One of the major challenges for Democrats in blue states is the tendency for machine politics to take over. A big part of this is the machine’s ability to draw districts to favor machine darlings and stave off primary challenges. And even when there’s a primary challenge, if the incumbent wins, he or she ends up steamrolling a weak Republican candidate in a dull, pointless general election. The whole process increases corruption, decreases the addition of fresh, younger representatives, and makes voters believe that their vote in the general is pointless.
So, there are three pieces of good news for Democrats and liberals/progressives in the California redistricting news. First, the Cook Report thinks that Democrats will pick up three House seats in the next election. Here’s the rest of the good news:
Mr. Wasserman said the redrawn boundaries, combined with California’s new open primary system — in which the top two candidates, regardless of party, advance — could produce as many as 20 competitive Congressional races in the fall of 2012.
Having more competitive races is good news by itself — that means that representatives’ feet can be held to the fire for back room dirty deals, and the media will pay attention, since there’s a horse race involved. But far more important is the possibility that two Democrats will face off in the general election. This means that a well-financed incumbent can’t just finish off their opponent in a low-turnout, no publicity primary and cruise to a general election win over some weak Republican. It means that primary challengers will be more likely to do the hard work to challenge a vulnerable incumbent, since they’ll have two chances to knock him or her out. And it means that voters will be more likely to vote and be engaged in the general because they’ll have interesting choices.
Maybe I’m a dreamer, but I’m convinced that non-partisan redistricting would lead to fewer unchallenged idiots and fossilized dinosaurs serving in the House.
Fargus
Re: open primaries, I still have a lot of trepidation. If the main action of an election happens in a low turnout primary and the general election is just a runoff, how is that going to help people make a better choice?
mistermix
@Fargus: What happens now is the action happens in a low turnout primary and then in the low turnout general, the choice is a nobody Republican and the incumbent. My guess is that this will at least lead to the possibility of better choices in D+10/20 districts.
Omnes Omnibus
@ Fargus:
Any benefit from this would develop over time as people see choices available during both primary and general elections. If, and I think it as big if, it works, it would elminate some of the “You gotta vote for shitty D incumbent “X” because otherwise the GOPer will win” arguments. You could, in a left leaning district, have a general election contest between shitty D incumbent “X” and shiny progressive hero “Z” with the GOPer sitting at home watching it all on TV.
Ash Can
I think this post makes a great point. I think it was commenter jibeaux who lamented yesterday about the partisan nature of redistricting in most states. Here in Illinois, the process is like that — the Democrats are doing it this year, but that doesn’t make me any less uneasy about the whole idea of the party in power doing it. The Republicans will be taking the results to court, for which I do not blame them, and what happens when the situation is reversed and it’s Republicans looking for ways to eliminate Democrats? The whole thing stinks.
Wilson Heath
The paper questions whether competitive elections are necessarily better. Skip the middle for the conclusion on page 16: if there’s a centrist incumbent up against an extremist, or a 1st-termer extremist we like is up against another extremist and likely to be unseated, is this a good outcome? The premise seems to be that elections are job interviews and periodic performance reviews. Unseating an incumbent means that we made the wrong hire. And if the job is a turnover nightmare, what quality job candidates are we going to draw?
Food for thought.
Observer
you also know what would be good for democracy? Not having to redraw districts in the first place.
As far a I know, the US is the *only* western country to fix the number of seats available rather than increasing the numbers as the population increases.
This weird feature of the system helps corruption and no one questions it.
WereBear
At this point, the only options for “change” is to change parties. A better way of choosing among real options is sadly lacking.
Getting a Blue Dog instead of a “moderated Republican” for the general is not much choice; except for majority/minority status, which is considerable. But as we’ve seen, it’s not like a seamless coalition.
MGLoraine
“Maybe I’m a dreamer…”
Yes, you are a dreamer. The usual suspects will find a way to game that system, too. The reform of campaign financing is what we need most (and what we’re least likely to get).
Chad N Freude
What about two well-financed incumbents, e.g., Howard Berman and Brad Sherman in Los Angeles.
Either/both may be challenged by a Latino newcomer, a factor in redrawing their districts.
Observer
@MGLoraine:
What is needed the most is a reform of the number of seats in Congress and redistricting.
Here’s a sample table (I hope this formats ok).
Listed by country, population, #seats in gov, avg district size (population). One of these countries is not like the others….
Japan 127,960,000 480 266,583
Germany 81,799,600 622 131,511
UK 62,262,000 650 95,788
Australia 22,664,938 150 151,100
USA 308,745,538 438 704,898
Brandon
The outcome mistermix seems to crave is a return to ’82. Constant stories of the D party in turmoil and a decade long sesertion
Fargus
I think that this could indeed be a good option, provided the populace knows that the primary is now the general election, and the general is a runoff. My fear is that the lower the turnout in the primary, the easier it is to game and influence.
Observer
Here’s a better table, hopefully.
Japan: 128M, 480 seats, – 266,583 voters per seat
Germany: 82M, 622 seats, – 131,511 voters per seat
UK: 62M, 650 seats, – 95,788 voters per seat
Australia 22M, 150 seats, – 151,100 voters per seat
USA: 308M, 438 seats, – 704,898 voters per seat
henry
Oh yea, I’m a dreamer too. No significant change till a state institutes a parliamentary system. Fringe views would gather enough statewide backing to gain representation. Yes, right wing extremists would exist the same as left wing extremists. But in a showcase of ideas, I’ll bet on our ideas. They come with bonus facts.
superdestroyer
Open primaries just means that any challenger has to “beat” the incumbent twice since any challenger will be running against the incumbent no matter the party affiliation.
After the selection of a few new incumbent, those incumbents virtually all be safe. The only change is that there will be fewer Republicans around after each election cycle until California gets to the point of having no relevant Republicans. Of course, by that time it will probably have few if any middle class whites left.
Brachiator
This is California. You don’t mention all of the efforts by both parties to blunt anything positive coming from redistricting efforts. The open primary system was supposed to help third parties, but the Dems and Repubs have figured out how to work this, and the GOP may hold contests before the primary to make sure there is only one Republican candidate on the ballot, which may help when there are multiple Dems in the race.
And ever since term limits came to California, both parties have worked to make sure that fresh and independent candidates never rise up, and only those who have been approved by the bosses get on the ballot. Termed out politicians get to pick seats in the next available contest. And recently, unions have flexed their muscles more in backing their preferred candidate in local elections, grooming their choice for future races.
The death of newspapers insures that incumbents continue to have an advantage. There is simply no reliable online alternative, and tv and radio continue to shallow and otherwise dominated by media buys.
And by the way, I am not bothered by union involvement in elections, except when they use their clout to muscle out progressive or competent candidates for someone more compliant, as has happened in the most recent California elections, in some local races.
jwb
Observer: On the other hand, a House of 1000 or more members seems unwieldy. It would certainly yield a different dynamic. Good or bad—hard to say. In any case, I see the problem in general being less the House than the Senate, which is a highly unrepresentative body.
PeakVT
@Observer: Even if the number of seats were to increase, redrawing districts would still happen. For instance, the city of Detroit has lost almost half a million people over the last 40 years. That is almost an entire seat. There’s no way the districts in the Detroit metro region could be left alone with those kind of demographic shifts.
And jwb is right; the Senate is a much worse institution than the House. Either its apportionment needs to be changed somehow (highly unlikely given that it requires unanimous approval) or the chamber needs to be stripped of its power to originate bills, and limited to germane amendments (still unlikely for at least a decade).
arguingwithsignposts
@henry, could a state adopt a parliamentary system?
Dennis SGMM
@PeakVT:
The Senate has become the Deadly Museum. The interests it now protects are those of the corporations rather than those of the less populous states.
Brachiator
This has worked out really well for the UK, where you got a stalemate, and ultimately a lame coalition government where the Conservative party dominates. This worked equally well in Canada, where an unpopular conservative candidate rose to the top because the votes of the opposition parties were pointlessly splintered.
No system is perfect, but the key weakness of parliamentary systems is that fringe parties can become stuck in stupid and old fashioned ideas, never changing or reexamining their assumptions so that they can maintain appeal to their core supporters. They can then only gain power as part of a coalition. But perversely, small parties rarely align with those other parties who are close to them ideologically. And so, in the UK elections, Labour and the Lib Dems, who should have been natural allies, instead rebuffed each other.
Lastly, ideas and facts do not matter when voter fear and uncertainty can be exploited for political advantage.
Roger Moore
@Observer:
Even if you have more districts- which may well be a good idea- there will still be a need to redraw them periodically to keep up with population shifts. When people move from State A to State B, or from the inner city to suburbs, their districts need to shift with them. Otherwise people in more rapidly growing areas will be underrepresented and those in slower growing or declining areas will be overrepresented.
Ben Cisco
@Chad N Freude:
I see at least ONE problem right there. Being disconnected from constituents is bad enough, but not even having to LIVE in the area you’re “representing?”
__
Am I the only one who thinks that is a little, I don’t know, FUCKED IN THE HEAD?
Trurl
“More and better Democrats”.
The Democrat’s fantasy panacea.
lol
The two Seattle mayors previous to the current one thought that to their detriment and ended up coming in third in the open primary leaving two challengers to duke it.
lol
I see at least ONE problem right there. Being disconnected from constituents is bad enough, but not even having to LIVE in the area you’re “representing?”
Am I the only one who thinks that is a little, I don’t know, FUCKED IN THE HEAD?
It’s for the voters to decide. It’s a pretty good campaign issue to be able to beat your opponent with.
States that require members to live in their districts frequently end up drawing fucked up districts during redistricting because they’re looping in the residence of the member they want to run there.
PeakVT
@Ben Cisco:
Reps have to be residents of the state, though not the district, so House districts aren’t entirely like rotten boroughs.
Trollenschlongen
My god, this country’s political system is so fucked.
OzoneR
It’s in the Constitution, but normally people who don’t live in the district live only a small distance out of it.
David Weprin, who is running for Anthony Weiner’s seat, lives three blocks outside the district, but he knows the district very well because he represents a big piece of it in the state legislature. Kathy Hochul also doesn’t live in her district, though I think she is moving there, but most of the district’s population is in Erie County and she was elected to countywide office.
Ben Cisco
I see. I suppose in that context it makes more sense than I originally thought. Thanks all.
Chad N Freude
@Ben Cisco: Generally correct, but in this case the two districts are adjacent and politically identical*, and Sherman and Berman live near each other.
*This has been changing because of of a demographic shift.
BBA
A state could adopt a parliamentary system – there’s no restriction on state forms of government except the “republican form of government” clause, which doesn’t preclude parliamentary governments and has been found unenforceable anyway.
Would they? Of course not. It’d be un-American.
(During the La Guardia years New York City had proportional representation in the city council. This was intended to break the power of Tammany Hall and worked for a short while, until the Communist Party won a seat or two. Suddenly proportional representation was un-American, single member districts were reinstated, and Tammany was back in power.)
toujoursdan
@brachiator:
I’d agree, all of them have their problems, but IMHO a parliamentary system where the Head of State is non-partisan, and split from the Head of Government, and where First-Past-the-Post system is ditched in favour of a Single Transferable Vote, and/or system of proportional representation (viz., 20% of the vote = 20% of the seats) seems far more democratic than the system here in the States. In my dream world we’d also get rid of fixed election dates so that representatives spend their time governing instead of campaigning and leave districting in the hands of a non-partisan commission.
Unfortunately I’m over 40 and too old to emigrate to Oz or NZ where these systems have been successfully implemented.
Trollenschlongen
It has taken me a lifetime to figure this out, but the longer I read this blog the more I understand that the U.S. political system has evolved to such a labyrinthine monstrosity that the only people who truly want to engage it are poli sci nerds and politician wannabees.
I have been interested and engaged since the Watergate hearings but it’s only been in the last 12 years that I have come to realize how deeply, pursposefully retarded the system is. This isn’t Democracy. This is organized stupidity, designed to keep average voters irrelevant, uninformed, and disengaged.
I mean, what real person with a real job and life has time for this?
My choice to cease voting after 2004 and regard politics as a spectator sport looks wiser all the time.
ruemara
TrollenWhatevs
I’m sorry, did you just say you don’t vote, at all? So all the criticism you have spouts from someone who is essentially cheering for a set of ideals from the sidelines? Am I comprehending you correctly? Do you at least vote in your local elections?
OzoneR
everyone in every other democracy on Earth.
Trollenschlongen
I’m sorry, did you just say you don’t vote, at all? So all the criticism you have spouts from someone who is essentially cheering for a set of ideals from the sidelines? Am I comprehending you correctly? Do you at least vote in your local elections?
I have stated in comments numerous times, that hell noes I don’t participate in the corrupt and ridiculous American system of governance in any way other than as an bemused and amused spectator.
I lived and voted in Broward County, Florida, one of the hotspots of the 2000 election theft. I watched the republicans steal that election, and I watched the Democrats’ weak ass capitulation.
Then of course I watched as the Dems enabled and bootlicked GWB and Cheney into two ridiculous wars, as other crimes and atrocities took place all round, relatively unopposed.
Then in 2004, still in Broward County, I worked for the Kerry campaign and was there in person to hear him lecture us at a rally about the importance of “family values.” I can get that noise from a REAL republican. And then I watched the Republicans steal the election again in Florida, and in Ohio and elsewhere and watched the Democrats do NOTHING to stop it, while Kerry conceded to Bush on his way out of town to go yachting. Something smells a tad…off.
I mean, I may not be ultra-bright, but I don’t need to be hit by a two by four to see that the game is rigged, it’s mostly a good old boys and girls network from both sides playing a silly game mostly for show. True reformers like Howard Dean are quickly and systematically marginalized. After all, he “screamed,” don’t ya know.
Obama’s performance has confirmed my choice to disengage. He’s a corporatist fraud and liar.
So now I put a lot more energy into career and personal life that used to get wasted on politics. I work to make life better for myself and all the people around me who are affected by the quality of my life and spirit. Makes sense, no? Maybe if everyone did that, instead of buying into the notion that they can change things for someone halfway around the world or in D.C., there really would be cause for “Change we can believe in.”
So god yes, I am political only from my chair at the 50 yard lines. It’s you dupes playing on the field who lack the perspective to see that it’s all a lavish performance; sound and fury, signifying little. I used to think it meant something too, that my vote had some power. I woke up, as have millions of other former Democratic voters. Consider doing the same.
I think part of the reason I frequent BJ is to challenge my amazement that so many of you still are so willfully naive, just as the system wishes you to be. It’s fascinating. And the vitriol and spittle directed at folks like me is very, very revealing: At some level you hear a lot of truth in what I say and it fucking pisses you off that I have the nerve to say it.
Trollenschlongen
You ARE kidding, right?
OzoneR
Well the country is better if immature people like you don’t vote anyway.
The vitrol spilled at you, not sure why since you’ve admitted to being a troll, is because you’re a wimp. You can’t win the game, so you refuse to play it and choose to fling shit at others who do. It’s funny that you declare Democrats to be wimped when you’re the one who gave up. No wonder you failed as an activist.
If this is all a game of bullshit, some of us are going to learn the rules, master it, and kick everyone’s else ass at it rather than sit around feeling sorry for ourselves like you do.
Chuck Butcher
@Trollenschlongen
You seem to be putting time and energy into political commentary here…
That would sort of disqualify your argument about putting all that into making life better versus actually voting. If you propose that then you’d just … well, you know – disengage. I could understand just throwing up your hands and saying, “Well, fuck this it’s just pointless,” but you seem to keep on … paying attention.
Nice try, it’s just bullshit, buddy.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@ Trollenschlongen – nice troll.
How does that old Rush song go? “If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.”
Politics isn’t a football game where you can be a spectator and it has no effect on your life. Politics affects your life in real ways. Elections have consequences, both parties aren’t “the same” as Ralph would have had us believe. You know this.
Howard was marginalized because he came in 3rd in Iowa after running like he was the overwhelming favorite – not because of The Scream. The Scream was just a convenient meme.
People who don’t care about politics don’t troll political blogs. Yes, a single vote almost never matters in an election – but sometimes it does. If you really haven’t voted since 2004, you should reconsider. And direct some of your energies that you spend here toward helping your locals get more enthusiastic about your views on how the country should move forward.
My $0.02.
Back on topic: I strongly support non-partisan redistricting. I think that would help address a lot of the well-known problems with the House (purity-advocates determining the nominee in safe districts, apathy in most voters, pressure to restrict voting rights, etc.). Here’s hoping it works out well in California.
Cheers,
Scott.
Nutella
@Chuck Butcher:
It’s not at all surprising that Tim Troll is an asshole about politics. His primary ‘contribution’ to the site has been rape apology so we know he’s a low-life.
Davis X. Machina
@PeakVT: There’s no reason why smaller states couldn’t re-cast themselves as multiple-member districts — in the early days of the Republic some states sent House members to Washington this way.
Lani Guinier, who was a cause celebre when Clinton nominated her as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, got into trouble for thinking such thoughts in print — ok, and for being a woman, and black, and a Democrat too — and has written on the subject: The Tyranny of the Majority, (1994)
Trollenschlongen
So cute. How’s that working out for you?
Also, too, furthermore, and additionally, I’m wondering where you got that I’m “feeling sorry for myself?” Projection?
I’m much happier and less frustrated since I let go of activist politics. By the tone of your reply, I’m guessing you…not so much.
Trollenschlongen
Pretty sure I mentioned the word “spectator” at least once or twice…do you know that word? You know how football fans cheer and razz and bitch at a game? That’s me. It’s a past time diversion. Heard of “moderation?” That’s a word too. Taking a break from work or whatever most days to diddle around on a political blog is…entertainment. You know that word? Rather than spend hours and hours and hours each year in service of a rich politican’s will to power, I spend just hours each year on a few blogs. It’s proportional to my level of healthy interest and outcomes. Proportional. You know that word?
Trollenschlongen
Why do people read words that are not in my posts? I never said I don’t “care.” Of course I care; it’s somehow in my blood. But now I care in a way similarly to that of a sports spectator: I may have an emotional investment, but I’m not going to hours of practice every day. It’s not an effective use of my time is all.
Also never get why BJ kool kids use the “troll” epithet so frequently; I mean other than to make themselves feel part of a clique and somehow superior. You really just want to hear yourselves talk to yourselves with no dissenting views allowed?
Millions of other former Dem voters feel the same. There might be some reasons for that, and I mean other than the usual silly memes like “poutrager!”
Trollenschlongen
See? That would be first resort name calling, distortion and attempted ostracism in action, in service of excluding a dissenting voice. Love the “we.” This person is clearly a member of the in group here and wants us to know that.
Yes, this person is right: I hearby apologize for all rapists everywhere since time began. They are oppressed victims. Yes, that is an accurate representation of my position on the Laura Logan incident.
Yes, absolutely.
Yes.
Yutsano
@Trollenschlongen: Beautiful four post tirade. And with the public confession, I no longer care about anything further you have to say. Have a nice existence.
fuckwit
The best progressive solution I’ve seen yet, is ranked-choice voting like we have in San Francisco.
The reason being: progressives by our nature are splintered and individually diverse– that’s democracy. The right-wing is authoritarian and lock-step– that’s fascism. That uniformity among them gives them a huge advantage. Whereas, on the left side of the dial, our plurality gives us the ability to get fucked over, again and again in new and exciting ways. When you force that kind of diversity into a competitive system, most of the time it turns into a circular firing squad. The only ones left standing are the right-wingers. This is pretty much the history of American politics, at least over the past 40 years or so.
So the right-wing wins competitive elections by being disciplined: they get 100 votes split over 1 candidate, we get 500 votes split over 7 candidates, and we lose.
We solved that problem here. With ranked choice voting in San Francisco, we get to pick a first, second, and third choice. In my district last year there were like 10 candidates running. I picked the top three from a group of excellent progressives. I think my second choice won, but I was totally happy, because they were all great! And the corporate-backed candidate finished way down in the dirt. And that’s how progressive government should be.
Trollenschlongen
Interesting. My four post “tirade” was in response to separate responses from other commenters. The fact that such behavior in a comment section is a problem for you indicates some rage issues you might want to work on.
My “public confession” (haha) in this thread is about the tenth time I have revealed on BJ the scandalous and deeply shameful fact that, like millions of other sensible Americans, I do not participate in a corrupt and profoundly fucked up political system.
I am beyond crushed that you no longer care. I am hopeful that I can recover.
May you also have a nice existence.
Corner Store Operator
@fuckwit: You must live in D6 or D10 : ) I am D8 and we didn’t have quite the myriad of choices you all did.
I think the open primary will be bad for progressives in CA, because lets say you have an overwhelming D district and the top 2 are the corporate Dem and the progressive Dem. Well they both go to the general and the Repubs + some Dems vote for the Corporate Dem and he beats the progressive.
Comrade Kevin
Indeed.
Down and Out of Sài Gòn
One thing I notice about the American system: you name your post offices, but you don’t name your congressional districts. In Australia, it’s the reverse. To be honest, I find the US system a little crazy, considering the role districts and their reps have in people’s lives. Giving constituencies anonymous numbers makes it less easy for constituents to know what their seat it, which makes it easier for legislators to gerrymander them to hell and back.
In Oz, our electorates are named (by commission, not legislature) after significant historical figures; I can’t see any reason why it can’t work in the States. So rather than have “Nancy Pelosi, representative for California’s 8th congressional district” (a bit of a mouthful), instead have “Nancy Pelosi, representative for Norton.” That would be way cooler.