Judges overturn Virginia gerrymanding, redraw congressional map

[dps]

Ok but whether the districts are contested or not, isn't it the case today that in most cases voters in practice vote for the party, not for the person? How many voters actually know something about their representative, as oppose to simply voting for whomever is supported by the party they support?

Even in cases where one party is completely dominant, primary elections are often heavily contested.  For example, my home county as so heavily Democratic when I was growing up that it was rare that any Republican actually filed for any offices that were elected on a county-wide basis, but there were usually several Democrats running in the primary for each such office. 

And yes, a lot of people do know there representatives, especially once you get past the federal level.  The first election that I was eligible to vote in, there were more than a dozen Democrats running in the primary for our county's 3 seats in the state House of Delegates (at least 8 of them were serious candidates) and I personally knew all of them at least slightly, and I was just a high school nobody.

[Eddie Teach]

Did you guys know global warming is a fraud? The world has actually been cooling since 1997, the hottest year ever.

Okay...  Sure...  Whatever...

*backs up*

*turns and runs away*

Don't make promises you can't keep grumbles.

Cut him some slack, most people his age can't hobble half that fast.

[grumbler]

I'm looking at "percent of House re-elected" column.  Looking at the percentage of people who stand for re-election and win is misleading, since very often Congressmen retire precisely when they or their party is out of favor, and they have a real chance of losing an election.

So Mister Statistics was looking at the wrong data all along?  How unsurprising.

Percentage of House returned is a completely different statistic, and one for which you have presented no recent data whatsoever.  It's driver isn't how advantageous it is to be an incumbent, but rather the increasing "professionalization" of politics starting in the Gilded Age.  The percentage of House member that are freshmen (i.e. not returned) was 14% in 2014 and 17% in 2012, so returned percentages are 86% and 83% respectively.*  Members returned are NOT at historic highs; these numbers are pretty typical for the post-WW2 era.

* https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43869.pdf

[DGuller]

I'm looking at "percent of House re-elected" column.  Looking at the percentage of people who stand for re-election and win is misleading, since very often Congressmen retire precisely when they or their party is out of favor, and they have a real chance of losing an election.

So Mister Statistics was looking at the wrong data all along?  How unsurprising.

Percentage of House returned is a completely different statistic, and one for which you have presented no recent data whatsoever.  It's driver isn't how advantageous it is to be an incumbent, but rather the increasing "professionalization" of politics starting in the Gilded Age.  The percentage of House member that are freshmen (i.e. not returned) was 14% in 2014 and 17% in 2012, so returned percentages are 86% and 83% respectively.*  Members returned are NOT at historic highs; these numbers are pretty typical for the post-WW2 era.

* https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43869.pdf

We were discussing the number of uncontested seats in the House.  It's hard to make a case that a seat is uncontested when it's not even defended by the incumbent. 

Yes, we can debate the confounding factors that make one statistic or the other misleading in some ways, and there can be good discussion to be had.  The next to last column can be misleading because it suffers from survival bias, but the last column can be misleading as it is a function of the general tendency to stand for reelection.

As for your last point, I already addressed it.  There may be some statistical noise around the plateau, but the historical trend is that Congressmen stick around at far higher rates than they ever had in the past.

[Razgovory]

Just let him win.  He'll never admit you are right, and he's annoying otherwise.  If you keep pushing he might ignore you.

[DGuller]

Letting him win would be to return an insult.  So, no, he won't win.  But yeah, I don't think this discussion is going to get any better from here on out, and turning the other cheek is starting to get tedious, so I'll cash out now.

[grumbler]

We were discussing the number of uncontested seats in the House.  It's hard to make a case that a seat is uncontested when it's not even defended by the incumbent. 

There were 25 uncontested seats in the House in 2014.  That's far below the average of around 80 in the fifty years through 1960 and even the average of around 50 in the next twenty years.  That's due to the decline of machine politics and the electrification of the countryside.  Massachusetts was the only state with significant numbers of uncontested seats (6 of the 9 that the state has) and it's no coincidence that Mass is famous for its Democratic machine.

So, even if you want to move the goalposts a third time, we still aren't at "historic highs."

Yes, we can debate the confounding factors that make one statistic or the other misleading in some ways, and there can be good discussion to be had.  The next to last column can be misleading because it suffers from survival bias, but the last column can be misleading as it is a function of the general tendency to stand for reelection.

As for your last point, I already addressed it.  There may be some statistical noise around the plateau, but the historical trend is that Congressmen stick around at far higher rates than they ever had in the past.

Again, you ignore the data in favor of the narrative.  Congressmen do not "stick around at far higher rates than they ever have in the past."  That's simply not true, and the data shows that.  They stuck around at higher rates in the 1980s than they do today.  In the 1986 election, for instance, only 50 freshman Congressmen were elected, compared to 61 in 2014 and 73 in 2012.  Service years for congressmen peaked in the 102nd Congress (elected 1990) and is significantly lower today.  Your arguments are 20 years out of date.

Congressional service did climb significantly in the 20th Century as politicians became "professionals," but I think that everyone is aware of that.

[grumbler]

Letting him win would be to return an insult.  So, no, he won't win.  But yeah, I don't think this discussion is going to get any better from here on out, and turning the other cheek is starting to get tedious, so I'll cash out now.

It's not a matter of "winning" and "losing."  It is a matter of you pursuing a narrative and my pointing out that the data show that narrative to be false.  We can end this now.

[dps]

very often Congressmen retire precisely when they or their party is out of favor, and they have a real chance of losing an election.

I'm not sure that happens all that often (though it certainly does happen on occasion).  I think it's more often the other way around--a previously "safe" seat becomes contested precisely because a popular, long-term Congressman decides to retire.