sorry, but that is not it, unless you think politicians are fungible within parties. The problem is that there is no real feedback mechanism between a what a congress person votes for and their electibility (within or across parties) because of money in politics.

how is it possible that congress has consistent single digit approval ratings and they vote for things 90% of their constituents disagree with and still get elected? This is the core problem of American politics. Politicians are beholden to donors not voters.

▲

lesuorac 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The problem is that there is no real feedback mechanism between a what a congress person votes for and their electibility

You would describe this as being different from competitive?

I doubt any amount of money would matter if we had 1 representative per 30k people as written in the constitution, NY State is about 20 M people so you'd need to bribe ~300 of the ~600 representatives in order to get your way (and also do that for every other state).

	▲	anthonypasq 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		yes, is there any evidence purple districts represent their constituents better? whats the different between being primaried in a 90% red district and running against someone of a different party in a swing district?

▲

cyberax 19 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

The local options for uncompetitive districts? They are fungible, except maybe minor differences on some pet issues.

They don't have to care about actually representing anyone. They can skip town halls, ignore requests, etc. Primaries are a very weak form of influence.

If you want numbers, reps in competitive districts hold more town hall meetings. And they also hold more personal staff (limited back in 1975) in their home states. This is kinda a no-brainer. If you have to care about re-elections, you'll try to help your local consituents.