Three Practical Tests for Gerrymandering: Application to Maryland and Wisconsin

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW Election Law Journal Pub Date : 2016-12-01 DOI:10.1089/ELJ.2016.0387
W. S.H.
{"title":"Three Practical Tests for Gerrymandering: Application to Maryland and Wisconsin","authors":"W. S.H.","doi":"10.1089/ELJ.2016.0387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Partisan gerrymandering arises when many single-district gerrymanders are combined to obtain an overall advantage. The Supreme Court has held that partisan gerrymandering is recognizable by its asymmetry: for a given distribution of popular votes, if the parties switch places in popular vote, the numbers of seats would change in an unequal fashion. However, the asymmetry standard is only a broad statement of principle, and no analytical method for assessing asymmetry has yet been held to be manageable. Recently I proposed (68 Stanford Law Review 1263) three statistical tests to reliably assess asymmetry in state-level districting schemes: (a) a discrepancy in winning vote margins between the two parties' seats; (b) undue reliable wins for the party in charge of redistricting, as measured by the mean-median difference in vote share, or by an unusually even distribution of votes across districts; and (c) unrepresentative distortion in the number of seats won based on expectations from nationwide di...","PeriodicalId":45644,"journal":{"name":"Election Law Journal","volume":"15 1","pages":"367-384"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/ELJ.2016.0387","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Election Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/ELJ.2016.0387","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

Abstract Partisan gerrymandering arises when many single-district gerrymanders are combined to obtain an overall advantage. The Supreme Court has held that partisan gerrymandering is recognizable by its asymmetry: for a given distribution of popular votes, if the parties switch places in popular vote, the numbers of seats would change in an unequal fashion. However, the asymmetry standard is only a broad statement of principle, and no analytical method for assessing asymmetry has yet been held to be manageable. Recently I proposed (68 Stanford Law Review 1263) three statistical tests to reliably assess asymmetry in state-level districting schemes: (a) a discrepancy in winning vote margins between the two parties' seats; (b) undue reliable wins for the party in charge of redistricting, as measured by the mean-median difference in vote share, or by an unusually even distribution of votes across districts; and (c) unrepresentative distortion in the number of seats won based on expectations from nationwide di...
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不公正划分选区的三个实践测试:马里兰州和威斯康星州的应用
当许多单一选区的不公正划分者联合起来以获得整体优势时,就会出现党派不公正划分。最高法院认为,党派不公正的划分可以通过其不对称性来识别:对于给定的普选选票分配,如果政党在普选中互换位置,席位数量就会以不平等的方式变化。然而,不对称标准只是一个宽泛的原则陈述,目前还没有评估不对称的分析方法被认为是可管理的。最近,我提出了三个统计测试(68 Stanford Law Review 1263),以可靠地评估州一级选区方案的不对称性:(a)两党席位之间获胜票数的差异;(b)负责重新划分选区的政党获得了不合理的可靠的胜利,以选票份额的中位数差异或不同地区的选票分配异常均匀来衡量;(c)根据全国选民的期望赢得的席位数量不具代表性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
13
期刊最新文献
Dropbox Allocation and Use Among Georgia Voters in the 2020 Election Voter Information Search and Ranked Choice Voting Can Election Administration Overcome the Effects of Restrictive State Voting Laws? Assessing Precinct Consolidation Strategies Through Simulation Optimization Does the Framing of Information Regarding Foreign Election Interference Matter? Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Canada
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1