Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T14:24:41.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enhancing Democracy Through Legislative Redistricting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Andrew Gelman  and
Gary King
Andrew Gelman
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Gary King
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We demonstrate the surprising benefits of legislative redistricting (including partisan gerrymandering) for American representative democracy. In so doing, our analysis resolves two long-standing controversies in American politics. First, whereas some scholars believe that redistricting reduces electoral responsiveness by protecting incumbents, others, that the relationship is spurious, we demonstrate that both sides are wrong: redistricting increases responsiveness. Second, while some researchers believe that gerrymandering dramatically increases partisan bias and others deny this effect, we show both sides are in a sense correct. Gerrymandering biases electoral systems in favor of the party that controls the redistricting as compared to what would have happened if the other party controlled it, but any type of redistricting reduces partisan bias as compared to an electoral system without redistricting. Incorrect conclusions in both literatures resulted from misjudging the enormous uncertainties present during redistricting periods, making simplified assumptions about the redistricters' goals, and using inferior statistical methods.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 88 , Issue 3 , September 1994 , pp. 541 - 559
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz, Alan. 1984. “Partisan Redistricting and the 1982 Congressional Elections.” Journal of Politics 45:767–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Brady, David, and Fiorina, Morris. 1988. “Turnout and the Calculation of Swing Ratios.” Research Paper No. 990. Stanford University Graduate School of Business.Google Scholar
Born, Richard. 1985. “Partisan Intentions and Election Day Realities in the Congressional Redistricting Process.” American Political Science Review 79:305–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, Charles. 1975. “Redistricting and Congressional Stability, 1962–1972.” Journal of Politics 37:569–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, Walter Dean. 1974. “Communication.” American Political Science Review 68:207–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, David E. 1951. Appendix to The British General Election of 1950. Ed. Nichols, H. G.. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cain, Bruce. 1984. The Reapportionment Puzzle. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cain, Bruce. 1985. “Assessing the Partisan Effects of Redistricting.” American Political Science Review 79:320–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campagna, Janet, and Grofman, Bernard. 1990. “Party Control and Partisan Bias in 1980s Congressional Redistricting.” Journal of Politics 52:1242–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canon, David, Schousen, Matthew, and Sellers, Patrick. 1993. “The Supply Side of Congressional Redistricting: Race and Strategic Politicians, 1972–1992.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Cortner, Richard C. 1970. The Apportionment Cases. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Cranor, John D., Crawley, Gary L., and Sheele, Raymond H.. 1989. “The Anatomy of a Gerrymander.” American Journal of Political Science 33:222–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis v. Bandemer 1986. 106 S.Ct. 2797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dempster, A. P., Rubin, D. B., and Tsutakawa, R. K.. 1981. “Estimation in Covariance Components Models.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 76:341–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert G. Jr., 1968. Democratic Representation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1972. “Malapportionment, Gerrymandering, and Party Fortunes in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 66:1234–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, John A. 1977. “On the Decline of Competition in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 71:166–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1990. “Estimating the Electoral Consequences of Legislative Redistricting.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 85:274–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1993. “Judgeit: A Program for Evaluating Electoral Systems and Redistricting Plans.” Technical report and computer program. Harvard University.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1994. “A Unified Method of Evaluating Electoral Systems and Redistricting Plans.” American Journal of Political Science 38:514–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glazer, Amihai, Grofman, Bernard, and Robbins, Marc. 1987. “Partisan and Incumbency Effects in the 1970s Congressional Redistricting.” American Journal of Political Science 30:680–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gopoian, J. David, and West, Darrell M.. 1984. “Trading Security for Seats: Strategic Considerations in the Redistricting Process.” Journal of Politics 46:1080–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Paul M. 1982. “Legislative Redistricting in Illinois 1871–1982: A Study of Geo-Political Survival.” In Redistricting: An Exercise in Prophecy, ed. Merritt, Anna J.. Chicago: University of Illinois Institute of Government and Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Hacker, Andrew. 1963. Congressional Districting: The Issue of Equal Representation. Washington: Brookings.Google Scholar
Hardy, Leroy, Heslop, Alan, and Anderson, Stuart, eds. 1981. Reapportionment Politics: The History of Redistricting in the Fifty States. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Hsiao, Cheng. 1986. The Analysis of Panel Data. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kendall, M. G., and Stuart, A.. 1950. “The Law of the Cubic Proportion in Election Results.” British Journal of Sociology 1:193–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary. 1989. “Representation through Legislative Redistricting: A Stochastic Model,” American Journal of Political Science 33:787–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary. 1991. “Constituency Service and Incumbency Advantage.” British Journal of Political Science 21:119–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, and Browning, Robert. 1987. “Democratic Representation and Partisan Bias in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 81:1251–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, and Gelman, Andrew. 1991. “Systemic Consequences of Incumbency Advantage in the U.S. House.” American Journal of Political Science 35:110–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1971. “Congressional Representation: Theory and Practice in Drawing the Districts.” In Reapportionment in the 1970s, ed. Polsby, Nelson W.. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Monili, Richard. 1990. “A Geographer's Perspective.” In Political Gerrymandering and the Courts, ed. Grofman, Bernard. New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
Niemi, Richard, and Jackman, Simon. 1991. “Bias and Responsiveness in State Legislative Districting.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 16:183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemi, Richard, and Winsky, Laura R.. 1992. “The Persistence of Partisan Redistricting Effects in Congressional Elections, in the 1970s and 1980s.” Journal of Politics 54:565–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, Guillermo, and Grofman, Bernard. 1988. “Optimal Partisan Gerrymandering.” Political Geography Quarterly 7:5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarrow, Howard. 1982. “Partisan Gerrymandering—Invidious or Benevolent? Gaffney v. Cummings and Its Aftermath.” Journal of Politics 44:810–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James. 1985. “Regression in Space and Time: A Statistical Essay.” American Journal of Political Science 29:914–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tufte, Edward. 1973. “The Relationship between Seats and Votes in Two-Party Systems.” American Political Science Review 67:540–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voinovich v. Quilter. 1993. 113 S.Ct. 1149.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.