Unformatted text preview:

Regulating Elections:DistrictsMajor ways that congressional elections are regulatedAn aside about the states:Run-off vs. plurality ruleDistrictingApportionment methodsMethod of equal proportionsPriority values after 2000Reapportionment Change in 2000Reapportionment Court ChallengesDistricting principlesCompactnessCompactness in the real world: NebraskaCompactness in the real worldCompactness in the real world: FloridaContiguityContiguity in the real world: NCAn aside: “Machine politics” in The American ScientistContiguity in Mass. 6th CDEqual populationEquality in 2000Respect for existing political communitiesPartisan FairnessPartisan FairnessSwing ratioWhy the swing ratio is rarely 1Empirical swing ratio(with data from 2000)Racial fairnessSome Court CasesSome other court casesVRA CasesA Word about MassachusettsRegulating Elections:Districts17.251Fall 2002Major ways that congressional elections are regulated• The Constitution– Basic stuff (age, apportionment, states given lots of autonomy)– Federalism key• Districting• Campaign financeAn aside about the states:Run-off vs. plurality rule• Brazilian election example• The South• Interest in “instant runoff”Districting• Apportionment– Method of equal proportions• Required in House races since 1820s• Effects– Possible “malapportionment”– ResponsivenessApportionment methods• 1790 to 1830--The "Jefferson method" of greatest divisors – Fixed “ratio of representation” with rejected fractional remainders– Size of House can vary• 1840--The "Webster method" of major fractions – Fixed “ratio of representation” with retained major fractional remainders– Size of House can vary• 1850-1900--The "Vinton" or "Hamilton" method – Predetermined # of reps– Seats for state = Population of State/(Population of US/N of Seats)– Remaining seats assigned one at a time according to “largest remainder”– “Alabama paradox” • 1940-2000--The method of equal proportionsMethod of equal proportions• “Results in a listing of the states according to a priority value--calculated by dividing the population of each state by the geometric mean of its current and next seats—that assigns seats 51 through 435.”• Practically: This method assigns seats in the House of Representatives according to a ‘priority’ value. The priority value is determined by multiplying the population of a state by a ‘multiplier.’ For example, following the 1990 census, each of the 50 states was given one seat out of the current total of 435. The next, or 51st seat, went to the state with the highest priority value and thus became that state's second seat. Source: http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/apportionment.htmlPriority values after 2000Seat # State State seat Priority #51 CA 2 2399269752 TX 2 1478135653 CA 3 1385219054 NY 2 1343854555 FL 2 11334137...431 IA 5 655598432 FL 25 654377433 OH 18 650239434 CA 53 646330435 NC 13 645931436 UT 4 645684437 NY 30 644329438 TX 33 643276439 MI 16 642646440 IN 10 642025Reapportionment Change in 2000Reapportionment Court Challenges• Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999)– The Census Bureau can’t sample• Utah v. Evans– Imputation challenged– Mormon missionaries miscountedDistricting principles• Compactness and contiguity• Equal population• Respect existing political communities• Partisan (or other) fairnessCompactness• General idea: min(border/area)GoodBadCompactness in the real world: NebraskaCompactness in the real worldCompactness in the real world: FloridaContiguity• General idea: keep the district togetherBadGoodContiguity in the real world: NCAn aside: “Machine politics” in The American ScientistCake-cutting algorithmGreedy algorithmhttp://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/Issues/Comsci96/compsci96-11.htmlSimulated annealingContiguity in Mass. 6thCDEqual population• Implied by having districts• Bad: Many states before 1960s– Illinois in 1940s (112k-914k)– Georgia in 1960s (272k-824k)• Good: equality?Equality in 2000Ideal District SizePercent Overall RangeOverall Range (# of people)Ideal District SizePercent Overall RangeOverall Range (# of people)Alabama 636,300 0.00% - Montana N/A N/A N/AAlaska N/A N/A N/A Nebraska 570,421 0.00% 0Arizona 641,329 0.00% 0 Nevada 666,086 0.00% 6Arkansas 668,350 0.04% 303 New Hampshire 617,893 0.10% 636California 639,088 0.00% 1 New Jersey 647,257 0.00% 1Colorado 614,465 0.00% 2 New Mexico 606,349 0.03% 166Connecticut 681,113 0.00% 0 New York 654,360 0.00% 1Delaware N/A N/A N/A North Carolina 619,178 0.00% 1Florida 639,295 0.00% 1 North Dakota N/A N/A N/AGeorgia 629,727 0.01% 72 Ohio 630,730 - -Hawaii 582,234 - - Oklahoma 690,131 - -Idaho 646,977 0.60% 3,595 Oregon 684,280 0.00% 1Illinois 653,647 0.00% 11 Pennsylvania 646,371 0.00% 19Indiana 675,609 0.02% 102 Rhode Island 524,160 0.00% 6Iowa 585,265 0.02% 134 South Carolina 668,669 0.00% 2Kansas 672,105 0.00% 33 South Dakota N/A N/A N/AKentucky 673,628 0.00% 2 Tennessee 632,143 0.00% 5Louisiana 638,425 0.04% 240 Texas 651,619 0.00% 1Maine 637,462 - - Utah 744,390 0.00% 1Maryland 662,061 0.00% 2 Vermont N/A N/A N/AMassachusetts 634,910 0.39% - Virginia 643,501 0.00% 38Michigan 662,563 0.00% 1 Washington 654,902 0.00% 7Minnesota 614,935 0.00% 1 West Virginia 602,781 - -Mississippi 711,165 0.00% 10 Wisconsin 670,459 0.00% 5Missouri 621,690 0.00% 1 Wyoming N/A N/A N/ASource: National Conf. of State Leg.Respect for existing political communities• Iowa• Politicians like it• May be better for citizens• Getting more difficult with computer drafting of districts and (nearly) equal populationsPartisan Fairness• Results should be symmetrical• Results should be unbiasedSeatsSeats50%50%60%Votes Votes50%Partisan Fairness• What is the right responsiveness?50%Votes50%Swing ratio• Measure


View Full Document

MIT 17 251 - Regulating Elections

Download Regulating Elections
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Regulating Elections and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Regulating Elections 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?