64% of General Assembly races unopposed - Part II
Jeff Trigg posted this back in December. Didn't get many comments then and I thought that sad. It just seemed awfully unhealthy for Illinois politics to have so many uncontested races.
Political Sherpa writes a column in the Washington Times with this conclusion,
Mr. Abramowitz and his colleagues suggest the decline of electoral competition is caused by factors other than redistricting. "Americans are increasingly living in communities and neighborhoods whose residents share their values and they are increasingly voting for candidates that share those values," they write.A guy I work with tells me solutions are the problems. Maybe Jeff and I shouldn't have fretted this one.
But consider the research of Thomas L. Brunell of the University of Texas at Dallas. Mr. Brunell's piece, in the same volume of "PS," titled "Rethinking Redistricting: How Drawing Uncompetitive Districts Eliminates Gerrymanders, Enhances Representation, and Improves Attitudes toward Congress," raises some equally provocative points. He says that while enhanced electoral competition may have some advantages, maximizing tightly contested districts also maximizes the number of people who vote for a losing candidate. Mr. Brunell argues drawing more uncompetitive districts maximizes the number of "winners" among voters and would raise satisfaction with "our Members of Congress and Congress as an institution."
Both of these articles significantly challenge the conventional wisdom of political reformers. "Good government" advocates might want to reconsider the current orthodoxy about the benefits of redistricting to achieve electoral competition. They may have embraced a questionable tactic to achieve an undesirable goal. Maybe the wound on the body politic inflicted by redistricting isn't festering at all.
10 comments:
I think we should have some sort of term limits for the General Assembly. Not absolute lifetime term limits, but maybe rules that you can only serve up to ten years before haveing to sit out 2 or 3 elections before running again.
I thought Mr. Quinn's cutback amendment was going to give us more, not less, competition in legislative races. Was he wrong?
Yes, and less diverse, too.
The Cut-Back Amendment was going to save money, too.
Sure.
If you don't think that we'd be in an even bigger budget hole today if we didn't pass the Cutback Amendment, then you just don't understand anything about politics.
In retrospect, I was never a big fan of the Cutback Amendment, and although I was only like Nine when I passed, when I learn more about it, I think the 177 Member house was better because I think it provided better represntation for all.
I Live in a district that was carved for the GOP even though I am a Democrat, and It would be great if I had a go to guy to go to, instead of depending on a Dem senator or rep to go to if I need something
the Cumulative voting was also a good thing, I belive to
A still better solution: proportional representation.
What about Iowa, where they draw the districts to be as close as possible to county, city borders.
Seems like lots of competitive races there.
You people who think you know poltics crack me up. Since when is it a good idea to have more campaigns. You all bitch and moan cause us hacks spend soooo much money in those races, now you bitch and moan cause there aren't enough races. BTW, I'm sure it's a lot less now that people have dropped out since December. Give it up people
The early primary election does a lot to discourage challengers. In order to make a serious challenge, one has to start campaigning no later than September of the previous year, or 16 months before you take office, IF you manage to topple the incumbent.
Post a Comment