It isn’t unexpected news that the public’s opinion of Congress is at an all-time low. The recent debt-ceiling battle revealed more partisanship than statesmanship and more ideological standoffs than coming together for practical solutions.

The approval rating for Congress in the latest CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll was just 14 percent. This new low is only the third time that approval has dropped below 20 percent in the past 35 years. The current approval rate is even lower than in 1995 when a political standoff led to a government shutdown.

Some political consultants speculate that if the public sentiment doesn’t change, the November 2012 election could bring about epic change. While that could happen, it would go against historical trends.

For the past several decades, incumbents have been re-elected to Congress at rates above 90 percent. And the fact that the public is unhappy with Congress is nothing new — Congress has not had an approval rating above 35 percent since October 2006, according to CNN polling.

Incumbents get re-elected consistently for several reasons. The power of incumbency, translated into fundraising, is probably most significant. Name recognition matters, but money matters more.

On average, challengers for House seats are outspent by nearly $1 million, and challengers for Senate seats have about $4 million less to spend on their campaigns than their entrenched incumbent opponents.

Another important, but less understood, reason incumbents rarely lose is gerrymandering, the partisan redrawing of congressional districts done by both parties in nearly all states.

By redrawing districts, as mandated by law every 10 years after the national census, to include more voters of one party and exclude voters from the other party, the district becomes a so-called safe seat. And once in a safe seat, politicians have no real worries about a general election challenger — their party has made sure that they enjoy a substantial voter registration advantage.

By some estimates, about 350 House congressional districts out of 435 are considered safe, meaning truly competitive races are rare. There are some competitive districts, but they are not the norm.

Overall, gerrymandering has created mostly noncompetitive districts. And that leads to congressional stagnation and also increases partisanship, because hard-line conservatives tend to do better in solidly Republican districts while more left-leaning liberals succeed in solidly Democratic districts.

Given the many advantages of incumbents, it’s worth wondering if members of Congress are even slightly worried about the latest dismal approval ratings. They might feel some sense of embarrassment that the vast majority of Americans believe they are doing a poor job, but do many of them really worry about losing their job? Do they have any motivation to be more effective and more willing to work across party lines to develop meaningful, balanced legislation? Probably not.

If voters want to see a less-dysfunctional Congress, a good place to start is to take redistricting away from politicians and put it in the hands of a nonpartisan commission, as is being done in California following the success of a voter referendum last year. The proposed new districts in California will reportedly force entrenched politicians into competitive races and will cause some districts that were dark blue or dark red to look more purple — meaning a more balanced electorate. More-competitive races benefit voters and increase lawmaker accountabilty. Less-competitive races benefit only incumbent politicians.

Reforming redistricting so that politicians can no longer choose their voters is a beginning. But something needs to change to make Congress more accountable — and incumbents more fearful of losing their jobs when they don’t perform.

A 14 percent approval rating for Congress should have consequences.