McFreedom

It's unfortunately not online for non-subscribers, by the Wall Street Journal has a poorly edited article by Dick Morris about the Gerrymandering problem. He notes, "For all the attention showered on the influence of money in electoral campaigns, almost nobody has focused on the impact of gerrymandered district lines." The cynic in me believes that is because campaign finance laws always favor incumbants, as does gerrymandering - the process of carving up district lines according to demographics to insure a predetermined result, come election day. The great irony is that the Senate - designed to be less responsive to the people than the House - has more competitive races, since you can't just redraw state lines with every new census.

This is one of the biggest problems facing the Republic, today. People already think their votes don't count. Rigging the system so that they actually don't is only going to cause a generation of Americans to completely disengage from politics. I hope that someone will finally use the California Proposition system as a force for good for a change and propose some anti-gerrymandering legislation. That is what Propositions are for: Proposals good for the health of the Republic but toxic to the careers of incumbants. Mr. Morris has positive things to say about Iowa's recent steps in this direction. Their non-partisan redistricting commission is prohibited by law from taking things like voting habits into account when drawing district lines. I would normally oppose the creation of such a commision, since it seems a target for corruption. But the process is already so corrupt, how could they do worse?

While we're in the Journal, Daniel Henninger's Wonderland column is as good ever (although I confess I still miss Gigot's column it replaced when the latter became the Editorial Page Editor). His point is that, while you may agree or disagree with the Republicans' principles, at least they seem to have them. The Democrats have devolved into a party trying to cobble together political power from minority interest groups. As has been noted elsewhere, Howard Dean is the outcome of this: the candidate most likely to get the hardcore out for the primary, but the candidate least likely to appeal to the American electorate.

I've asked this before, of all candidates, and I'll say it again while thinking about Democrats: If I believe the War on Terror is the most important thing this country is doing right now, who should I vote for? Lieberman seems to be the best they've got, but his own website is pretty mealy-mouthed about Iraq, saying that he is "...deeply critical of the Bush Administration's arrogant and unilateral foreign policy, yet believes that despite the President's serious mistakes, it was a matter of national security to demand that Saddam declare and destroy his illegal weapons of mass destruction..." He then has a heading describing how he is "Working to Remove Saddam without War," which seems a little behind the times, or perhaps I'm just a little lost in the resume tenses. Regardless, he doesn't seem to promise the firm hand on the tiller I'm looking for. I continue to search for a candidate I could vote for who isn't George W. Bush, since I disagree with him on so much else. But no luck finding him (or her!) so far...