May 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Authors' Committee

Chair:

Andy Eggers (Gov)

Members:

Weihua An (Soc)
Kevin Bartz (Stats)
Sebastian Bauhoff (HealthPol)
John Graves (HealthPol)
Justin Grimmer (Gov)
Jens Hainmueller (Gov)
Mike Kellermann (Gov)
Ellie Powell (Gov)
Gary King (Gov)

Weekly Research Workshop Sponsors

Alberto Abadie, Lee Fleming, Adam Glynn, Guido Imbens, Gary King, Kevin Quinn, Jamie Robins, Don Rubin, Chris Winship

Recent Comments

Recent Entries

Categories

Blogroll

Brad DeLong
Cognitive Daily
Complexity & Social Networks
Developing Intelligence
EconLog
The Education Wonks
Empirical Legal Studies
Free Exchange
Freakonomics
Health Care Economist
Junk Charts
Language Log
Law & Econ Prof Blog
Machine Learning (Theory)
Marginal Revolution
Mixing Memory
Mystery Pollster
New Economist
Political Arithmetik
Political Science Methods
Pure Pedantry
Science & Law Blog
Simon Jackman
Social Science++
Statistical modeling, causal inference, and social science

Archives

Notification

Powered by
Movable Type 3.34


« NIPS highlights | Main | Naming Conventions »

11 December 2006

Iowa Redistricting: The Maytag Repairman of States?

From a forthcoming paper on legislative redistricting commissions: Iowa
has used the same scheme for the past three redistricting cycles. A commission draws three maps, and the legislature selects one of those.

The attached seats-votes graphs are for the 2000 and 2004 state house elections, before and after the 2001 cycle. As we can see, responsiveness (the slope of the curve) is high and remains high afterwards, suggesting that the fraction of contested seats is high, and justifying its reputation as a model for redistricting.

iowa.PNG

However, the curve is definitively below 50% at the median vote, meaning that an equal vote will almost always split the seats unevenly. (In this case, the Republican party gains the advantage.) This suggests that redistricting is less effective in this case.

Given Iowa's reputation as a well-run redistricter, one wonders how much it is deserved. It's also fair to wonder what would happen if this system were applied to another state where voting was racially polarized.

Posted by Andrew C. Thomas at December 11, 2006 1:40 PM

Comments

Why are competitive elections good?

Posted by: Tom Brunell at December 13, 2006 10:08 AM

Competitiveness suggests that a change in the opinion of the people is well-reflected in the change in government policy (and hence, government.) What degree of competitiveness is appropriate is another question, and not really a statistical one.

What is clear is that low competitiveness means a smaller probability of change in a democratic situation; you could reasonably argue that anything below 1 (the level for proportional representation) does not reflect the will of the people.

Posted by: Andrew C. Thomas at December 13, 2006 2:26 PM

Notification

Enter e-mail address to receive notification of new comments to this entry

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)