Replies

The real battle that is going to cause the problem is the 6th U.S. House district where Ben Chandler barely won in 2010 - by like 500 votes. The Senate has a map that keeps it almost identical but adds a few more precincts that tend to vote Republican - enough to have turned the election...meanwhile the Democrats want to alter the shape of the discrict a bit and put strong Republican counties all together in the 4th district to make it easier for Chandler to hold the 6th district. However...one thing I don't like about the Republican map is that is basically permanently concedes the 3rd district by putting the Republican side of Louisville in another district - the 3rd is very difficult for Republicans to win, but it is possible - Anne Northup held it for 10 years...the "new" 3rd basically makes it a permanent Democrat seat.

Not sure how a scenario where all House members run at large would shake out...I have no doubt a Republican candidate would be the top vote getter, but how the others would place would be the question...wouldn't be a victory to be #1 while 2nd through 6th are all Democrats.

Just a thought.... for those people here who are major advocates of third parties, or who believe that the state and national Republican parties are run by RINOs, multiple member districts rather than winner-take-all single-member districts are a major game-changer.

A key difference between multiparty European democracy and the American system is that third parties basically have no chance in a winner-take-all system unless they can replace one of the two major parties.

If all of Kentucky's congressional candidates were running on a single ballot, it would be within the realm of possibility for a “Tea Party” conservative running as an independent (or for that matter, a Libertarian, Green, or some other party) to place in the top six.

Again, I'm a Republican and do not favor the creation of a third party because I believe it is unnecessary. Also, I am not a fan of massive change merely for change’s sake without good reason, but I am in favor of state's rights and the local experimentation that allows. An at-large congressional election in Kentucky, given current political dynamics in the Republican Party, could have some very unexpected consequences.

In 1992, KY Dems, who had a 4-3 advantage in the state’s House delegation, got greedy and tried to draw 6 winnable districts for them (the state lost a CD after the 1990 Census). They extended Hubbard’s KY-01 to the SE to protect Natcher’s KY-02 for when he retired (instead of adding Daviess County); took out Republican East Louisville from Bunning’s KY-04 (adding it to Mazzolli’s KY-03) and added historically Dem counties from Eastern KY; and redistricted Rogers in with Perkins in a new KY-05 that combined GOP counties in southern KY with heavily Dem Coal Country counties. Far from getting a 6-0 Dem delegation, KY had a 5-1 GOP delegation from 1996-2006. Had the Dems drawn über-Republican districts for Bunning and Rogers, they could have had a 4-2 Dem delegation at least prior to Natcher’s death, and maybe afterwards as well. Now, they’re whining that Republicans have a marked advantage in 4 CDs and the Dems have a precarious hold on the other 2. Stupid, greedy Democrats.