Coot
10-11-2004, 11:00 PM
From the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-me-nonrace11oct11,1,3075961,print.story).
This is something we've alluded to here in the past, but I don't think we've had it as its own topic.
California has 53 seats in the House of Representatives, nearly twice as many as any other state, and every one is up for grabs in November — technically.
Just two of New York's 29 seats are considered competitive this year. In Florida, one out of 25 involves a race. Of the 435 seats in the House, experts from both parties say, only about 30 are in serious doubt.
Several factors have led to the paucity of real contests, including the high cost of campaigns and the natural advantages of incumbency.
But those who study the subject say the most important driving forces are the careful, computer-aided redrawing of congressional districts and the willingness of incumbents from both major parties to embrace new political maps that help them retain their seats.
The redrawing of political boundaries, a time-honored but once-coarse craft involving considerable guesswork, has evolved in the computer age into a fine science.
Many people insist that they vote for the individual, not the party. But most voters are reliably partisan. Run their voting histories through a few computer programs, and the political demographics of a neighborhood can be calculated with accuracy, allowing creation of districts with stable Democratic or Republican majorities.
The results can be seen in election returns: A decade ago, 91% of House members battling for reelection won. That lack of competitive races seemed dramatic until the next cycle, in 1996, when 95% returned to the House. Since 1998, the figure has risen to above 98%.
What this comes down to is that with an abundance of safe districts, your representatives don't have to represent you. They are free to represent themselves, their big contributor's interests and be loyal party droids.
In fact, the complicity of both major parties in this is repugnant. If, for example, a democrat is running against a republican incumbant in a so called safe district, the national party won't kick in a dime for their campaign, and likewise with the republicans. Even if the challenger is making a real race of it, as is the case in two districts here in California, the parties will not do anything to upset the status quo and help the candidates from their own party...wouldn't want to have a real political war now would we?
As long as Congressional seats are safe and Congressional voting records go uninspected, your elected representative is free to work to your detriment with complete abandon. As long as people are going to vote the party line, your congressional representative is free to scrimp on the KY.
This is something we've alluded to here in the past, but I don't think we've had it as its own topic.
California has 53 seats in the House of Representatives, nearly twice as many as any other state, and every one is up for grabs in November — technically.
Just two of New York's 29 seats are considered competitive this year. In Florida, one out of 25 involves a race. Of the 435 seats in the House, experts from both parties say, only about 30 are in serious doubt.
Several factors have led to the paucity of real contests, including the high cost of campaigns and the natural advantages of incumbency.
But those who study the subject say the most important driving forces are the careful, computer-aided redrawing of congressional districts and the willingness of incumbents from both major parties to embrace new political maps that help them retain their seats.
The redrawing of political boundaries, a time-honored but once-coarse craft involving considerable guesswork, has evolved in the computer age into a fine science.
Many people insist that they vote for the individual, not the party. But most voters are reliably partisan. Run their voting histories through a few computer programs, and the political demographics of a neighborhood can be calculated with accuracy, allowing creation of districts with stable Democratic or Republican majorities.
The results can be seen in election returns: A decade ago, 91% of House members battling for reelection won. That lack of competitive races seemed dramatic until the next cycle, in 1996, when 95% returned to the House. Since 1998, the figure has risen to above 98%.
What this comes down to is that with an abundance of safe districts, your representatives don't have to represent you. They are free to represent themselves, their big contributor's interests and be loyal party droids.
In fact, the complicity of both major parties in this is repugnant. If, for example, a democrat is running against a republican incumbant in a so called safe district, the national party won't kick in a dime for their campaign, and likewise with the republicans. Even if the challenger is making a real race of it, as is the case in two districts here in California, the parties will not do anything to upset the status quo and help the candidates from their own party...wouldn't want to have a real political war now would we?
As long as Congressional seats are safe and Congressional voting records go uninspected, your elected representative is free to work to your detriment with complete abandon. As long as people are going to vote the party line, your congressional representative is free to scrimp on the KY.