Liberal Talk Radio

Well, we’ve got to be open to new ideas, don’t we? Even when they go against one of our pet issues:

  The evidence presented in this paper indicates that declining competition in U.S. House elections is explained by two major factors: a shift in the partisan composition of House districts and a decline in the ability of challengers to compete financially with incumbents.  Since the 1970s, and especially since 1992, there has been a substantial increase in partisan polarization among House districts.  The number of marginal districts has been declining while the number of districts that are safe for one party has been increasing.  Redistricting appears to have little or nothing to do with this trend: almost all of the change in district partisanship has occurred between redistricting cycles. 

The whole study is worth a glance, even if you just look at the graphs. It goes on to say that fewer and fewer people are splitting their tickets these days, voting one party locally and another nationally. This makes sense, as party ID has become more and more of a cultural affinity.

But what’s really interesting is that this study, in a roundabout way, hints at the fact that redistricting is a problem. Here’s why: during the Texas redistricting battle, Tom Delay argued that he wanted to bring Texas’ congressional representation in line with its presidential voting record. That is, since Texas votes overwhelmingly for Republican presidents, he argued, the vast majority of the congressional delegation ought to be Republicans. At the time, it was actually slightly in favor of the Democrats, 17-15.

Delay’s expressed intention was to conflate national and local party identification, which, according to this study, is the main reason why districts have gotten less safe. So in the Texas case, the conflation of national and local party ID was the root of the redistricting.