Rejoinder

Authors

  • Joseph A. Aistrup

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.1995.16.0.49-58

Abstract

The commentary of our colleagues is appreciated. Even though this reply will not settle this controversy, it might provide a starting point for others wishing to examine this topic. The article had two major findings. The first is that there was a minimal Democratic bias in contested southern state legislative districts in the 1970s and 1980s. The second is that the Democrats appear to have used the switch from multimember districts (MMDs) to single-member districts (SMDs) to insulate themselves from large vote swings by lowering the swing ratio (responsiveness) of the electoral system. Krassa and Combs make two criticisms of this research: First, the grouping time periods together means the analysis includes the effects of other structural and social events, thus confounding the analysis of changes in the swing ratio and bias. They suggest a need to adopt a similar methodology to King and Gelman (1991), which controls for the structural characteristics in southern state legislative elections. Their second critique is the interpretation of a declining swing ratio protecting incumbents is incorrect. A more desirable situation for Democratic incumbents is to have a high swing ratio because it converts lower vote shares into a higher proportion of Democratically controlled districts. Bullock’s critique notes the findings are not generalizable to the affirmative action gerrymandering associated with the 1990s redistricting process. I begin by addressing the methodological critique of Krassa and Combs. Then I turn to the latter two questions involving the interpretation of our findings.

References

Gelman, Andrew and Gary King. 1994. A Unified Method of Evaluating Electoral Systems and Redistricting Plans. American Journal of Political Science 38:514-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111417

Niemi, Richard G., Simon Jackman, and Laura R. Winsky. 1991. Candidates and Competitiveness in Multimember Districts. Legislative Studies Quarterly 16:91-110. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/439969

Downloads

Published

1995-04-01

Issue

Vol. 16: Spring 1995

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.

  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.

  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:

    1. Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;

    2. Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;

    3. Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

  1. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  2. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.

  3. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.

  1. The Author represents and warrants that:

    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;

    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;

    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;

    4. the Work has not previously been published;

    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and

    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.

  2. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.