Voting Without Democracy
Only 32 of 435 House seats are competitive.
Reuters (“How redistricting and the Supreme Court have cut voters out of US House races“):
The number of competitive U.S. House of Representatives districts in this fall’s midterm elections was already near historic lows before the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Wednesday opened the door to even more aggressive efforts to draw district lines for political gain. The court’s ruling, which arrived amid what was already an unprecedented national fight over congressional redistricting, may usher in a new era of nakedly partisan gerrymandering that results in still fewer competitive elections, leaving voters with less power than ever, experts said.
The lack of competitive races means that control of the U.S. House of Representatives will likely be determined in November’s midterm election by fewer than 10% of Americans, with the winners in the vast majority of districts all but assured before a single ballot is cast, a Reuters analysis found. Only 32 of the House’s 435 seats are currently considered competitive, according to the analysis. Those districts were rated either toss-ups or leaning toward Democrats or Republicans by three leading independent forecasters: Cook Political Report, the University of Virginia’s Crystal Ball and Inside Elections.
Most other districts are simply out of play. Cook, for instance, rates 375 seats, more than 85% of the House, as either “Solid Republican” or “Solid Democrat,” which means its analysts do not expect them to be seriously contested. Another 28 races are “likely” Republican or Democratic, according to Cook, meaning they are not competitive at present but might become so under new conditions.
This year boasts the fewest competitive House races at this stage of the election cycle since at least 2008, according to an archive of prior Cook ratings.Democrats need to gain just three seats to win a House majority, giving them the power to block President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda and initiate investigations into his administration.
The shrinking House battlefield is the result of several factors, including increased political polarization. But the weaponization of congressional redistricting, or gerrymandering – which has gone into overdrive since last year, when Trump began pushing Republicans to draw new maps – is a critical element that is only going to accelerate after the Supreme Court’s ruling, according to experts.
Because of partisan sorting, most states are now reliably “blue” or “red.” We have 50 states, of which 25 have two Republican Senators and 21 have two Democratic Senators. That means only four states have a split delegation. Arguably, that’s simply democracy in action.
At the presidential level, there are only six or seven “swing” states. That’s highly problematic, in that California’s 54 Electoral votes go to the Democrat despite a third or more of the state’s voters going Republican. Still, that’s been baked into our system so long that we accept it as normal.
But the House should be different. The “reddest” state at the Presidential level is Wyoming, which last voted Democratic in the landslide 1964 election. Some 30 percent of its residents consistently vote Democratic. The bluest state is likely Massachusetts, which last voted Republican during Reagan’s 1984 re-election landslide. Other candidates are Hawaii (ditto) and Vermont (1988). All likewise have roughly a third of their citizenry consistently voting Republican.
The upshot, then, is that the dominant party primary is effectively the election, barring some extraordinary happening. Which leads to predictable results.
The lack of competitive districts can have consequences for Congress, said Matthew Klein, a House analyst with Cook. If House candidates only need to appeal to their base voters to win elections, rather than moderates or members of the opposing party, they are more likely to move toward the extremes instead of the political middle.
“If you look at Congress and how it acted 20 years ago, 30 years ago, even farther back, you see a Congress that is both less acrimonious and also more productive,” he said. “There used to be bills that passed with huge majorities on major issues. We just don’t really see that anymore.”
But, hey, nobody’s stopping anyone from voting, so all’s good.
Adding to the roadblock to comity:
Newt Gingrich and his ilk made compromise next to impossible, as any concession on any issue became ‘treason.” Party over country became (and remains) the first commandment for Republicans. Add that to ludicrous gerrymandering and here we are, with a disordered president ruling by executive order, and a Republican Congress afraid to do anything about it.*
*Yeah, Tip O’Neil was a taskmaster, too, but things got done, and bipartisan was not a dirty word.
Both of New Hampshire’s seats are competitive (D +2). I wish more states had truly competitive districts, as it tends to reward those who respond to DISTRICT needs, rather than reflexive partisan nonsense.
@Charley in Cleveland: Indeed. Our situation didn’t just fall from the sky. There are villains in the story and they should be named. Gingrich. But also McConnell, Leonard Leo, Paul Weyrich, the Koch Brothers, Murdoch, …
This is true, provided that all you care about is party affiliation. But we are a long way away from candidates being chosen in smoke filled rooms by Party Bosses. In today’s Republican (and Democratic) party, there is nothing that prevents a progressive or anyone else from running as a Republican in a red state or district. And this shows in places like Baltimore, where you have to have a “D” next to your name in order to win, but the diversity of candidates is huge. People that have a legitimate chance to win the mayoral race have ranged from progressives to candidates controlled by entirely by David Smith, CEO of Sinclair Media, and everyone in between.
So, yes, if all you care about is party, then partisans are effectively disenfranchised. But if what you really care about is policy, then much more is possible.
@MarkedMan:
Most people do think that they care more about policy than party, and they believe their party will provide the policies they want.
And two other issues.
1. When you only have two viable options, you tend to view the other side as the enemy, and choosing to side with the enemy is traitorous
2. Social science shows us that people are more likely to change their policy preferences instead of their partisan identification (and not think that that is what they are doing).
I bring this up (repeatedly) because I think it is important to understand what reality is.
Sure–they can run in the primary and lose.
@Charley in Cleveland:
Go look at the majorities that O’Neil had during his tenure as Speaker (here)–the 95th through the 99th Congresses. I don’t think he was too worried about having to build bipartisan bridges to govern.
For example, when he entered the Speakership in January of 1977, the Democrats controlled 292 seats and the Republicans only 143. That is not a typo.
I bring this up not to defend Gingrich, Hastert, or GOP behavior in the now, but to remind us all not to get too in love with the notion that we can go back to the Good Ol’ Days (or that they are comparable to now). The partisan environment was radically different when O’Neil was Speaker. And the Democratic Party was a different creature as well.
@Charley in Cleveland: So, I’m fine with the original Hastert Rule, just not what it’s morphed into. Originally, it made sense: the leadership couldn’t pass a bill opposed by a majority of the caucus. That’s perfectly reasonable. Somewhere along the way, it became “No passing bills if it requires Democratic support.” With thin margins, it effectively gives three or four of the most fringe Members a veto. That’s idiotic.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Possibly. But in the example I gave, the Sinclair Media backed Democrat came very close to winning, and would have inevitably governed according to David Smith’s whims. Would he have gotten anywhere by putting money behind the Republican candidate? No, as proven by years of trying. Once he realized he could have a real shot just by buying a Democrat and putting her on the ballot, she had a reasonable chance of winning.
I accept this is true, because you know much more about such things than I do, but I would add that while they may believe it, most of them are wrong. Republican voters demonstrate this perfectly, remaining in lockstep for the R candidate in spite of any actual policy they enact once in power. Whatever policy the voters supposedly champion, they have no trouble doing a 180 when their “team” decides to go the other way.
It’s likely this is true of Dems as well, but probably to a somewhat lesser degree.
@MarkedMan:
What you are describing there is just another way of saying “Social science shows us that people are more likely to change their policy preferences instead of their partisan identification (and not think that that is what they are doing).”
In regard to Baltimore, it seems to me that, as you note, having to have a D by your name to win the office, if making my point about party over policy. If the contests in Baltimore were actually over policy, then the general elections would not be so lopsided.
I am not well-versed in Baltimore politics, so maybe I am missing something, but if your point is that it is at least in theory possible for people of varying points of view to win the primary, then, again, it is showing the primacy of party over anything else.
I would also need to know how close persons of varying policy persuasions really had a chance to win in the primary, or whether they just sometimes get close to make an assessment.
@Steven L. Taylor: I’m not arguing against the primacy of party, I both defer to your expertise and agree based on my personal observations. My point is that if what you are primarily interested in is policy and governance, a concerted effort in a hard red or hard blue area can neutralize the partisan effect by simply running candidates who promote the desired policies but have them run in the primary of the dominant party.
This wouldn’t work for a strong non-dominant partisan candidate who suddenly turned their coats. But a policy oriented group could field a candidate in the dominant primary, especially as a populist. Party leaders might object to a candidate who didn’t embrace their patrons’ policies, but it is increasingly common for voters to award primary victories in-spite-of, rather than because-of, the wishes of party leaders.
I’m not minimizing how hard it is to turn a ship, just pointing out that it is possible because Republicans have neutered the power of the party in picking candidates – as did Dems (curse Bernie Sanders!). If it turns out that populist causes lose out in a Red district even when the candidate has a Red label, then it can be argued that the voters are truly against those things and not simply against the Dems.
Partisanship is only insurmountable if all that you care about is party and not policy.