It is an extremely rare situation for it to be possible for all
districts to be competitive, unless that is the only criteria and the
Voting Rights Act, communities of interest, compactness, and virtually
every other traditional criteria are ignored. So when there is talk of
"competitive" plans, that is a reference to a combination of competitive
and non-competitive districts, versus a plan with all or virtually all
non-competitive districts.

Moving to the specifc question, there are books and countless articles
written on the benefits of competitive districts, but my short answer
would be this:

A "competitive" district does two good things:

1) it ensures a vigorous debate, where candidates must get out and
engage the voters. I'd suggest one compare the amount of information a
typical Iowa voter had in 2002 from Congressional candidates to the
amount of information a typical California or Florida voter had with
Congressional candidates in that same year. Which is healthier for
democracy and representative government?

2) it ensures that when voter preferences shift, the representation of
the district changes. Depending on how competitive the makeup of the
district, a three percent swing could change which party gets elected,
compared to a need in 'non-competitive' districts for a virtually
unheard-of twenty or more percent swing. Fundamentally, when voter
loyalty shifts, shouldn't their representation in the legislature /
Congress also shift? 

[In #2 I mean shifts over a two-year or six-year election cycle, not
between two-week tracking polls -- this is a discussion of a
representative system, not a direct democracy.]

And the more competitive districts, the more these benefits are
available, as long as the districts are not drawn with detrimental
effects to communities or the Voting Rights Act.

Just my two cents . . .

Douglas Johnson
Senior Research Associate
Rose Institute of State and Local Government doug@talksoftly.com
310-200-2058


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Chambers,
Henry
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 10:45 AM
To: election-law
Subject: Redistricting and Competitive Districts


Hello all: 

Is there a consensus or even reason to believe that a legislature filled
with representatives from competitive districts will do a better job
(defined however one wishes) than a legislature filled with
representatives from a mix of non-competitive, marginally-competitive
and highly-competitive districts? If so, why?

I am a fan of competitive political races for the same reason I am a fan
of competitive basketball games -- they are much more fun to watch than
non-competitive contests.  However, I am not sure we should construct
election maps with a significant focus on maximizing the number of
competitive districts unless there are very good reasons to do so.    

-Hank  

Henry L. Chambers, Jr., Professor of Law
University of Richmond
28 Westhampton Way
Richmond, VA 23173
804-289-8199