Advantages of Conflictual Redistricting
This article describes the results of an analysis we did of state legislative elections in the United States, where each state is required to redraw the boundaries of its state legislative districts every ten years. In the United States, redistrictings are sometimes controlled by the Democrats, sometimes by Republicans, and sometimes by bipartisan committees, but never by neutral boundary commissions. Our goal was to study the consequences of redistricting; at the conclusion of this article, we discuss how our findings might be relevant to British elections. From George Washington's first presidential veto to the present day, redistricting issues have been extremely controversial at every level of government. Most redistrictings are contested in state and federal court cases heard so late that there is insufficient time to follow the usual rules of discovery, evidence, or due process. In total, legislative redistricting is one of the most conflictual forms of regular politics in the United States short of violence. While partisan and bipartisan redistricting plans can protect incumbents, they only protect some of those who survive the redistricting process, and many do not survive. Indeed, most incumbent politicians would give an awful lot to avoid redistricting altogether. After all, they are fighting over the fundamental rules of the game (fights that might well 1 This Chapter is adapted from Gelman and King 1994. Figures, tables, and more details appear in the original article.