Periodic discordance between vote equality and representational equality in the united states

Sarah Cowan

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    American democracy has two central values that are often in tension: vote equality, that each vote has equal influence, and representational equality, that each elected official represents equal numbers of people. The electoral standard of "one person, one vote" ensures representational equality, and that often ensures vote equality. This relationship fails, however, under certain demographic conditions, namely, when a large, non-enfranchised population resides unevenly across jurisdictions. Then, representational equality is preserved and vote equality is violated. Prior to women's suffrage, for example, western states had relatively fewer women than the remainder of the country, contributing to gross vote inequality, though rectified through extension of the franchise. Given recent high rates of immigration to some states, I ask whether the two values are in tension. I find that they are, and quantify the electoral consequences of this disjuncture at 13 House seats in 2010.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)442-453
    Number of pages12
    JournalSociological Science
    Volume2
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Aug 19 2015

    Fingerprint

    equality
    voter
    suffrage
    jurisdiction
    Values
    immigration
    democracy
    human being

    Keywords

    • Apportionment
    • Enfranchisement
    • Supreme Court of the United States

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Social Sciences(all)

    Cite this

    Periodic discordance between vote equality and representational equality in the united states. / Cowan, Sarah.

    In: Sociological Science, Vol. 2, 19.08.2015, p. 442-453.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    @article{b073c44eeb20479694802ebbf078d770,
    title = "Periodic discordance between vote equality and representational equality in the united states",
    abstract = "American democracy has two central values that are often in tension: vote equality, that each vote has equal influence, and representational equality, that each elected official represents equal numbers of people. The electoral standard of {"}one person, one vote{"} ensures representational equality, and that often ensures vote equality. This relationship fails, however, under certain demographic conditions, namely, when a large, non-enfranchised population resides unevenly across jurisdictions. Then, representational equality is preserved and vote equality is violated. Prior to women's suffrage, for example, western states had relatively fewer women than the remainder of the country, contributing to gross vote inequality, though rectified through extension of the franchise. Given recent high rates of immigration to some states, I ask whether the two values are in tension. I find that they are, and quantify the electoral consequences of this disjuncture at 13 House seats in 2010.",
    keywords = "Apportionment, Enfranchisement, Supreme Court of the United States",
    author = "Sarah Cowan",
    year = "2015",
    month = "8",
    day = "19",
    doi = "10.15195/v2.a21",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "2",
    pages = "442--453",
    journal = "Sociological Science",
    issn = "2330-6696",
    publisher = "Society for Sociological Science",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Periodic discordance between vote equality and representational equality in the united states

    AU - Cowan, Sarah

    PY - 2015/8/19

    Y1 - 2015/8/19

    N2 - American democracy has two central values that are often in tension: vote equality, that each vote has equal influence, and representational equality, that each elected official represents equal numbers of people. The electoral standard of "one person, one vote" ensures representational equality, and that often ensures vote equality. This relationship fails, however, under certain demographic conditions, namely, when a large, non-enfranchised population resides unevenly across jurisdictions. Then, representational equality is preserved and vote equality is violated. Prior to women's suffrage, for example, western states had relatively fewer women than the remainder of the country, contributing to gross vote inequality, though rectified through extension of the franchise. Given recent high rates of immigration to some states, I ask whether the two values are in tension. I find that they are, and quantify the electoral consequences of this disjuncture at 13 House seats in 2010.

    AB - American democracy has two central values that are often in tension: vote equality, that each vote has equal influence, and representational equality, that each elected official represents equal numbers of people. The electoral standard of "one person, one vote" ensures representational equality, and that often ensures vote equality. This relationship fails, however, under certain demographic conditions, namely, when a large, non-enfranchised population resides unevenly across jurisdictions. Then, representational equality is preserved and vote equality is violated. Prior to women's suffrage, for example, western states had relatively fewer women than the remainder of the country, contributing to gross vote inequality, though rectified through extension of the franchise. Given recent high rates of immigration to some states, I ask whether the two values are in tension. I find that they are, and quantify the electoral consequences of this disjuncture at 13 House seats in 2010.

    KW - Apportionment

    KW - Enfranchisement

    KW - Supreme Court of the United States

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044037119&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85044037119&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.15195/v2.a21

    DO - 10.15195/v2.a21

    M3 - Article

    VL - 2

    SP - 442

    EP - 453

    JO - Sociological Science

    JF - Sociological Science

    SN - 2330-6696

    ER -