• English
    • Norsk
  • English 
    • English
    • Norsk
  • Administration
View Item 
  •   Home
  • Det humanistiske fakultet
  • Institutt for litteratur, områdestudier og europeiske språk
  • Nord-Amerikakunnskap
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • Det humanistiske fakultet
  • Institutt for litteratur, områdestudier og europeiske språk
  • Nord-Amerikakunnskap
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Does method matter in congressional redistricting? Can U. S. House election results to a significant degree be predicted by the states choice of redistricting method?

Brunvoll, Atle
Master thesis
View/Open
Brunvoll_NORAM_20150316.pdf (2.718Mb)
Year
2015
Permanent link
http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-49221

Metadata
Show metadata
Appears in the following Collection
  • Nord-Amerikakunnskap [110]
Abstract
In most states, the decennial redistricting is done through a legislative process. This means that lawmakers decide on how electoral districts are formed. This also means that the lawmakers get to choose or reject their electors, which is not compatible with several definitions of democracy. In some states reforms are implemented either through ballot initiatives or court actions. Scholars have demonstrated that removing the control of this redistricting process from the lawmakers will increase electoral competition. There are, however, those who argue — before the U. S. Supreme Court — that such instances of direct democracy is against the intents of the Founding Fathers and thereby unconstitutional. This thesis explores the origins and development of partisan redistricting, the undemocratic aspects of it, and whether such an increase in electoral competition is traceable in the 2012 election to the U. S. House of Representatives. It shows that there is a very small difference between reelection rates in legislature-drawn districts and in districts drawn by commissions. An argument is made, that revising the redistricting process is a matter of political culture more than of constitutional law, and that the strongest arguments for a revision of state redistricting procedures are normative — not numerical. The analysis of election results in states with different redistricting procedures indicates that there is not any statistically significant difference in incumbent reelection rates, but that the dataset is too small to lend serious weight to any side of the argument.
 
Responsible for this website 
University of Oslo Library


Contact Us 
duo-hjelp@ub.uio.no


Privacy policy
 

 

For students / employeesSubmit master thesisAccess to restricted material

Browse

All of DUOCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitles

For library staff

Login
RSS Feeds
 
Responsible for this website 
University of Oslo Library


Contact Us 
duo-hjelp@ub.uio.no


Privacy policy