<x-flowed utf-8>Districts drawn to be "safe" districts leave voters with less effective legislators because the candidates that are ultimately on the general election ballot are chosen by primary voters that are most often extreme elements of the right or the left because more centrist Republicans or Democrats, knowing their party will carry the general election, don't see a need to vote in primary elections.  Therefore, a more centrist leaning Republican or Democrat is less likely to be on the general ballot and to get elected.  If more extreme left or right candidates fill the legislature then debate and compromise stall and little effective work gets done on behalf of the people.  The ideologically polarizing views would stand in the way because so many today rest their authority on moral grounds which are less flexible than progressive government.
It would also seem apparent that the rise of the noncompetitive district is related to term limits.  Without term limits, there would be incentive for more competitive districts.  Political parties could invest in candidates instead of investing in control of districts.  The rise in turnover means parties cannot afford to invest in individuals or platforms that are more meaningful to the middle rather than the left or the right.  Legislators would be more accountable to a larger segment of their constituents and better legislatures would result.  With the invasiveness of the American press, the chance that corruption would occur without term limits, and be unexposed, would be minimal.
Perhaps instead of 50/50 districts, there would be better debate and more effective legislatures if districts were drawn based on population by a nonpartisan commission, like in Iowa.
My question is this:  If the district is not drawn based on population in a nonpartisan fashion, but drawn for one of two political parties, how can this not be a violation of Article IV, Section Four, of the Constitution which says that the “U.S. shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”?   Clearly, rigging districts for one party or the other seems a violation.
Matthew Pakula
Michigan State University College of Law, 3L
pakulama@msu.edu


Chambers, Henry writes:

Certainly there are a number of discussions of the general desirability
of individual competitive districts.  My question is somewhat different.
It is whether the collection of winners from districts drawn to be 50/50
Dem/Rep will necessarily make a better legislature than those drawn from
a combination of safe districts (solidly Dem or Rep) and competitive
districts.  I am not sure we can assume that the fact that having a
competitive district is generally a positive means that a legislature
composed of those who won competitive districts will necessarily be
superior to one composed of some who won competitive (50/50 Dem/Rep)
districts, some who won solidly Dem districts and some who won solidly
Rep districts. 
-Hank   
Henry L. Chambers, Jr., Professor of Law
University of Richmond
28 Westhampton Way
Richmond, VA 23173
804-289-8199

</x-flowed>