Subject: message from John Gear: Money follows the gerrymander
From: Rick Hasen
Date: 2/11/2004, 7:23 PM
To: John Gear <jmgear@ameritech.net>, "election-law@majordomo.lls.edu" <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Reply-to:
rick.hasen@mail.lls.edu



John Gear wrote:
At 06:00 PM 2/11/04 -0800, you wrote:
This sort of argument against smd's is a bit too simplistic.
 ...
Second, the complaint about incumbent entrenchment is a red herring.
Campaign finance laws do as much if not more to advantage incumbents
than any redistricting.

I believe this is greatly in error.

See the several editions of "Monopoly Politics" available through the Center for Voting and Democracy website (www.fairvote.org).  These studies are done years and then many months in advance of the elections to predict the winners of US House races; the only factors considered are the presence of an incumbent and the district's voting breakdown in the most recent big election.  With nothing but these factors you can get over 90%, often 98% accuracy of prediction.  In other words, money is at most a second order variable and, in terms of changing the outcomes in the general election, probably has less of an impact than the weather on election day.

Money in general election campaigns *follows* the district gerrymander.  The people giving money are not typically interested in funding losers -- and they very much want to be welcome in the winners' offices ... so they give to the likely winners, and they know exactly who those people are b/c they know how the district is drawn (to elect a D or an R).

I recently showed the same thing here in Michigan, where the Michigan Campaign Finance Reform Network issued a study purporting to prove that money determined the outcome of state legislative races ... even as their data showed precisely the opposite.

The overwhelming majority of US Congressional and state legislative districts are one-party fiefdoms.  Except for rare established incumbents who can, for a while, sometimes hold a seat despite an unfavorable districting, there are simply no examples of legislators using money to overcome a gerrymander.  I'd be interested to know of any elected legislators you can name who successfully outspent their opponent and, as a result, triumphed in a district drawn to elect that opponent.

Bottom line: money controls primaries; gerrymandering determines general elections.

John Gear, J.D.
"It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you think you know that's wrong" --
Will Rogers

--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.580 / Virus Database: 367 - Release Date: 2/6/04