Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I agree with your first sentence (with words). But the rest does not follow. Incumbents win. Look at the vote % in the year of first election, and all subsequent elections. Typically it's something like 55%, 75%, 90%, 90%, 90% and so on. Close the first year, not afterwards. That's an incumbency advantage, not a gerrymander advantage.
|
You are confusing apples and oranges. Incumbancy is about incumbancy, and the Gerrymander is about party control. They are two different subjects. However, it is easier to take out an incumbent in a general election than in a primary. I have seen it a few times in teh General. I know of very few in the primary.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) The point of the paper, and other than your own casual empiricism you have not responded to, is that gerrymandering doesn't necessarily alter the course of what would have happened anyway, at least with any reasonable alternative district. Maybe it alters on the margin a couple of districts, but you make it sound like it's responsible for all ills. Sorry, but Orange County and the Central Valley are going to elect rightwingers no matter how you district.
|
The Gerrymander makes it almost impossible for the party that doesn't control the legislature to get a majority in the congressional delegation. No matter which way the partisan winds are blowing. In addition, the Gerrymander makes all the seats safe for one party, allowing extremists to take those seats. Your study does nothing to refute those assertions and that is what I have been saying the whole time.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) So, what you're really saying is that we should constantly redistrict.
|
I never said we should constantly redistrict. Where the hell did that come from. Every ten years there is a new census and then new lines are drawn. I am just saying those lines should be drawn by retired judges instead of the legislature. About seven states do it that way. It allows for more competitive seats between the partys
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) That's not crazy, and would address the problem of the incumbent advantage. The idea being, eliminate incumbency. Candidates always have to win some new votes. But that has little to do with how one redistricts, so long as there is change--what matters is that you do it at all.
|
Constantly redrawing would leave us with the same problem. The party in power would draw the lines for the next election which is the problem we have now.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) Now, because I'm at it, I'll also take issue with your premise, which is that Congress should be less partisan. That works assuming everyone is a moderate. But why shouldn't the right-wing Rs and the left-wing Ds also have some representation. If you look at countries with multi-party gov'ts, the seats don't all go to the centrists. Many of them do, but not all of them. Obviously that's partly a product of the electoral systems used. But, there's some merit there too--why should the district including Berkeley, assuming it consists of mostly like-minded liberals, not be able to sent a hard-core liberal to Congress? Same with Wyoming--why not a hard-core rightwinger? It's very possible that the nation's preferences are such that Congress should be more partisan. The median voter theory doesn't apply nationwide when there are individual elections.
|
The problem is that no seats go to centrists. There are some seats, as you said that can never be gerrymandered to change. Otherwise the party in power would control all the seats. So naturally the extremists should come from extreme areas. But with a Gerrymander the lines are drawn as such that the moderates are outgunned by the extremists in every district.
