TOM HOFELLER

Most political analysts agree that all of these were factors that produced the hyperpolarization of the time. There were others such as the Republican Southern Strategy which triggered a shift of Democratic conservatives to the Republican party. This made the Republicans more conservative and the Democrats more liberal. Then those strong ideological parties drove many of their moderates out, and the Tea Party ran even more conservative candidates knocking out less conservatives in the primaries. Another factor, the relatively even split of voters nationally causing most candidates to appeal to their bases which became more extreme. However, especially in the House of Representatives, the redistricting created so few competitive districts that there was no need for candidates with safe seats to even be concerned with moderate and undecided voters.

When discussing and planning redistricting What makes this quotation so noteworthy is the fact that to the expert at redistricting, security is so important and E-mail an anathema. The reason is that most redistricting by a majority in a state legislature has little to do with fairness and protecting the meaning of peoples’ votes. It is very often motivated by something that is illegal (eg diluting Black’s voting impact) or untoward, embarrassing and scandalous (eg getting rid of a Congressman the party leaders do not care for—not being ideological enough. Very often, courts or the Justice Department overturn redistricting schemes or the media embarrasses the party who controlled the redistricting. In almost all these cases, the “smoking gun” is the statements or writings of the redistricting leaders. (For an example, see {634844} .)Therefore some redistrictors behave in methods similar to the Mafia, foreign spies, or an illegal monopoly conspiracy.

The irony of this quotation is that most people think that if there is any area of politics that should be nonpartisan or bipartisan, it is governing the voting and election process of our democracy. Yet, many who actually do the redistricting, are extremely partisan in the process.

The irony of this quotation is that most people think that if there is any area of politics that should be nonpartisan or bipartisan, it is governing the voting and election process of our democracy. Yet, many who actually do the redistricting, are extremely partisan in the process.

When discussing and planning redistricting What makes this quotation so noteworthy is the fact that to the expert at redistricting, security is so important and E-mail an anathema. The reason is that most redistricting by a majority in a state legislature has little to do with fairness and protecting the meaning of peoples’ votes. It is very often motivated by something that is illegal (eg diluting Black’s voting impact) or untoward, embarrassing and scandalous (eg getting rid of a Congressman the party leaders do not care for—not being ideological enough. Very often, courts or the Justice Department overturn redistricting schemes or the media embarrasses the party who controlled the redistricting. In almost all these cases, the “smoking gun” is the statements or writings of the redistricting leaders. (For an example, see {634844} .)Therefore some redistrictors behave in methods similar to the Mafia, foreign spies, or an illegal monopoly conspiracy.

Most political analysts agree that all of these were factors that produced the hyperpolarization of the time. There were others such as the Republican Southern Strategy which triggered a shift of Democratic conservatives to the Republican party. This made the Republicans more conservative and the Democrats more liberal. Then those strong ideological parties drove many of their moderates out, and the Tea Party ran even more conservative candidates knocking out less conservatives in the primaries. Another factor, the relatively even split of voters nationally causing most candidates to appeal to their bases which became more extreme. However, especially in the House of Representatives, the redistricting created so few competitive districts that there was no need for candidates with safe seats to even be concerned with moderate and undecided voters.