07.21.06

The Redistricting Myth

Posted in Commentary, Election 2006 at 2:18 pm by wcnews

Here it is, The Redistricting Myth, from the Democratic Strategist. Nothing like an article that busts the so-called conventional wisdom. In this one Jonathan Krasno takes exception with the theory that partisan redistricting is what is responsible for 90% of House seats being retained by incumbents, no matter the party.

The conventional wisdom about congressional elections is that redistricting has made about 90 percent of House seats so heavily Republican or Democratic that they are out of reach for the other side. This comes up repeatedly in discussion of recent polls showing trouble for the GOP this fall. Experts caution that public opinion will only matter in the relative handful of districts where real competition is possible.

This extreme view of redistricting’s impact is simply wrong. How district lines are drawn does affect who wins and loses elections. But the argument that the mapmakers have managed to wring almost all of the potential competition out of the system vastly overstates the case and manages to make a bad situation worse.

Next, his reasoning for why this is wrong, and I’m in total agreement.

The best explanation is deceivingly simple: lack of effort. That is not to say that the main actors in congressional elections – candidates, parties, interest groups, and the media – do not work hard. Rather, these players have increasingly come to focus their attention on the group of races they find most competitive, essentially ignoring a growing number of campaigns.

For example, consider the actions of the political parties. Parties are an important source of funds for many congressional campaigns, and their decisions influence other donors. In 1992, parties invested half of the money they spent in congressional elections in 84 districts; in 2004 they spent half in just 11.

It is tempting to conclude that parties are merely responding to political reality. That is certainly true, but it is also true that parties and other big players help create that reality. Where good candidates run – with financial support from their party and the resulting media coverage – elections are cliffhangers. Where they do not, or they receive little funding or coverage, the results are foregone conclusions, no matter how evenly balanced a district may be.

That’s it!  That’s the 50 State Strategy that’s been put in by Howard Dean. That’s “Run.Everywhere”. He ends by telling us why the redistricting myth is do counter-productive. It allows the few races mantra to go forward and leaves little hope for many challengers.

That is why all the rhetoric about redistricting is so counterproductive, especially for the Democrats. The perception that competition is impossible in so many places gives parties, candidates, groups and the media an excuse for ignoring these races, and leaves most voters without any real choice for Congress. Coincidently, that perception also happens to be wrong. Politicians and their allies just need to believe that they can make a race of it in many areas, and they probably can. The question for 2006 is whether the Democrats will believe.

I know one of the repeated swipes the Republicans used during their DeLay redistricting sheme was, “Just run better candidates”. While I don’t agree with that as an excuse for what they did, that is what Mr. Krasno is getting at in this article.  Here in District 31 the Democratic candidate, Mary Beth Harrell, is the better candidate.

Permalink