The Incumbent Protection Racket

Townhall.com ^ | October 28, 2010 | Steve Chapman

[Kaslin]

This year's election will be exciting. Given the disenchantment of voters with President Obama and the Democratic Congress, there is every prospect that your Democratic representative will be shown the door. Given the generally anti-incumbent mood, there is every prospect that your Republican representative will be out on the street.

In your dreams. When analysts say this is going to be a competitive election, they don't mention that for most districts and most voters, absolutely nothing is going to change. Come January, the U.S. House of Representatives is going to look a lot like it does right now.

There are 435 seats in the House, and every one of them is up for a vote on Tuesday. But the consensus is that no more than 100 are "in play," with a chance of changing party hands. The other 335 races will hold all the suspense of a Harlem Globetrotters game.

Nor will all the competitive districts actually make the switch. The GOP needs to gain a net of 39 seats to win control of the House, and Republicans would be thrilled to pick up 50.

Does that mean lots of entrenched career pols are going to be evicted? Fewer than you might think. Many of the changes will occur not because a member of Congress loses but because a member has decided not to run. Even this year, the typical incumbent has nothing to worry about.

[wbarmy]

If they “choose” not to run because they know they would have been defeated, it is still a defeat for an incumbent.

It sounds like another spin for the “Democrats” so that Tuesday won’t be a loss.

[combat_boots]

Bringing in the thieves.

[goldstategop]

Gerrymandering.

It was abolished decades ago in the UK and Canada but America is the last democracy to draw constituency lines for the partisan advantage of the ruling party - and to protect incumbents.