Saturday, October 12, 2013

Bug, or a Feature?

One of the main reasons I set up this blog after having retired from Blogging years ago is that I often want to respond to someone on Twitter, but would need 1,400 characters instead of 140. Brevity, schmevity.

This feels true to me. But let me ask a Devil's Advocate question.

Is this a bug, or is it a feature?

At first blush it seems that it clearly is the former. However, consider it from the perspective of an originalist framework. The House was to be responsive to the people, and to be the closest facet of our system of governance to pure democracy. The Senate, on the other hand, was to balance this by being insulated from the push of the political winds by being appointed by legislatures, rather than by democratic vote. The 17th Amendment changed this dynamic.

If Twitter existed before the 17th Amendment, it is easy to imagine someone Tweeting "Senate leaders are so awful at basic politics because they may not have had to face a real election in years, if ever." That was by design. That current House leaders may have the same insulation may mean that the original conceptual balance between the chambers has been flipped. I am starting to think this part is true.

The Devil's Advocate question is, bug or feature?

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Just a quick point about the WSJ/NBC poll that is blowing up Twitter right now

The poll's full results are here.

There is no sugar coating it- this is an ugly poll for the GOP, and I have no reason to doubt it. If anything I am about to write comes across as implying that it isn't quite bad, then that is a failure in my communication skills.

That out of the way, let me point out one thing.

Q10, which is the 'choose one, government should do more to help people' versus 'government is doing too much' showed a net 8 point swing towards the 'do more' side since the last time it was asked by these pollsters, back in June.

Where views of the parties swing depending on the political winds, underlying core beliefs tend to be more stable. This particular change suggests to me that the movement here was not so much a shift in the opinion of the electorate towards bigger government, but rather a shift in the enthusiasm of those called.

Stated differently, and perhaps more clearly (or perhaps not), that question makes me wonder if most of the movement came from adherents to a 'less government' philosophy have had their enthusiasm tempered, or from adherents to a 'more government' one being more enthused, or both. I am skeptical that ~4% of the adult population in June thought "small government is the bees knees" but now think "pump it up until you can feel it."

That is not to say it does not spell big trouble for the GOP, as I started off this post with. Having people who agree with your overarching political philosophy demotivated while those holding the opposite one are energized is a recipe for electoral slaughter. However, it is somewhat easier to rally your troops, or to have the other side lose momentum, than it is to convince a meaningful slice of the electorate that their entire view of the role of government has been wrong.

It's not a silver lining, but it is something. And it may be all Republicans can hope for, if other polls come out soon showing the same basic numbers, as I suspect will be the case.

And keep in mind that "somewhat easier" does not mean "easy."

Edited 10/12 to add: The same link above has the results of the same question going back more than a half a decade. You can see that there were instances where this measure swung significantly, and even stayed with the swing for a considerable amount of time. At first blush, that would seem to conflict with my assertion that "views of the parties swing depending on the political winds, underlying core beliefs tend to be more stable."

The word "tend" in that sentence is very important. Context matters. When that big swing occurred and showed some stickiness or duration, it was precipitated by, and during, the financial crisis that brought down so many banks and nearly the entire economy. It stands to reason that the answer saying to leave businesses (including financial institutions) alone would take a hit, and the answer saying to help people more would see increased support. The contextual circumstances hit right to the core of the question, which is not the case right now (at least, to my eyes).

Your mileage may vary. However, if one believes that the shutdown does lend itself to shifting views on this question, note that when Democrats started saying that the economy was recovering, the results of this question shifted back to where they had been prior.


Friday, October 4, 2013

Taking Cohn's Thoughts on Gerrymandering a Tad Further

Nate Cohn wrote an interesting piece today, Quit Blaming Gerrymandering for the Shutdown. I think the following excerpt gets to the gist of the piece.

Because the point of partisan gerrymandering isn’t to try and maximize the number of safe districts. The goal is to maximize the number of districts that are merely safe enough by packing as many of your opponents' voters as you can into a small number of extremely partisan districts while safely distributing the rest throughout your own districts. In this way, gerrymandering may actually increase the number of moderate Republicans.

This is true. However, it also is only half of it. But before I get to the other half of it, let me set things up by suggesting that just maybe the article and it's headline are a bit more balanced than what he would have preferred, if he had his druthers. I suspect this due to the way he tweeted a link to his piece.

When I put the article's headline and content together in context with that Tweet, I get more than a sneaking suspicion that Cohn blames the shutdown on Republican extremism. As is my wont, I quickly responded with playful snark, tweaking that slant.

As is also my wont, I then thought a bit more. You know the old adage, "Ready, fire, aim!" I realized that, while the mechanics of gerrymandering when redistricting is primarily under the auspices of one party would tend to exert pressure towards less pure ideology for the controlling party (for the reasons Cohn specified), the opposite is true for the non-controlling party. Since gerrymandering involves "packing as many of your opponents' voters as you can into a small number of extremely partisan districts," the effect on the opponents' party is to enable them to move away from moderate candidates. [edited after initial posting to add: Enable might not be a strong enough word. It might make such a move inevitable.] After all, these extremely partisan districts will want candidates who represent their extremely partisan worldview.

As often is the case, the quick snark was wrong. When one party controls redistricting and engages in gerrymandering, the resulting dynamics will exert moderating pressure on that party while simultaneously removing moderating pressure from the other party. Republicans controlled most of the last round of redistricting. Recent gerrymandering may not explain extremism from Republicans, but it sure can explain it from Democrats.