[MBCook]

Even with only two real parties if things were drawn to maximize competitiveness then at least the parties would be forced to play towards the center instead of their more extreme bases.

Not ideal but much better than what has been going on since the 2000s.

[boomboomsubban]

I don't see how it maximizes competitiveness. Even in a perfectly split district, the primary generally has to play towards the base, and it's easier to get more members of your base to vote than to convert someone from the other party. The bipartisan attempt to neutralize other parties helps with that, it's easier for a Republican to turn a Libertarian voter to their side than a Democrat voter.

[patrickmay]

> it's easier for a Republican to turn a Libertarian voter to their side than a Democrat voter.

Maybe in the Reagan years, but it's become more difficult since then. Orwell said "The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians." Both Republicans and Democrats have grown increasingly more authoritarian over the past 20 years.

[boomboomsubban]

Reagan wasn't any more in line with Libertarian ideas than the current Republicans, and I'd still be surprised if more members of the Libertarian party voted Democrat than Republican.

[MBCook]

Competitiveness forces candidates to balance playing to the base with not alienating the other side, lest they turn out against you.

In the current system the question is who can be the most conservative/liberal. There is little downside to pushing further because there are more votes there but few people you’ll drive away.

[boomboomsubban]

The check to that is more parties, where the most conservative/liberal has actual competition on being the most extreme.

Your change to gerrymandering doesn't make pushing for the extremes a worse strategy. Even in a perfectly split district, roughly 25% vote Democrat, 25% Republican, and 50% don't vote. That 50% is a better target than any voters on the fence.