write 5 pages. DO NOT USE ANY OTHER RESOURCE BESIDE THE READINGS

I have a paper 5 pages due in 30 hours. Can you do that for 30 dollars! If I get an A, I will pay more 15 dollars that will be 40 dollars total What are the strengths and weaknesses of the single-member district (SMD) system for electing representatives (state and national) in the United States? Your answer to this question should address why the United States uses SMD elections and the prospects for adoption of alternative election methods. What are the major alternatives to SMD elections in the United States? Do you think these will remedy some of the perceived deficiencies of the SMD method? What deficiencies do these methods present that should be weighed against those inherent in the SMD system? On balance, do you think there is any reasonable possibility that the United States will abandon the SMD system?Katz-Democracy_and_Elections.pdfballot (and voter) exhaustion under IRV.pdfBibby & Schaffner 2008, Politics, Parties, and Elections in America.pdfhttps://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-05-02-0012-0011 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.Ellis 2002, Democratic Delusions.pdfKing, forthcoming.pdfKatz-Democracy_and_Elections.pdfBurnham_Elections_and_Democratic_Institutions.pdfArgersinger 1992, Structure, Process, and Party.pdfGuinier 1994, The Tyranny of the Majority.pdfSchwartz 1988, The Blue Guitar.pdfDow 2017, Electing the House.pdfBibby & Schaffner 2008, Politics, Parties, and Elections in America.pdfballot (and voter) exhaustion under IRV.pdfhttps://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-05-02-0012-0011 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.Ellis 2002, Democratic Delusions.pdfSelections from Douglass Amy–Real Choices & New Voices, Chapters 1, 8, & 9.pdfthese are the readings, some of them are not relate to the topic but I just wanted to send them maybe help you
dow_2017__electing_the_house.pdf

king__forthcoming.pdf

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
write 5 pages. DO NOT USE ANY OTHER RESOURCE BESIDE THE READINGS
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

schwartz_1988__the_blue_guitar.pdf

selections_from_douglass_amy__real_choices___new_voices__chapters_1__8____9.pdf

king__forthcoming.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

r e di st r i c t i ng a nd r e pr e se n tat i o n
Gary King
Gary King is Director of the Institute for Quantitative Social Science and the Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard University. He was elected a Fellow of the American
Academy in 1998.
I
n 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court declared
political gerrymandering justiciable, which
means that a plaintiff can ask the courts to
throw out a legislative redistricting plan if the
plan treats one of the parties unfairly. Since
then, however, political gerrymandering has
never been justished (ok, thatâ??s my word!),
meaning that no plan has ever in fact been
thrown out, nor has the Court established the
standard that redistricting plans must meet.
So that was 1986. What was happening in
1987? Well, the most important thing going
on then, from my point of view, was that I
really wanted a job. The university down the
road gave me an interview and the chance
to give a job talk.1 I discussed an article that
was to be published that year in the American Political Science Review with my graduate
1. Thanks to the members of the search committee: Jim Alt, Mo Fiorina, and Bob Putnam!
school buddy Robert Browning.2 In that article, we proposed a mathematical standard
for partisan fairness and a statistical method to determine whether a redistricting plan
meets that standard. We called the standard
partisan symmetry.
As it has turned out, I am proud to say
that since our article and my job talk, virtually all academics writing about the subject have adopted partisan symmetry as the
right standard for partisan fairness in legislative redistricting.
Then, a little more than a decade ago, the
Supreme Court actually said in an opinion
(roughly!), hey you academics out there, if
there were some standard that you all agreed
on, we would love to hear about it. This led
me to think, job talk time again!
So in the next redistricting case that
reached the Court, my friend Bernie Grofman
and I, along with a few others, filed an ami­
cus brief telling the Court all about partisan
symmetry.3 By that time, partisan symmetry
was not merely the near universally agreed
upon standard among academics; it had also
become the standard used by most expert
witnesses in litigation about partisan gerrymandering. In fact, in many cases, including
the one for which we filed the brief with the
Supreme Court, experts on both sides of the
same cases appealed to partisan symmetry.
The Supreme Court explicitly discussed our
brief in three of its opinions, including the plurality opinion. All of the justicesâ?? discussions
in their opinions of our brief, and the parti2. Gary King and Robert X. Browning, â??Democratic Representation and Partisan Bias in Congressional Elections,â? American Political Science
Review 81 (1987): 1252â??1273, copy at http://j.mp/
2n5Y11v.
3. Gary King, Bernard Grofman, Andrew Gelman, and Jonathan Katz, â??Brief of Amici Curiae
Professors Gary King, Bernard Grofman, Andrew Gelman, and Jonathan Katz in Support of
Neither Party,� U.S. Supreme Court in Jackson v.
Perry, 2005, copy at http://j.mp/2gw1W1R.
Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, Winter 2018
55
p r es e n tati o ns
san symmetry standard, were positive. It appeared that, if a redistricting plan were ever
overturned, the standard adopted by the Court
would have to involve partisan symmetry. But
the justices in that case did not go so far as to
overturn the redistricting plan before it, or to
explicitly adopt a standard for future cases.4
Since 1987, data on voters have gotten
better. The science has advanced. Statistical methods used to determine whether
a plan meets the standard have improved.
With high accuracy, we can now determine
whether an electoral system meets the partisan symmetry standard after a set of elections, after just one election, or, without
much loss of accuracy, before any elections
have been held at all. These methods have
been rigorously tested in thousands of elections all over the world. The standards are
clear and the empirical methods are ready.5
4. Bernard Grofman and Gary King, â??The Future of Partisan Symmetry as a Judicial Test for
Partisan Gerrymandering after LULAC v. Perry,�
Election Law Journal 6 (1) (2008): 2â??35, copy at
http://j.mp/2ow4pQ8.
5. Gary King, â??Representation Through Legislative Redistricting: A Stochastic Model,â? American Journal of Political Science 33 (1989): 787â??824,
copy at http://j.mp/2o46Gkk; Andrew Gelman
and Gary King, â??Estimating the Electoral Consequences of Legislative Redistricting,â? Journal
of the American Statistical Association 85 (1990):
274â??282, copy at http://j.mp/2nRBBOO; Andrew Gelman and Gary King, â??A Unified Method
of Evaluating Electoral Systems and Redistricting Plans,� American Journal of Political Science 38
(1994): 514â??554, copy at http://j.mp/2oT1ZqA;
Stephen Ansolabehere and Gary King, â??Measuring the Consequences of Delegate Selection
Rules in Presidential Nominations,� Journal of
Politics 52 (1990): 609â??621; Gary King, â??Electoral Responsiveness and Partisan Bias in Multiparty Democracies,â? Legislative Studies Quarterly xv
(1990): 159â??181, copy at http://j.mp/2o4k5Jc;
Andrew Gelman, Jonathan Katz, and Gary King,
â??Empirically Evaluating the Electoral College,â?
in Rethinking the Vote: The Politics and Prospects
of American Electoral Reform, ed. Ann N. Crigler,
Marion R. Just, and Edward J. McCaffery (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 75â??88,
copy at http://j.mp/2ovY86M.
56
Now along comes a new Supreme Court
case, Gill v. Whitford. With a few colleagues,
I filed a new brief in that case, reminding the
justices about partisan symmetry and clarifying some other issues.6 The case has not
yet been decided, but judging from the oral
arguments last month, partisan symmetry
is again a central focus. By the way, I highly
recommend listening to the oral arguments;
votes and a majority of the seats, but strange
does not make it unfair. What makes it vividly unfair is the next election in Wisconsin:
In 2014, the Democrats happened to have a
turn at receiving about 48 percent of the
votes. Yet, in that perfectly symmetric voting situation, the Democrats only received
36 percent of the seats. Moreover, we know
from considerable scholarship in political
In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court declared political
gerrymandering justiciable â?? which means that a
plaintiff can ask the courts to throw out a legislative
redistricting plan if the plan treats one of the parties
unfairly.
they were remarkably sophisticated and intense, quite like a high-level seminar at a
leading university. (Although beware, and
much to my chagrin, all references to â??Professor Kingâ??s briefâ? in the oral arguments
were to the brief I filed a decade ago, with
no mention of the one I filed in this case!)
But let me say something about partisan
symmetry: how it is really simple, and why
you should support it too. A good example
comes from the case presently before the
Court. At issue is a redistricting plan passed
by the state of Wisconsin in 2011.
In the 2012 election, Republicans received
48 percent of the votes statewide and, because of the way in which the districts were
drawn, more than 60 percent of the seats in
the state assembly. It may seem strange that
the Republicans received a minority of the
6. Heather K. Gerken, Jonathan N. Katz, Gary
King, Larry J. Sabato, and Samuel S.-H. Wang,
â??Brief of Heather K. Gerken, Jonathan N. Katz,
Gary King, Larry J. Sabato, and Samuel S.-H.
Wang as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellees,�
Filed with the Supreme Court of the United
States in Beverly R. Gill et al. v. William Whitford et
al., 2017, 16â??1161, copy at http://j.mp/2iJAMZl.
Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, Winter 2018
science that this is not going to change. In all
likelihood, no matter how many elections
are held in which the Democrats happen to
receive about 48 percent of the votes, they
are not going to come close to having 60 percent of the seatsâ??for as long as the districts
remain the same. Thatâ??s unfair. And the reason it is unfair is because it is asymmetric.
This is a dramatic Republican gerrymander. But remember we have analyzed thousands of elections and know that the Democrats have done just as much damage when
they are able to control the redistricting
process.
To be clear, any translation of votes to
seats is fairâ??as long as it is symmetric. For
example, some states require redistricters to
draw plans that make competitive elections
likelyâ??so 52 percent of the votes might produce 75 percent of the seats rather than say
55 percent, which is fair so long as the other
party would also get 75 percent of the seats if
they also got 52 percent of the votes.
Other states require redistricters to draw
plans that favor incumbents, perhaps so
that members of Congress from their state
will have more seniority and thus influence,
r e di st r i c t i ng a nd r e pr e se n tat i o n
which will yield a result closer to proportional representation, with seat proportions
closer to vote proportions.
In fact, I think I can convince you that you
have already invented a symmetric electoral system when you go out to dinner with a
group and need to choose a restaurant. The
decision rule most people choose is called
the Unit Veto system whereby any one person can veto the outcome. This decision rule
is fair because it is symmetricâ??it is not only
Bob or Sally who can veto the choice; any
member of the group can. This is an extreme
system, one we probably would not choose
for electing members of a legislature, but it
is one of the numerous possible symmetric
and thus fair electoral systems.
The point is not only that partisan symmetry is the obvious standard for a fair
electoral system. It is also that, if the Court
adopts partisan symmetry, it will still be
leaving considerable discretion to the political branches in each state, something that
the Court sees as essential.
Partisan symmetry leaves redistricters
lots of other types of discretion in drawing
districts as well. One is compactness, which
many states and federal law require. The paper I wrote with my graduate students Aaron Kaufman and Mayya Komisarchik, and
distributed at this event, provides a single
measure of compactness that predicts with
high accuracy the level of compactness any
judge, justice, or legislator sees in any district.7 There are also criteria based on maintaining local communities of interest, not
splitting local political subdivisions, having
equal population, not racially gerrymandering, and many others. Partisan symmetry may be related to some of these in some
7. Aaron Kaufman, Gary King, and Mayya Komisarchik, â??How to Measure Legislative District Compactness If You Only Know it When
You See it,� working paper, 2017, copy at http://
j.mp/2u9OWrG.
states but the standard does not absolutely
constrain any one of these criteria.
In fact, a huge number of other factors are
also chosen by redistricters, most of which
no court, constitution, or legislature has
ever tried to regulate, and few of which have
even been written about. Moreover, these
other factors could not be more important
to those responsible for redistricting. None
are constrained by partisan symmetry.
So I said, â??Yes, but you are going to be reelected. What do you want, 85 percent of
the vote? What is the big deal?� He then
explained, â??Look at this line,â? pointing to
one of the boundaries of his district. â??Do
you see where it excludes this little area and
then continues? Thatâ??s my kidsâ?? school.
And this? Thatâ??s where my wife works. And
this? Thatâ??s my momâ??s house!â? He then
pointed to the map on the wall of the en-
Partisan symmetry is a widely accepted
mathematical standard for partisan fairness
in legislative redistricting. Statistical methods
have been invented to easily determine whether
redistricting plans meet this standard.
Here is an example. To learn about redistricting and to obtain access to data, I occasionally sign on as a statistical consultant. I
estimate the deviation from partisan symmetry for every proposed redistricting plan,
determine the degree of racial bias, and
compute compactness, among other things.
During this process, one of the legislators was raging mad about the proposed
plan, just fuming. Well, one of the things I
do whenever I am near partisans and have
access to data is to compute the probability
that they will win the next election. It turns
out these predictions are straightforward
and highly accurate. Knowing these predictions helps reveal the motives, interests, and
desires of most everyone. (And donâ??t judge:
no matter how noble the goals of politicians,
if they donâ??t first attend to their own reelection, they wonâ??t be able to do anything else.)
So I looked up my forecasts for this apoplectic legislator and said, â??what are you upset about? You are going to win this election
with about 75 percent of the vote.� At that
point, he was pacing and insisting, â??Look at
the plan, look at my district!�
tire state and said, â??Previously I had a nice
compact district where I could drive to see
any constituent. Now the district is splayed
halfway across the state, and it will take me
all day flying to get anywhere! They are just
trying to annoy me. They are trying to get
me to resign!�
And they were trying to get him to resign.
So we looked into itâ??systematically, across
many elections and many redistricting
plans.8 It turns out that, during redistricting, incumbents are much more likely to resign, and that causes the partisan division of
seats in the legislature to be more responsive
to changes in voter preferences, at least compared to no redistricting. Redistricting is a
nasty process, probably the most conflictual form of regular politics this country ever
sees, with a good number of fist fights, examples of hardball politics, and many really unhappy bedfellows. Imagine if some guy you
8. Andrew Gelman and Gary King, â??Enhancing
Democracy Through Legislative Redistricting,�
American Political Science Review 88 (1994): 541â??
559, copy at http://j.mp/2ow4XoP.
Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, Winter 2018
57
p r es e n tati o ns
donâ??t know in a basement playing with maps
once a decade could get you fired! As a result,
legislators often prefer to retire over the risk
of getting drawn into a district with another incumbent, perhaps having to run against
your friend, or ending a successful career being humiliated at the polls in a new district
dominated by opposition party voters.
In fact, lack of redistricting does not
mean no change. Voters move, die, come of
age, immigrate, emigrate, and come to the
polls in different numbers. Over time, without redistricting, nothing constrains the
electoral system from moving far from partisan symmetry. Some states become horribly biased on their own, without moving
district lines.
In contrast, if you control a stateâ??s redistricting, you are likely to restrain yourself
to some degree. Why? Well, you can gerrymander in your favor, moving your state
far from symmetry, but if you go too far and
wake the sleeping judicial giant, you might
have the entire process taken away from
you. If that happens, you lose not only the
opportunity to win a few more seats for your
party, but also the opportunity to have completely free reign over everything that may
otherwise make your life, and that of your
party members, miserable.
So redistricting increases responsiveness
and reduces partisan bias relative to no redistricting at all. In that sense, aspects of
messy partisan redistricting battles can be
good for democracy.
But it also means that the Supreme Court
can play a fundamental role and reign in
much of the excesses of gerrymandering
without much trouble. All they need to do
is to eliminate the worst cases by adopting
the partisan symmetry standard, and to outlaw the worst excesses. If the Court takes
this minimal action, redistrictersâ??jealous
of their prerogativesâ??will stay well away
from the line. Any line, even one that is not
bright white, will greatly increase the fair-
58
ness of American democracy. The problem
here is not some foreign power meddling in
our election system; the problem is on us as
Americans. And the institution in American
politics to fix the problem is the Supreme
Court; it is the only institution capable of
fixing this problem. We certainly know from
two hundred years of partisan redistricting
battles that no legislature will save the day.
So as I wait with the rest of the country
for this Court decision, I feel a little like I am
in the same position I was thirty years agoâ??
hoping someone will like my job talk.
Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, Winter 2018
r e di st r i c t i ng a nd r e pr e se n tat i o n
Gary King
Gary King is Director of the Institute for Quantitative Social Science and the Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard University. He was elected a Fellow of the American
Academy in 1998.
I
n 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court declared
political gerrymandering justiciable, which
means that a plaintiff can ask the courts to
throw out a legislative redistricting plan if the
plan treats one of the parties unfairly. Since
then, however, political gerrymandering has
never been justished (ok, thatâ??s my word!),
meaning that no plan has ever in fact been
thrown out, nor has the Court established the
standard that redistricting plans must meet.
So that was 1986. What was happening in
1987? Well, the most important thing going
on then, from my point of view, was that I
really wanted a job. The university down the
road gave me an interview and the chance
to give a job talk.1 I discussed an article that
was to be published that year in the American Political Science Review with my graduate
1. Thanks to the members of the search committee: Jim Alt, Mo Fiorina, and Bob Putnam!
school buddy Robert Browning.2 In that article, we proposed a mathematical standard
for partisan fairness and a statistical method to determine whether a redistricting plan
meets that standard. We called the standard
partisan symmetry.
As it has turned out, I am proud to say
that since our article and my job talk, virtually all academics writing about the subject have adopted partisan symmetry as the
right standard for partisan fairness in legislative redistricting.
Then, a little more than a decade ago, the
Supreme Court actually said in an opinion
(roughly!), hey you academics out there, if
there were some standard that you all agreed
on, we would love to hear about it. This led
me to think, job talk time again!
So in the next redistricting case that
reached the Court, my friend Bernie Grofman
and I, along with a few others, filed an ami­
cus brief telling the Court all about partisan
symmetry.3 By that time, partisan symmetry
was not merely the near universally agreed
upon standard among academics; it had also
become the standard used by most expert
witnesses in litigation about partisan gerrymandering. In fact, in many cases, including
the one for which we filed the brief with the
Supreme Court, experts on both sides of the
same cases appealed to partisan symmetry.
The Supreme Court explicitly discussed our
brief in three of its opinions, including the plurality opinion. All of the justicesâ?? discussions
in their opinions of our brief, and the parti2. Gary King and Robert X. Browning, â??Democratic Representation and Partisan Bias in Congressional Elections,â? American Political Science
Review 81 (1987): 1252â??1273, copy at http://j.mp/
2n5Y11v.
3. Gary King, Bernard Grofman, Andrew Gelman, and Jonathan Katz, â??Brief of Amici Curiae
Professors Gary King, Bernard Grofman, Andrew Gelman, and Jonathan Katz in Support of
Neither Party,â? U.S. S …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

GradeAcers
Calculate your paper price
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -

Why Work with Us

Top Quality and Well-Researched Papers

We always make sure that writers follow all your instructions precisely. You can choose your academic level: high school, college/university or professional, and we will assign a writer who has a respective degree.

Professional and Experienced Academic Writers

We have a team of professional writers with experience in academic and business writing. Many are native speakers and able to perform any task for which you need help.

Free Unlimited Revisions

If you think we missed something, send your order for a free revision. You have 10 days to submit the order for review after you have received the final document. You can do this yourself after logging into your personal account or by contacting our support.

Prompt Delivery and 100% Money-Back-Guarantee

All papers are always delivered on time. In case we need more time to master your paper, we may contact you regarding the deadline extension. In case you cannot provide us with more time, a 100% refund is guaranteed.

Original & Confidential

We use several writing tools checks to ensure that all documents you receive are free from plagiarism. Our editors carefully review all quotations in the text. We also promise maximum confidentiality in all of our services.

24/7 Customer Support

Our support agents are available 24 hours a day 7 days a week and committed to providing you with the best customer experience. Get in touch whenever you need any assistance.

Try it now!

Calculate the price of your order

Total price:
$0.00

How it works?

Follow these simple steps to get your paper done

Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.

Our Services

No need to work on your paper at night. Sleep tight, we will cover your back. We offer all kinds of writing services.

Essays

Essay Writing Service

No matter what kind of academic paper you need and how urgent you need it, you are welcome to choose your academic level and the type of your paper at an affordable price. We take care of all your paper needs and give a 24/7 customer care support system.

Admissions

Admission Essays & Business Writing Help

An admission essay is an essay or other written statement by a candidate, often a potential student enrolling in a college, university, or graduate school. You can be rest assurred that through our service we will write the best admission essay for you.

Reviews

Editing Support

Our academic writers and editors make the necessary changes to your paper so that it is polished. We also format your document by correctly quoting the sources and creating reference lists in the formats APA, Harvard, MLA, Chicago / Turabian.

Reviews

Revision Support

If you think your paper could be improved, you can request a review. In this case, your paper will be checked by the writer or assigned to an editor. You can use this option as many times as you see fit. This is free because we want you to be completely satisfied with the service offered.

Order your essay today and save 15% with the discount code DISCOUNT15