"Automatically Reinstated in Washington"

Via Instapundit
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

According to David Broder in the Washington Post, outside of Texas, where there had been agressive gerrymandering, 99% of the incumbents running for re-election to the House of Representatives won their seats. Most in landslides.

The case of Congressman John Mica (R. Florida) was told to Broder by a former journalist who had gone to vote (and who actually approves of the job Mica is doing):

"I pointed out to an election official at our polling place that there was no House race on the ballot, even though congressmen and women were up every two years. She immediately called the Volusia County supervisor of elections for an explanation.

"While she was on the phone . . . I was informed that my congressman, John Mica, was unopposed. I said, 'I knew that, but shouldn't his name be on the ballot, with a line below it for a write-in candidate?' That seemed traditional to me. I asked whether Mica didn't need to get at least one registered vote somewhere so he could be returned to Washington as an 'elected official' to serve another two years. The answer came back over the phone that Mica had been 'automatically reinstated in Washington.'

Broder's friend, who used to cover politics, had never heard of such a thing. But apparently there's a law on the books in Florida that says essentially if "you are unopposed and no one has filed notice of a write-in campaign against you, your name doesn't appear on the ballot."

As Broder noted:

At the founding of this republic, House members were given the shortest terms -- half the length of the president's, one-third that of senators -- to ensure that they would be sensitive to any shifts in public opinion.

So with the money-raising advantages incumbents have, plus the eXtreme Redistricting that DeLay et al. have almost ensured will be attempted in other states, we're approaching a point where being elected to the House of Representatives becomes more like a lifelong position. How this is supposed to ensure the House members keep their fingers on the pulse of what the people they're supposed to be representing are thinking remains a mystery.

Comments

[Bill]

As far as I know, no one is stopping people from running for office. It surely isn't the republicans fault this is happening. Here in Georgia I too noticed some incumbents running unopposed. They were however on the ballot. I'm going to work to change that (them running unopposed). As a matter of fact, Democracy for America tries to work exactly against this sort of thing (incumbents running unopposed).

As far as letting them be reinstated automatically if no one challenges them, so what. Shouldn't somebody be challenging them? Isn't that the Democratic party's job? To challenge the republicans?

I switched over to the democratic party not too long ago (4 years) and I'm not real happy with what I see. There is a lot of work to be done.

[Bill]

And it's not so much about winning as it is about making them (incumbents) spend the money and resources to, you know, actually campaign.

[lgl]

The entire effort since Watergate in the 70s has been to insulate Elected officials from the reaction of the Voting Public. A previous comment mentioned a lack of opposition, check out the new rules for filing. lgl

[rilkefan]

There's work to do in Alabama too.

[John Thullen]

I've been automatically instated to serve from my district. Or was is CHOSEN? Should be quite a wrestling match for the seat, as Mr. Thullen goes to Washington along with the rep from my district. I hope we get to fight dirty.

[Dave Schuler]

Ah, c'mon. Youse guys don't know nothin' 'bout gerrymandering Congressional districts. Now here's how to make a good, safe, Hispanic Congressional district. As our last mayor used to say “One map maker is worth a thousand campaign workers”.

[Jadegold]

Rilkefan: Isn't that Alabama story incredible?

You know, if AL put 10% of the effort they expend trying to roll back the calendar to 1947 into their schools, they might amount to something someday.

[Fledermaus]

A friend of mine said it best: "it looks like separation of florida from united states would be in the best interest of american democracy."

Here in Washington state, unopposed reps are all on the ballot (RCW 29A.36.111) - I was about to add that I wrote myself in against McDermott, who was running unopposed, but I forgot that the Rs ran an ever bigger nutjob (really!) against him.

[rilkefan]

"Isn't that Alabama story incredible?"

All I can say is, I hope God doesn't exist cause otherwise a whole lot of people are going to hell.

[spc67]

I would fully support congressional districts of a regular shape wherever possible so as to reintroduce competitiveness to congressional elections. I am in favor of districting in which neighbors vote with neighbors rather than voting with someone of the same ethnicity or political view miles and miles away.I presume my lefty friends will be OK if that means the number of minorities in Congress decline in the short term.

[rilkefan]

I'd accept a short-term drop fewer minorities in Congress under reasonable districting, assuming there were sensible public campaign finance laws in place (if such things exist in this fallen world).

So naively I would guess one would ask for convex domains (every pair of points can be connected by a straight line lying in the domain) except for geographical features and state (etc?) borders. Does that work with a city in a surrounding county? Do we have annular districts?

[Bernard Yomtov]

Perhaps we should define the problem before we try to solve it. It seems to be that once a party controls the state legislature it defines Congressional districts so as to give itself a disproportionate share of House seats. But gerrymandering is often unnecessary to achieve this.

Suppose we have a state whose population is 60% Republican, 40% Democratic, with ten House seats. Even with the best-intentioned, most neutral, districting imaginable, it is probable that this state will elect more than six Republican Representatives. In fact, it could easily elect nine or ten. The only time you will get a 6-4 split is when D's are concentrated in four areas.

If the goal is to have representation that is roughly proportional to the population there are two ways to get there. You could simply elect ten Representatives at large. Or you could "reverse gerrymander." Create two districts with massive, 95% plus, Republican majorities, and make the rest 50-50. You'll get, on average, six R's and 4 D's.

Reverse gerrymandering is pretty unlikely, so maybe statewide election is the solution.

[spc67]

I'd accept a short-term drop fewer minorities in Congress under reasonable districting, assuming there were sensible public campaign finance laws in place (if such things exist in this fallen world).

How about this? No limits on individual citizens giving to specific candidates or parties. Perfect and immediate disclosure on websites from recipients. No corporate or group giving. Only individual US citizens period.

So naively I would guess one would ask for convex domains (every pair of points can be connected by a straight line lying in the domain) except for geographical features and state (etc?) borders. Does that work with a city in a surrounding county? Do we have annular districts?

I'm with you. Drop in a computer program with state boundaries and directions for regular shapes for that particular state. Geography certainly limits perfection here, but it'd be a whole lot better than what we have now. If the shapes are squares or circles or triangles doesn't matter as long as they are consistent in that state. I don't think local/state municipalities constructions matter. Federal jurisdictions don't have to fit in with the local ones.

[kenB]

Why is the geographical shape relevant to proper districting? Whenever this subject comes up, I struggle with the question of exactly what principles ought to be used and why. Is the idea to end up with a mix of representatives that matches the party identification ratio of the state as a whole, or the race/gender ratios, or the liberal/moderate/conservative ratios? Or is it preferable to remove any consideration of politics when drawing the lines, and let the votes fall where they may?

[ken]

Congressional districts should drawn according to these parameters, giving priority to each in accordance with its position in the list: neighborhoods, (wards, districts, boroughs, council districts), city bounderies, county bounderies, infrastructure (freeways, dams, dikes, airports, seaports, lakeports), geographic features (like rivers, mountains, lakes, etc) and lastly political horse trading.

[Slartibartfast]

A noble aspiration, ken. I'd propose some rules that have strict shape/area restrictions, but I don't have any ideas handy.

This issue of Congressman Mica got some attention in the Orlando Sentinel just today. This is the first time I've noticed it happening, too, and I live here. But it's Florida state law, so it's ours to deal with.

BTW we also have some of the most oddly-shaped districts in the country. Corrine Brown's district touches both Jacksonville and Orlando, and in places in between you could throw a rock across it. Well, maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration, but not much. Some of the districts in South Florida are downright fractal.

[rilkefan]

Since it's still 11/11, for which there was no thread - on the radio this morning I heard there are 1.something million vets without any health insurance in this country. Is this something to feel outraged about, or does the VA system mean I shouldn't care?

[Fungus]

Check out the minuteman:

See http://www.frostywooldridge.com/

For when you decide you have had enough.
One thing frightens all "statesmen":- activity by the electorate especially if it has a purpose. No telling where it might end......

[Bernard Yomtov]

To repeat myself a bit, none of these algorithms for drawing districts will solve the fundamental problem which arises in states with a significant majority of one party. The party makeup of the House delegation will be disproportionate to that of the voters. This happens in part because of the winner-take-all aspect of races for congressional seats.

Suppose you use "virtual" districts. Each voter is randomly assigned to a group, without regard for geography, and each group elects one Representative. Under this scheme the majority party will win an overwhelming share of the House seats - quite likely all of them.

Geographic districting mitigates this to the extent that there are areas where minority party support is concentrated, but it's a delicate balance. One concentrated area and diffuse membership elsewhere still produces an exaggerated result.

The solution is statewide election, or at least multi-member districts. Trying to outlaw gerrymandering is not only very difficult, it also will accomplish less than we imagine.

[rilkefan]

In 60-40 states, what will happen is that the minority party will move to adapt some of the majority issues and will pick off seats when there are hard times in a region, or when there are good times but the guy in office is a bum. Anyway, it's not the case in our country that voters for the two parties are homogenously distributed. Now in the 60-40 states the minority get a few densely-minority districts (and v.v.) and reps have no incentive to reach across the partisan divide.

[Dave Schuler]

Bernard Yomtov:

At-large elections won't have the results you're looking for. In your example at-large elections would result in 10 Republican representatives. Also take a look at the Chicago congressional district I link to above. We're all (or nearly all) Democrats here. The purpose of the gerrymandering was to create an Hispanic district which would otherwise have been impossible.

A better solution (in addition to anti-gerrymandering laws) would be smaller districts (and more representatives).

[Bernard Yomtov]

rilkefan,

In 60-40 states, what will happen is that the minority party will move to adapt some of the majority issues and will pick off seats when there are hard times in a region, or when there are good times but the guy in office is a bum.

True, but that would happen anyway.

Dave,

In your example at-large elections would result in 10 Republican representatives.

Depends on the exact voting rules and strategies, I suppose. But even if both parties nominated ten candidates - a foolish move for the minority - and every voter got one vote, it is likely that some minority party candidates would make the top ten.