Political Entrenchment
7th March 2008
Read it.
The Washington Post begins by assuming what it ought to be proving, and it goes downhill from there.
THE ABSENCE of competitive congressional districts takes a toll on the political process.
Why? They never say.They just state it as if it were a law of nature. But it’s exactly wrong.
What is the purpose of a representative in a representative democracy? Is it not to represent the interests of his (or her) constituents? Of course it is.
Consider this: Is a Congressional district tailored in such a way that the vast majority of its population likes and will vote for the incumbent more or less representative than one in which the incumbent barely squeaks by (and thus can be said to truly represent only half-plus-a-smidge of the people in his district)? I suggest that it is.
An election is not a basketball game, in which it is more exciting when one side wins about half the time and the other side the rest. The goal of an election is to put the candidate in who best represents the majority of the people in the district. An ideal election would have the candidate (in a free and fair election) winning 100% of the vote, thereby signifying that every voter in the district preferred him to his opponent. And yet the Post and the other members of the chattering classes would react to such a result with horror.
Why? Because they haven’t any better notion of the objective of a representative democracy than a slug does. They just want a fight — prefereably a cliff-hanger — because it’s more interesting (and is a lot more fun for “journalists” to cover). And it sells more newspapers.
Think about that next time you hear the pot-thumpers complain about “uncompetitive” elections.