Defining Communities of Interest in Redistricting Through Initiative Voting
Author(s) -
Todd Makse
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
election law journal rules politics and policy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.432
H-Index - 9
eISSN - 1557-8062
pISSN - 1533-1296
DOI - 10.1089/elj.2011.0144
Subject(s) - redistricting , ballot , ambiguity , voting , political science , special interest group , politics , set (abstract data type) , public interest , gerrymandering , law and economics , public administration , public relations , law , computer science , sociology , democracy , programming language
Scholars of redistricting often make reference to “communities of interest,” either to describe what districts should look like, or to criticize blatant partisan gerrymanders. The term, however, suffers from a great deal of ambiguity, the lack of an objective measurement strategy, and the absence of a methodology for translating beliefs about communities of interest into districting plans. In this article, I suggest a novel approach to defining communities of interest: using the results from statewide initiative votes to allow voters to essentially define their own communities of interest at the ballot box. Such a definition would be fundamentally political—as opposed to geographic, demographic, civic, or historical—but would not be rooted solely in partisanship. This approach would also satisfy two of the concerns addressed above. First, it recommends a specific, objective, affirmative basis for constructing districts, not merely a list of recommendations, prohibitions, or standards that need to...
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom