Pennsylvania in 2018: How Redistricting Does and Doesn’t Make a Difference

Abstract

In this Field Note, we use precinct- and individual-level data on Pennsylvania to assess whether congressional redistricting influenced voter preferences in the 2018 midterm. Despite redistricting vastly altering the distribution of voters in House districts, this did little to change their preferences. Rather, redistricting contributed to Democratic House gains primarily by configuring a handful of districts to be more favorable to the Democratic Party. The evidence for minimal direct effects of redistricting on voter preferences, despite the presence of national political conditions breaking strongly in favor of Democrats, speaks to the increasing nationalization of American elections and with it, a concomitant decline in the incumbency advantage.

Keywords

redistricting Pennsylvania nationalization incumbency advantage 2018 elections

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abramowitz

Alan I.

Saunders

Kyle L.

. 1998. Ideological realignment in the U.S. electorate. Journal of Politics 60 (3): 634–52.

Ashton

Henry B.

Crespin

Michael H.

McKee

Seth C.

. 2021. Dueling incumbent House elections, 1843-2018. Manuscript.

Barber

Michael

Pope

Jeremy C.

. 2019. Does party trump ideology? Disentangling party and ideology in America. American Political Science Review 113 (1): 38–54.

Bartels

Larry M

. 2000. Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952-1996. American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 35–50.

Cain

Bruce E.

Ferejohn

John A.

Fiorina

Morris P.

. 1987. The personal vote: Constituency service and electoral independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Carsey

Thomas M.

Harden

Jeffrey J.

. 2014. New measures of partisanship, ideology, and mood in the American states. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 10 (2): 136–56.

Cohen

Richard

Cook

Charlie

. 2019. The almanac of American politics 2020. Bethesda, MD: Columbia Books & Information Services.

Desposato

Scott W.

Petrocik

John R.

. 2003. The variable incumbency advantage: New voters, redistricting, and the personal vote. American Journal of Political Science 47 (1): 18–32.

Edwards

Barry

Crespin

Michael

Williamson

Ryan D.

Palmer

Maxwell

. 2017. Institutional control of redistricting and the geography of representation. Journal of Politics 79 (2): 722–26.

10.

Gelman

Andrew

King

Gary

. 1994. Enhancing democracy through legislative redistricting. American Political Science Review 88 (3): 541–59.

11.

Goedert

Nicholas

. 2017. The pseudoparadox of partisan mapmaking and congressional competition. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 17 (1): 47–75.

12.

Grofman

Bernard

Brunell

Thomas L.

. 2005. The art of the dummymander: The impact of recent redistrictings on the partisan makeup of southern House seats. In Redistricting in the new millennium, edited by Galderisi

Peter F.

., 183–99. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

13.

Hayes

Danny

McKee

Seth C.

. 2009. The participatory effects of redistricting. American Journal of Political Science 53 (4): 1006–23.

14.

Hetherington

Marc J.

Larson

Bruce A.

Globetti

Suzanne

. 2003. The redistricting cycle and strategic candidate decisions in U.S. House races. Journal of Politics 65 (4): 1221–35.

15.

Hopkins

Daniel J

. 2018. The increasingly United States: How and why American political behavior nationalized. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

16.

Jacobson

Gary C

. 2015. It’s nothing personal: The decline of the incumbency advantage in U.S. House elections. Journal of Politics 77 (3): 861–73.

17.

Jacobson

Gary C

. 2019. Extreme referendum: Donald Trump and the 2018 midterm elections. Political Science Quarterly 134 (1): 9–38.

18.

Jacobson

Gary C

. 2021. The presidential and congressional elections of 2020: A national referendum on the Trump presidency. Political Science Quarterly 136 (1): 11–45.

19.

Jacobson

Gary C.

Carson

Jamie L.

. 2020. The politics of congressional elections. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

20.

Lax

Jeffrey R.

Phillips

Justin

. 2009. How should we estimate public opinion in the states? American Journal of Political Science 53 (1): 107–21.

21.

Levendusky

Matthew

. 2009. The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

22.

Mason

Lilliana

Wronski

Julie

. 2018. One tribe to bind them all: How our social group attachments strengthen partisanship. Advances in Political Psychology 39 (S1): 257–77.

23.

McGann

Anthony J.

Smith

Charles Anthony

Latner

Michael

Keena

Alex

. 2016. Gerrymandering in America: The House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, and the future of popular sovereignty. New York: Cambridge University Press.

24.

McKee

Seth C

. 2010. Republican ascendancy in Southern U.S. House elections. New York: Routledge.

25.

Petrocik

John R.

Desposato

Scott W.

. 1998. The partisan consequences of majority-minority redistricting in the South, 1992 and 1994. Journal of Politics 60 (3): 613–33.

26.

Petrocik

John R.

Desposato

Scott W.

. 2004. Incumbency and short-term influences on voters. Political Research Quarterly 57 (3): 363–73.

27.

Rodden

Jonathan A

. 2019. Why cities lose: The deep roots of the urban-rural political divide. New York: Basic Books.

28.

Rogers

Steven

. 2017. Electoral accountability for state legislative roll calls and ideological representation. American Political Science Review 111 (3): 555–71.

29.

Seabrook

Nicholas R

. 2017. Drawing the lines: Constraints on partisan gerrymandering in U.S. politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

30.

Stephanopoulos

Nicholas O.

Warshaw

Christopher

. 2020. The impact of partisan gerrymandering on political parties. Legislative Studies Quarterly 45 (4): 609–43.

31.

Stonecash

Jeffrey M

. 2008. Reassessing the incumbency effect. New York: Cambridge University Press.

32.

Yoshinaka

Antoine

Murphy

Chad

. 2011. The paradox of redistricting: How partisan mapmakers foster competition but disrupt representation. Political Research Quarterly 64 (2): 435–47.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.36 MB