Fantastic piece. I had not realized just how much had changed even in the last 30 years. Gerrymandering has always been with us, but we can do it with much more precision nowadays.
I happen to live in one of those rare tossup districts, district 2 in central and northern Maine. Our representative, Jared Golden, is a genuine moderate who often votes with the other party. I find it refreshing and impressive, even when he votes against what I might have preferred. But he catches hell from partisans on both sides who can’t stand actual bipartisanship. Because his vote is not a foregone conclusion, he faces intense pressure on every issue. Unfortunately, the pressure has been too much and he is planning to retire at the end of this term.
The only reason he was elected in the first place was because we have ranked choice voting, which allowed him to appeal to a broader coalition of supporters.
Wonderfully aticulated article. I’d support this type of reform regardless of who / what party brought it forth. Throw in legislation around term limits, banning stock ownership while serving, not being able to move in lobbying within X years of serving - a package like that would gain support from the middle, virtually all independents - and move us as country toward collaboration and genuine problem solving (for the people.)
The struggle I have is seeing how the people who would stand to lose power (those in the solid seats) would vote against their personal best interests. Term limits, stock trading, no gerrymandering, etc., are all things that are hard for Congress to pass because they weaken their personal positions.
Great insight. What you touched on is part of the reason many people do not show up for their House races. There is a perception that they are already decided. But those elections matter just as much, if not more so.
I especially like the idea of expanding access to primaries regardless of party registration. When I moved to PA, I forgot I had registered as an independent and had to change it in order to vote in Philly’s primaries. That alone shows how administrative friction can push voters out of the process.
I wonder how much outreach is actually done with 18 to 24 year olds in these “safe” districts, especially out-of-state college students. Turnout is lower and we often assume apathy, but younger voters tend to mobilize around issues rather than party labels.
Maybe part of the push should start earlier and focus on clarity. Not just who to vote for, but where you are eligible to vote, whether your state has open or closed primaries, how to register, and when deadlines actually are. Even simple social campaigns explaining those basics could meaningfully expand participation. Thanks again for taking the time to write this.
Fantastic piece. I had not realized just how much had changed even in the last 30 years. Gerrymandering has always been with us, but we can do it with much more precision nowadays.
I happen to live in one of those rare tossup districts, district 2 in central and northern Maine. Our representative, Jared Golden, is a genuine moderate who often votes with the other party. I find it refreshing and impressive, even when he votes against what I might have preferred. But he catches hell from partisans on both sides who can’t stand actual bipartisanship. Because his vote is not a foregone conclusion, he faces intense pressure on every issue. Unfortunately, the pressure has been too much and he is planning to retire at the end of this term.
The only reason he was elected in the first place was because we have ranked choice voting, which allowed him to appeal to a broader coalition of supporters.
Wonderfully aticulated article. I’d support this type of reform regardless of who / what party brought it forth. Throw in legislation around term limits, banning stock ownership while serving, not being able to move in lobbying within X years of serving - a package like that would gain support from the middle, virtually all independents - and move us as country toward collaboration and genuine problem solving (for the people.)
The struggle I have is seeing how the people who would stand to lose power (those in the solid seats) would vote against their personal best interests. Term limits, stock trading, no gerrymandering, etc., are all things that are hard for Congress to pass because they weaken their personal positions.
Great insight. What you touched on is part of the reason many people do not show up for their House races. There is a perception that they are already decided. But those elections matter just as much, if not more so.
I especially like the idea of expanding access to primaries regardless of party registration. When I moved to PA, I forgot I had registered as an independent and had to change it in order to vote in Philly’s primaries. That alone shows how administrative friction can push voters out of the process.
I wonder how much outreach is actually done with 18 to 24 year olds in these “safe” districts, especially out-of-state college students. Turnout is lower and we often assume apathy, but younger voters tend to mobilize around issues rather than party labels.
Maybe part of the push should start earlier and focus on clarity. Not just who to vote for, but where you are eligible to vote, whether your state has open or closed primaries, how to register, and when deadlines actually are. Even simple social campaigns explaining those basics could meaningfully expand participation. Thanks again for taking the time to write this.