Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:03:50.383Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Don't Blame Redistricting for Uncompetitive Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2006

Alan Abramowitz ,
Brad Alexander  and
Matthew Gunning
Alan Abramowitz
Affiliation:
Emory University
Brad Alexander
Affiliation:
Emory University
Matthew Gunning
Affiliation:
Emory University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“Here is a telling statistic. One hundred fifty-three of California's congressional and legislative seats were up in the last election, and not one, I repeat, not one, changed parties. What kind of democracy is that?”

Type
FEATURES
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , January 2006 , pp. 87 - 90
Copyright
© 2006 The American Political Science Association

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 I., and Kyle Saunders. 1998. “Ideological Realignment in the U.S. Electorate.” Journal of Politics 60: 634–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan I., Brad Alexander, and Matthew Gunning. 2005. “Governor's Plan to Redraw the Political Map: Don't Blame Redistricting for Uncompetitive Elections.” San Francisco Chronicle, February 10, B-9.Google Scholar
Bishop, Bill. 2004. “The Schism in U.S. Politics Begins at Home.” Austin American-Statesman, April 4.Google Scholar
Black, Earl, and Merle Black. 2004. The Rise of Southern Republicans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Broder, David. 2004. “No Vote Necessary.” Washington Post, November 11, 37.Google Scholar
Christian Science Monitor. 2005. “Redrawing Voting Maps.” Christian Science Monitor, January 12, 8.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Gary King. 1994. “Enhancing Democracy through Legislative Redistricting.” American Political Science Review 88: 541–59.Google Scholar
Gimpel, James G., and Jason E. Schuknecht. 2003. Patchwork Nation: Sectionalism and Political Change in American Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Hines, Cragg. 2005. “Can It Really Be Any Worse Than How Most Do It Now?” Houston Chronicle, January 9, Outlook Section, 3.Google Scholar
Hunter, James Davison. 1995. Before the Shooting Begins: Searching for Democracy in America's Culture Wars. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2000. “ Party Polarization in National Politics: The Electoral Connection.” In Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era, eds. Jon R. Bond and Richard Fleisher. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew S. 2004. “Sorting, Not Polarization: The Changing Nature of Party ID and Ideology in the U.S. Electorate.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Los Angeles Times. 2005. Democrats in Denial. January 7, B-12.Google Scholar
Monmonier, Mark. 2001. Bushmanders and Bullwinkles: How Politicians Manipulate Electronic Maps and Census Data to Win Elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
New York Times. 2004. “Elections with No Meaning.” February 14, A-14.Google Scholar
Newsday. 2005. “Redistricting Reform: Levy's Good Idea is Worth Enacting.” January 19, A-34.Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, Bruce I. 2005. “ Deep Red and Blue Congressional Districts.” In Congress Reconsidered, 8th edition, eds. Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Paulson, Amanda. 2004. “Suburb Shift Turns State Blue.” Christian Science Monitor, July 16, 1.Google Scholar
Stonecash, Jeffrey M., Mark D. Brewer, and Mack D. Mariani. 2003. Diverging Parties: Social Change, Realignment, and Party Polarization. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Washington Post. 2005. “A Model of Reform.” January 19, A-18.Google Scholar