I am a Republican but I am also a patriot. Our nation has a crisis and I cannot ignore it because it favors my party of choice.
Advances in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have enabled clever folks to divide states into safe House seats. Now our soi-disant "most responsive branch of Government" feels no pressure from its constituents. Am I comforted because the GOP can use this tool to extend its hegemony?
No. It's wrong (as Buffy would say) and besides, as John Fund points out, it is not a good idea to trust Republicans to vote for limited government unless they feel pressure from their electorate:
DALLAS--Gerrymandering is one of the most important factors influencing elections today. And now it appears that the practice of drawing the often bizarrely shaped districts is about to cement Republican control of the House for at least the rest of this decade. But amazingly this is drawing little public attention. Even NBC's Tim Russert, the ultimate political junkie, spent 30 minutes interviewing House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas on Sunday's "Meet the Press" without asking about Texas's new and controversial redistricting plan.[...]
For those who voted for the Contract With America to hand control of Congress to Republicans, the more important question is simply, will the GOP leadership remember it's [sic] limited government principles if it doesn't have to worry about losing control of the House? Unfortunately, the answer may already be in. This year Republicans in Congress have passed the largest expansion in federal entitlements in four decades and have presided over record increases in domestic spending.
Good article about a truly horrible practice. As we come upon the presidential primary I wonder about another horrible practice, that of having state primaries so spaced apart in time. Should the rest of the country just sit back and let Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina decide our presidential candidate for us? Colorado apparently thinks so, they have canceled the Democratic primary (with incumbent President Bush no Republican primary was scheduled anyway) to save about $2 million and because the race is mostly decided before the Colorado primary is held. Wouldn't a single day (or single week) primary for the entire nation generate candidates more likely to win a national election? The current system of rushing about to pander to geographic interests in order of primary date seems a bit ridiculous.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at December 22, 2003 03:05 PMI wouldn't shed tears but the problem is that it would cost a lot of money for a candidate to compete in a national primary. A guy with a bus can drive around New Hampshire and Iowa and buy guys a cup of coffee until he "catches fire."
I don't see it as threatening as the Gerrymander problem but it is a wierd subfeature of our system -- I wonder what Tocqueville would have thought?
Posted by: jk at December 22, 2003 04:03 PM