Scholars of redistricting often discuss “communities of interest” as a guideline for drawing districts, but scholarship offers little guidance on how citizens construe communities and interests in the context of representation. In this article, we seek to better understand how citizens’ perceptions of people and places affect preferences regarding representation. Using an original survey conducted in 15 Massachusetts communities, we explore whether citizens have meaningful preferences about the communities with whom they share the same representative. To the extent they do, we test whether these preferences are driven by geographic considerations or other factors such as partisanship, race, and socioeconomic status. Our findings not only offer the opportunity to refine the concept of “communities of interest” to account for voter preferences but also more broadly speak to the literature on the increasingly political nature of residential preferences and their impact on political attitudes, participation, and voting behavior.
AbramsS. J.FiorinaM. P. (2012). “The big sort” that wasn’t: A skeptical reexamination. PS: Political Science & Politics, 45, 203-210.
2.
ArringtonT. S. (2010). Redistricting in the U.S.: A review of scholarship and plan for future research. The Forum, 8, Article 7.
3.
BarkerD.CarmanC. (2009). Political geography, church attendance, and mass preferences regarding democratic representation. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 19, 125-145.
4.
BishopB.CushingR. G. (2008). The big sort: Why the clustering of like-minded Americans is tearing us apart. New York, NY: Mariner Books.
BrunellT. L. (2008). Redistricting and representation: Why competitive elections are bad for America. New York, NY: Routledge.
7.
BrunellT. L.ClarkeH. D. (2012). Who wants electoral competition and who wants to win?Political Research Quarterly, 65, 124-137.
8.
BuchlerJ. (2005). Competition, representation and redistricting: The case against competitive Congressional districts. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 17, 431-463.
9.
CameronC.EpsteinD.O’HalloranS. (1996). Do majority-minority districts maximize substantive black representation in Congress?American Political Science Review, 90, 794-812.
10.
CarmanC. J. (2007). Assessing preferences for political representation in the U.S. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 17, 1-19.
11.
ChambersC. P. (2007). Consistent representative democracy. Games and Economic Behavior, 62, 348-363.
12.
ChoW. K. T.GimpelJ. G.HuiI. (2013). Voter migration and the geographic sorting of the American electorate. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103, 856-870.
EmersonM.ChaiK.YanceyG. (2001). Does race matter in residential segregation? Exploring the preferences of white Americans. American Sociological Review, 66, 922-935.
EriksonR. S. (1978). Constituency opinion and Congressional behavior: A reexamination of the Miller-Stokes representation data. American Journal of Political Science, 22, 511-535.
21.
FrederickB. (2008). The people’s perspective on the size of the people’s house. PS: Political Science & Politics, 41, 329-335.
22.
GainesB. J.KuklinskiJ. G. (2011). What does the public know about redistricting? What does the public want from redistricting? In Rethinking redistricting: A discussion about the future of legislative mapping in Illinois. Urbana–Champaign: The Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois.
23.
GlaserJ. M. (2003). Social context and inter-group political attitudes: Experiments in group conflict theory. British Journal of Political Science, 33, 607-620.
24.
GrantJ. T.RudolphT. J. (2004). The job of representation in Congress: Public expectations and representative approval. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 29, 431-445.
25.
GriffinJ. D.FlavinP. (2010). How citizens and their legislators prioritize spheres of representation. Political Research Quarterly, 64, 520-533.
HibbingJ.Theiss-MorseE. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
IssacharoffS. (2002). Gerrymandering and Political Cartels. Harvard Law Review116, 593-648.
29.
LongJ. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Advanced quantitative techniques in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
MakseT. (2012). Defining communities of interest in redistricting through initiative voting. Election Law Journal, 11, 503-517.
31.
MaloneS. J. (1997). Recognizing communities of interest in a legislative apportionment plan. Virginia Law Review, 83, 461-492.
32.
ManfredaK. L.BosnjakM.BerzelakJ.HaasI.VehovarV. (2008). Web surveys versus other survey modes: A meta-analysis comparing response rates. International Journal of Market Research, 50, 79-104.
33.
McDonaldI. (2011). Migration and sorting in the American electorate: Evidence from the 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. American Politics Research, 39, 512-533.
34.
MesserB.DillmanD. (2011). Surveying the general public over the Internet using address-based sampling and mail contact procedures. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 429-457.
35.
MilerK. C. (2010). Constituency representation in Congress: The view from Capitol Hill. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36.
MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1963). Constituency influence in Congress. American Political Science Review, 57, 45-56.
37.
ParkerF. R. (1990). Black votes count. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
38.
ParkesA.KearnsA.AtkinsonR. (2002). What makes people dissatisfied with their neighbourhoods?Urban Studies, 39, 2413-2438.
39.
PildesR. H. (2006). The constitution and political competition. Nova Law Review, 30, 253-278.
40.
PitkinH. F. (1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
41.
PolsbyD.PopperD. (1991). The third criterion: Compactness as a procedural safeguard against partisan gerrymandering. Yale Law & Policy Review, 9, 301-353.
42.
StephanopoulosN. (2012). Redistricting and the territorial community. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 160, 1379-1477.
43.
TateK. (2003). Black opinion on the legitimacy of racial redistricting and minority-majority districts. American Political Science Review, 97, 45-56.
44.
TaylorP.MorinR. (2008). Americans claim to like diverse communities, but do they really?Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
45.
ThernstromA. (1987). Whose votes count? Affirmative action and minority voting rights. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46.
ThompsonD. T. (2002). Congressional redistricting in North Carolina: Reconsidering traditional criteria. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
47.
TieboutC. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416-424.
48.
WilliamsR. (2006). Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for ordinal dependent variables. Stata Journal6, 58-82.
49.
WilliamsonT. (2008). Sprawl, spatial location and politics: How ideological identification tracks the built environment. American Politics Research, 36, 903-933.
50.
WongC. J. (2007). Little and big pictures in our heads: Race, local context, and innumeracy about racial groups in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 392-412.
51.
WongC. J.BowersJ.WilliamsT.DrakeK. (2012). Bringing the person back in: Boundaries, perceptions, and the measurement of racial context. Journal of Politics, 75, 1153-1170.
52.
YoungH. P. (1988). Measuring the compactness of legislative districts. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 13, 105-115.
53.
ZubrinskyC.BoboL. (1996). Prismatic metropolis: Race and residential segregation in the city of the angels. Social Science Research, 25, 335-374.
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.
