Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T02:40:48.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Power of the States in U.S. Presidential Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

George Rabinowitz  and
Stuart Elaine Macdonald
George Rabinowitz
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Stuart Elaine Macdonald
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Electoral College is a uniquely American political institution, yet its impact on both the power of the American states and the relative power of citizens living in different states is not well understood. Game theorists have broached the state power problem exclusively in terms of the size of each of the states. Empirical investigators have been less systematic, basing their analyses solely on which states have been close in a single election. In this paper we present a model of state power which combines the idea of the pivotal player from game theory with an empirical model of state voting. In doing so we provide a theoretically derived and empirically meaningful assessment of state power in presidential elections. We then trace the implications of the power of the states for the relative power of individual voters, finding large disparities between voters from different states.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 80 , Issue 1 , March 1986 , pp. 65 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1986

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

Aldrich, John H., and McKelvey, Richard D.. 1975. A Method of Scaling with Applications to the 1968 and 1972 Presidential Elections. American Political Science Review, 71:111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, Herbert B. 1984. Presidential Elections and American Politics. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
Banzhaf, John F. IV. 1968. One Man 3.312 Votes: A Mathematical Analysis of the Electoral College. Villanova Law Review, 13: 304–332.Google Scholar
Brams, Steven J., and Davis, Morton D.. 1974. The 3/2's Rule in Presidential Campaigning. American Political Science Review, 68:113–134.Google Scholar
Colantoni, Claude S., Levesque, Terrence J., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1975. Campaign Resource Allocation under the Electoral College. American Political Science Review, 69:141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enelow, James, and Hinich, Melvin. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael, and Rice, Tom. 1983. Localism in Presidential Elections: The Home State Advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 27:548–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levesque, Terence J. 1984. Measuring State Power in Presidential Elections. Public Choice, 42: 295–310.Google Scholar
Mann, Irwin, and Shapley, Lloyd S.. 1960. Values of Large Games, IV: Evaluating the Electoral College by Monte Carlo Techniques. Rand Memorandum, RM-2651.Google Scholar
Mann, Irwin, and Shapley, Lloyd S.. 1962. Values of Large Games, VI: Evaluating the Electoral College Exactly. Rand Memorandum, RM-3158.Google Scholar
Margolis, Howard. 1977. Probability of a Tie Vote. Public Choice, 31:135–138.Google Scholar
Margolis, Howard. 1983. The Banzhaf Fallacy. American Journal of Political Science, 27: 321–326.Google Scholar
Merrill, Samuel III. 1978. Citizens Voting Power under the Electoral College: A Stochastic Model Based on State Voting Patterns. SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics, 34:376–390.Google Scholar
Owen, Guillermo. 1971. Political Games. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 18:741–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, Guillermo. 1975. Evaluation of a Presidential Election Game. American Political Science Review, 69:947–953.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1984. U.S. Presidential Elections 1968–1980: A Spatial Analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 28:282–312.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, George B. 1978. On the Nature of Political Issues: Insights from a Spatial Analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 22:793–817.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, Gurian, Paul-Henri, and Macdonald, Stuart Elaine. 1984. The Structure of Presidential Elections and the Process of Realignment. American Journal of Political Science, 28: 611–635.Google Scholar
Riker, William H., and Shapley, Lloyd S.. 1968. Weighted Voting: Multinational Analysis for Instrumental Judgments. In Pennock, J. Roland and Chapman, John W., eds., Representation. New York: Atherton Press.Google Scholar
Shapley, Lloyd S. 1977. A Comparison of Power Indices and a Nonsymmetric Generalization. Rand Memorandum, P-5872.Google Scholar
Sigman, Elizabeth Page. 1983. Mexican Americans and Politics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Spilerman, Seymour, and Dickens, David. 1974. Who Will Gain and Who Will Lose Influence under Different Electoral Rules? American Journal of Sociology, 80: 443–477.Google Scholar
Thomas, George B. 1963. Calculus and Analytic Geometry. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Warren, Earl. 1964. Reynolds v. Sims (The Opinion of the Court). United States Reports, 377:533–587.Google Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert F., and Rusk, Jerrold G.. 1970. Dimensions of Candidate Evaluations. American Political Science Review, 64:1167–1185.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.