Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
EVERY legislature responsible for redistricting does the redistricting to favor the majority party of that state. This is why there is so little turn-over in Congress. If legislatures arranged districts so that they would approach party parity then folks in Congress would have great incentive to accommodate and compromise. When they are in safe seats they can be intransigent.
If there were a viable 3rd party it would be more difficult to carve-up districts into 2 exclusive colors. There would always be a third color pushing for a reduction in overwhelming power between those two. At the present time most legislatures just wink and divide-up the districts so that districts are strongly one color or the other with the majority trying to impose weakness on the minority party.
|
Both Dems and Reps gerrymander to solidify seats. Neither party is really interested in competing with each other. It's more like a game of Risk, where each player picks their territories.
One of the most important things Ralph Nader did with his campaign is reveal rules on the books (written by both parties) that make it impossible or nearly impossible for a 3rd party to successfully get on ballots. I think there was one rule in Texas which required him to be in two places at once. So I don't think with districts over 90% one side or the other and absurd rules, a 3rd party is going to get a foothold very often.