When Legislative Districts Divorce

From an Associated Press report this morning, apparently the Constitutional Revision Commission is looking at making them all single member House Districts:

South Dakota should move to single-member House districts, a big change from the current setup that elects two at-large House members from every Senate district, a special state commission recommended Thursday.

The Constitutional Revision Commission, which is studying possible changes in the parts of the state constitution dealing with the Legislature, voted to submit the proposed change to the Legislature. If lawmakers agree to put the proposed constitutional amendment on the 2008 ballot, voters statewide would decide whether to put the new language in the constitution.

Supporters said the smaller, single-member districts would lead to a closer relationship between constituents and House members. Opponents said the change might make it more difficult for political parties to recruit candidates.

Actually, I think it will make Senate races WAY more competitive, because when people want to jump chambers from the House to the Senate, there will be no relationship of running for office together along the way.

What do you all think?

Comments

nonnie said…
Not quite germane to this topic, but I think term limits as they are now are ridiculous. A guy limits out in the House, runs for the Senate and wins most of the time, then limits out there, and back to the House. Why not increase term limits to 12 years and then they can't run for the other chamber for at least 8 years. Now term limits is a misnomer.
Anonymous said…
Term limits on each office should vary. 12 years in the house and 8 in the senate, or something like that. This is how the united nations has found to be the best for security council positions, as well as some European Union offices.

Not that we need to be like Europe, but it is good to learn from others.
Anonymous said…
I've been in the Legislature, and still think term limits are a good thing. Sure, some switch back and forth, but some of that is actually good ,since it would be harder without a few seasoned veterans around. For far too long in SD and especially in DC, too few people have wielded far too much power. Without term limits, some polititions start to think they're irreplaceable, and their constituents re-elect them for selfish personnal reasons, like they "bring home the bacon", such as Daschle.
nonnie said…
To 11:57,I voted for term limits. But we essentially don't have term limits now. Our representative was formerly a senator,is running again for rep, snd has already said the next time he will run again for senator. And he gets voted in time and time again, not because he accomplishes anything while there but because he is basically a decent, honest guy. This is why I think term limits need to be tweaked again to make them mean what they say and allow more competition for those seats and a chance for better representation for the constituents.
11:57 said…
I would support a wiating period after being term-limited before you could run for the other chamber, like 2 years, just like it is now before you can run for the same chamber.

Popular posts from this blog

That didn't take long

State to UFWS: It's over