Because they - like Democrats as well - represent safe gerrymandered districts. Which might distort the original intent of the design of the House.
From Slate:
From Slate:
When optimists try to predict the end of the government shutdown/debt limit wars, they suggest that Republicans will, eventually, have to buckle. Polls showthat most voters blame them, not the president, for the quagmire—hey, who can argue with polls? History shows that Republicans were blamed for the winter shutdown of 1995–1996—who can argue with history?
Republicans can, and they do. The gerrymanders of 2011 added to their natural geographic advantage over urban/suburban Democrats and gave them a House they simply don’t think they can lose. In 2012 they proved it, winning 1.36 million fewer votes than Democratic candidates but keeping a 33-seat majority.According to the Cook Political Report, 205 of 435 House districts are solidly Republican, basically impossible to lose without an unexpected bribery or sexting scandal. Only 163 districts are solidly Democratic. If Democrats swept the table and won all the districts currently rated as tossups or “leaning” Republican, they’d win 213 seats, five short of a majority.
That was always the long-term Republican plan. In 2010, when voter anger was already guaranteeing a fantastic party comeback, groups like the Redistricting Majority Project (nicknamed REDMAP) told donors that “the party controlling that effort controls the drawing of the maps—shaping the political landscape for the next 10 years.”