Redistricting is the practice of allowing politicians to draw the lines of their district, which is akin to allowing them to pick their voters, instead of the more traditional view of letting voters pick the politicians.  It is not uncommon for people on one side of a street to vote in one district, while neighbors on the other side of the street vote in a different district.  Politicians know what types of people are most likely to vote for them, and they know where they live.  For example, Democrats would draw the lines to include as many minorities, as many young people, and as many government employees as possible.  Republicans would draw the lines to include as many older voters, as many affluent voters, as many veterans as possible.  That information is readily available.

In Virginia, a panel of Federal judges have ruled that our districts must be redrawn, and I applaud this decision.  They found that one particular congressional district had been packed with minorities, insuring that district would be represented by a black Congressman but eliminating any influence those minorities might have in neighboring districts.  Unfortunately, that decision is being appealed.   So far, taxpayers have paid $224 thousand to defend “packing.”

My complaint is that news coverage of this issue deals with the Republicans versus Democrats dynamic.  It is more important to see this along a moderate versus extremist dynamic.  A district that is 80% Republican is more likely to elect a Republican extremist than one that is only 50% Republican, which would be more likely to elect a moderate Republican.  The same is true for Democratic districts.

Since extremists or “true believers” cannot govern, it is more important that we elect moderates, be them Republican or Democrat.  Too bad the newspapers do not report it that way!