More Gerrymandering Heresies
I thought I might add that not only do I not believe that gerrymandering is responsible for political polarization, I don’t even think gerrymandering has played a large role in making House seats uncompetitive. For any given district and any given incumbent, there’s some set of ideological properties in a challenger that should be winnable. To think of it in a stripped-down way, any district, no matter how gerrymandered, has a median voter and a sufficiently motivated challenger can make a good shot at finding him.
The real issue, I think, is the relative scarcity of campaign funds. If every major party nominee in every House district in America were guaranteed a reasonable sum of public funds with which to conduct his campaign then I think you’d suddenly see all sorts of interesting candidates popping up in “uncompetitive” districts. This, of course, is precisely why incumbent legislators would be loathe to vote for such a public financing scheme. But that’s the real issue.
37 Responses to “More Gerrymandering Heresies”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 2nd, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I don’t know about that Matt – it seems like the combination of gerrymandered districts and a highly partisan era in politics is responsible for a whole lot of uncompetitive districts.
That’s because while each district does have a theoretical median voter, in most districts that voter is either a solid Democrat or solid Republican, as are all the voters to one side of them and a decent number on the other side.
This means that the only place where incumbents in most districts can be defeated is in their party primaries, and that’s really hard because the advantages of incumbency are huge when they don’t have to compete against much in the way of ideological variation (ie, you are highly motivated to vote against an incumbent who’s views are, say, 90% differenct from your own, but are you really that motivated to vote against an incumbent whose views are 20% differnt from yours?).
October 2nd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
This is terrible reasoning. The U.S. has two national parties. The parties adjust their positions to be viable across the country. Given that, there are a subset of voters who will never vote for a Democrat just as there are a subset of voters who will never vote for a Rebuplican. Get enough of either kind of voter in a district and the district will always go to one of the 2 parties.
Candidates have the power to shape their positions to a certain extent, but they can’t shape their parties and voters care about parties (as they should).
October 2nd, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Why only major party candidates? You want to give my money candidate I oppose but nothing to candidates I support. If public financing of elections happen all candidates should receive money.
October 2nd, 2009 at 5:05 pm
libertarian has a point. Also, unless the public financing is very generous, it’s gonna have trouble competing with the private financing. Private financing isn’t going away, or even submitting to much control, unless a Supreme Court decision or Constitutional amendment provides some sort of explicit exceptions to the First Amendment.
October 2nd, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Oh, Slate Matt. You’re just as wrong as Slate is.
The Ohio Senate is gerrymandered. Each Senate district must consist of 3 contiguous House districts. When drawn by Republicans in 1991 and 2001, it was set up such that 2/3 of Senate districts consisted of 2 Republican House seats and 1 Democratic House seat, and the other 1/3 would consist of 3 Democratic House seats.
So, in a 50/50 state, the Senate has been 22-11 Republican for 20 years. Most races aren’t even contested, let alone competitive.
What’s more, since the seats aren’t competitive and residency rules are lax, there aren’t even many primaries; if the State Party wants you to advance politically, they have you buy a cheap house in an open district.
You’re less wrong about the federal House, but at the same time, Joe Wilson is going to win, and Michelle Bachmann is going to win, just as Jean Schmidt keeps winning. In 2012, after Ohio redistricts, Schmidt will lose and there’s very little she can do about it.
October 2nd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
So you don’t think that right-wing districts are more likely to support right-wing congresspeople?
October 2nd, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I think what Matt was going for is that it seems unlikely that the current Representative, even in deep red or deep blue districts, is at the perfect medium in views for his district. Thus, he should be facing at least regular primary challenges, if not regular general election challenges. That so many incumbents don’t face primary challenges is in large part because incumbency carries such massive advantages, of which a major one is the larger amount of money they have.
October 2nd, 2009 at 5:41 pm
I don’t understand. Candidates face constraints other than money. They face ideological constraints, maybe some kind of (very) weak coherence constraint, etc. It may not be a simple thing, or even possible, to insert oneself between the incumbant & the median voter. Even very well-funded challengers often fail to.
October 2nd, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Umm, Libertarian, Matt didn’t say a thing about major parties. And – as I suspect you are aware – those public-funding plans that exist and that have been proposed all include mechanisms that offer funding to minor-party candidates, for example by requiring signatures or a certain number of small donations to qualify. You seem to be forcefully shoving at a door that’s already open here.
Mind you, I’m not at all sure that I agree with Matt’s post in the slightest. But he said nothing to suggest that party membership of any sort would be required for these interesting publicly financed candidates he envisions.
October 2nd, 2009 at 5:51 pm
This would also only even remotely apply if the median primary voter and the median general election voter were the same. They are not. If they were then every election would be between two candidates with virtually identical positions, both fighting to capture the median voter.
October 2nd, 2009 at 5:53 pm
If only capable people were trying to do something about the problem — oh wait, they are:
http://change-congress.org/
Will you write about them Matt?
October 2nd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
This sure sounds like Matt is saying that all a candidate from one party in a gerrymandered district has to do is pick up the platform from the other party (effectively nullifying their party affiliation). Then they can be competitive.
Well, duh.
Of course, this may explain some of the “Blue Dogs”.
October 2nd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Umm, Libertarian, Matt didn’t say a thing about major parties.
Um, Matthew wrote: “If every major party nominee in every House district in America were guaranteed a reasonable sum of public funds…”
Anyway, Matthew’s reasoning is faulty. The idea that some ideal challenger could beat every incumbent if given $X is odd. There are plenty of countries out there with public financing of elections – do their incumbents not have advantages? I think they do. Matthew ought to rethink this.
October 2nd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
What if the median voter is to the right of the Republican representative, or to the left of the Democrat? Or what if the median voter is much further to the right of the most rightward Democratic representative, or much further to the left than the most leftward Republican? How would it make sense for the opposition party to try to capture that voter?
October 2nd, 2009 at 5:57 pm
I call bullshit, unless you do before and after comparisons in places like Arizona, which have public financing like state elections.
Here, let me google that for you.
Here is the first link off the search, and here is the money quote, “We hypothesize that resources which accrue to officeholders in professionalized legislatures have the potential to offset any advantages offered to challengers by public funding.“
October 2nd, 2009 at 5:59 pm
A NEW DAY DAWNS
[Lindsey Graham Blames the Messenger]
Now, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, seems to be deeply concerned about public emotions being stirred whipped up and the polarizing of all those Un-American, Crazy, Wing-nuts, that don’t fall in line with the Empire. The public must never, be made to think, or caused to become emotional, but must be kept passive, and un-informed. Lindsey is blaming the messengers of Talk Radio, MoveOn.Org. the [24] Twenty-Four hour news cycle, as the [MAIN CULPRITS], WRONG!!!! It is the [DC/544] CRIMINALS! Lindsey dips into the past asking if anyone can imagine doing D-Day with cable television, Writing the Constitution, Can you imagine having to do that in this environment. It is a divide and polarized nation, of [3] Three Main cultures, Black, Hispanic and White, each having a unique cultural identity, Yes Separate Languages there is a Black Language, with Separate Television Networks (BET) Black Entertainment Television, Hispanic in Spanish Television, and LIVING IN SEPARATE APARTIDE COMMUNITES, it is what it is. It is not [1776-June 6th 1944 or YESTERDAY], this is the [21st] Century, and a New Day is Dawning, this is the environment that we live in, Today It The Tomorrow, You Worry About Yesterday!
[A Government of (AIPAC/AZC) Lobbyist Control]
The [FIRST] and gravest threat is misgovernment at national, state, county and local levels. The [DC/544] The Empire and (COS) Chief of State Rahm Emanuel and (ACOS) Assistant Chief of State David Axelrod both, Mossad agents, pro-Israel party hacks and henchmen in a special place, to guarantee that the Empire’s Mid East policies will go where the (AIPAC/AZC) and Israel what it to go. The (AIPAC/AZC) American Israel Public Affairs Committee/American Zionist Council, a (100K) One-hundred membership neo-conservative Jewish lobbyists group, connected to various caucus members of influential members of the Empire’s pro-Israel lawmakers. A Gerrymandered group of elected and appointed officials who are not only deeply corrupt, they are also predatory and malign. [Nepotism] and favoritism is all pervasive, moreover, the Empire [New York City & Washington, D.C.] Government of Degenerate Democratic and Republican Crooks, labeling as being (UN-AMERICAN), Wing-nuts anyone that is against the Empire Way or the Highway. Lindsey, and the San Francisco Hag Nancy Pelosi, rank high on the list of those that are completely detached from and indifferent to the lives of average citizens. There is little connection between the Empire Government [New York City & Washington, D.C.] and the Un-American non Empire Citizens living outside the Utopian, their [21st] Century Metropolis. An Alienated, Indifferent, Corrupt, Abusive, Self-Centered, [Self and AIPAC/AZC Serving]. Citizens are no longer choosing the Empire but (TBAM) the Take Back America Movement, the Era of the Empire is coming to and end both Internationally and Domestically, It’s the [21st] Century a New and Progressive System of Government will be established by the [DREAMERS, THINKES, AND WORKERS OF THIS TIME AND THIS ERA] the former must and will be abolished, a New Day Is Dawning the Sun is Setting on the Empire!
[A Military Government Take Over]
Lindsey sets aside the idea of a Military take over of the Empire Government, as a Nutty Idea in the [21st] Century. Well, the Empire is falling that is a given, the Empire is unfit to continue in the changing Community of Nations [Sphere of Influences] World Order that is in the process of evolving. The choice of a Military Take Over, with limited blood shed and loss of life would in the end seem as much more reasonable method of abolishing a foreign controlled government that is out of touch with its governed than a Civil War, or outside Destructions of the entire of North American, or the World as a whole as Thermo-Nuclear Weapons rain down on humanity. A Military take over of the Empire with new elections held, and a new [21st] Century Constitution, not a [17th] Century Document that the Empire disregards, the establishment of Separate Republics, Alaska, California, Dixie, Hawaii, and Texas, much like the Common Wealth of Great Britain after its Empire fell would be more in line with the new [21st] Century, [Sphere’s of Influence] World Community of Nations. But that [WILL BE] the job for the Dreamers, Thinkers and Workers of this New Dawning Era, and we are not just talking about those of the Empire we are referring to those across the globe who see a New Beginning, a passing away of the old and the beginning of the New Era without the American-Israeli Empire Domination.
HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN
October 2nd, 2009 at 6:01 pm
I agree with libertarian here, I think. Public funding plans are going to be passed by incumbents, so they are going to be plans which heavily favour incumbents, and will be designed to cut minor parties off at the knees. I still think it would be an improvement over the current system, which typically pits the Bank Representative versus the Pharma Representative, but I seriously doubt that any public funding mechanism will do anything except reinforce the current duopoly.
October 2nd, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Matthew G. -
If you’re trying to use that link to argue against public financing, you should have read it more closely. It very clearly states:
“In both states, incumbent reelection margins decreased in the post-reform period (this was especially evident in Maine), while challenger victories increased (again, dramatically so in Maine, and to a lesser extent in Arizona).”
So, public financing works. But it isn’t a panacea – no one should suggest (as Al’s strawman version of Matt does) that “The idea that some ideal challenger could beat every incumbent if given $X” – obviously incumbents are always going to win more than they lose, but the issue here is incumbents that win easily time after time.
October 2nd, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Questions Matt never troubles himself with: why were elections more competitive before we embarked on campaign finance “reform”? Why would continuing down that path make things better? If private money “buys” a candidate and prevents him from taking some positions, why wouldn’t public money have the same effect?
October 2nd, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I read a scholarly article that concluded that gerrymandering was not the basis for incuments’ re-election rate. It was peer reviewed and all, but definitely counter-intuitive. You may be correct.
October 2nd, 2009 at 6:57 pm
There just aren’t that many people anymore willing to edure the ridicule. You have to be a party hack to run for a House seat.
October 2nd, 2009 at 7:19 pm
There is actually quite a bit of academic research on incumbency advantage; much of which is fairly readable. If you search Google Scholar for “incumbency advantage” and one or more of the following authors, Levitt, Snyder, Ansolabehere, or David Lee, you’ll find quite a few good papers on the topic.
A specific paper that supports Matt’s claim about gerrymandering not playing a large role in making House seats uncompetitive. Is “The Rising Incumbent Reelection Rate: What’s Gerrymandering Got to Do With It?” by John Friedman and Richard Holden. Friedman and Holden write “The probability that an incumbent in the U.S. House of Representatives is reelected has risen dramatically over the last half-century; it now stands at nearly 95%. A number of authors and commentators claim that this rise is due to an increase in bipartisan gerrymandering in favor of incumbents. Using a regression discontinuity approach, we find evidence of the opposite effect. All else equal, changes in redistricting have reduced the probability of incumbent reelection over time. The timing of this effect is consistent with the hypothesis that legal constraints on gerrymandering, such as the Voting Rights Act, have become tighter over time. Incumbent gerrymandering may well be a contributor to incumbent reelection rates, but it is less so than in the past.”
October 2nd, 2009 at 8:02 pm
What Nate said. Also, on a rare occasion James Robertson says something I agree with (his first point, not his second one).
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:07 pm
this is crazy, and oddly ignorant for this blog. What median voter is there in an 80% black district that I, jewboy who challenges the incumbent in said district, could possibly hope to reach? seriously, my eyes are bleeding.
this goes to a larger strange fallacy that seems to be repeated on this blog, something along the lines of a rational voter hypothesis that doesn’t bear any relation to reality. i can’t recall offhand, but i’ve seen it manifested in other ways where matt’s overreliance on the rationality of actors in the political process is unwarranted and quite strange.
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:12 pm
That’s a remarkable article of faith, but you have no evidence and I’m not believing you until you do.
It is obvious on the face of it that packing similar voters into the same district leads necessarily to monolithic microelectorates. If you think otherwise, find the data to prove it.
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Ah, once more do I lament that Matt didn’t have to read the same political science syllabus that I did (at—ahem—Brown), else he’d know these questions have already been largely explored thirty years ago.
Also what Triathlon said about the apartheid network BET and the … zionist plot to … something involving our bodily fluids. Anyway: Preach on, brother beavis.
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:26 pm
“To think of it in a stripped-down way, any district, no matter how gerrymandered, has a median voter and a sufficiently motivated challenger can make a good shot at finding him.”
Baloney. The biggest predictor of voting behavior is partisan ID. If a district is 2-1 Republican, a very conservative Democrat is still going to have a very tough time.
Assume that MY’s theory is right, that the main way to be competitive is to position oneself as close as possible to the median voter. In a heavily GOP district, many moderate Republicans will find themselves closer in ideology to a moderate Democratic challenger than to the conservative incumbent. And they’ll still vote for the Republican out of party loyalty and for standard constituency-service reasons. There is no “sweet spot” for the challenger because the median voter is deep in Republican territory.
On top of all that, you have to ask how close you can get to the median voter in such a district, and still win the nomination in your own party.
Yes, gerrymandering does make districts less competitive, which is why political parties gerrymander.
October 3rd, 2009 at 2:21 am
The stupid of this post, it burns.
October 3rd, 2009 at 7:05 am
As the U.S. becomes a one party state, there will be almost no competitive elections. The only relevant elections will be the few open seats each election cycle.
In the long run, who cares about elections in a one party state. The insider “clouts” wlll be much more important to politics and policy and a bunch of long term bored politicians.
October 3rd, 2009 at 8:07 am
Marc,
Go google “tennessee 9th district” and tell me what you find.
I might be wrong on this, but I’ll give it a shot. Matt’s saying that there is always some line where a Dem could move to in order to be competitive in a particular district–i.e become the bluest of Blue Dogs. Two questions: one, if voter ideology in a district is distributed bimodally, rather than normally, doesn’t this conservative democrat risk alienating too much of his own base the further right he goes? Isn’t there some point where the median Democrat (even as the minority, voting strategically) says “fuck it, I’m staying home”?
Second, if this were true, wouldn’t we expect to see some number of Democrats in Congress who are more conservative than the left-most Republican? And vice-versa? But if I’m not mistaken, if one uses NOMINATE scores, we don’t see this. I mean, not one–the most conservative Dem in the Senate still votes more liberally than Snowe or Collins. I believe the same is true in the House. If Matt is right, wouldn’t there be at least a handful of well-funded challengers who adopt Matt’s strategy and win?
Of course, I’m sick, and it’s seven in the morning on a weekend, so it’s possible I’m not thinking this through.
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:42 am
With all due respect, I very much disagree with this analysis. Say you have a district that’s 70% Republican, largely conservative, and 30% Democratic, largely liberal. In this scenario, the Democrats likely would never nominate someone attractive to Republican voters, i.e., pro-life, anti-gay rights, anti-universal health care, etc. In other words, the Democrats will never nominate someone who can win the median voter.
Now, you probably have some districts where you might have only 30% Dems, but most of them, or enough of them, are conservative enough to vote for a Dem who can win over Republicans, like all those Dems who won House seats in ‘06 and ‘08 and are very worried about ‘10. But I would think that the norm is the first example: Dems will very rarely nominate someone who could win over the median voter (and vice versa in districts that are predominantly Dem and the GOP is a distinct minority). In fact, your frequently-made argument that with the end of segregation and legalized racism, parties have realigned so that the GOP is conservative and Dems are liberal, seems to prove my point and undermine yours.
October 3rd, 2009 at 12:52 pm
When the issue is framed this way it distracts from the effect that gerrymandering does have, i.e., making the political representation less representative of the electorate.
October 3rd, 2009 at 4:09 pm
“I don’t even think gerrymandering has played a large role in making House seats uncompetitive.”
The stupidest thing I’ve ever seen out of Matt. In California, we have two or three close House races every two years since the 2001 gerrymander. That sure wasn’t the case in the 1990s.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:42 am
I think if Matt’s argument could ever work, it would have to rely on the possibility of vigorous primary challenges (which involve both $ and other limitations).
October 5th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Michele Bachmann is a disgrace to the USA, MN, and the 6th. If you’re interested in getting rid of Bachmann, support democratic candidate Dr. Maureen Reed! You can learn more about Maureen, and donate, at:
http://maureenreedforcongress.com/
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maureen_Reed
October 7th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
cmholm: “unless the public financing is very generous, it’s gonna have trouble competing with the private financing.”
Public financing would be pretty cheap on a per eligible voter per year basis. I ran the numbers from the last election cycle. Taking all the presidential candidate spending (including primaries) and dividing by 4, and all the congressional candidate, national party committee, and 527 organization spending and dividing by 2, I got a figure of $8.78 per eligible voter per year. That doesn’t sound like it should be a tough sell politically. (And it’s probably an overestimate since the DNC and RNC raise more money in presidential cycles than non-presidential ones.)
October 8th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
“All else equal, changes in redistricting have reduced the probability of incumbent reelection over time.”
Isn’t this a study design problem. When there are changes in the redistricting (i.e. when the other party gets to gerrymander their way) of course this will be negatively correlated with incumbent reelection. The new gerrymander is going to be designed to hurt the current occupant and help the new Party. But the average effect is to make safe seats safer for the party so long as they can maintain the gerrmander.
At some point the disparity between voter and representative breaks down enough that the gerrymanderers can’t hold power, and then it flip flops.
So on average, after a change in districting, the incumbent is often likely to lose. But the effect of gerrymandering is to keep incumbents in power so long as they maintain control over the gerrymander.