Redstate

I agree. Incumbents hold an incredible amount of political power -- and get most of the pragmatic PAC support, regardless of their party. If you look at historical records, the challenger of an incumbent (besides having a horribly hard fight in the first place) rarely wins without having much more money to publicize himself with.

Making this challenging process even harder makes no sense at all. Methinks they're only looking out for job security.

Air America, the liberal talk network carried on WWRC-AM (1260), went from bad to nonexistent. After WWRC recorded a mere fraction of a rating point in the spring with syndicated shows from the likes of lefty talkers Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo and Stephanie Miller, Arbitron couldn't detect a measurable listenership for the station this time around.

is an Opportunist's Opportunist with Oak Leaf Clusters.

if you're an incumbent.

Which is largely why the legislation passed. Were this not the case, it never would have even been introduced as legislation, much less made it to the president's desk.

I wonder what the chances might be of getting its repeal on the platform for '08 (is there such a thing as a midterm platform?). I know platforms aren't worth the paper they're printed on, but, I long to see opposition to this particularly odious piece of legislation become official GOP doctrine. Prefefably such a stand would also include support of complete deregulation of all political speach.

that redistricting issues create a far greater degree of incumbent protection than any sort of campaign finance reform.

This farce of a campaign reform legeslation should have never been signed into law.  It is a blight on the fairness of an election.  If anyone thinks that McCain is looking out for the Republicans and Conservatives then I will show you a fool.

McCain can never be President. The South will not support him.  He is to unstable.

Vote the incumbants OUT.  All of them must go.  It really can't much worse than this.  In two more years we can vote out the next group too.  

then I'd agree that no doubt politicians do their utmost to insure that the composition of their districts is favorable.

But I think campaign finance "reform", which basically amounts to contribution limits, exerts a huge impact as a force for incumbent protection. We see this most vividly in the House of Representatives. The US now has reelection rates in the House that would make Mao proud. As someone who favors GOP control of both branches of Congress, maybe I should be happy with that, but I'm not.

Think about it: incumbents already enjoy a massive advantage in name recognition and in "constituent loyalty" (the latter of which flows from the fact that most voters rightly comprehend that incumbency directly translates into economic beneifts for their district, and this sets up a vicious circle that means an incumbent is all the more unbeatable the longer he is in office). Voters respond rationally to this phenomenon by skeptically viewing the candidacy of anyone seeking to unseat "their guy". They know it could hurt their wallets.

Anyway, just equalizing these advantages costs lots of money, especially in urban districts where advertising costs are astronomical. How'd you like to be challenging an incumbent in New York, where media buyers won't even return your call unless you've got a healthy six figure budget?

Unless you happen to be a very wealthy candidate who can self-finance, challenging an incumbent means raising lots of money. And that, in turn, is mighty difficult when the law only allows you to do so in tiny increments. Why not remove these limits entirely and replace them with strict disclosure requirements? If some billionaire thinks your candidacy makes sense, why not allow him to cut you a seven figure check? As long as voters and the press were fully informed about where your money comes from, they'd be free to cast the lever against you if they they don't like the source of your funds.

I can guarantee you comfortable incumbents just love the current status quo, because unless they happen to bump up against the occasional millionaire candidate, they know they've got a deadly advantage in crushing challengers.

There is a Prop on the ballot to have retired judges draw the lines. Minimum of one from each party plus others.  Then legislature approval.

Right now I understand there is one district along the shore line that is so narrow in places that it gets split into several non-adjacent land masses at high tide.

It is pretty clear that redistricting initiative in California (Prop 77). Just look at the absurd bills coming out of the state legislature (cosmetic surgery for pets, etc.). And what happens to these legislators? Nothing, because they are protected by the bipartisan gerrymander put forth in 2001.

There was a good study that came out about Prop 77 that didn't get any press at all. It was posted on a blog at Columbia University and you can find it here:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2005/10/paul_del_pi
eros.html

It's pretty academic, but basically this study looked at the 4 redistricting periods in California since the 1970's (2 gerrymanders and 2 "court ordered" periods that are a virtual carbon copy of what is in Prop 77) and found that in the decades with court ordered redistricting, the legislature was much more responsive to the electorate than during the gerrymandered decades.

Moreover, it shows that the gerrymanders almost always favor the Democrats (whether they be of a partisan or incumbent protection design).

One has to wonder, with such a definitive  statistical study, where was the MSM on this?