Gerrymandering is not what's wrong with American politics

[ag]

Old article, but interesting in that it notes that representatives from marginal CD's are not particularly more moderate. Part of that however, may be that actual votes in Congress may not be the best measure of picking up political moderation, or at least not reflect the whole story, but rather is but the tip of the iceberg. How legislation is fashioned and the compromises made, may be influenced in ways not reflected in the representative vote data. By the time of actual votes, the votes cast may just be more of a party loyalty metric.

Muon2's perspective on this dynamic of how relative political moderation affects legislation behind the scenes in a way not reflected in representative voting statistics in the state legislature of Illinois would be interesting if he is willing to share that with us.

The reason gerrymandering matters is a bit less straightforward (happy to report latest research on the topic Presence of the safe districts, actually, leads to more radical candidates elected in competitive districts as well: since the parties are intrinsically distinct, policy convergence is no longer the expected outcome even in places where the electorate is mixed. Since a Republican knows, he will not get many Dem votes in any case - not because of himself, but because of things outside of his control: the nature of the national party - he has very little incentive to moderate (same, of course, is true of a Democrat). You do not have to be in the gerrymandered district to have this effect. And the outcome is increased radicalism accross the board - even in the Senate, for that matter.

So, yes, gerrymandering elsewhere causes radicalism even in non-gerrymandered districts. And it IS the big problem with American politics.

[ag]

The article makes a decent case that gerrymandering is not the primary cause of Congress's increasing polarization, but that's obvious enough just from the fact that the Senate's become more polarized too.

Not true. See my comment below: gerrymandering of the House, in fact, may be the reason for the greater polarization in the Senate.

[ag]

Old article, but interesting in that it notes that representatives from marginal CD's are not particularly more moderate. Part of that however, may be that actual votes in Congress may not be the best measure of picking up political moderation, or at least not reflect the whole story, but rather is but the tip of the iceberg. How legislation is fashioned and the compromises made, may be influenced in ways not reflected in the representative vote data. By the time of actual votes, the votes cast may just be more of a party loyalty metric.

Muon2's perspective on this dynamic of how relative political moderation affects legislation behind the scenes in a way not reflected in representative voting statistics in the state legislature of Illinois would be interesting if he is willing to share that with us.

The reason gerrymandering matters is a bit less straightforward (happy to report latest research on the topic Presence of the safe districts, actually, leads to more radical candidates elected in competitive districts as well: since the parties are intrinsically distinct, policy convergence is no longer the expected outcome even in places where the electorate is mixed. Since a Republican knows, he will not get many Dem votes in any case - not because of himself, but because of things outside of his control: the nature of the national party - he has very little incentive to moderate (same, of course, is true of a Democrat). You do not have to be in the gerrymandered district to have this effect. And the outcome is increased radicalism accross the board - even in the Senate, for that matter.

So, yes, gerrymandering elsewhere causes radicalism even in non-gerrymandered districts. And it IS the big problem with American politics.

What you say makes a lot of sense, and is of course true to some extent. It is less true however to the extent that the attitudes of the party faithful are not shaped by their political leaders, but by other factors, with the politicians just following rather than leading. To that extent, there would be more polarization irrespective of whether or not there is gerrymandering, and/or adherents of each party whose respective geographic locations tend to be discrete.

But the nature of party faithful would have bee different. Liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats were once also part and parcel of their parties. The increasingly perfect sorting we increasingly observe is, to a large extent, consequence of gerrymandering.

[ag]

Old article, but interesting in that it notes that representatives from marginal CD's are not particularly more moderate. Part of that however, may be that actual votes in Congress may not be the best measure of picking up political moderation, or at least not reflect the whole story, but rather is but the tip of the iceberg. How legislation is fashioned and the compromises made, may be influenced in ways not reflected in the representative vote data. By the time of actual votes, the votes cast may just be more of a party loyalty metric.

Muon2's perspective on this dynamic of how relative political moderation affects legislation behind the scenes in a way not reflected in representative voting statistics in the state legislature of Illinois would be interesting if he is willing to share that with us.

The reason gerrymandering matters is a bit less straightforward (happy to report latest research on the topic Presence of the safe districts, actually, leads to more radical candidates elected in competitive districts as well: since the parties are intrinsically distinct, policy convergence is no longer the expected outcome even in places where the electorate is mixed. Since a Republican knows, he will not get many Dem votes in any case - not because of himself, but because of things outside of his control: the nature of the national party - he has very little incentive to moderate (same, of course, is true of a Democrat). You do not have to be in the gerrymandered district to have this effect. And the outcome is increased radicalism accross the board - even in the Senate, for that matter.

So, yes, gerrymandering elsewhere causes radicalism even in non-gerrymandered districts. And it IS the big problem with American politics.

What you say makes a lot of sense, and is of course true to some extent. It is less true however to the extent that the attitudes of the party faithful are not shaped by their political leaders, but by other factors, with the politicians just following rather than leading. To that extent, there would be more polarization irrespective of whether or not there is gerrymandering, and/or adherents of each party whose respective geographic locations tend to be discrete.

But the nature of party faithful would have bee different. Liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats were once also part and parcel of their parties. The increasingly perfect sorting we increasingly observe is, to a large extent, consequence of gerrymandering.

I don't think so. I think it has more to do with 1) white Southerners switching parties, as blacks began to exercise their franchise more, and 2) the concomitant rise of social issues and fall of labor/management issues and private sector labor unions (item 2 thereby causing most of that portion of the cosmopolitan white gentry out of the Pub party that had been in it).

In any case, in light of my point, the title of the thread is a bit misleading: polarization among the Congressmen from marginal seats cannot be used as evidence that it is not about gerrymandering.