Channeling Kaus

About a week ago I noticed Robert Scheer at the HuffPost giving a kiss of approval to gerrymandering. My comments, as you'll see, are as brief as they were because I'm quite frankly stumped about how to respond when somebody is that bloody wrong. Or, as Mickey Kaus puts it, "he's so wrong he forces you to think." With that in mind, here's Kaus's longish response, which I'll just cut and paste since I can't figure out how permalinks work on Kausfiles (hint: drop me a line if you know):

a) Suppose a state's districts were drawn so that each party was represented in the legislature by however many representatives its statewide support merited, but all those representatives were given safe seats. (This is roughly the pro-incumbent deal that states like California implemented.) Does the downside--legislators' freedom from fear of loss and resulting lack of immediate accountability--outweigh the upside--freedom from the distorting effects of having to campaign and raise funds? I tend to think yes, but admit it's a closer question than I'd thought. Otherwise why have elections? An approval plebiscite once every decade or so should be enough to validate the good work of "responsible legislators" in pursuit of "constituent needs." ...

b) Of course, in an all-safe-seat state, the makeup of the legislature won't reflect the popularity of the parties for long. If popular opinion shifts, one way or another, it won't be reflected in a change of legislators until dissatisfaction reaches the tsunami proportions necessary to actually unseat a "safe" incumbent. ...

c) Plus almost by definition, safe seats discourage battles for the center, and hence centrist candidates. That doesn't displease an anti-centrist like Scheer. But the 51% of the people at the center are by definition a majority! They deserve at least a few seats, no? (That's all they'd get in redistricting reform; most seats would remain "safe.") ...

d) The lobbyists are hardly out of power in the current system. Does Scheer think California legislators don't whore after campaign money? If you're a Democrat in a safely Democratic district, you still need lobbyists' help to win the primary election, if not the general. ** Or would Scheer get rid of primaries too? ...

** More (and better): An 11/12 National Journal article notes that, contra Scheer, the power of each party's core interest groups (e.g., the NRA, the NEA) and their lobbyists is actually magnified when the contest is in the primary rather than the general election.

With only about two dozen competitive districts in the House, primary campaigns are the only time most voters are likely to see real competition. And primaries are precisely where powerful interest groups are likely to have the most sway, because they connect with the voters who are most likely to turn out. "It's the hard core that dominates" within each of the parties, said former Rep. Skaggs, D-Colo. "What this has done is siphon off the middle-of-the-roaders in either party, and that has made solving problems harder."

On the subject of Kaus-like musings, I managed to catch the 3 am edition of Hardball. To cut to the chase, Matthews did a reasonably long interview with John Kerry, in which Kerry gave (for the most part) a consistent, well-argued, thoughtful, and persuasive critique of the administration's Iraq and anti-terrorism policies. And only a year too late. By 2008, he'll be perfectly capable of winning the 1992 election.