Post on 22-Dec-2015
The Evolution of Substantive and Descriptive Representation, 1974-2004
David Epstein
Sharyn O’Halloran
Columbia University
Georgia’s Gerrymander
Range Baseline Proposed
0-25 31 26
25-40 11 17
40-50 2 0
50-60 2 8
60+ 10 5
Plan: Reallocate black voters to elect Democrats
Is This Retrogression?
The Perfect Storm DC denied preclearance, saying state didn’t
prove non-retrogression in three districts SC overruled in Georgia v. Ashcroft:
Retrogression should be assessed statewide, not district-by-district
States could pursue substantive rather than descriptive representation
Put much weight on testimony of black legislators
Consensus View A conventional wisdom is forming about the
meaning and importance of Ashcroft:1. It abandoned a previous, “relatively mechanical”
retrogression test based on electability;2. It did so in favor of an amorphous concept of
substantive representation that will be difficult to administer; and
3. The crux of the debate revolves around whether states should pursue substantive as opposed to descriptive representation.
This Paper We disagree with all three of these statements
The previous standard for retrogression was crumbling anyway, due to political changes The Court revised this, too, in the opinion, moving to
a statewide assessment of retrogression Substantive representation is not difficult to
measure and administer Real arguments aren’t over descriptive vs.
substantive representation, for the most part Rather, the question is on how best to achieve secure
levels of substantive representation
0.5
1P
roba
bilit
y of
Ele
ctin
g B
lack
Rep
.
0 50 57.5 100Percent Black Voting Age Population
Electability: High Polarization
% BVAP
0
P*
50 100
HighPolarization
Measuring Descriptive Representation
% BVAP
0
P*
50 100
No Minority Control
HighPolarization
Measuring Descriptive Representation
Minority Control
0.5
1P
roba
bilit
y of
Ele
ctin
g B
lack
Rep
.
0 40 50 100Percent Black Voting Age Population
Electability: Low Polarization
% BVAP
0
P*
50 100
No Minority Control
HighPolarization
Measuring Descriptive Representation
Minority Control
% BVAP
0
P*
50 100
LowPolarization
% BVAP
0
P*
50 100
No Minority Control
HighPolarization
Measuring Descriptive Representation
Minority Control
% BVAP
0
P*
50 100
Coali-tional
LowPolarization
% BVAP
0
P*
50 100
No Minority Control
HighPolarization
Measuring Descriptive Representation
Minority Control
% BVAP
0
P*
50 100
PS
Coali-tional
UnsafeControl
LowPolarization
% BVAP
0
P*
50 100
No Minority Control
HighPolarization
Measuring Descriptive Representation
Minority Control
% BVAP
0
P*
50 100
SafeControl
PS PP
Coali-tional
UnsafeControl
Packing
LowPolarization
% BVAP
0
P*
50 100
No Minority Control
HighPolarization
Measuring Descriptive Representation
Minority Control
% BVAP
0
P*
50 100
No Minority Control
SafeControl
PS PP
Coali-tional
UnsafeControl
Packing
LowPolarization
PI
Influence
% BVAP
0
P*
50 100
No Minority Control
HighPolarization
Measuring Descriptive Representation
Minority Control
% BVAP
0
P*
50 100
No Minority Control
SafeControl
PS PP
Coali-tional
UnsafeControl
Packing
LowPolarization
PI
Influence
How to make tradeoffs?
Retrogression in Electability Forget categories; just use the probability of
electing a minority candidate in each district Estimate this using “S-curves”
0.5
1P
roba
bilit
y of
Ele
ctin
g B
lack
Rep
.
0 40 50 100Percent Black Voting Age Population
Low Polarization
Retrogression in Electability Forget categories; just use the probability of
electing a minority candidate in each district Estimate this using “S-curves”
Then add up the probabilities to get the expected number of minorities elected Can consider the variance of this distribution, too
For Georgia, the proposed plan had slightly fewer expected minorities elected Problem with overpopulated districts
Substantive
DescriptiveParetoFrontier
Ashcroft & Substantive Representation
Substantive
Descriptive
SQ
ParetoFrontier
Ashcroft & Substantive Representation
Substantive
Descriptive
SQ
1
2 3
4
ParetoFrontier
Ashcroft & Substantive Representation
Substantive
Descriptive
SQ
1
2 3
4
ParetoFrontier
Ashcroft & Substantive Representation
Pre-Ashcroft
X X
Substantive
Descriptive
SQ
1
2 3
4
ParetoFrontier
Ashcroft & Substantive Representation
Post-Ashcroft
X
Substantive
Descriptive
SQ
1
2 3
4 P
ParetoFrontier
Ashcroft & Substantive Representation
X
A move to P is now non-retrogressive
Measuring Substantive Representation Great leaps have been made in the past two decades
in the analysis of voting behavior This is now commonly used as a measure of members’
policy preferences Not because voting is the only important act
But because it correlates with constituency service, committee work, etc.
For substantive representation of black interests, define a legislator’s Black Support Score:
BSS= % of votes cast with the black majority
.2.4
.6.8
1P
erce
nt P
ro-M
inor
ity V
otes
0 20 40 60 80Black Voting Age Population
Rep.
Black Dem.White Dem.
South Carolina State House
Overall Expected Representation Can compare plans by calculating the expected
substantive representation Combines prob. of election and support scores For Georgia, this was:
Real argument is over the distribution of these scores, not over descriptive vs. substantive representation
Mean Median
Baseline 62.3% 50.2%
Proposed 65.9% 69.2%
Trends, 1974-2004 Show changes in
Election probabilities Substantive representation Maximizing plans
Results: Greater crossover in voting means point of equal
opportunity is under 50% BVAP Southern Democrats become more liberal A tradeoff emerges between substantive and
descriptive representation
0.2
.4.6
.8
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Black Voting Age Population
94th Congress
0.2
.4.6
.8
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Black Voting Age Population
98th Congress0
.2.4
.6.8
1
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Black Voting Age Population
102nd Congress
0.2
.4.6
.81
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Black Voting Age Population
106th Congress
Pro
ba
bili
ty
Pro
ba
bili
ty
Pro
ba
bili
ty
Pro
ba
bili
ty
Black Dems
Black Dems
Black Dems
Black Dems
Republicans
RepublicansRepublicans
RepublicansWhite Dems
White DemsWhite Dems
White Dems
.2.4
.6.8
1B
lack
Sup
port
Sco
re
0 .1 .2 .3 .4Black Voting Age Population
1975 to 1980
.2.4
.6.8
1B
lack
Sup
port
Sco
re
0 .2 .4 .6Black Voting Age Population
1981 to 1986.2
.4.6
.81
Bla
ck S
uppo
rt S
core
0 .2 .4 .6Black Voting Age Population
1987 to 1992
.2.4
.6.8
1B
lack
Sup
port
Sco
re
0 .2 .4 .6 .8Black Voting Age Population
1992 to 2000
Substantive Representation, 1974-2000
97
102
104
105 106
0.2
.4.6
.81
Su
bsta
ntiv
e R
epr
ese
nta
tion
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Descriptive Representation
east south west
Levels of BVAP Maximizing Descriptive andSubstantive Black Representation in Congress
95
9697
9899
100
101
102
103
104
105
.35
.4.4
5.5
Pe
rcen
t of V
ote
s A
gre
ein
g w
ith B
lack
Maj
ority
.02 .04 .06 .08 .1 .12Percent Black Democrats Among Southern Representatives
The Emerging Pareto Frontier
0.2
.4.6
.8H
isp
anic
Vot
ing
Age
Po
pula
tion
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Black Voting Age Population
White Black Hispanic
By District BVAP and HVAP, With 45 Degree LineRace of Representative Elected, 1975-2000
0.2
.4.6
.8H
isp
anic
Vot
ing
Age
Po
pula
tion
.35 .36 .37 .38 .39 .4Black Voting Age Population
1975-1980 1981-19861987-1992 1993-2000
BVAP & HVAP Combinations for PEO
.4.6
.81
Bla
ck S
uppo
rt S
core
0 .2 .4 .6 .8
Black Voting Age Population in District
Republicans White Dems Black Dems
Black Support Scores by Type of Member
Georgia State Senate, 1999-2002
0.5
1
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1bvap
1975 to 1980
0.5
1
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1bvap
1981 to 19860
.51
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1bvap
1987 to 1992
0.5
1
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1bvap
1993 to 2000
Descriptive Representation, 1974-2000
.2.4
.6.8
1P
erce
nt P
ro-M
inor
ity V
otes
0 20 40 60 80Black Voting Age Population
Rep.
Black Dem.
White Dem.