arXiv subjects

Emma Ebowe

Publications and source records attributed to Emma Ebowe.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

Gerrymandering and geographic polarization have reduced electoral competition

Changes in political geography and electoral district boundaries shape representation in the United States Congress. To disentangle the effects of geography and gerrymandering, we generate a large ensemble of alternative redistricting plans that follow each state's legal criteria. Comparing enacted plans to these simulations reveals partisan bias, while changes in the simulated plans over time identify shifts in political geography. Our analysis shows that geographic polarization has intensified between 2010 and 2020: Republicans improved their standing in rural and rural-suburban areas, while Democrats further gained in urban districts. These shifts offset nationally, reducing the Republican geographic advantage from 14 to 10 seats. Additionally, pro-Democratic gerrymandering in 2020 counteracted earlier Republican efforts, reducing the GOP redistricting advantage by two seats. In total, the pro-Republican bias declined from 16 to 10 seats. Crucially, shifts in political geography and gerrymandering reduced the number of highly competitive districts by over 25%, with geographic polarization driving most of the decline.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2024

Redistricting Reforms Reduce Gerrymandering by Constraining Partisan Actors

Political actors often manipulate redistricting plans to gain electoral advantages, a process known as gerrymandering. Several states have implemented institutional reforms to address this problem, such as establishing map-drawing commissions. Estimating the impact of such reforms is challenging because each state structures its processes and rules differently. We model redistricting as a sequential game whose equilibrium solution summarizes multi-step institutional interactions as a univariate score. We argue this score measures the leeway political actors have over the partisan lean of the final plan. Using a differences-in-differences design, we demonstrate that reforms reduce partisan bias and increase competitiveness when they constrain partisan actors. We perform a counterfactual policy analysis to estimate the effects of enacting recent reforms nationwide. Though commissions generally reduce bias, reforms that restrict partisan actors in multiple ways, like removing veto points (Michigan), are more effective than commissions where parties retain some control (Ohio).

stat.AP↗