Features » July 19, 2002
The Incumbent-Protection Racket
This time around the “incumbent protection” racket was even more crass than usual. The Wall Street Journal reports that out of 435 U.S. House districts, only 11 races are true “toss-ups” that either side could win. Congressional analysts generally have narrowed the field of play to 30 to 40 races. The rest are essentially done deals.
Incumbents took no chances. Consider Rep. Loretta Sanchez, who told the Orange County Register that she and most of her California House colleagues each forked over $20,000 to the political consultant in charge of gerrymandering the district lines. The money was classic “protection money.” “$20,000 is nothing to keep your seat,” Sanchez said. “I spend $2 million [campaigning] every election.”
Voters don’t even need to show up to the polls anymore. And guess what? They won’t. There probably won’t be a single close general election for Congress in such major states as Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Texas, New Jersey and New York. California has only one race out of 53 considered a toss-up.
One consequence of the lack of competition is that a handful of races will determine which political party wins control of the House. Party leaders and their redistricting consultants have been strategizing over the political map like it’s a military battlefield. And they do it with increasingly powerful computers, mapping software and databases that allow them to slice and dice the electorate in their effort to win control of the legislatures. Then they flood the close races with tons of money, while ignoring those races already locked up. “A lot of money will flow to a relative handful of seats,” says Burdett Loomis, a political scientist at the University of Kansas. “In those seats, it’s nuclear war. Twenty miles away, there’s nothing.”
This year raised “incumbent protection” to a whole new level. The current round of gerrymandering may be the most anti-democratic ever. We like to think of ours as a two-party system, when in fact for most voters it’s a one party system—the party that dominates their district. Demography is destiny, it turns out.
Even more than campaign-finance inequities, this incumbent-protection racket is responsible for creating uninspiring elections where voters have little choice. If you are a Democrat in a solidly Republican district, a Republican in a solidly Democratic district, or a supporter of a minor party, you don’t have a chance of electing your candidate of choice, no matter how much money she spends.
All is not lost. In Arizona, an initiative led by Common Cause and the League of Women Voters took redistricting out of the hands of incumbents and gave it to an independent, nonpartisan commission. In Illinois, citizen groups are leading a “drive to revive” cumulative voting, which would get rid of winner-take-all districts entirely and use three-seat districts that won’t require redistricting. Illinois used such a system from 1870 to 1980 to elect its lower house, and nearly every district had two-party representation. More competition meant more choices for voters, and less control by party machines.
Other efforts for reforms like instant runoff voting (IRV) promise to restore to voters some of the choice they have lost as a result of redistricting shenanigans. With IRV, voters get to indicate their runoff choices at the same time as their first choice by ranking their ballot. San Francisco voters recently voted to elect all local offices using IRV starting next year. In Vermont, voters in 52 towns endorsed an advisory proposal to the state government to use IRV for statewide elections. On August 27, Alaska voters will vote to decide if they want to use IRV to elect most of their state and all of their federal elected officials, including the president.
Our “winner take all” political system now produces the lowest voter turnout in the world among established democracies. Many would-be voters know the system is broken. It’s time that we consider reforms that not only will liberate our democracy from redistricting battles, but empower voters to choose their representatives—and not the other way around.
What do you want to see from our coverage of the 2020 presidential candidates?
As our editorial team maps our plan for how to cover the 2020 Democratic primary, we want to hear from you:
It only takes a minute to answer this short, three-question survey, but your input will help shape our coverage for months to come. That’s why we want to make sure you have a chance to share your thoughts.
Steven Hill is a US-based journalist and author of seven books including The Startup Illusion: How the Internet Economy Threatens Our Welfare, (in German) Raw Deal: How the "Uber Economy" and Runaway Capitalism Are Screwing American Workers, Europe's Promise: Why the European Way Is the Best Hope for an Insecure Age, Expand Social Security Now: How to Ensure Americans Get the Retirement They Deserve and 10 Steps to Repair American Democracy. His articles and interviews have appeared in media around the world, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, CNBC, Bloomberg Business, Financial Times, The Guardian, The Atlantic, Die Zeit, Handelsblatt, Le Monde, BBC, NPR, Democracy Now, C-Span, Los Angeles Times, Wired, Fast Company, Forbes. Politico, Salon and many others. Mr. Hill was recently a journalist in residence at the WZB Berlin Social Science Center, and is a former senior fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington DC and was the 2016 Holtzbrinck fellow at the American Academy in Berlin. He is a co-founder of FairVote. Contact him at www.Steven-Hill.com and @StevenHill1776.