Centerfield

One thing I didn't see mentioned is the fact the longer they serve the more able they are to bring home the pork due to appointments to critical commities. I live in Alaska (home of the bridge to nowhere:), where we only have 3 legislators. It behooves us to keep them in there long enough for them to become powerful even if they are not that great of, uh, statesmen. You really have to screw up bad to get ousted up here.

Redistricting and "safe" districts only tell one part of the Incumbency Problem story, in my opinion.

The other part is the fact that because these districts have been made non-competitive (i.e., heavily composed of voters from one Party or the other), only one Party has an opportunity to win the General Election, and the real choice can only occur in the Primary. But the Primary has a natural favoritism for the incumbents for a variety of reasons-- the incumbent almost certainly has better name recognition and is almost certainly better funded, and the Party "faithful" make up a disproportionate share of the constituency, not to mention the challenge of unseating an entrenched opponent with similar values and traditions from your own.

So if the districts are non-competitive and we assume the incumbent is almost guaranteed that he/she will win the nomination, then this puts the electorate in the position of either re-electing the incumbent (whom they may personally dislike and want to see removed) or having to swallow their principles and vote for the candidate from the other Party (whom they almost certainly disagree with on more issues), just to force change. The danger in the latter is that now that candidate can become the entrenched incumbent and you're stuck with someone who isn't even of your political stripes (as Orange County centrists learned, all too late, in supporting Loretta Sanchez over Bob Dornan).

As I see it, short of imposing term limits and/or redistricting to make the districts more competitive-- neither of which are in the interests of the political caste and so therefore highly unlikely to pass-- we're stuck with the Incumbent Problem.

How about this, increase the # of representatives. If you double the # you are still a far cry from the rep to constituent ratio at the founding of the country or even at the turn of 1900's.

More reps mean smaller districts, harder to carve out "safe" seats and the big sky and farm states will have a less clout over the most populous states that drive the economy.

In order to get the rep to constituent ratio at the founding you would have to go to something like 7 times the current number, but you get the idea.

Another thing to keep in mind is that we (i.e. people who read, write or comment on posts at Centerfield) are far more aware of the subject problem than most people. This is way under the radar for the average voter, which is sad. This issue impacts the very foundation of our democracy, and should outrage people of any political stripe (except oligarchs). A big PR campaign is needed for any real change to occur. I say we all run through the streets naked until something happens! (Tully goes first.)

Evertime I get that urge I drink some Windex. (It keeps me from streaking...)

Very punny! But it gives me the runs.

I'm for "rational" districting but I'll play devil's advocate here. So what's wrong with "safe districts" The majority of voters get what they want and if they don't they will vote for the other candidate (even if its in the other party). In one sense this is like the high prices of gasoline. We complain and complain but still buy the big cars and buy the gas. When the average voter feels squeezed by this "safe districts" process then he'll vote for "the other guy". Now its possible voter apathy will set in but I think the principle still applies.

Frankly, I think some of it speaks to folks complacency. "Things are good and I don't need too much from my government..."

I have yet to drink Windex, but it's great for acne. (My Big Fat Greek Wedding)

Rick...interesting point. I don't think I've ever heard that suggestion before. It's certainly interesting to think about.

I assume we would have to change the number of electoral votes per state according the the change in the number of representatives. The small-population states would be pissed on both counts. But I like it. Who pays for the chairs?

Chairs would be a problem...

Won't happen. Simple reason #1--it would cost incumbent Reps across the board a share of their power base. Simple reason #2--smaller states would fight it.

If the new seats were split up on a population apportionment basis (as called for in Article 1, Section 2, US Const.) only the very smallest states would stand to lose any actual (proportional) seats. Their Senators would therefore fight it tooth and nail--and they have the same two Senate seats as everyone else. Their governors would also fight it. And almost ALL the individual reps would fight it, as a reduction in their constituency.

Each Rep now represents about 680K people. They wouldn't go gently down to 340K. (The minimum Const'l limit is 30K.)

Tully,

Tully,

I understand why it would never see the light of day. The small pop AG states would lose big time (can you say good bye farm subsidies?). But then again people support all kinds of things that will never ever see the light of day like a flat tax or national sales tax, which would go down in flames for the same reason, you would be asking those in power to give it up. It would never happen.

True enough. Heck, we can't even get real Soc Sec reform going.