It's a three way cage match between the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. No holds barred. We all decide by TXTing to vote while watching the pay per view live telecast.
Serious question. Take a contentious branch like the "tea party": much of the political spectrum view them as marginal nutcases with no chance of winning and a dangerous threat if they do ... but win they do, and those "deciding who's competitive" may be motivated to see to it they can't.
Voting and election reforms must be partisan neutral. To better serve the voters, vs serve the parties.
Currently, districting carves out safe seats. Part of the horse trading that goes on. Serves the existing parties, but not the voters.
Competitive in Wyoming means taking the partisan index for the state and dividing it down the middle (per Durverger's Law). The most "liberal" elected in Wyoming is probably far more conservative than the "conservatives" in California. Which is okay. The people deserve representatives that reflect their values.
The point of fair redistricting is to ensure that all of these campaigns, no matter where, are competitive.
Right now, the only serious challenge to many candidates, both Ds and Rs, come during the primaries, which are low voter turnout elections. So the candidates have become ever more extreme.
I have no problem with any extremist position, eg Tea Party, so long as it reflects the will of the people. The People should get the government they deserve.
Really? Okay.
It's a three way cage match between the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. No holds barred. We all decide by TXTing to vote while watching the pay per view live telecast.