IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v34y2022i4p481-498.html

Models of inter-election change in partisan vote share

Author

Listed:
  • Mark C. Wilson
  • Bernard N. Grofman

Abstract

For a two-party electoral competition in a districted legislature, the change in mean vote share for party A from one election to the next is commonly referred to as swing. A key question, highly relevant to election forecasting and the measurement of partisan gerrymandering, is: “How do we expect the swing to be distributed across the districts as a function of previous vote share?†. The literature gives two main answers: uniform swing and proportional swing. Which is better has been unresolved for decades. Here we (a) provide an axiomatic foundation for desirable properties of a model of swing; (b) show axiomatically that using uniform swing or proportional swing is a bad idea, (c) provide a simple swing model that does satisfy the axioms, and (d) show how to integrate a reversion to the mean effect into models swing. We show that all the above models can be expected to work well when (a) elections are close, or (b) when we restrict to data where swing is low, or (c) when we eliminate the cases where the model is most likely to go wrong. We show on a large US Congressional dataset that in addition to its superior axiomatic properties, our new model provides an overall equal or better fit on five indicators: mistakes about directionality of change, mistakes in winner, estimates that are outside the [0..1] bounds, mean-square error, and correlation between actual and predicted values. We recommend replacing the uniform and proportional swing models with the new model.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark C. Wilson & Bernard N. Grofman, 2022. "Models of inter-election change in partisan vote share," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 34(4), pages 481-498, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:34:y:2022:i:4:p:481-498
    DOI: 10.1177/09516298221123263
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09516298221123263
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/09516298221123263?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Curtice, John & Steed, Michael, 1982. "Electoral Choice and the Production of Government: The Changing Operation of the Electoral System in the United Kingdom since 1955," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 249-298, July.
    2. Rein Taagepera, 1999. "Ignorance-Based Quantitative Models and Their Practical Implications," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 11(3), pages 421-431, July.
    3. Katz, Jonathan N. & King, Gary & Rosenblatt, Elizabeth, 2020. "Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Evaluations of Partisan Fairness in District-Based Democracies," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 114(1), pages 164-178, February.
    4. Gershuny, J. I., 1974. "The Non-paradox of Swing," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 115-119, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ron Johnston & Kelvyn Jones & Min-Hua Jen, 2009. "Regional Variations in Voting at British General Elections, 1950–2001: Group-Based Latent Trajectory Analysis," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(3), pages 598-616, March.
    2. Bierbrauer, Felix & Polborn, Mattias, 2020. "Competitive Gerrymandering and the Popular Vote," CEPR Discussion Papers 15401, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Swamy, Rahul & King, Douglas M. & Ludden, Ian G. & Dobbs, Kiera W. & Jacobson, Sheldon H., 2024. "A practical optimization framework for political redistricting: A case study in Arizona," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    4. Atticus McWhorter & Daryl DeFord, 2026. "Free elections in the free state: ensemble analysis of redistricting in New Hampshire," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 1-21, May.
    5. Serhat Hasancebi, 2023. "The Maltese single transferable vote experience: a case study of gerrymandering?," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 572-597, December.
    6. Rahul Swamy & Douglas M. King & Sheldon H. Jacobson, 2023. "Multiobjective Optimization for Politically Fair Districting: A Scalable Multilevel Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 71(2), pages 536-562, March.
    7. Barry Burden & Corwin Smidt, 2020. "Evaluating Legislative Districts Using Measures of Partisan Bias and Simulations," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, December.
    8. Anton Kolotilin & Alexander Wolitzky, 2020. "The Economics of Partisan Gerrymandering," Discussion Papers 2020-12, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    9. Rein Taagepera, 2001. "Party Size Baselines Imposed by Institutional Constraints," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 13(4), pages 331-354, October.
    10. Michael Geruso & Dean Spears & Ishaana Talesara, 2022. "Inversions in US Presidential Elections: 1836–2016," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 327-357, January.
    11. Andrei Gomberg & Romans Pancs & Tridib Sharma, 2023. "Electoral Maldistricting," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 64(3), pages 1223-1264, August.
    12. Daryl DeFord & Elliot Kimsey & Ryan Zerr, 2023. "Multi-balanced redistricting," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 923-941, October.
    13. Christopher Warshaw & Eric McGhee & Michal Migurski, 2022. "Districts for a New Decade—Partisan Outcomes and Racial Representation in the 2021–22 Redistricting Cycle," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 52(3), pages 428-451.
    14. Stanley Winer & Lawrence Kenny & Bernard Grofman, 2014. "Explaining variation in the competitiveness of U.S. Senate elections, 1922–2004," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 161(3), pages 471-497, December.
    15. Aaron Brick & Cameron Brick, 2021. "Districting that minimizes partisan bias," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-6, December.
    16. Kiera W. Dobbs & Rahul Swamy & Douglas M. King & Ian G. Ludden & Sheldon H. Jacobson, 2024. "An Optimization Case Study in Analyzing Missouri Redistricting," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 54(2), pages 162-187, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:34:y:2022:i:4:p:481-498. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.