Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:03:25.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reply to Dr. Arrington

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2008

Jonathan D. Kastellec ,
Andrew Gelman  and
Jaime P. Chandler
Jonathan D. Kastellec
Affiliation:
Columbia University
Andrew Gelman
Affiliation:
Columbia University
Jaime P. Chandler
Affiliation:
City University of New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We thank Dr. Arrington for his kind words about our article. In this letter we respond to his two main criticisms: that our use of the term bias in describing the situation facing the Democratic Party in 2006 is misleading and that using total vote to assess the results of the election is preferable to using average district vote, as we did in the article.

Type
Forum
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 474
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 2008

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

Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1990. “Estimating Incumbency Advantage Without Bias.” American Journal of Political Science. 34 (4): 1,142–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1994. “A Unified Method of Evaluating Electoral Systems and Redistricting Plans.” American Journal of Political Science 38 (2): 514–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar