4 ms·

A serious question: why is it an inherently good thing for reelection to be less assured? I'd think that in many "natural" districts, you'd either have a clear

by kens 13y ago

A serious question: why is it an inherently good thing for reelection to be less assured? I'd think that in many "natural" districts, you'd either have a clear tilt in the population, or a popular politician who always gets reelected because they do a good job and people like them. (I agree that crazy gerrymandering is a problem, but I often see this attitude that there's something wrong if a district isn't competitive.)

IgorPartola 13y ago
Because the congress has a 90% reelection rate [1] and a 10% approval rate [2]. In short, the tea party members can go nuts and destroy parts of the government, yet be sure they will still get elected. [1] http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php [2] http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/poll-republicans-are-%E2%80%98almost-all%E2%80%99 http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/poll-republicans-are-%E2%80...
- humanrebar 13y ago
  Congress was as unpopular and as full of bad incumbents before the tea party organized. Also, the tea party republicans have all been reelected recently, so they can't possibly be caused by the high reelection rate. In fact, you would probably see more of them if the advantages of incumbency were diminished.
  - IgorPartola 13y ago
    The tea party has a high re-election rate. Even if they didn't, the barrier of entry is so low that any elected member that is not extreme enough will be replaced by a challenger that displays the right amount of zeal.
    - humanrebar 13y ago
      > The tea party has a high re-election rate. If you read my other comments on this thread, you'll see I agree that incumbents are too advantaged, but the incumbents that were defeated by the tea party also had high re-election rates. Invectives aside, I was noting that tea party republicans are actually a point against the advantage of incumbency.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Congress was as unpopular and as full of bad incumbents before the tea party organized. No, it wasn't. Whatever you think about the opinion claim ("as full of bad incumbents") the fact claim ("as unpopular") is wrong: Congress' current approval ratings are at the lowest since approval of Congress has been tracked. > Also, the tea party republicans have all been reelected recently, so they can't possibly be caused by the high reelection rate. Assuming that you mean "first elected" when you say "reelected", which is the only way this claim even makes sense, then, yes, that's true. What they are a in part a product of is not "the reelection rate", per se, but a particular factor which also contributes to the reelection rate, specifically, districts in which there is no substantial party competition. These districts mean that a committed faction of the dominant party, even if it is not itself an overall majority faction, can keep a candidate in office quite easily.
    - humanrebar 13y ago
      Sorry. I mistyped. I did mean "first elected". A better (also less inflammatory) case would exclude condemning the tea party for their political views and tactics and include mentioning politicians like Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham, William Jefferson, Jesse Jackson Jr., and Charlie Rangel who were all convicted or censured for corrupt behavior. Many of them subsequently won primary or general election races! I actually agree that incumbency is probably too big of an advantage, especially in primary races, but I think the recent primary success of tea party republicans undermines that argument if anything. EDIT: Regarding popularity, since the 9/11 fervor wore off, congressional approval has been maybe 25% at best. The tea party didn't exactly break anything that wasn't broken already.
- CWuestefeld 13y ago
  I was going to give you an upvote based on your first sentence. But your second sentence's blind partisanship, combined with the obvious (yet overlooked) conclusion from the numbers you cited, make me back off. So there's a 10% approval rate, and assume that congress is roughly 50/50 by party. Even if we assume that the GOP's approval rate is 0%, then that leaves the Democrats with only a 20% approval. Clearly the problem is across the board. While you're throwing stones at the other guy, I think you ought to get your own house in order. We're trying here not to make this a partisan issue, but to look at systemic solutions.
  - IgorPartola 13y ago
    I am not fond of most members of the House or the Senate. The tea partiers are nuts, the republicans are divided and out of touch, and the democrats are weak. Contrary to what you might have gleamed from that one sentence, I am not a democrat. Not that it matters here, but I believe the job of the government is to provide safety for its people: safety from hunger, poverty, sickness and foreign threats. I would love to see the US get its social programs right, expanding some of them to provide a broader and more sane social safety net for those in need. At the same time, I'd love to cut the spending on the military to fund the social programs. Then, I would want to get rid of things like the IRS in favor of a much simpler system. Basically, dramatically reduce the cost of running the government, but boost things that are actually important. The problem is that there now really are three parties: Dems, GOP, and the tea party. While historically there have been many nutcases that got elected, our current problem is that the tea party consists of people with extreme far right, even anarchist views. Moreover, they have enough people in the House to cause trouble. The thing is, they win in either case: if they manage to shut the government down, or hinder some of its functions, they are doing what they promised. If they do not, they can still cause enough trouble and blame the system they are a part of. In the long run, I actually hope that the republicans divorce themselves from the tea party, and become slightly more centrist. This will be a short term loss, but in the long run they will then appear to be the most reasonable ones.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> A serious question: why is it an inherently good thing for reelection to be less assured? Its a good thing for there to be meaningful choices in general election. Gerrymandering to maximize competitive districts is one way to acheive very minor improvements in this area (party-blind redistricting isn't likely to do much at all), at the cost of creating a small number of hypermajority districts. Better ways to do it don't focus on redistricting, but focus on changing the election and nomination system so that: 1) There are more parties that are competitive than in FPTP, and 2) Competitive parties are incentivized to offer more candidates than they currently are for any given election (which, currently, is the seats they are likely to win, rounded up to the nearest whole number.) STV, or a similar candidate-centered proportional system, in multimember districts for legislative elections is one way to do this, and supports both more viable parties and more candidates per party, and thus more viable choices in general elections. And, like any multimember district proportional system, it reduces the impact of reapportionment methods, so you don't have to worry about trying to control gerrymandering.

by kens 13y ago

IgorPartola 13y ago

Because the congress has a 90% reelection rate [1] and a 10% approval rate [2]. In short, the tea party members can go nuts and destroy parts of the government, yet be sure they will still get elected. [1] http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php [2] http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/poll-republicans-are-%E2%80%98almost-all%E2%80%99 http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/poll-republicans-are-%E2%80...

humanrebar 13y ago
Congress was as unpopular and as full of bad incumbents before the tea party organized. Also, the tea party republicans have all been reelected recently, so they can't possibly be caused by the high reelection rate. In fact, you would probably see more of them if the advantages of incumbency were diminished.
- IgorPartola 13y ago
  The tea party has a high re-election rate. Even if they didn't, the barrier of entry is so low that any elected member that is not extreme enough will be replaced by a challenger that displays the right amount of zeal.
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    > The tea party has a high re-election rate. If you read my other comments on this thread, you'll see I agree that incumbents are too advantaged, but the incumbents that were defeated by the tea party also had high re-election rates. Invectives aside, I was noting that tea party republicans are actually a point against the advantage of incumbency.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Congress was as unpopular and as full of bad incumbents before the tea party organized. No, it wasn't. Whatever you think about the opinion claim ("as full of bad incumbents") the fact claim ("as unpopular") is wrong: Congress' current approval ratings are at the lowest since approval of Congress has been tracked. > Also, the tea party republicans have all been reelected recently, so they can't possibly be caused by the high reelection rate. Assuming that you mean "first elected" when you say "reelected", which is the only way this claim even makes sense, then, yes, that's true. What they are a in part a product of is not "the reelection rate", per se, but a particular factor which also contributes to the reelection rate, specifically, districts in which there is no substantial party competition. These districts mean that a committed faction of the dominant party, even if it is not itself an overall majority faction, can keep a candidate in office quite easily.
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    Sorry. I mistyped. I did mean "first elected". A better (also less inflammatory) case would exclude condemning the tea party for their political views and tactics and include mentioning politicians like Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham, William Jefferson, Jesse Jackson Jr., and Charlie Rangel who were all convicted or censured for corrupt behavior. Many of them subsequently won primary or general election races! I actually agree that incumbency is probably too big of an advantage, especially in primary races, but I think the recent primary success of tea party republicans undermines that argument if anything. EDIT: Regarding popularity, since the 9/11 fervor wore off, congressional approval has been maybe 25% at best. The tea party didn't exactly break anything that wasn't broken already.
CWuestefeld 13y ago
I was going to give you an upvote based on your first sentence. But your second sentence's blind partisanship, combined with the obvious (yet overlooked) conclusion from the numbers you cited, make me back off. So there's a 10% approval rate, and assume that congress is roughly 50/50 by party. Even if we assume that the GOP's approval rate is 0%, then that leaves the Democrats with only a 20% approval. Clearly the problem is across the board. While you're throwing stones at the other guy, I think you ought to get your own house in order. We're trying here not to make this a partisan issue, but to look at systemic solutions.
- IgorPartola 13y ago
  I am not fond of most members of the House or the Senate. The tea partiers are nuts, the republicans are divided and out of touch, and the democrats are weak. Contrary to what you might have gleamed from that one sentence, I am not a democrat. Not that it matters here, but I believe the job of the government is to provide safety for its people: safety from hunger, poverty, sickness and foreign threats. I would love to see the US get its social programs right, expanding some of them to provide a broader and more sane social safety net for those in need. At the same time, I'd love to cut the spending on the military to fund the social programs. Then, I would want to get rid of things like the IRS in favor of a much simpler system. Basically, dramatically reduce the cost of running the government, but boost things that are actually important. The problem is that there now really are three parties: Dems, GOP, and the tea party. While historically there have been many nutcases that got elected, our current problem is that the tea party consists of people with extreme far right, even anarchist views. Moreover, they have enough people in the House to cause trouble. The thing is, they win in either case: if they manage to shut the government down, or hinder some of its functions, they are doing what they promised. If they do not, they can still cause enough trouble and blame the system they are a part of. In the long run, I actually hope that the republicans divorce themselves from the tea party, and become slightly more centrist. This will be a short term loss, but in the long run they will then appear to be the most reasonable ones.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> A serious question: why is it an inherently good thing for reelection to be less assured? Its a good thing for there to be meaningful choices in general election. Gerrymandering to maximize competitive districts is one way to acheive very minor improvements in this area (party-blind redistricting isn't likely to do much at all), at the cost of creating a small number of hypermajority districts. Better ways to do it don't focus on redistricting, but focus on changing the election and nomination system so that: 1) There are more parties that are competitive than in FPTP, and 2) Competitive parties are incentivized to offer more candidates than they currently are for any given election (which, currently, is the seats they are likely to win, rounded up to the nearest whole number.) STV, or a similar candidate-centered proportional system, in multimember districts for legislative elections is one way to do this, and supports both more viable parties and more candidates per party, and thus more viable choices in general elections. And, like any multimember district proportional system, it reduces the impact of reapportionment methods, so you don't have to worry about trying to control gerrymandering.