PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts


RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.poliblogger.com/wp-trackback.php?p=9446

  1. Nor would total public financing (or some other means to equalize incumbents and challengers) along with nonpartisan redistricting free up that many more (though either or both of these would help).

    At least here in California, studies associated with Ahnold’s redistricting reform proposal suggested there would be little effect. The two major parties’ electorates are increasingly segregated geographically, such that there are severe limits to what even the ‘fairest’ districting can do to create competitive races.

    The only way to make more competitive races in Congress overall is to break out of the single-seat winner-take-all paradigm.

    Comment by Matthew Shugart/Fruits & Votes — Sunday, February 26, 2006 @ 8:23 pm

  2. […] erg Shugart @18:32 Planted in: USA, Plurality, ELECTORAL RULES, 2006 elections PoliBlog notes a Reuters report: “handicappers expect a mere 33 [House districts] to be […]

    Pingback by Fruits and Votes » Blog Archive » Maybe as few as 33 US House seats competitive — Sunday, February 26, 2006 @ 8:32 pm

  3. While neutral redistricting would not solve all of the problems, it would certainly be a step in the right direction. And it would also allow for a more representative House of representatives, because it would do away with some of the safe districts that allow for the Shelia Jackson Lee’s and Dan Burton’s to be more of the rule than the exceptions.

    Comment by SoloD — Sunday, February 26, 2006 @ 9:40 pm

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Close this window.

0.153 Powered by Wordpress