American Disproportionality: A Historical Analysis of Partisan Bias in Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives

Abstract

In this article, I introduce a new index for measuring partisan bias called the Directional Proportionality Index (DPIx) and apply it to elections to the House of Representatives since 1900. Derived from the Loosemore-Hanby index, the novelty of DPIx lies in the fact that it synthesizes a proportionality index with a measure of partisan symmetry. I then apply this index to House elections from 1900 to 2016 at the national level as well as in several states, and I also tested it against hypothetical circumstances in which the negative effects of gerrymandering are completely eliminated. The results demonstrate that while gerrymandering is currently producing a pro-Republican bias, this asymmetrical disproportionality has regularly existed in House elections over the past century and was often much more severe. The evidence suggests that short of substantial electoral reform, asymmetrical disproportionality is likely to remain a fundamental characteristic of American electoral politics.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amy

Douglas J.

1997. Full Representation: The Case for a Better Election System. Northampton: Crescent Street Press.

Amy

Douglas J.

2002. Real Choices/New Voices: How Proportional Representation Elections Could Revitalize American Democracy. New York: Columbia University Press.

Baker v. Carr. 1962. 369 U.S. 186.

Barber

Kathleen L.

2001. A Right to Representation: Proportional Election Systems for the Twenty-First Century. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

Benoit

Kenneth

. 2004. “Models of Electoral System Change.” Electoral Studies, 23: 363–89.

Downs

Anthony

. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.

Dubin

Michael J.

1998. United States Congressional Elections, 1788–1997. Jefferson: McFarland.

Duverger

Maurice

. 1954. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. Translated by Barbara and Robert North. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Epstein

Leon D.

1967. Political Parties in Western Democracies. New York: Praeger.

10.

Farrell

David M.

2011. Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction. 2nd. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

11.

Gallagher

Michael

. 1991. “Proportionality, Disproportionality and Electoral Systems.” Electoral Studies, 10(1): 33–51.

12.

Gallagher

Michael

, and Paul

Mitchell

. 2005. “Introduction to Electoral Systems.” In The Politics of Electoral Systems, by Gallagher

Michael

and Mitchell

Paul

, 3–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

13.

Gelman

Andrew

, and Gary

King

. 1990. “Estimating Incumbency Advantage Without Bias.” American Journal of Political Science, 34(4): 1142–64.

14.

Gelman

Andrew

, and Gary

King

. 1994. “A Unified Method of Evaluating Electoral Systems and Redistricting Plans.” American Journal of Political Science, 38(2): 514–54.

15.

Grofman

Bernard

, and Gary

King

. 2007. “The Future of Partisan Symmetry as a Judicial Test for Partisan Gerrymandering after LULAC v. Perry.”. Election Law Journal, 6(1): 2–35.

16.

Grofman

Bernard

, and Feld

Scott L.

2004. “If You Like the Alternative Vote (a.k.a. the Instant Runoff), Then You Ought to Know about the Coombs Rule.” Electoral Studies, 23: 641–59.

17.

Katz

Richard S.

1980. A Theory of Parties and Electoral Systems. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

18.

Lijphart

Arend

. 1994. Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945–1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

19.

Loosemore

John

, and Hanby

Victor J.

1971. “The Theoretical Limits of Maximum Distortion: Some Analytic Expressions for Electoral Systems.” British Journal of Political Science, 1(4): 467–77.

20.

Monroe

Burt L.

1994. “Disproportionality and Malapportionment: Measuring Electoral Inequality.” Electoral Studies, 13(2): 132–49.

21.

Nohlen

Dieter

. 1984. “Changes and Choices in Electoral Systems.” In Choosing an Electoral System: Issues and Alternatives, by Lijphart

Arend

and Grofman

Bernard

. New York: Praeger.

22.

Renwick

Alan

. 2010. The Politics of Electoral Reform: Changing the Rules of Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

23.

Reynolds v. Sims. 1964. 377 U.S. 533.

24.

Rosenstone

Steven J.

, Behr

Roy L.

, and Edward H

Lazarus

. 1984. Third Parties in America: Citizen Response to Major Party Failure. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

25.

Seabrook

Nicholas R.

2017. Drawing the Lines: Constraints on Partisan Gerrymandering in U.S. Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

26.

Shugart

Matthew S.

2001. “‘Extreme’ Electoral Systems and the Appeal of the Mixed-Member Alternative.” In Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: the Best of Both Worlds?, by Shugart

Matthew S.

and Wattenberg

Martin P.

, 25–54. New York: Oxford University Press.

27.

Stephanopoulos

Nicholas O.

, and McGhee

Eric M.

2015. “Partisan Gerrymandering and the Efficiency Gap.” University of Chicago Law Review, 82(2): 831–900.

28.

Tamas

Bernard

. 2006. “A Divided Political Elite: Why Congress Banned Multimember Districts in 1842.” New Political Science, 28: 23–44.

29.

Tamas

Bernard

. 2018. The Demise and Rebirth of American Third Parties: Poised for Political Revival?. New York: Routledge.