WaPo on California redistricting: a little piece of broken logic


A pretty standard analysis piece on the issues surrounding redistricting, linked to here for your reference.

The usual ideas are trotted out: Seats don't change hands often enough (no analysis on whether this is prima facie evidence that there's a problem); this makes for a polarized legislature that can't get work done.

One quasi-new point sticks in my craw, and that's what I've excerpted.

Crossing Lines in California
(Washington Post) Because the only threat most incumbents have to worry about is a possible challenge in a primary, they heed the importunings of any interest group that can make trouble for their renomination. That heightens the power of hard-core constituencies with uncompromising views.

The logic here, if I understand it, is that special interests (a term not used by the author of the article but one that I'll point out apropos of nothing is simply code for "any organized cohort with which one happens to disagree") will be able to dominate any election in which a candidate is seriously threatened by the loss of their seat (at present, only the primaries).

Does it not follow that redistricting would therefore elaborate the influence of special interests on the general election as well, to the exact extent that threatened incumbents?

Posted: Thu - March 31, 2005 at 07:07 AM   | Category:     |   |   | |


©
eXTReMe Tracker