AHC: More competitive districts in U.S. House of Representatives.

And I'm aware that the conventional answer for why so few is gerrymandering. But I have my doubts whether that explains all of it because of the Oops effect. You try and shave the district too close and Oops! you're not winning it anymore.

So, why does the U.S. House have so few competitive districts, and how might historical factors have worked out differently so that it had more?
 
Well I think gerrymandering is a huge part but....

Keep the fairness doctrine. Prevent the predominance of conservative talk radio which attacked moderate republicans as much as democrats. Allow the moderate centrists in both parties to survive.

Not sure how you could do it but...

Prevent some of the economic destruction of the middle class and keep more automotive jobs in the US to stem some anger at the establishment.

Find a way to lessen the rise of religious right on social issues like abortion
 
Now you're talking my language! Yes, I think the loss of auto jobs was huge.

The other big source of conservative anger was the loss of the war in Vietnam, even though arguably it was a war we should not have been involved in, in the first place. And I think conservatives strongly objected to giving back the Panama Canal and what they perceived as a withdrawal from the world.
 
Math

Each party is incentivised to create safe wins for themselves. The math of the first past the post system inevitably favours two parties. With only two parties it is much more likely they will collaborate, or at least co-ordinate, on this issue.

Math may be the solution too. If districts were required to be made via a formula, perhaps the 'shortest split-line method', then gerrymandering could not happen in the same way. The two party system becomes the problem for this once again as there is no way either party would support this.
 
But with so much radicalism on the part of Republicans, wouldn't some of these unstated agreements be put to the side?

I'm also looking at the damn seniority system, combined with the idea that the function of a member of Congress is to bring money into the district. So, once someone has been there even a couple of terms, he or she is viewed as better at this than a newcomer.

Note: There was a political cartoon where there was a large mosquito labeled "BIG MONEY" on the body politic, and there was a smaller mosquito labeled "incumbency" sucking blood from the big mosquito.
 
One thing that might help is changing the Voting Rights Act to prevent minority-majority districts. Those tend to both be extremely uncompetitive and lead to a "bleaching" of neighboring districts that make those districts subsequently less competitive.

That, of course, is due to racial voting patterns being very different for whites & nonwhites. And also leads to questions about what would replace that mechanism if it's clear that minorities aren't able to elect an acceptable number of their own as representatives despite being a sizable part of the state's population.
 
Adopt the system Iowa uses for districts. That might help
This. It comes up occasionally elsewhere as well.

It probably has a better chance of passing if it happens earlier (e.g. during the Progressive Era, when things like referenda and recalls were being introduced), before the current polarization; nowadays it would be more difficult (since it has to be done on a state-by-state basis).
 
One thing that might help is changing the Voting Rights Act to prevent minority-majority districts. Those tend to both be extremely uncompetitive and lead to a "bleaching" of neighboring districts that make those districts subsequently less competitive.

That, of course, is due to racial voting patterns being very different for whites & nonwhites. And also leads to questions about what would replace that mechanism if it's clear that minorities aren't able to elect an acceptable number of their own as representatives despite being a sizable part of the state's population.

The problem, of course, is that changing the VRA, while reducing minority majority seats, also almost by definition decreases the number of minority members returned. You'll get more competitive seats - and get in exchange all-white Congressional delegations in Southern states.
 
The problem, of course, is that changing the VRA, while reducing minority majority seats, also almost by definition decreases the number of minority members returned. You'll get more competitive seats - and get in exchange all-white Congressional delegations in Southern states.

I really doubt that removing the requirement for majority-minority districts would cause the South to return to having all-white delegations. For one thing, prior to the idiotic decision in Shelby County v. Holder to effectively remove it, most Southern states had to get pre-clearance from the Justice Department whenever they changed their voting laws, including when they redrew their congressional boundaries after each Census.

For another, there were a half-dozen or so black representatives elected from the South between the time the first modern Southern black representatives took office in 1973 until majority-minority districts began to be drawn following the 1990 census.
 
Without racial gerrymandering, there might be fewer minority politicians in congress, but there will be far more politicians who are accountable to minorities, and the districts would be more competitive. I'm sure other measures can be taken to increase competitiveness as well.
 
Last edited:
Top