The Christian Science Monitor doesn't think this last election was an election because so many incumbents were re-elected. Why is this bad? Because...

"[It] reduces the contest of ideas that drives democracy. Legislative offices need fresh faces along with experienced hands to avoid entrenchment in lawmaking bodies."

While we understand that gerrymandering your congressional district to ensure you're re-elected is rather unfair (and has been since it began in the 18th century), it seems to us that the "contest of ideas" has never been more alive.

Extreme fringe groups, left and right, will disagree of course, but the last two elections have been held against the background of the nation's alleged "polarization," which is generally deplored. But what is this "polarization" other than people taking sides in the contest of ideas?

This last election offered a clearer choice between competing ideas than any since 1980, nationally and locally. While re-configured congressional districts may reduce competition in an isolated area, it has had the effect of increasing and sharpening it overall -- in the public mind as well as in Congress.

Michael Moore-type partisans tend to fuzz up the issues with paranoia and half-truths, but the 2004 election demonstrated once again the people's ability to pick their way wisely through the minefield of fact and opinion -- an ability we have been able to depend on for 230 years now.

When the people have plain presentation of the choices and ideas facing them, it can only be good for democracy. And, thanks to the ancient art of gerrymandering, the ideas are clearer than ever -- much to the discomfort of some.