Why ‘gerrymandering’ doesn’t polarise Congress the way we’re told
Biased redistricting is commonly held up as the culprit for America’s increasingly partisan politics. If only it were that simple
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/03/gerrymandering-polarise-congress
I don’t particularly like being wrong (does anyone?), but since I tend to defend my opinions quite firmly (being generous here), when I figure I am wrong I have tried to own up to it. In the past I have come down pretty hard on Gerrymandering (for instance here and here) and as a consequence was _very_ skeptical when I read the title to the article. However, as I have mentioned a time or twain here before, I am happy to be exposed to opposing arguments as long as I feel they are made rationally and based on supportable information rather than just bloviating so I took a look. Nate Silver has shown that he is focused on supportable numbers and lets his algorithms decided (not that that is impossible to manipulate, but he at least shows the potential that he isn’t engaging in that activity), so when he says that Gerrymandering isn’t an issue I tend to respect that. In particular this comment:
Meanwhile, the differences between the parties have become so strong, and so sharply split across geographic lines, that voters may see their choice of where to live as partly reflecting a political decision. This type of voter self-sorting may contribute more to the increased polarization of Congressional districts than redistricting itself. Liberal voters may be attracted to major urban centers because of their liberal politics (more than because of the economic opportunities that they offer), while conservative ones may be repelled from them for the same reasons.
Unfortunately it seems that this polarization of the electorate looks like it is self-reinforcing, meaning that there is little to change the individual decision calculus of each Representative (Senators, since they represent half the state, by their nature tend to be more moderate) and since there appears to be little in the way of demographic shifts that can change the current polarization (i.e., Democrats in the city, Republicans in the hinterlands), we can look forward to the House being mostly to exclusively controlled by the GOP and the Senate staying very close to balance (meaning the idiotic use of the filibuster to force a 60 vote majority to do anything) our Congress is likely to remain highly dysfunctional for the foreseeable future.
Ironically, based on my analysis, Democrats are much more likely to remain in control of the White House than the GOP simply because the primary process for the GOP is so entirely focused on the wing-nut fringe, thus trapping the candidate (as it did for Romney) in positions that alienate the nation’s center. The Tea Party should be ecstatic, though; they have dragged the nation so far to the right now that people call Obama a socialist with a straight face. When a Democratic President figures it is OK to negotiate away Social Security to put even more old people into poverty you can be sure that progressives have had their teeth completely pulled. Not to mention the total shredding of our Constitution (by a supposed Constitutional lawyer, no less).
Man I wish I could get my wife to consider emigration! Land in Canada is quite inexpensive (I found 300 acres for less than $100K (US) off a paved and maintained road (and ‘only’ a half hour from civilization!)).
