'Safe' districts harm our system

State legislatures all over the country have worked hard to make sure that district lines are drawn to favor the party in power.
There’s nothing new about that.
It’s been done for generations.
But it’s beginning to have a debilitating effect on America’s politics for a couple of reasons.
The first is, simply, that competitive races lead to better candidates and better candidates lead to better elected officials.
Indiana’s 3rd Congressional District, for instance, is so solidly and safely Republican that not only is the election outcome a forgone conclusion but also that the district’s Democratic party is enfeebled and in disarray.
The last time a Democrat mounted a serious effort to unseat the incumbent Republican — going door to door, issuing press releases, attending party events and raising a bit of money — he still lost by a margin of 2 to 1.
And this time around, the Democratic candidate — a sometimes homeless character who refers to himself as “an honest beer drinker” — has been disavowed by the party after winning a three-way race in the primary.
There’s no way that’s healthy for democracy or representative government.
The second problem is that when districts are “safe” for either party, voters in primary elections pull their parties toward the extremes. Primary voters in “safe” Democratic districts pull their party to the left, while primary voters in “safe” Republican districts pull their party to the right.
As a result, general election voters are faced with a polarized choice in November.
And that’s not healthy either.
Will it change? Maybe.
Some states are looking at having district lines drawn by an independent commission, but because the current system works to the advantage of incumbents it’s difficult to be optimistic. — J.R.