Redistricting

Let me add my voice to the masses that agrees in theory with Arnold's California redistricting idea, but is nervous about it's impact on national politics if it is the blue states that enact this idea. I think that most seats should be more competitive, and this should allow for less extreme voices and allow a climate for unity in state houses.

Democrats across the country should jump on the Schwarzenegger bandwagon, demanding that their states also take redistricting away from the state legislatures that deny voters a real choice over who represents them. In a state like Florida, where the GOP has absurdly gerrymandered to ensure a mass of safe Republican seats, such a change could bring real Democratic gains and perhaps even help put control of the House back in play. More importantly, it would reinvigorate American democracy. Nothing would make our politics more responsive, more dynamic, and more fun than hundreds of contested congressional elections, all over the country.

My fear is that with frequent turnover would come frequent stalemates. With new legislators comes a learning curve, and I would need to be assuaged that the curve would not be a constant downward spiral.

I'm not sure how to put this point out there without sounding anti-democratic, but here goes. There are certain instances where a representative must take a view that is not necessarily agreed on by a majority of the country (such as during the civil rights movement). My concern would be the lack of willingness to stand up for things in the face of fear of eviction from office.

I'm always willing to listen to arguments on any issue, and would love for someone to stumble by and weigh in their thoughts. Until then, I lean in favor of folks like Beinhart on this one.

*UPDATE* Ah, research. Here's the first to echo one of my fears, posted in the comments at Pandagon:

We're seeing the effects of that here in Ohio. We've gone from long-serving legislators and executive office holders who were not responsible to the will of the people to (a) neophytes who don't have the first clue about how to run a state and (b) elaborate games of musical chairs between the two chambers of the legislator and/or the executive offices to keep power.

Of course, that's in regards to term limits, but constant risk should lead to more steady turnover, which could lead to the same situatuion, right? Right?

*MORE* Maybe not, as evidenced by this comment at Washington Monthly:

As an Iowan, I'll tell you that nonpartisan redistricting is not a panacea. True, we have four CDs out of five that are THEORETICALLY competitive (Steve King's 5th is a lost cause). But we've still only seen one incumbent knocked off in the last quarter century. That was Neal Smith in 1994, and he ran a poor, outdated campaign in a bad bad bad Democratic year.

The other advantages of incumbency - name ID, money, and ability to manipulate the agenda - are still big barriers to overcome. After the 2002 cycle where we had four significant contests, `04 was quiet with only one serious race (Leonard Boswell) and three lower profile, underfunded Democratic challengers.

Another comment points out that having a large majority vote for a representative isn't a bad thing, it simply means that a majority of the people feel well representated by their- er, represntative. Interesting thought...