A Vote for More Congressional Insecurity
“I don’t believe the American people want us to focus on our job security, they want us to focus on their job security,” President Obama said at his face-off with Republican members of the House yesterday. In fact, one of the keys to getting Washington focus on our job security, and any and all other issues we’re concerned about, is to focus on the security of our legislators.
Everyone knows that Congress is a bit like a university: once people gets tenure, it’s hard to get rid of them. Incumbents in both houses of Congress have enormous advantages–higher name recognition, the ability to raise money, the ability to do things (or to at least appear to.) But the single greatest advantage incumbents enjoy is having a safe seat–a seat where the incumbent’s party enjoys a huge advantage in registration. Thanks to state of the art district-drawing processes, most districts are drawn to give one party or another that huge head start. (Take a look at the map in the illustration, which can be viewed more clearly here; it aims to show the tornado-twisty 15th district, but just looking at the bizarrely-drawn shapes of on this map shows that a clever hand was at work here.) And that means that voters lose out, and not just the voters from the other party. The incumbent doesn’t have to work as hard for any of his constituents.
It’s not a hard concept to understand. You may be a committed Coke drinker, but you benefit enormously from having Pepsi in the world. The presence of Pepsi makes Coke compete harder, to get in more outlets so as to be more available, to add new products and premiums and promotions, to keep prices down. Wherever Coke or any brand has a monopoly, it just doesn’t have to do as much to please its customers.
Ideally, legislative seats should be competitive. Ideally, candidates from both parties, including incumbents, would be working hard to try to attract voters from the other side, through service, through initiative, by getting things done. Yes, we want our elected officials to take strong stands and offer firm leadership. But seldom does it benefit the majority when they are hard-core partisans.
But that’s what we’ve got. In most districts, the incumbents have to please the party activists, who are usually more partisan and more extreme than the ordinary voter. And so the incumbents have no incentive to compromise. As long as they keep delivering to their base, their jobs are secure. And that’s why changing parties seldom gets us what we want. We get new faces and new positions, but we get the same old way of doing business.
What we need is a voter movement–a bipartisan, cross-party movement to insist that next year, after the census results are in, the state legislators who are drawing the new Congressional districts stop serving the political incumbents and the political parties. They need to draw fewer safe seats, and to start drawing more competitive seats. President Obama speaks for millions when he says that he’d like to end the partisan obstructionism epidemic in our politics. Persuasion, however, is not the way to do that. Competition–good old market forces–is the best way to put the good of the people back in politics.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
The only inhibiting factor in some states is the voting rights act, but even that is being dismantled by the courts. I wish there was a forced bipartisan (half D half R) which would have to approve a states redistricting plan. The map in Georgia is quite the same as Texas, although over the last 10 years there has been explosive growth in the Atlanta Metro which will throw a wrench into the lines drawn next year
You’re right, the Voting Rights Act’s requirement that some districts that would be safe for minority candidates is a wrench in the plans. And while a 50-50 split would be ideal for a district I think something less even-steven would work fine. Remember, there are lots in independents out there who can swing things. The thing to avoid is the overwhelming tilt.
In response to another comment. See in context »No kidding, Ted Kennedy wouldn’t give up his seat without a fight….after his death
Two house terms, and one senate term should be the limit and then out the door with the bums….and next, seat the new bums
That’s exactly the point. Simply changing faces, either through term limits or by firing one guy and electing his opponent, is insufficient. You need to change the culture so that whoever is in, and whichever party he/she belongs to, will have to work across party lines to solve problems and serve constituents. And the way to do that is to have, wherever possible, competitive districts.
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t get it. How would “competition” as a strategy for resolving the present conflict between political parties work? If negotiation and compromise and persuasion and patience and just doing the right thing consistently won’t change anything here, then why are we using those same strategies for other conflicts, such as the Israel/Palestine dilemma?
Again, think of it in business terms. If Coke has a monopoly, it doesn’t have to work hard to keep customers. It can charge $2 a bottle, and soft drink drinkers have to play along. As soon as Pepsi shows up and charges $1 a bottle, then a portion, maybe a very large portion of Coke drinkers switch over. So Coke has to lower prices. This benefits even the die-hard Coke drinkers, because they enjoy the prie cut, too. Same in politics. If, for example, I’m a Republican Congressman and 65% of the voters in my district are Republican, the only people I have to pay attention to are the the most committed Republicans in my district (and in both parties, the most committed tend to be the most extreme.) And that means I don’t have to cooperate with the democrats on any initiatives–it’s unlikely I’ll suffer any penalty. But if the district registration is closer to 50-50, then I have to compete for some Democratic votes in order to win. Which means I’ll have to try and find some ways to get their support. So–less partisanship, fewer hardline positions, more cooperation.
In response to another comment. See in context »