ARE COMPETITIVE DISTRICTS A GOOD THING?

Zach Sheinberg

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Last Thursday night (November 3, 2011), Andrei Cherny, Chair of the Arizona State Democratic Party, appeared as a guest on Hardball to discuss with Chris Matthews the recent move by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, a Republican, to remove Colleen Coyle Mathis, a registered Independent, as chair of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (more information at http://nyti.ms/uyKPhV).

Governor Brewer claimed that the new Congressional map the Commission drew was unconstitutional and improper, as it made Democratic districts safer and Republican districts more competitive. Mr. Cherny claimed that the map maintained the status quo, four safe Republican seats, two safe Democratic seats and two competitive seats, and made the new ninth district (that Arizona picked up because of population growth in the 2010 Census) a third competitive district. It would seem that this approach is precisely what one might hope a panel called the Independent Redistricting Commission would do.

I must take this opportunity to mention how typical this exchange between Governor Brewer and Mr. Cherny is of modern Republican and Democratic political interaction. Governor Brewer, the Republican, stakes out an extreme position with spurious, if any, evidence (i.e. claiming that Ms. Mathis, who again I must mention is a registered Independent, committed “gross misconduct” for several reasons, none of which come even close to that standard). Mr. Cherny, the Democrat, responds with an argument based in logic; specifically that the redrawn map preserved the Congressional delegation balance of power. In politics today, emotion trumps logic. The Republicans learned this lesson many years ago. The Democrats either have yet to learn the lesson (which means they’re stupid) or continuously disregard the lesson because they want to play fair (which means they’re naïve). Republicans don’t ascribe to the same school of thought. Which is why Republicans are so much more effective at politics and so much better at getting what they want. Because Democrats play by the rules. And Republicans do whatever they think is necessary to get what they want. Think conventional warfare versus dropping nukes.

But I digress. In his comments, Mr. Cherny said, and I’m paraphrasing, that he wished that all Congressional districts were competitive.

My question is, would having 435 competitive Congressional districts, in fact, be a good thing?

I know what you’re thinking. Of course competitive districts would be a good thing! If we had competitive districts, members of Congress would be more accountable to voters because the Republican incumbent or the Democratic incumbent would actually fear losing a reelection race. Further, members would have to appeal to the moderate center, the group that, in the case of competitive districts, would decide the election winners.

Greater competitiveness seems like a no brainer. But is it?

Let’s examine the vulnerability argument.

Logically, the more competitive a district, the easier for voters to remove an unfit, unpopular or power-abusing officeholder. Which is a good thing if the officeholder is Mark Foley or Bob Ney or Bill Jefferson. But a bad thing if the officeholder is a Profiles in Courage-type of legislator (although these days, competitive districts might have no effect because I fear too few, if any, even exist).

But if we make incumbents perennially more vulnerable, what will they do? They’ll do whatever they must to minimize their vulnerability. First, they’ll spend even more time raising money. Challengers on average will raise more money because they have legitimate chances of winning. Which means incumbents will have to raise even more money. Competitive districts could set off a fundraising arms race. Second, members will pander even more to voters. They’ll obscure their positions further and never take a stance on an issue that might alienate even one voter. Basically, they’ll spend all their time raising money and bs-ing us.

Now the polarization argument.

There is no question that more competitive districts would push candidates to the center. Because in any given election, only one voter matters: the median voter, who’s the individual who sits at the middle of the partisan spectrum. Whichever candidate the median voter picks wins every election. In conservative-leaning districts, the median voter is farther to the ideological right; in liberal-leaning ones, farther to the ideological left. With more competitive districts, the median voter moves toward the center.

But would shifting the median voter to the center make any difference? I’m unconvinced that the degree of conservative or liberal-leaning among members is the root cause of the gridlock and the do-nothing-goodness in Congress. Rather, I think they are the result of an unwillingness of members to compromise, which intransigence is driven by the blind faith of members in the righteousness of their personal ideology. I'm right. You're wrong. End of discussion. To borrow a term from negotiations, there is no zone of agreement. Historically, liberals and conservatives have compromised. Liberals and conservatives, even far right and left-wingers, can compromise if they put nation before ideology.

Consider a few other issues.

If we made all districts competitive, how many new members would Congress have every two years? Might competitive districts regularly sweep large waves of new members into office? And if so, could Congress function effectively when populated with new members who don’t know the ropes? (Though this question is not entirely fair as I imagine it cannot function less effectively that it does now.) But do we want masses of new members learning on the job every two years? Might that lead to even greater influence by lobbyists as the knowledge gap between them and members likely would widen significantly?

Are primary races a good enough mechanism for competitiveness? Even if competitiveness is missing in general elections, one can always run against the incumbent in a primary. Although doing so is difficult because almost invariably, the incumbent will have the backing of the party, high name recognition and substantial fundraising, all components of the “incumbency advantage.” Further, few voters participate in primaries, which exacerbates this advantage.

If members run in non-competitive districts and need not worry about losing reelection, would they not spend less time fundraising and more time governing? Could they not make unpopular decisions more easily (though this could be a good thing or a bad thing) and pander less as they are better insulated from retribution at the polls?

If Congressmen were enlightened, if Congress had a high approval rating (as opposed to 9% in the latest CBS News/NYTimes poll), if the unemployment rate equaled the natural rate, a discussion of competitiveness in Congressional elections would be interesting (at least for me) but mostly unimportant. But we have the discussion now because competitiveness is an obvious way to remove non-performing members of Congress, many of whom prove every single day, as they cure not one of our national ailments (and in many cases make them worse) that they are ill-suited to the task of leading our nation.