[cross-posted at DLCC.org]
Do you want a stronger progressive voice in Congress? Then the most important vote you cast this November might be for your Democratic state legislators.
That may sound counter-intuitive (voting for local candidates to influence Congress), but The American Prospect recently explained why that exact strategy may be progressives' best hope for advancing their top priorities:
Despite two cycles of Republican map-drawing, Democrats managed to reclaim a majority in 2006. In some districts, demographic changes outpaced gerrymandering, allowing Democrats to make gains where Republicans expected to be safe. But Democrats also expanded into Republican territory. This is a testament to good campaigning, but it's also the cause of a frequent progressive problem: the large number of Democrats in Congress who face electoral incentives to pander to conservatives.
Redistricting presents an opportunity to solve this problem directly: Drawing more competitive seats would allow Democrats to expand their majority not just in "safe" districts or Republican strongholds but in balanced seats. Look at voter registration by district: Dozens of Democrats have won seats where Republicans have the advantage, but most Republican districts are just that -- home to Republicans. That's why this redistricting isn't just important for straightforward partisan reasons but for influencing the type of governing coalition that comes out of an election: one dominated by the right side of the Democratic coalition or by the center-left.
There's an ongoing argument about how strong the "electoral incentives to pander to conservatives" really are for a Democrat in a conservative-leaning district. Democratic defectors on key votes are often savaged in the progressive community, especially when those defections prove decisive.
At the same time, Democrats who cast progressive votes despite their tough districts are applauded as courageous – consider that all 25 of Nate Silver’s "most valuable" Democratic congresspersons represent Republican-leaning districts. That implies that progressive votes really are more hazardous for these legislators than for others.
But Fernholz's article isn’t trying to settle that debate. His argument – and ours – is that 2010 offers the opportunity to make that debate irrelevant. If we can reverse the GOP gerrymandering that forces Democrats to rely on dozens of heavily conservative districts for a majority, the center of gravity for the entire Democratic caucus becomes more progressive.
And as a bonus, we’ll force Republicans to compete for progressive voters. Finally, the GOP will have to choose between losing seats and defecting on key votes - which would in turn provide cover for some of those same Democrats in conservative districts. That hasn’t happened since redistricting in 1990, and it’s poisoning our political system.
But most importantly, redistricting only happens once every decade (usually). Which means this is our last chance to undo the damage caused by 20 years of Republican gerrymandering. So we’ll let Fernholz’ last word on the issue be ours as well:
Not, then, the best election day to stay home, or perhaps worse, get to the voting booth and fail to make it down the ballot to your state legislators. Remember: It's not just a decision about next year's vote on the Bush tax cuts, or whatever subject motivates you most. It's a decade of votes on every issue that matters.