Redistricting

Jeff Jacoby has an op-ed in today's Globe on the need for a hard look at the method of redistricting. Ten years ago, I thought that public financing of congressional campaigns represented the most important initiative for improving democracy; but now, I would say that Jacoby's solution--independent commissions to draw House district lines--is the most important thing that needs to be done.

The 2002 round of redistricting was the first that had occurred since the widepread use of GPS technology, and its effects were chilling: Pennsylvania, California, Michigan, and (this year) Texas featured redistricting initiatives that, in effect, created states in which all (or almost all) of the districts were, in effect, rotten boroughs, in which the opposition party had no chance of winning. The California redistricting was a bipartisan compromise; the other three favored the GOP--even though Michigan and Pennsylvania are marginally Democratic states nationally, they have overwhelmingly Republican House delegations.

A persistent theme in the Federalist Papers is the importance of the House as a barometer for reflecting public opinion. In 2004, we have more closely contested Senate elections than House races in which the incumbent is running. This isn't the way the system was supposed to work.