Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T15:49:59.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A More Representative United States House of Representatives?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Joseph F. Zimmerman  and
Wilma Rule
Joseph F. Zimmerman
Affiliation:
SUNY-Albany
Wilma Rule
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The unrepresentativeness of the U.S. House of Representatives–in terms of ethnicity, gender, race, and socioeconomic status—and its nearly closed system for election have generated questions about the legitimacy and authority of the House as an institution which “represents’ citizens and whether the membership of the House should reflect the citizenry at-large. The articles collected for this symposium offer answers to some of these questions.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 31 , Issue 1: 30th Anniversary Issue , March 1998 , pp. 5 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1998

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

Abramson, Jill, and Greenhouse, Steven. 1997. “Labor's Victory on ‘Fast Track’ Shows Power.” The New York Times, November 12, A1.Google Scholar
Baker, Gordon E. 1986. “Whatever Happened to the Reapportionment Revolution in the United States?” In Electoral Laws and their Political Consequences, ed. Grofman, Bernard and Lijphart, Arend. New York, N.Y.: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
Bullock, Charles S. III 1995. “Winners and Losers in the Latest Round of Redistricting,” Emory Law Journal 44(3): 943–77.Google Scholar
Bush v. Vera. 1996. 116 S.Q. 1941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caress, Stanley M. 1996. “The Impact of Term Limits on Legislative Behavior: An Examination of a Transitional Legislatures.” PS: Political Science and Politics 29(4): 671–76.Google Scholar
Center for the American Woman and Politics. 1997. Women in Elective Office 1997. Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University. Fact Sheet.Google Scholar
Center for Voting and Democracy. 1997. Monopoly Politics. Washington, DC: Center for Voting and Democracy.Google Scholar
Cottle, Michelle. 1997. “Where are the Good Guys When We Need Them?” The Washington Monthly 29(September): 20–25.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1996. “Equality vs. Inequality.” PS: Political Science and Politics 29(4): 639–48.Google Scholar
Darcy, Robert, Hadley, Charles D., and Kirksey, Jason. 1993. “Election Systems and the Representation of Black Women in American State Legislatures.” Women and Politics 13(2): 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darcy, Robert, Welch, Susan, and Clark, Janet. 1994. Women, Elections, and Representation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Dobson, Debra L. 1996. “Whatever Happened to the Year of the Woman?” Public Perspective 7(5): 5–7, 32–33.Google Scholar
Federal Election Commission. 1997. PAC Activity Increases in 1995–96 Election Cycle. April 22. Press Release.Google Scholar
Franklin, Mark N. 1996. “Electoral Participation.” In Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective, ed. LeDuc, Lawrence, Niemi, Richard, and Norris, Pippa. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Gaddie, Ronald K. 1997. “Research Note: Congressional Seat Swings: Revisiting Exposure in House Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 50(September): 699–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, Handley, Lisa, and Niemi, Richard G.. 1992. Minority Representation and the Quest for Voting Equality. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hershey, Marjorie R. 1997. “The Congressional Elections.” In The Elections of 1996: Reports and Interpretations, ed. Pomper, Gerald M. et al. , Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Inter-Parliamentary Union. 1997. Democracy Still in the Making. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union.Google Scholar
Katz, Richard S. 1986. “Intraparty Preference Voting.” In Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences, ed. Grofman, Bernard and Lijphart, Arend. New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
Lakeman, Enid. 1991. Twelve Democracies. London: McDougall Fund.Google Scholar
Madison, James. 1961. The Federalist Papers, No. 10. In The Federalist Papers, ed. Rossiter, Clinton. New York: New American Library.Google Scholar
Matland, Richard, and Studlar, Donley T. 1996. “The Contagion of Women Candidates in Single Member and Multimember District Systems: Canada and Norway.” Journal of Politics 58(3): 707–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Most Doubt a Resolve to Change Campaign Financing, Poll Finds.” 1997. The New York Times, April 8, A1, A10.Google Scholar
Nagel, Jack. 1996. “Constitutional Reform and Social Difference in New Zealand.” Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 4(2): 373–94.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 1985. “Women's Legislative Participation in Western Europe.” Western European Politics (October): 90–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 1996. “Political Recruitment.” In Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa, and Lovenduski, Joni. 1995. Political Recruitment: Gender, Race and Class in the British Parliament. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
“Results of the U.S. House, District by District.” 1996. The New York Times, November 7, B8–9.Google Scholar
Reynolds, Andrew, and Reilly, Ben et al. , 1997. The International IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design. 2nd ed. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.Google Scholar
Rule, Wilma. 1987. “Electoral Systems, Contextual Factors and Women's Opportunity for Election to Parliament in Twenty-Three Democracies.” Western Political Quarterly 40:477–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rule, Wilma. 1994. “Women's Underrepresentation and Electoral Systems.” PS: Political Science and Politics 27(4): 689–92.Google Scholar
Rule, Wilma, and Norris, Pippa. 1992. “Anglo and Minority Women's Underrepresentation in Congress: Is the Electoral System the Culprit?” In United States Electoral Systems: Their Impact on Women and Minorities, ed. Rule, Wilma and Zimmerman, Joseph F. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Rule, Wilma, and Zimmerman, Joseph F., eds. 1994. Electoral Systems in Comparative Perspective: Their Impact on Women and Minorities. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Shugart, Matthew S., and Carey, John M. 1992. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Election Dynamics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Still, Edward. 1992. “Cumulative Voting and Limited Voting in Alabama.” In United States Electoral Systems: Their Impact on Women and Minorities. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Taagepera, Rein. 1994. “Beating the Law of Minority Attrition.” In Electoral Systems in Comparative Perspective: Their Impact on Women and Minorities, ed. Rule, Wilma and Zimmerman, Joseph F. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1996. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Van Natta, Don Jr. 1997. “$2 Million Diverted by Party to Candidates, Records Say.” The New York Times, September 10, A1, A19.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Joseph F. 1992 “Fair Representation for Minorities and Women?” In United States Electoral Systems: Their Impact on Women and Minorities, ed. Rule, Wilma and Zimmerman, Joseph F. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Joseph F. 1994. “The Underrepresentation of Women and Minorities in the United States.” In Electoral Systems in Comparative Perspective: Their Impact on Women and Minorities, ed. Rule, Wilma and Zimmerman, Joseph F. Westport, CT: Greenwood Prss.Google Scholar