Vent all the skepticism you want. And while you’re busy arguing semantics, the rest of us will work on real changes in the real world, changes that have already started, as evidenced by the “Bloomberg Revolution” in NY, Lieberman’s victory in CT, Schwarzenegger’s resurgence in CA.

What is described here is a centrist PAC to elect true centrist candidates (which don’t exist because they are unelectable). Who is going to donate money to a centrist PAC? What’s their fund raising strategy? “We’re the most moderate on everything!” What a winner! Why wouldn’t they be better off donating money to the opposition party or an issue group?

Redistricting reform? Fine.

Tax simplification? That’s not centrist at all; the vast majority of people really like their deductions. The people who really care about this are libertarians.

A critical mass of congressional moderates? Fine, all you have to do is throw out 225 years of legislative practice. Gee, that sounds reasonable.

Again, people here don’t seem to understand that what matters is moderate results, not the guise of moderation in the process of politics. The guise of moderation from so-called centrists has merely served as cover for the ruling party. We achieve moderate results with oppositional, divided government, not a bunch of people being the most centrist.

If you care more about appearing moderate, you will not get moderate outcomes.

These commissions make it harder for legislatures to contort the districts into obvious partisan advantage.

” … any centrist group is at odds with both extremes on any given issue and will be easily surpassed by the enthusiasm and ideology of their supporters.”

Then why, Andrew, are both major political parties so anxious to appeal to centrist voters? Why is the Democratic party decidedly centrist in its professed approach to the new Congress, to the chagrin of far-left-wing partisans?

Centrism might very well be “quite at odds with the American political system,” as you claim, and yet leading politicians (and ’08 White House hopefuls) are scrambling to re-make themselves in the image of this “at odds” philosophy while they (with equaly rapidity) peddle away from the current “political system.”

With all due respect, your points are desparately “old school.” Look around you, man: The evidence of centrist predominance is not that hard to find, if you’re willing to open your eyes.

“With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another.” – Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

At least when legislatures do it they have to do it in public.

Issue advocacy groups will always been far more productive for the simple fact that “centrist” views on many issues are rarely held by a single person. There is no particular collection of “centrist” values held by more than a few people.

Furthermore, any centrist group is at odds with both extremes on any given issue and will be easily surpassed by the enthusiasm and ideology of their supporters.

This might sound good in theory, but I doubt there is any practical way to make it work. Redistricting is such a blunt instrument to begin with how are you going to refine it in such as a way to increase competition? And increase competition for whom? Just for Democrats and Republicans? How about Greens or Libertarians or any other “3rd” party? What about minority groups? Rural areas? etc etc etc….There is no way to ensure that increased competition for one group while basically eliminate the chances for some other group.

Now, a mathematical formula based solely upon population density could at least take the subjectivity out of the process. But even then there is no guarentee that folks wont be at a competetive disadvantage.