At least to some, according to an article in today’s paper (you can read it here).
The story, “Arizona election adds to debate over redistricting,” has several Republicans up in arms over their losses in Congressional and legislative races.
All of the seats up for grabs were won by small margins in districts that had more or less even splits in voter makeup.
But here’s my question: Why is competition bad?
I guess we’re just supposed to suppose that seats are safe for one party or the other. But does that make it safe for us?
After all, let’s look at our congressional delegation headed to Washington:
The only ones who have pressure to be moderates are the newcomers, all of whom won by relatively narrow margins.
The message to Sinema, Barber (not really a newcomer, but close), and Kirkpatrick (who’s new for this term but has been there before) is this: Find solutions and don’t let ideology dominate your votes.
With all three in swing districts, competitive districts, if they choose to emulate folks like Congressmen Raul Grijalva or Trent Franks, they could quickly find themselves out of a job in two years.
Guys and gals in so-called “safe” districts really have no motivation to compromise and work towards solutions. When was the last time Ed Pastor or David Schweikert or Raul Grijalva or Trent Franks were noticed for working with the other side to find solutions to the Big Problems facing our country?
Nope, the outrage over competitive districts should be music to our ears. We need more competition and less safety for our pols, even if it makes them, gulp, work with the other party once in office.
No, strike that: Especially if it makes them work with the other party.