The coalition politics of RCV at mid-century · Yonkers, NY Norris, TN New York, NY Wheeling, WV...
Transcript of The coalition politics of RCV at mid-century · Yonkers, NY Norris, TN New York, NY Wheeling, WV...
The coalition politics of RCV at mid-century
Jack [email protected]
Ph.D. CandidateGeorgetown University
September 2, 2015
Three questions
I Why adopted?
I Ruling-party splits.
I What was it like?
I Somewhat two-party.
I Why repealed?
I Land use conflict?
Spells of PR−STV use in U.S. cities
Chart revised as new information is found.This version: 2015−08−25
1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965
Oak Ridge, TN
Hopkins, MN
Worcester, MA
Medford, MA
Quincy, MA
Revere, MA
Saugus, MA
Coos Bay, OR
Long Beach, NY
Lowell, MA
Cambridge, MA
Yonkers, NY
Norris, TN
New York, NY
Wheeling, WV
Toledo, OH
Hamilton, OH
Cincinnati, OH
West Hartford, CT
Cleveland, OH
Sacramento, CA
Kalamazoo, MI
Boulder, CO
Ashtabula, OH
Intro Three questions
Three questions
I Why adopted?I Ruling-party splits.
I What was it like?
I Somewhat two-party.
I Why repealed?
I Land use conflict?
Spells of PR−STV use in U.S. cities
Chart revised as new information is found.This version: 2015−08−25
1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965
Oak Ridge, TN
Hopkins, MN
Worcester, MA
Medford, MA
Quincy, MA
Revere, MA
Saugus, MA
Coos Bay, OR
Long Beach, NY
Lowell, MA
Cambridge, MA
Yonkers, NY
Norris, TN
New York, NY
Wheeling, WV
Toledo, OH
Hamilton, OH
Cincinnati, OH
West Hartford, CT
Cleveland, OH
Sacramento, CA
Kalamazoo, MI
Boulder, CO
Ashtabula, OH
Intro Three questions
Three questions
I Why adopted?I Ruling-party splits.
I What was it like?I Somewhat two-party.
I Why repealed?
I Land use conflict?
Spells of PR−STV use in U.S. cities
Chart revised as new information is found.This version: 2015−08−25
1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965
Oak Ridge, TN
Hopkins, MN
Worcester, MA
Medford, MA
Quincy, MA
Revere, MA
Saugus, MA
Coos Bay, OR
Long Beach, NY
Lowell, MA
Cambridge, MA
Yonkers, NY
Norris, TN
New York, NY
Wheeling, WV
Toledo, OH
Hamilton, OH
Cincinnati, OH
West Hartford, CT
Cleveland, OH
Sacramento, CA
Kalamazoo, MI
Boulder, CO
Ashtabula, OH
Intro Three questions
Three questions
I Why adopted?I Ruling-party splits.
I What was it like?I Somewhat two-party.
I Why repealed?I Land use conflict?
Spells of PR−STV use in U.S. cities
Chart revised as new information is found.This version: 2015−08−25
1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965
Oak Ridge, TN
Hopkins, MN
Worcester, MA
Medford, MA
Quincy, MA
Revere, MA
Saugus, MA
Coos Bay, OR
Long Beach, NY
Lowell, MA
Cambridge, MA
Yonkers, NY
Norris, TN
New York, NY
Wheeling, WV
Toledo, OH
Hamilton, OH
Cincinnati, OH
West Hartford, CT
Cleveland, OH
Sacramento, CA
Kalamazoo, MI
Boulder, CO
Ashtabula, OH
Intro Three questions
Direct evidence of ruling-party splits
I No (known) pure gang-upson incumbent party.
I Both major parties sawsplits.
I From case studies,dissertations, old APSR.
Rulingparty
Ruling &opposition
Ruling & >1opposition
Onlyopposition No data
Partisan composition of pro-STV coalitions
Composition of pro-STV coalition
No.
of c
ities
02
46
810
1214
Prior ruling partyDemocraticRepublicanUnknown
Why adopted? Ruling-party splits
Example party split
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Worcester 1947: Support for PR charterby support for Republican mayoral candidate
Proportion for Winslow (R)
Pro
porti
on fo
r cha
rter
1
11
11
11
1
22 2
2
22
22
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
44 4
4
455
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
77
7
77
7
7
78
8
88
8
89
99
9
9
99
10
10
10
10 10
1010
Win threshold
If R mayoral vote perfectlypredicted referendum voteActual line of best fit
Some Dems like PR.
1
11
11
11
1
1
1
1
11
11
2
2
2
2
22
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
44
4
4
4
44 44
5
55 5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
66
6
6
77
7
77
7
7
7
8
8
8
88
8 9
99
99
99
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Ruling party disunity and support for the STV charterin Worcester (MA), 1947
B=0.21 (0.095), R2=0.1. Obs.: only precincts with Dem. F > 0. Nos. are wards.Dem. Aldermanic primary vote fractionalization, Oct. 1947
Pro
porti
on fo
r cha
rter,
Nov
. 194
7
Win threshold
Especially where primariescontested.
Why adopted? Example
Selection bias? General result?
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Republican as function of Democratic gubernatorial vote share for PR (solid dot) and non-PR adopters
Dem. share of all votes (jittered)
Rep
. sha
re o
f all
vote
s (ji
ttere
d)
Two-part
y pari
ty
No minor parties
PR only in two-party counties.
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Share of vote in winning and losing STV adoption referenda
Pro
port
ion
for
char
ter
Majority−opposed (N=24) Majority−supported (N=26)
Oversized coalitions pass PR.
I Contrast with non-STV and failed STV charters.
I Indirect measures of generality.
Why adopted? Inference
Nominally two-party
Cambridge, MA Cincinnati, OH Worcester, MA
vs. vs. vs.Democrats Republicans Democrats
I Evidence also in Hamilton, OH.
I “CEAs” active throughout MA.
I Maybe not in NYC, but see Fusion/La Guardia.
What was it like? Non-partisan slating groups
Polarization in Cincinnati
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955
-4-2
02
4
Posterior means and 95% confidence intervalsfor Charter and Republican ideal points
End year of Council term
Firs
t-dim
ensi
on s
core
CharterCharter low/high boundRepublicanRepublican low/high boundRepeal referendum
Liberal and conservative emerge.
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Dimensionality of Cincinnati Council voting
3D W-NOMINATE model, default settings, R polarity.End year of respective session
APRE
1D2D3D
Lib-cons increasingly powerful.
What was it like? Party-in-government
Fragmentation in Worcester
1952 1954 1956 1958
-4-2
02
4
Posterior means and 95% confidence intervalsfor Dem and non-Dem ideal points
End year of Council term
Firs
t-dim
ensi
on s
core
DemDem low/high boundnot Demnot Dem low/high boundRepeal referendum
Democrats cohesive.
1952 1954 1956 1958
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Dimensionality of Worcester Council voting
3D W-NOMINATE model, default settings, D polarity.End year of respective session
APRE
1D2D3D
More dimensions needed.
What was it like? Party-in-government
Land use conflict and repeal
1930 1933 1936 1939 1942 1945 1948 1951 1954 1957
Inferred partisan division of City Planning Commissionvs. Republican share of Council seats
Includes City Manager's alternate. Bars reflect partisanship for majority of respective year. Partisanship inferred from that of appointing Mayor.
# of
mem
bers
02
46
8
Charter-appointedRepublican-appointed
Republican Council seatsOverride threshold
Charter dominates planning.1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Repeal attempts follow land use conflict
Terms: zon, plan, land, highwa, parkwa, slum, redev, renewa, toBusEnd year of council term
Pro
port
ion
of n
on−
unan
imou
s vo
tes
Non−unanimous Council votes on land useReferendum on PR repeal
Planning and repeal activity.
Why repealed? Cincinnati
Ends against the middle in Cincinnati
Jul. 7, 1955: To increase penalties associated with violating rulings of a proposed, local Fair Employment Practices Commission
Revealed positions on employment nondiscrimination
R
C−d
C−d R
C−rC−d
C−d
R
R
C−d
Nay
Yea
Nay
Suppressing race issue.
Dec. 23, 1953: To table studying feasibility of a local Wagner Act
Revealed positions on mandatory collective bargaining
R
C−d
C−d R
C−rC−d
C−d
R
R
C−d
Yea
Nay
Yea
Suppressing labor issue.
Why repealed? Cincinnati
Repeal in Worcester
I 1953: Official map adopted.
I 1955: First repeal effort.
I 1958: Construction of I-290. Slum clearance, relocation, etc.
I 1959 & 1960: Final repeal efforts.
I Also: 2/3 required on key votes.
I Also: zoning stalemate since 1924.
Why repealed? Worcester
Repeal in Worcester
I 1953: Official map adopted.
I 1955: First repeal effort.
I 1958: Construction of I-290. Slum clearance, relocation, etc.
I 1959 & 1960: Final repeal efforts.
I Also: 2/3 required on key votes.
I Also: zoning stalemate since 1924.
Why repealed? Worcester
Tentative conclusions
I PR champions were not angels. (Who is?)
I Recipe: home rule, out-party, ruling-party split.
I More prevalent if the party system had been moregeographically balanced?
I Least proportional institutions most responsible for repeal.
Conclusion Tentative conclusions
Tentative conclusions
I PR champions were not angels. (Who is?)
I Recipe: home rule, out-party, ruling-party split.
I More prevalent if the party system had been moregeographically balanced?
I Least proportional institutions most responsible for repeal.
Conclusion Tentative conclusions
Tentative conclusions
I PR champions were not angels. (Who is?)
I Recipe: home rule, out-party, ruling-party split.
I More prevalent if the party system had been moregeographically balanced?
I Least proportional institutions most responsible for repeal.
Conclusion Tentative conclusions
Tentative conclusions
I PR champions were not angels. (Who is?)
I Recipe: home rule, out-party, ruling-party split.
I More prevalent if the party system had been moregeographically balanced?
I Least proportional institutions most responsible for repeal.
Conclusion Tentative conclusions
Stay tuned
I New York City roll calls
I Vote transfers
I At APSA: Thu. 2 PM, Sat.8 AM
Conclusion Forthcoming data
Stay tuned
I New York City roll calls
I Vote transfers
I At APSA: Thu. 2 PM, Sat.8 AM
Conclusion Forthcoming data