Suchergebnisse

This study explores the relationship between seats and votes and the value of this relationship in evaluating districting plans of the lower houses of 15 state legislatures. Partisan bias, the difference between the seats won by the Democratic and Republican parties when they are projected to have the same percentage of the vote, is calculated for each state for the 1982 and 1984 elections. For partisan bias to be useful in evaluating districting plans, it must be stable enough from one election to the next to predict the share of the seats a party will get at the next election given x percentage of the vote. Predictions for 1984 are made for each state by using projection analysis; unfortunately, many of the predictions are not accurate. This calls into question the use of the seats/votes relationship to evaluate districting plans.

Does redistricting affect the election success of incumbents? Does it affect the electoral fortunes of political parties? These questions are examined in five states that used different redistricting processes in 1991-1992 and in two states where the redistricting process changed from 1981-1982 to 1991-1992. In states where redistricting was highly partisan, parties controlling the process gained politically. In states where redistricting was bipartisan, that is, both parties were involved, neither party gained an advantage. Likewise, where redistricting was nonpartisan, that is, parties were excluded from the process, neither party gained an advantage and the outcome was least hospitable to incumbents.