two seats were competitive in 04, Leonard Boswell's and Rick Renzi's, Boswell won by 10, Renzi won by 23.
3) While your googoo attitude toward campaigns is admirable, you being from Buffalo, I would expect a much more jaded view. But your points are counterintuitive. Making districts more competitive (in theory) would have just the opposite effect, then much much much more money would be pumped into the campaigns. The more competitive a race the more money that is going to be spent on it, period. More competitive campaigns mean more money pumped into the system.
By GWO Dem, at 10:48 AM
I do think competitive races are a good thing, as I'm from a state where 80% of the state legislature races are either uncontested or may as well be. The result is that legislators are unresponsive and are part of the corrupt machine.
However, having competitive races is not always the best situtation in democracy. Imagine that you live in a state that is about 52% Libertarians and 48% Greens. To have all competitive races, each of the districts could be drawn to have 52% of the voters Libertarian and 48% Green. But with our winner-take-all system, that means that the resulting state legislature would be all Libertarians, though nearly half of the state are Green Party members. That doesn't seem very fair or representative. It might make more sense to cluster the districts so that about 48% of the districts have a majority of greens and 52% of the districts have a majority of Libertarians, in order to get a more representative legislature. But then, do you lose competitiveness?
By Idealist, at 8:35 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home