IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/boc/bocoec/922.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Partisan and Bipartisan Gerrymandering

Author

Listed:
  • Hideo Konishi

    (Boston College)

  • Chen-Yu Pan

    (Wuhan University)

Abstract

This paper analyzes the optimal partisan and bipartisan gerrymandering policies in a model with electoral competitions in policy positions and transfer promises. With complete freedom in redistricting, partisan gerrymandering policy generates the most one-sidedly biased district profile, while bipartisan gerrymandering generates the most polarized district profile. In contrast, with limited freedom in gerrymandering, both partisan and bipartisan gerrymandering tend to prescribe the same policy. Friedman and Holden (2009) find no significant empirical difference between bipartisan and partisan gerrymandering in explaining incumbent reelection rates. Our result suggests that gerrymanderers may not be as free in redistricting as popularly thought.

Suggested Citation

  • Hideo Konishi & Chen-Yu Pan, 2016. "Partisan and Bipartisan Gerrymandering," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 922, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 04 Aug 2018.
    • Handle: RePEc:boc:bocoec:922
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://fmwww.bc.edu/EC-P/wp922.pdf
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin J. Osborne, 1995. "Spatial Models of Political Competition under Plurality Rule: A Survey of Some Explanations of the Number of Candidates and the Positions They Take," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 28(2), pages 261-301, May.
    2. Faruk Gul & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2010. "Strategic Redistricting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1616-1641, September.
    3. Puppe, Clemens & Tasnádi, Attila, 2009. "Optimal redistricting under geographical constraints: Why "pack and crack" does not work," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 93-96, October.
    4. Wittman, Donald, 1983. "Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 77(1), pages 142-157, March.
    5. Assar Lindbeck & Jörgen Weibull, 1987. "Balanced-budget redistribution as the outcome of political competition," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 273-297, January.
    6. Stephen Coate & Brian Knight, 2007. "Socially Optimal Districting: A Theoretical and Empirical Exploration," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(4), pages 1409-1471.
    7. Avinash Dixit & John Londregan, 1998. "Ideology, Tactics, and Efficiency in Redistributive Politics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(2), pages 497-529.
    8. Timothy Besley & Ian Preston, 2007. "Electoral Bias and Policy Choice: Theory and Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(4), pages 1473-1510.
    9. Krasa, Stefan & Polborn, Mattias K., 2018. "Political Competition in Legislative Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(4), pages 809-825, November.
    10. Eddie Dekel & Matthew O. Jackson & Asher Wolinsky, 2008. "Vote Buying: General Elections," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 116(2), pages 351-380, April.
    11. Cain, Bruce E., 1985. "Assessing the Partisan Effects of Redistricting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 79(2), pages 320-333, June.
    12. Ferejohn, John A., 1977. "On the Decline of Competition in Congressional Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 71(1), pages 166-176, March.
    13. Corbett A. Grainger, 2010. "Redistricting and Polarization: Who Draws the Lines in California?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(3), pages 545-567.
    14. Chambers, Christopher P & Miller, Alan D & Sobel, Joel, 2022. "Flaws in the Efficiency Gap," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt84z9c57w, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    15. Bracco, Emanuele, 2013. "Optimal districting with endogenous party platforms," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 1-13.
    16. John N. Friedman & Richard T. Holden, 2008. "Optimal Gerrymandering: Sometimes Pack, but Never Crack," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 113-144, March.
    17. Nolan McCarty & Keith T. Poole & Howard Rosenthal, 2009. "Does Gerrymandering Cause Polarization?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(3), pages 666-680, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. SunAh An & Michael Anderson & Cary Deck, 2023. "Gerrymandering in the laboratory," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 90(1), pages 182-213, July.
    2. Andrei Gomberg & Romans Pancs & Tridib Sharma, 2024. "Padding and pruning: gerrymandering under turnout heterogeneity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 63(2), pages 401-415, September.
    3. Friedrich L. Sell & Jürgen Stiefl, 2021. "Missing the Popular Vote: Pitfalls in US Democracy and Reform Proposals," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 56(4), pages 237-242, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kai Hao Yang & Alexander K. Zentefis, 2022. "Gerrymandering and the Limits of Representative Democracy," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2328, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    2. Anton Kolotilin & Alexander Wolitzky, 2020. "The Economics of Partisan Gerrymandering," Discussion Papers 2020-12, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    3. Andrei Gomberg & Romans Pancs & Tridib Sharma, 2023. "Electoral Maldistricting," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 64(3), pages 1223-1264, August.
    4. Bracco, Emanuele, 2013. "Optimal districting with endogenous party platforms," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 1-13.
    5. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    6. John N. Friedman & Richard Holden, 2020. "Optimal Gerrymandering in a competitive environment," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 8(2), pages 347-367, October.
    7. Justin Svec & James Hamilton, 2015. "Endogenous voting weights for elected representatives and redistricting," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 434-441, December.
    8. Andrei Gomberg & Romans Pancs & Tridib Sharma, 2024. "Padding and pruning: gerrymandering under turnout heterogeneity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 63(2), pages 401-415, September.
    9. Clemens Puppe & Attila Tasnádi, 2015. "Axiomatic districting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(1), pages 31-50, January.
    10. repec:lan:wpaper:1932 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Tim Willems, 2014. "You Can Go Your Own Way: Explaining Partisan Support for Independence," Economics Series Working Papers 717, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    12. Artés, Joaquín & Richter, Brian Kelleher & Timmons, Jeffrey F., 2019. "The Value of Political Geography: Evidence from the Redistricting of Firms," Working Papers 291, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    13. SunAh An & Michael Anderson & Cary Deck, 2023. "Gerrymandering in the laboratory," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 90(1), pages 182-213, July.
    14. repec:lan:wpaper:1815 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. repec:lan:wpaper:1711 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Galasso, Vincenzo & Nannicini, Tommaso, 2011. "Competing on Good Politicians," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(1), pages 79-99, February.
    17. Francesco De Sinopoli & Leo Ferraris & Giovanna Iannantuoni, 2013. "Electing a parliament," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(3), pages 715-737, March.
    18. Krasa, Stefan & Polborn, Mattias, 2010. "Competition between Specialized Candidates," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(4), pages 745-765, November.
    19. Kai Hao Yang & Alexander K. Zentefis, 2023. "Extreme Points of First-Order Stochastic Dominance Intervals: Theory and Applications," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2355, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    20. Pei Li & Yi Lu & Tuan-Heww Sng, 2017. "Artificial Administrative Boundaries: Evidence from China," CEH Discussion Papers 09, Centre for Economic History, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    21. Caplan, Bryan, 2001. "When is two better than one? How federalism mitigates and intensifies imperfect political competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 99-119, April.
    22. Bierbrauer, Felix & Polborn, Mattias, 2020. "Competitive Gerrymandering and the Popular Vote," CEPR Discussion Papers 15401, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    23. Bryan Caplan, 2001. "Has Leviathan Been Bound? A Theory of Imperfectly Constrained Government with Evidence from the States," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 67(4), pages 825-847, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    electoral competition; partisan gerrymandering; bipartisan gerrymandering; policy convergence/divergence; pork-barrel politics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:boc:bocoec:922. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/debocus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.