Redistricting Reform

By Mark Patlan

Redistricting reform is necessary to help end the cycle of budget disasters by putting competition back into elections. If competition is good for consumers, it is also good for voters.

The losers in this battle are voters, Democrat and Republican alike. Because the districts drawn by the two parties are mostly safe, neither party must compete for voters in the marketplace of ideas. Each party has a monopoly in its safe districts.

We outlaw monopolization in business on the theory that it harms consumers by allowing producers to enjoy excess profits by charging higher prices without regard for consumer demand. In politics, monopolization harms voters because it allows producers (political parties) to sell a service (political representation) without regard for consumer demand. The parties enjoy the profits of power, even though consumer demand for their brands is falling (as evidenced by falling party registration).

Redistricting reform is necessary to help end the cycle of budget disasters. Competitive districts will benefit voters by increasing competition. In today's safe districts, the parties typically field a single candidate, selected for their party connections or pocketbook, rather than their ideas or vision.

The important question for voters is, "How's that working for you?" If our repeated budget disasters are any indication, the answer is "not so good". If competition is good for consumers, it is also good for voters.