Should USA Congressional district be more competive of less competitive?

[NorseThing]

There will be another USA census in a few years. Yes, once every ten we count heads and a whole lot more.

Politico had a piece recently about the next potential nominee https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...s-alarm-252571

Well picks are more politics than theory so this thread is really about an idea that is being used to cause all of this hand wringing alarmist rancor. He had published a book (that is what academic PhD's in poly Sci do more than papers) on redistricting and whether it is better to have competitive or safe districts. His position is that if the district is mostly or mainly filled with like minded voters, then then there will be fewer losers in the voting process so then the representative will better represent the voters in the legislative body. We have seen this on both the left and right. Black Congressmen clearly stood a better chance at getting elected after the districts were changed to give some districts a more predominant black voter composition. Now the left is complaining that this is designed to give the right an advantage by minimizing the number of congressional districts that have a good chance of swinging towards a different party now that most are in Republican hands.

I have previously pretty much accepted that competitive is better than safe districts in the USA first past the post system. Thomas Brunell's book takes a different position.

From Amazon reviews:
https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/0415964520

ByBruce R. Gilsonon June 6, 2009
Format: Paperback|Verified Purchase
The author of this book has a provocative idea: If districts are truly competitive, so that they are won very narrowly, then almost half the voters in each district are going to be unhappy, so he advocates making most of the districts overwhelmingly Republican or Democratic. And there is actually much to recommend in this approach. This is why I gave it a better rating than other reviewers.

But on a personal basis, it wouldn't help me much. I'm a Republican located in one of the most liberal districts in the nation, represented by Chris Van Hollen, who rivals Nancy Pelosi in liberalism. And this district was drawn very much to do just what Brunell recommends. It was a district that used to elect the moderate Republican, Connie Morella, who often voted with Democrats because of the nature of the district. When the State Governor and legislature got to work, they made the district so liberal and Democratic that even Morella could not win it, with her excellent constituency service, and lost narrowly to Van Hollen. Naturally, without a Connie Morella as a candidate, the district is now overwhelmingly Democratic. And there is no way anyone could draw a district that included the place I live and was overwhelmingly Republican, so I'm forever doomed to be represented by someone whose politics I thoroughly dislike.

Brunell thinks his plan would produce something close to proportional representation. But the only way to make local minorities really happy is to institute true proportional representation. Brunell's plan might be more proportional and certainly would reduce the number of people unhappy with their representative, but it still would produce a lot of people represented by Congressmen they dislike.

I think the above 'favorable' book review sums it up fairly well. I still do not know where I would stand on this idea though. What are your thoughts?

[Gaidin]

Why the hell would I want less competitive districts? Go on. Look at the math.

Gerrymandering has been ruled as a case that can violate the Equal Protection Clause, though the mere lack of proportional representation is not good enough.



Remember, in the above picture, losing by ten percent is a hell of a loss. Historically, a competitive district is mapped for a 51-49 favorability to give candidates an edge but opposing candidates something to compete for. Look at North Carolina simulations.

[NorseThing]

The other side of that argument is to lay out the districts so that the 100 is split so that half the districts favor pink and that half favor green and the odd district is competitive. This is not packing all the districts but one for a win which is your case against gerrymandering. This is getting the most satisfied voters among the 1000 and minimizing the 'lost' votes for both pink and green.

I found the idea intriguing but I am not certain about it. This was a bit of the principle that created the black districts for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. A related article that might be worth a read from the American Enterprise Institute:
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publi...ing-rights-act

[Prodromos]

Come on, historically Democrats have been big fans of gerrymandering. Now that the tables have turned, suddenly it is an undemocratic crisis. Someone call the wambulance.

[Gaidin]

Come on, historically Democrats have been big fans of gerrymandering. Now that the tables have turned, suddenly it is an undemocratic crisis. Someone call the wambulance.

I don't care who I vote for. I've never liked Gerrymandering. Get over yourself.

[Cyclops]

Go with geographic regions within states and proportional lists in the regions. Ha ha chaos!

The US has a system where its hard to elected, then its hard to get unelected. Why would reps and Senators who grafted their way to the top change a system hat finally started to pay off for them? the longer you're in congress the higher up the various poles you climb, for no better reason than seniority.

There are plenty of problems with the US system (Presidential dynasties, Byzantine architecture, money talks, electoral college fiascos, inconsistent systems and highly variable integrity across states-looking at you Florida), the various voting systems are part of that.

Is it the right place to start reform? I'm guessing it'd be one of the hardest bits to change so maybe it is the right place to start.