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!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3341-60787357dca42b0b32a8ab2fb73ce72fdcfdbcfdb37d82590696fb13ec12bf353
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3341-60787357dca42b0b32a8ab2fb73ce72fdcfdbcfdb37d82590696fb13ec12bf353
container_end_page 2256
container_issue 6
container_start_page 2238
container_title Social science quarterly
container_volume 101
creator Cervas, Jonathan
Grofman, Bernard
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/ssqu.12871
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2455180418</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2455180418</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3341-60787357dca42b0b32a8ab2fb73ce72fdcfdbcfdb37d82590696fb13ec12bf353</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1OwkAUhSdGExHd-ASTuDMU569McUcIiglETWHdTKe3UDJ0ykwbw869S9_QJ7GIbr3Jzd1895ycg9A1JX3azp33u6ZPWSTpCerQUJBgwLg8RR1CeBSIoaDn6ML7DSFEMBF10McMVsr08Is1RV1oZXCsCyg19LAqMzzRtrTbQns8qipnlV6Dx7XFc1C-cUW5wnNlVFVZVxe23EJZ3-PFGvCyH_fx1Da-1YmhVPWfngFdW9fajK0xsAJM5ZB8vX8yQsklOsuV8XD1e7to-TBZjKfB7PnxaTyaBZpzQYMBkZHkocy0EiwlKWcqUinLU8k1SJZnOs_Sw3KZRSwcksFwkKeUg6YszXnIu-jmqNsm2jXg62RjG1e2lgkTYUgjImjUUrdHSjvrvYM8qVyxVW6fUJIcyk4OZSc_ZbcwPcJvhYH9P2QSx6_L4883T9yCVQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2455180418</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Legal, Political Science, and Economics Approaches to Measuring Malapportionment: The U.S. House, Senate, and Electoral College 1790–2010</title><source>EconLit s plnými texty</source><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate</source><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read &amp; Publish Collection</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Cervas, Jonathan ; Grofman, Bernard</creator><creatorcontrib>Cervas, Jonathan ; Grofman, Bernard</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0038-4941</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1540-6237</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12871</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Apportionment ; Elections ; Electoral College ; Legislatures ; Measurement ; Political science ; Property</subject><ispartof>Social science quarterly, 2020-10, Vol.101 (6), p.2238-2256</ispartof><rights>2020 by the Southwestern Social Science Association</rights><rights>2020 Southwestern Social Science Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3341-60787357dca42b0b32a8ab2fb73ce72fdcfdbcfdb37d82590696fb13ec12bf353</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3341-60787357dca42b0b32a8ab2fb73ce72fdcfdbcfdb37d82590696fb13ec12bf353</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9686-6308 ; 0000-0002-2801-3351</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,33202,33753</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cervas, Jonathan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grofman, Bernard</creatorcontrib><title>Legal, Political Science, and Economics Approaches to Measuring Malapportionment: The U.S. House, Senate, and Electoral College 1790–2010</title><title>Social science quarterly</title><description>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.</description><subject>Apportionment</subject><subject>Elections</subject><subject>Electoral College</subject><subject>Legislatures</subject><subject>Measurement</subject><subject>Political science</subject><subject>Property</subject><issn>0038-4941</issn><issn>1540-6237</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM1OwkAUhSdGExHd-ASTuDMU569McUcIiglETWHdTKe3UDJ0ykwbw869S9_QJ7GIbr3Jzd1895ycg9A1JX3azp33u6ZPWSTpCerQUJBgwLg8RR1CeBSIoaDn6ML7DSFEMBF10McMVsr08Is1RV1oZXCsCyg19LAqMzzRtrTbQns8qipnlV6Dx7XFc1C-cUW5wnNlVFVZVxe23EJZ3-PFGvCyH_fx1Da-1YmhVPWfngFdW9fajK0xsAJM5ZB8vX8yQsklOsuV8XD1e7to-TBZjKfB7PnxaTyaBZpzQYMBkZHkocy0EiwlKWcqUinLU8k1SJZnOs_Sw3KZRSwcksFwkKeUg6YszXnIu-jmqNsm2jXg62RjG1e2lgkTYUgjImjUUrdHSjvrvYM8qVyxVW6fUJIcyk4OZSc_ZbcwPcJvhYH9P2QSx6_L4883T9yCVQ</recordid><startdate>202010</startdate><enddate>202010</enddate><creator>Cervas, Jonathan</creator><creator>Grofman, Bernard</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>WZK</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9686-6308</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2801-3351</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202010</creationdate><title>Legal, Political Science, and Economics Approaches to Measuring Malapportionment: The U.S. House, Senate, and Electoral College 1790–2010</title><author>Cervas, Jonathan ; Grofman, Bernard</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3341-60787357dca42b0b32a8ab2fb73ce72fdcfdbcfdb37d82590696fb13ec12bf353</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Apportionment</topic><topic>Elections</topic><topic>Electoral College</topic><topic>Legislatures</topic><topic>Measurement</topic><topic>Political science</topic><topic>Property</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cervas, Jonathan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grofman, Bernard</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Social science quarterly</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cervas, Jonathan</au><au>Grofman, Bernard</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Legal, Political Science, and Economics Approaches to Measuring Malapportionment: The U.S. House, Senate, and Electoral College 1790–2010</atitle><jtitle>Social science quarterly</jtitle><date>2020-10</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>101</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>2238</spage><epage>2256</epage><pages>2238-2256</pages><issn>0038-4941</issn><eissn>1540-6237</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/ssqu.12871</doi><tpages>19</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9686-6308</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2801-3351</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0038-4941
ispartof Social science quarterly, 2020-10, Vol.101 (6), p.2238-2256
issn 0038-4941
1540-6237
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2455180418
source EconLit s plnými texty; EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate; International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Sociological Abstracts
subjects Apportionment
Elections
Electoral College
Legislatures
Measurement
Political science
Property
title Legal, Political Science, and Economics Approaches to Measuring Malapportionment: The U.S. House, Senate, and Electoral College 1790–2010
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T21%3A47%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Legal,%20Political%20Science,%20and%20Economics%20Approaches%20to%20Measuring%20Malapportionment:%20The%20U.S.%20House,%20Senate,%20and%20Electoral%20College%201790%E2%80%932010&rft.jtitle=Social%20science%20quarterly&rft.au=Cervas,%20Jonathan&rft.date=2020-10&rft.volume=101&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=2238&rft.epage=2256&rft.pages=2238-2256&rft.issn=0038-4941&rft.eissn=1540-6237&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/ssqu.12871&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2455180418%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3341-60787357dca42b0b32a8ab2fb73ce72fdcfdbcfdb37d82590696fb13ec12bf353%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2455180418&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true