| 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 |
« NIPS highlights | Main | Naming Conventions »
11 December 2006
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.
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
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