There are a lot of good comments here, so I'm just going to respond to a few of them right now. I didn't miss California's redistricting reform initiative (or Ohio's, for that matter) I wrote about them in my book and in the Post's Outlook section in November. Both initiatives failed for the same reason: voters from one party saw them as helping the opposition. This was true to some extent: I was not a huge fan of the retired judge model in California, and the Ohio ballot initiative was just sprawling. The best kind of redistricting commission is one that will reward the party that's better at connecting with voters. (I like a modified version of New Jersey's, which I can elaborate on in a subsequent post.) I do give Schwarzenegger credit for challenging the current system, though, even if I don't like his proposal. And while the idea of unilateral redistricting reform is a tough one for blue state fans, I don't think it means you abandon the idea of reform altogether.
I'm also not blind to the role money plays in campaigns-I write a great deal in Fight Club Politics about how party leaders have become adept at scooping up money from lobbyists and distributing to vulnerable members through "leadership political action committees." This both forces rank-and-file members to tow the party line, and it gives special interest more control over legislation.
And when one reader commented on how partisanship is nothing new, what I would say is that political polarization in Washington is more intense than ever, and that is significant. Two political scientists, Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, note in their recent book "Off Center" that the average House Republican is 73 percent more conservative than his or her counterpart in the 1970s, and the average House Democrat is 28 percent more liberal than his or her counterpart in the 1970s. Both parties have moved to the extreme. One of the reasons the Senate is so polarized is because it has a greater percentage of former House members than in any time in its history.
To the writer who alluded to Pombo's district becoming more Democratic, that's exactly what I'm writing about-more yuppies are moving from San Francisco and its immediate environs to his district because it offers cheaper housing, and that ultimately is the reason why he's in a tougher race this year.
For the New Jersey blogger out there, I would love to know what member represents you, since I can comment in greater detail on that race.