Apportionment (politics)

Encyclopedia : A : AP : APP : Apportionment (politics)

This article is about political apportionment. For the legal term, see apportionment.

Elections
This series is part of the Politics series
Psephology Electoral systems Criticisms of electoralism Electoral fraud General election Local election By-election Fixed-term election Indirect election Secret ballot Suffrage Pluralism Elections by country Elections by date Referendum Redistricting Gerrymandering
[[Portal:Politics\|Politics Portal]] · [http://encycl.opentopia.com/ edit]

Apportionment, or reapportionment, is the process of determining representation in politics within a legislative body by creating constituencies. This is typically done in proportion to the population in the individual sectors. The United States, for instance, delimits the House of Representatives seats proportionally between states, who then create districts for House members to run in.

Apportionment is also applied in party-list proportional representation elections to distribute seats between different parties once they've won a particular percentage of the vote, much like how different U.S. states obtain different shares of the population from the census.

Because there is almost certain to be some degree of rounding error, different mathematical schemes for calculating apportionment can produce different results in terms of seats for the relevant party or sector. These methods include the Jefferson method, the Webster method, the Huntington-Hill method, and the Hamilton method.

Contents

1 Malapportionment

1.1 Malapportionment of the United States
1.2 Malapportionment of Australia
1.3 Malapportionment of the Diet of Japan

2 See also
3 External links

Malapportionment

Malapportionment, or unequal representation, is broad and systematic variance in the size of electoral constituencies resulting in disproportionate representation for a given voter. Malapportionment is only possible within electoral systems that have districted constituencies - an electoral system with only one national constituency, such as those in Israel and the Netherlands, cannot be malapportioned.

It is a tendency for the size of constituencies to vary according to some factor such as geographic location. Well-known examples include the differences between urban and rural constituency sizes in many Australian states (Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia in the past afforded far more notorious examples), and the recently abolished smaller United Kingdom parliamentary constituencies in Scotland. The UK retains a substantial malapportionment in favour of urban voters mainly because districting process has not caught up with the residential shift to suburb. , which currently benefits the British Labour Party. The effects of malapportionment vary with time: deliberate over-representation of rural Queensland changed from favouring Labor to favouring the National Party .

Malapportionment of the United States

This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
Please help recruit one, or improve this page yourself}} if you can. See [discussion page] for details.

The United States Senate

In contrast to the United States House of Representatives, which is only malapportioned slightly due to rounding error (athough the last state out after each census has often complained), for historical reasons the United States Senate is deliberately malapportioned, granting two senators to every state regardless of population size, and resulting in two senators representing over 36 million Californians and two senators representing half a million citizens of Wyoming. An individual voter in Wyoming therefore has 72 times the Senate voting power of a Californian. At the time the United States Constitution was written, the Senate was intended to represent the interests of the states themselves rather than the residents of those states, and thus apportionment was divided equally among the states rather than among the population at large. In fact, the Constitution specifies that the equal representation of states in the Senate cannot be changed by amendment except with the consent of all affected states (Article V). This effectively entrenched that system.

The United States Senate has become steadily more malapportioned since its creation. In 1787, half of the Senate could theoretically have been elected by 30% of the nation, while As of 2005, it would take only 17% of the nation to elect half the Senate. Extremes of representation have also increased. Virginia's population in 1787 was only twelve times Delaware's. Today, California's population is 72 times greater than Wyoming's. (see History of the United States Senate and Connecticut Compromise)

Malapportionment in the states

Many states suffered through periods of malapportionment which were created by failures to reapportion after significant population shifts within established districts. The State's legislature is historically the body which draws districts lines and apportions. Being a political body, and one which is elected, there were many legislatures who would not reapportion for fear of changing the make up of populations in districts in such a way that would threaten their reelection, or weaken their party's or caucus' political power.

In many states thoughout the US, malapportionment had political and racial overtones. For example, during much of the 20th century in Southern States the Democratic rural areas dominated urban Republican strongholds by allowing the representation for such areas to remain constant even as their populations began to rise considerably. The result was that, in some cases, rural districts would have drastically less population than an urban counterpart and still hold an equal or greater number of representatives or senators - thereby diluting the voice in the legislature of the latter, compared to that of the former.

Several notable legal battles were brought in the early 1960s which challenged numerous state apportionment systems; Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims being the most important of these. The plaintiffs claimed that malapportioment was discriminatory and illegal under the Fourteenth Amendment. The US Supreme Court agreed with the doctrine of "One Man, One Vote" .

It is however also noteworthy, that the big cities gains in the state legislatures were in many cases short lived, because during the same time frame, many Americans left the cites for the suburbs.

Some more recent incidents are that following the 1990 census the state house of Tennessee's first attempt being thrown out for systmaticaly overrepresenting (then predominately Democratic) rural West Tennessee at the expense of (then predominately Republican) rural East Tennessee . Also following the 2000 census, Georgia's first attempt at drawing the state senate was thrown out for systematicly underpopulating then Democratic-held seats and systematicly overpopulating then Republican-held seats throughout the state .

Malapportionment of Australia

The Australian Senate is elected on a basis of equality among the states: all states elect 12 Senators, regardless of population.

Malapportionment of the Diet of Japan

Another example is the systematic over-representation of voters in more rural prefectures and under-representation of voters in more urban prefectures in elections to the Japanese parliament. The conservative Liberal Democratic Party thus wins more seats in the Japanese parliament because its voters are concentrated in more rural prefectures.

External links

[Explanation of the 1991 and 1992 US Supreme Court cases challenging the use of the method of equal proportions]
[A guide to the various formulae for apportionment, and statistical differences between them]

From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.