Legal, Political Science, and Economics Approaches to Measuring Malapportionment: The U.S. House, Senate, and Electoral College 1790–2010

Objective We compare and contrast methods for measuring malapportionment from different disciplines: law, political science, and economics. Methods With data from the U.S. House, Senate, and Electoral College (EC) over the period 1790–2010, we compare disproportionality measures and compare both acr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Social science quarterly 2020-10, Vol.101 (6), p.2238-2256
Main Authors: Cervas, Jonathan, Grofman, Bernard
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Apportionment
Elections
Electoral College
Legislatures
Measurement
Political science
Property
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective We compare and contrast methods for measuring malapportionment from different disciplines: law, political science, and economics. Methods With data from the U.S. House, Senate, and Electoral College (EC) over the period 1790–2010, we compare disproportionality measures and compare both across time and between institutions. Results We demonstrate that which approach to measurement we take can dramatically affect some of the conclusions we reach. However, we also demonstrate that the House and the EC are hardly malapportioned, regardless of which measure we use, while the level of malapportionment we observe in the Senate can depend on which measure we use. Conclusion Since there are many axiomatic properties we might wish to satisfy, no one measure is uniformly best with respect to all feasible desiderata. However, one measure, the minimum population needed to win a majority, offers a readily comparable measure across legislatures and jurisdictions, and is easy for nonspecialists to understand.
ISSN:0038-4941
1540-6237
DOI:10.1111/ssqu.12871