Back to the Future

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Few seats changed before 1994 either, except in "watershed" elections like 1974.

"Few" is a relative term. Compared to what happens now, it was a lot. Which says more about the ultra-gerrymandered House we see now, than the slightly gerrymandered House of the '80's.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It only became a serious problem recently... racial gerrymandering becoming legal has a lot to answer for

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Both sides gerrymander, and always have sadly, but the problem has got a lot worse recently.
The gerrymanders that I hate the most are incumbent protection gerrymanders.

[dazzleman]

Few seats changed before 1994 either, except in "watershed" elections like 1974.

"Few" is a relative term. Compared to what happens now, it was a lot. Which says more about the ultra-gerrymandered House we see now, than the slightly gerrymandered House of the '80's.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It only became a serious problem recently... racial gerrymandering becoming legal has a lot to answer for

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Both sides gerrymander, and always have sadly, but the problem has got a lot worse recently.
The gerrymanders that I hate the most are incumbent protection gerrymanders.

Re-election rates were far too high even prior to 1994.  I agree that incumbent-protection gerrymandering is a problem, and I don't agree with racial gerrymandering. 

The bottom line is that incumbents look after themselves.  That's why a regular turnover in party control is generally more desirable than long-term control by a single party.  I believe that's what the founding fathers intended, which is why the House has elections every two years.  But lately the Senate changes hands more frequently.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Re-election rates were far too high even prior to 1994.

True (still better than now though...)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One made dramatically worse by the 2002 Re-districting. It can get very nasty when a seat gets eliminated... the Rep that doesn't get on very well with the other Rep gets his/her seat ripped into little pieces and shoved into a no-win situation incumbent battle with another Rep (like David Phelps (D-IL) in 2002)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The "unholy coalition" of suburban whites and radical blacks should be ashamed of themselves... racial gerrymandering is bad for poor blacks in the Deep South as it makes racial tensions worse and it may even result in less black congressmen... it's fairly easy to draw a non-gerrymandered majority black rural seat or two in most Southern states... but more Democratic congressmen would be bad for the suburban whites and as the districts would be fairly moderate politically, bad for radical blacks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Long term control by one party that never wins a large majority and never will (the current situation) is the worse possible outcome (and I'd say this even if it was roles reversed)

[dazzleman]

Re-election rates were far too high even prior to 1994.

True (still better than now though...)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One made dramatically worse by the 2002 Re-districting. It can get very nasty when a seat gets eliminated... the Rep that doesn't get on very well with the other Rep gets his/her seat ripped into little pieces and shoved into a no-win situation incumbent battle with another Rep (like David Phelps (D-IL) in 2002)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The "unholy coalition" of suburban whites and radical blacks should be ashamed of themselves... racial gerrymandering is bad for poor blacks in the Deep South as it makes racial tensions worse and it may even result in less black congressmen... it's fairly easy to draw a non-gerrymandered majority black rural seat or two in most Southern states... but more Democratic congressmen would be bad for the suburban whites and as the districts would be fairly moderate politically, bad for radical blacks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Long term control by one party that never wins a large majority and never will (the current situation) is the worse possible outcome (and I'd say this even if it was roles reversed)

As far as House re-election rates go, as I recall they were above 90% in the pre-1994 period, which in practical terms is no better than now.  I'd be a lot more comfortable with 60-70%.

I completely agree with you on racial gerrymandering.  The isolation of blacks into their own congressional districts has deepened the racial divide, and reduced the need for blacks and whites to find common interests, particularly in the south.  And from what I've seen of the congressional black caucus, the types of black representatives elected are an absolute disgrace, and will never contribute anything positive to the lives of their constituents, other than validating their resentments, which of course solves nothing.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As far as House re-election rates go, as I recall they were above 90% in the pre-1994 period, which in practical terms is no better than now.  I'd be a lot more comfortable with 60-70%.

IIRC it slowly rose throughout the '80's... mostly a result of incumbents having acess to new resources and scaring challengers away.
In 2004 only 3 [notional] incumbents lost... although it was close to being 4.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some of the very worst Congressmen (black, white, democrat, republican... take you're pick...) are produced by racial gerrymandering...