Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Find another way
Next Post: Today’s number: 1.4 percent
Posted in:
* The full report is here…
CHANGE ILLINOIS RESEARCH EXPLAINS HOW PARTISAN VOTING MAPS LED TO DECLINE IN VOTER CHOICES IN LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS
CHICAGO – Partisan redistricting of Illinois state legislative district maps has created continuing partisan bias in election outcomes while making it far less likely that voters will have a choice between candidates of both major parties in the general election, and voters in primary elections have even fewer choices, according to a new research report published by CHANGE Illinois.
“By any measure, the level of competition and competitiveness in legislative elections under the last four partisan maps is extremely low and getting worse,” according to Partisan Advantage and Competitiveness in Illinois Redistricting. “These findings call into question the effectiveness of legislative elections in providing a meaningful incentive for citizen engagement. They also undermine the conventional wisdom that the members of the Illinois General Assembly are elected by the consent of Illinois residents.”
CHANGE Illinois published the new research, which was conducted by political reform veteran Cynthia Canary and Kent Redfield, professor emeritus of Political Studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield. It examines questions about whether the partisan advantage gained through a new legislative map has lasting effects beyond the first post-redistricting election and whether the lack of contested and competitive elections under such partisan legislative maps extends to primary elections as well as general elections. The new report updates and expands the Canary-Redfield 2014 report, Backroom Battles & Partisan Gridlock: Redistricting in Illinois.
The report’s findings include:
* In 2012, Democratic candidates in the House won 52 percent of the total vote and 60 percent of the seats, and Democratic candidates in the Senate won 54 percent of the vote and 68 percent of the seats. In 2014 in a midterm election favoring Republicans, the partisan bias in the 2011 maps still delivered for Democratic candidates. While the margin in total votes cast for Democrats running in legislative elections shrank to a near-tie statewide, Democrats still won 71 House seats, a 60 percent majority. The Democrats also won 11 of the 19 Senate seats that were up in 2014 while receiving less than a majority of the total votes cast in those 19 districts.
* The percentage of General Assembly elections featuring at least two candidates has decreased significantly over time. In the first election under a new map in 1982 and 1992, a strong majority of the elections were contested. By 2012, 60 percent of House elections and 51 percent of Senate elections were uncontested. In 2014, 58 percent of House elections were uncontested. Due to staggered terms, there was an election in only one-third of the Senate districts, and 12 of the 19 (63 percent) were uncontested.
* The degree of competition in Illinois legislative elections is low and declining. When a winning candidate’s vote total is 55 percent or less, the district is considered “competitive.” On average over the past four decades, 88 percent of voters (104 of 118 House races, 52 of 59 Senate races) had no choice at all on the ballot or a choice between a sure winner and a sure loser.
* There has been a dramatic increase in the number of legislators elected without even a token opponent in both the primary and the general election.
* In 1982, 20 of the 177 legislators elected faced no opponent in either the primary or the general. In 2012, 69 legislators had no opponent in both the primary and the general election – essentially given a free pass.
* The number of “free pass” legislators elected increased in 2014 even though only one-third of the Senate was up for election. In 2014, 58 (49 percent) of those elected to the House did not have an opponent in the primary or the general election, as did 12 of 19 (63 percent) of those elected to the Senate.
* Voters in primary elections have even fewer choices for participation, engagement, and communication than voters in general elections. In the 2014 primary election, 89 percent of House and 95 percent of the Senate legislative primaries were uncontested.
* The level of primary activity in districts dominated by one party is very low and has decreased significantly under the last two partisan maps. Under the 2001 and 2011 maps, the average number of same-party competitive primaries in districts dominated by one party was 11 percent in the House and 4 percent in the Senate. This clearly indicates that voters in districts dominated by one political party in the general election were rarely presented with meaningful choices in the primaries.
“Illinois’ partisan redistricting process undermines our democracy and discourages civic participation,” said Ra Joy, Executive Director of CHANGE Illinois. “We need to put people before partisanship and have fair maps drawn by an impartial commission listening to voters and acting in the open. That’s why CHANGE Illinois supports the Independent Map Amendment
Discuss.
*** UPDATE *** Decent points…
I hate bad studies. Redistricting thing published today just looked at IL and didn't compare other states w/ partisan/nonpartisan processes.
— Thomas C. Bowen (@thomascbowen) January 14, 2016
Why that matters: They have no evidence that what's driving their findings is the same or different in other states with different methods.
— Thomas C. Bowen (@thomascbowen) January 14, 2016
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 10:33 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Find another way
Next Post: Today’s number: 1.4 percent
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
OK we will type slowly AND USE BIG LETTERS
Could Kent or Cindy or the 1%ers please give us a vision of their IL after their version of COMPETIVE Districts occurs…we always ask..they never answer.
a
Comment by Annonin' Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 10:41 am
i have no problem with redistricting even if it hurts the party I prefer
Comment by Johnny Pyle Driver Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 10:41 am
Yes, the people who control the map-making can create advantages, but it still takes candidates and ideas. The 1990s GOP map is a case in point. The Senate GOP was able to take advantage of this advantage. The House GOP could only hold serve for two of the 10 years.
I hope the remap proposal wins gets on the ballot and is ratified. However, don’t expect it to be the panacea to voter apathy or some great equalizer of political power.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 10:54 am
I am sick and tired of going to vote, and having only a democrat candidate to vote for in the Illinois senate and house, from my district. Enough of these screwed up boundaries that favor a democrat. Time for a change in redistricting, even if Illinois Democrats oppose it, to maintain power!
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 10:55 am
Growing up in the cold war, I could never understand how countries could claim to be democracies, when there was only one candidate on the ballot.
When the system doesn’t produce a real election in most cases, its very, very broken.
Comment by Any Mouse Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 10:59 am
Good idea. Let’s apply it to the whole country.
But, what we are seeing is Republican front groups calling for it in Illinois while right wing gerrymandering is worse around the country than it ever was. Madigan is held up as the main person employing this while he is not even in the top ten nationally with gerrymandering.
Comment by MickJ Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:02 am
@ Anonymous — if you’re sick and tired of “having only a democrat to vote for,” why don’t you get some nominating petitions and run for office in the party of your choice? That’s why we have elections, you know.
Comment by olddog Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:05 am
Competition is a good thing. The more a legislator has to fear a real candidate running in the next election, the more attentive s/he will be. Chicago is a great example.
Comment by Junior Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:05 am
Independent my (Banned)! It will add another
layer of unaccountability. Billionaire $$$$ will
make their way directly or indirectly to
influence the maps.
Comment by DuPage Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:09 am
redistricting is based on population and like minded communities. This press release makes it sound like they should be drawing maps based on voter turnout.
Comment by Spliff Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:12 am
And there are some people saying all the Republicans need to do is get people on the ballot to give the voters a choice. The Gerrymandering rigs the system.
Comment by Apocolypse Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:18 am
I would also say our state legislature has become more polarized and worse under the new map.
Congress has done the same at the national level.
Comment by Ahoy! Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:21 am
MickJ - there isn’t really a difference between republican and democratic legislators in this regard. They all want to continue in their position. It is up to the people to check them. We get what we tolerate.
Comment by Junior Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:24 am
This is what Madigan wants.
It is why his team drew this map as they did, and why he opposes basic reforms the governor and president support to redistricting.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:26 am
Would it be possible to in the general election to give voters a choice of “none” if only one candidate is on ticket? How about also making all races in legislature non-partisan like Nebraska.
Comment by independent Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:28 am
Spliff: redistricting is supposed to be based on population. Not sure that like-minded communities should be included, because that would include “Republicans” and “Democrats” as being like-minded. We shouldn’t have those groups, we shouldn’t have ethnic or skin color groups, or religious groups as a factor in redistricting. Those groups will be around, of course, but a politician should represent all of the people in his district, not just a group.
Comment by downstate commissioner Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:29 am
This is ridiculous. Reading their press release makes it more clear that the problem isn’t the map, it’s voter apathy. This is just 1 per centers wanting to draw the map the way they want. Nothing more.
Comment by sideline watcher Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:31 am
Spliff - sure, the drawn districts have a certain population and is supposed to clump minorities in order to increase their electoral power. However, the map drawer will also try really hard to maximize the number of safe seats for his/her party.
Comment by Junior Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:31 am
On the national level, the House has districts that are drawn while the Senate doesn’t. While races for the Senate are generally more competitive, I don’t think the Senate screams functional.
Additionally, if the districts here are so safe, why are legislators so afraid of taking a tough vote the year before the election? If there are more competitive races, this would only get worse in my opinion and that narrow window for tough votes will get shorter and may not exist.
Comment by My button is broke... Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:32 am
Changing the Map making process would solve many other problems, and make term limits unnecessary.
Comment by Saluki Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:32 am
The consequences of the Republican gerrymandering of the U.S. House of Representatives is far more egregious than the consequences of Democratic gerrymandering of the IL House of Representatives.
Republican state legislature gerrymandering in places such as Texas, Wisconsin and Michigan is more extreme than in Illinois.
I strongly support solving all such instances simultaneously. I oppose solving the Illinois problem in isolation from the national problem.
= = =
Also, independent commissions aren’t the panacea some claim they are. Multi-member legislative districts are far more effective at preventing the types of abuses that arise from gerrymandering.
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:34 am
Mapping is certainly a factor, but incumbency, whatever the partisan stripe, is the major factor. It’s simply hard for newbies to break through. Not sure if a re-map can break through established constituencies, unless there is a deliberate attempt to completely breakup/divide distinct homogeneous communities.
Comment by Analyst Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:34 am
This the way BOTH political parties want it. They structure it that way. And for obvious reasons.
Comment by Federalist Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:39 am
I am absolutely in favor of independent redistricting… on a national level. The Republican Party dominates State Legislatures across the County and by sacrificing Illinois we’d see an even bigger skew in Congress as a result.
Comment by NorthCenter Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:40 am
In principal, I’m opposed to gerrymandering at all levels of government. I would hope that Republicans who oppose it at the state level also oppose it for federal offices.
As a practical matter at the state level, I’m equally concerned about the neutering of campaign finance regulations under the false flag of freedom of speech. I would only support redistricting reform as part of a balanced reform package that addressed both issues. I’m all for disarmament, but not unilateral disarmament.
Comment by X-prof Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:41 am
=== why are legislators so afraid of taking a tough vote the year before the election? ====
By safe seats they mean safe for one party, not for a candidate. People do not want to draw a primary opponents or are just scared. Look at Congress, hardly ever a present vote. People do need to start owning up to their stances.
=== Changing the Map making process would solve many other problems, and make term limits unnecessary ====
Well said. Term limits would not solve the problem. I actually do not like the idea of it. I think it would give too much power to the gov’s office and experienced politicians are actually a good thing whether people want to admit it or not.
Comment by politicno Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:43 am
This is reform people want. Being against independent maps is political suicide, for most … Mike Madigan and Mike Kasper notwithstanding.
Comment by Georg Sande Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:43 am
Lest anyone wave their hands and shout the sky is falling — they are reporting on a 40 year trend.
Comment by walker Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:45 am
Mr/Ms Anon 11:26 the map drawn by Speeaker Madigan was designed to comply with the Votin’ Rights Act.
The Cindy/Kent/1%ers show doesn’t start to address that issue
Meanwhile over an hour later no one has tried to comment on what their vision of competive means for IL…still waitin’
Comment by Annonin' Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:47 am
== Meanwhile over an hour later no one has tried to comment on what their vision of competive means for IL…still waitin’===
I can’t speak on others’ behalf, but when I say competitive map, I mean one where the difference in winning and losing the general is less than 10% of the vote. I think it would bring people more to the middle ground and hopefully start to get rid of the deep partisan trenches. If you are an R and you know you could be beat by a dem by 4% or so and you only won by 3%, I doubt you would be involved in a lot of partisan grandstanding.
Comment by politicno Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:53 am
Obviously mapping has real impact. But it could be the major reason that both parties don’t recruit and run candidates, their definition of “competitive,” in every district could be the explosion in money in politics over that period. It’s a much more expensive, and therefore risky investment.
Comment by walker Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 11:54 am
imho the greater problem is paying the cost to run. how many people have the cash to run for office. add in mega wealthy donors ( from either party) backing a candidate, and it is i timidating to contemplate running. public only finance of elections would fix this and increase people willing to run
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 12:09 pm
Mr/Ms Politicno Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. By vision we mean are our taxes lower, kids smarter, air cleaner? Will we be free to the oppressive labor unions. Can we build on the triple Super Fund site at the Waukegan Harbor?
Generally competitive districts produce senators ad reps afraid of their shadow and exempt from tough votes.
Try again
Comment by Annonin' Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 12:11 pm
==Meanwhile over an hour later no one has tried to comment on what their vision of competive means for IL…still waitin’==
Respectfully, @Annonin’, don’t they point to it in their ==findings==?
They seem to say that these districts are drawn in such a one-sided fashion to favor Democrats or Republicans that the other party isn’t even putting up an opposition in the general election. They know it is essentially a hopeless cause in those districts because of the way they are drawn.
This also impacts the primary election. If you challenge the party from within in a one-party district, you cut off your nose to spite your face. They have resources and connections you will rarely overcome running against the ==endorsed== Democrat or Republican in a one-party district.
They appear to be saying that ==competitive== means at least one challenger in the primary election and one challenger in the general election, regardless of party.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 12:14 pm
What do you think ==competitive== means in this report?
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 12:17 pm
To the update: does Bowen agree that the lack of competition in political races is negative for Illinois?
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 12:23 pm
Not to mention that conclusions like
==»The process is not transparent and does not welcome public involvement.
»Partisan intent produces partisan outcomes.
»The quality and nature of representative government has been diluted and distorted.
»Partisan redistricting decreases voter choice in legislative elections.
»Partisan redistricting places a political party’s interests ahead of minority voting interests.==
Do not require comparison to other states or study of their processes. The way other states redistrict is irrelevant to whether or not Illinois’ ==process is not transparent and does not welcome public involvement== and so on.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 12:34 pm
A competitive district generally means that if the national electorate is evenly divided between the two parties, then the margin between the two major party candidates will be 10% or less. A highly competitive district would expect to have a margin of less than 3 or 4% between the candidates if the national electorate were evenly divided. The advantage of competitive and highly competitive districts is that when the electorate is seeking change, there are enough seats in play to allow the legislative body to be responsive to the mood of the electorate.
Comment by muon Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 12:42 pm
Is Bobby Rush on the ballot or not? Just asking how that research went…
Comment by CornerGuy Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 12:48 pm
Disgraceful. So someone tell me again: what is Mike Madigan’s legacy? Rigged elections, bad judges,
and bankruptcy? He should be very proud of his 45 year career!
Comment by Formerpol Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 2:30 pm
I come from a long time political family. Having that perspective I would never consider running for political office. Why would anyone want to open their lives to the scrutiny (fair or unfair) In this day and age of the Internet and when everyone carries a camera phone. Let’s face it, everyone looks or does something stupid once in a while. IMHO just not worth putting my family through that garbage.
Comment by Stones Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 3:16 pm
Oops, I meant “even if Illinois Republicans oppose it.” But then you know what I meant.
Comment by Skeptic Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 3:40 pm
==Meanwhile over an hour later no one has tried to comment on what their vision of competive means for IL… still waitin’==
@Annonin’ - over four hours later since the 12:17 post. Any comment on what you think ==competitive== means in this report?
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 4:55 pm
If america is worth saving, people will run for office. I gave up and so have many others.
Comment by Tried and true Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 7:50 pm
Formerly Known As and Anonin’, I thought I gave an answer @12:42 that was pretty precise as to what competitive means and why it matters.
Comment by muon Thursday, Jan 14, 16 @ 8:39 pm
for those who say, yeah, but are these actually low compared to other states?
what you are asking is: do other states have more than 10-20% of their electoral districts competitive?
and the answer to that is: well duh. of course they do. did you really have to ask?
someone mentioned “like minded voters”. that’s called vote-packing, when you put like-minded voters together. it’s how you gerrymander. and that’s the problem: people’s votes aren’t determining the outcomes of elections anymore due to so much gerrymandering. the maps all group like-minded voters together so all the results are pre-determined and no citizen has the power to change them.
Comment by happyjack27 Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 2:08 pm