Apportionment Laws and Constitutional Seats: Mathematics vs. Politics

Corres-Illera, María

DSpace Principal
→
Colección de los Centros Asociados
→
Colombia
→
Departamento de Ciencia Política - DCP/UNAL - Cosecha
→
Ver ítem

dc.creator	Corres-Illera, María
dc.date	2020-07-01
dc.date.accessioned	2022-03-22T19:56:29Z
dc.date.available	2022-03-22T19:56:29Z
dc.identifier	https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/forum/article/view/79259
dc.identifier	10.15446/frdcp.n18.79259
dc.identifier.uri	http://biblioteca-repositorio.clacso.edu.ar/handle/CLACSO/102534
dc.description	Apportionment laws have both mathematical and political components framed by law. In order to conduct an appropriate analysis, it is necessary to examine how apportionment laws are negotiated, passed and turned into legally binding documents. The reason for choosing the United States of America’s current apportionment legislation as the object of this study, is due to the fact that in the process of discussion and passing of said legislation we can observe a great dichotomy between mathematics and politics. While the aim of mathematics is to find the most equitable form of seat apportionment, the political justification for choosing this or another solution will be simply based on furthering political interest. Additionally, in this particular case, the legislative processes are mirrored by academic discussions on the subject matter, that influence the decision-making process. This inquiry also focuses on how constitutional techniques can interfere in the proportional representation system, thus producing an inherent bias in the applied method of apportionment, whichever this may be. These findings can be extrapolated to any modern democracy.	en-US
dc.description	Las leyes electorales tienen un contenido matemático y político delimitado por el derecho, y para su correcto análisis es necesario examinar cómo se llega a la aprobación de dicha legislación. Para ello, se ha seleccionado la legislación electoral vigente en los Estados Unidos de América como objeto de este estudio, puesto que, en su tramitación parlamentaria, y en el caso que nos concierne, también académica, puede observarse una gran dicotomía entre argumentos matemáticos sobre el reparto más equitativo de escaños, contra explicaciones políticas que justifican la aplicación de otras alternativas para el beneficio de intereses partidistas que, de un modo u otro, forman parte de toda ley electoral. También este estudio se fija en cómo la aplicación de técnicas constitucionales extrapolables a la mayoría de las democracias modernas, con independencia del método de prorrateo escogido para el reparto de escaños de su cámara, suponen una injerencia de la representación igualitaria en la representación proporcional, y por ende producen un sesgo en el método de prorrateo aplicable.	es-ES
dc.format	text/xml
dc.format	application/pdf
dc.language	spa
dc.publisher	Universidad Nacional de Colombia - Sede Medellín - Facultad de Ciencias Humanas y Económicas - Departamento de Ciencia Política	es-ES
dc.relation	https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/forum/article/view/79259/81421
dc.relation	https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/forum/article/view/79259/76734
dc.relation	/ref/Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Nueva York: Supreme Court. Recuperado de https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/369/186/
dc.relation	/ref/Balinski, M. L. Y. & Peyton, H. (2001). Fair Representation: Meeting the Ideal of One Man, One Vote. Washington: Brookins Institution Press.
dc.relation	/ref/English, R. M. (2003). The United States Congress. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
dc.relation	/ref/Hamilton, V. V. d. V. (1982). Hugo Black: The Alabama Years. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
dc.relation	/ref/History, Art and Archives & United States House of Representatives. (1941-2016). 78th through 115th Congresses (1943-2019). Recuperado de https://history.house.gov/Congressional-Overview/Profiles/78th/; https://history.house.gov/Congressional-Overview/Profiles/115th/
dc.relation	/ref/Huntington, E. V. (1921). A New Method of Apportionment of Representatives. Quarterly Publications of the American Statistical Association, 17(135), 859-870. https://doi.org/10.2307/2965187
dc.relation	/ref/Huntington, E. V. (1928). The Reapportionment Bill in Congress. Science, 67(1742), 509-510. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.67.1742.509
dc.relation	/ref/Huntington, E. V. (1929a). Reply to Professor Willcox. Science, 69(1784), 272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.69.1784.272-b
dc.relation	/ref/Huntington, E. V. (1929b). The Report of the National Academy of Sciences on Reapportionment. Science, 69(1792), 471-473. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.69.1792.471
dc.relation	/ref/Huntington, E. V. (1942). The Method of Congressional Apportionment under the Law of 1941. Science, 95(2471), 477-478. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.95.2471.477
dc.relation	/ref/Katz, J. N., Gelman, A., & King, G. (2002). Empirically Evaluating the Electoral College. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
dc.relation	/ref/Lee, F. E., & Oppenheimer, B. I. (1999). Sizing up the Senate: The Unequal Consequences of Equal Representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
dc.relation	/ref/Ley Orgánica 5 de 1985 (19 de junio), del Régimen Electoral General. Recuperado de https://www.boe.es/eli/es/lo/1985/06/19/5/con
dc.relation	/ref/Lincoln, A. (1863). The Gettysburg Address. Recuperado de http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm
dc.relation	/ref/Members of the Supreme Court of the United States. (2019). About the Court. Recuparado de https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members.aspx
dc.relation	/ref/Miller, N. R. (2012). Election inversions by the US Electoral College. En D. Felsenthal & M. Machover (Eds.), Electoral Systems. Studies in Choice and Welfare (pp. 93-127). Berlín: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20441-8_4
dc.relation	/ref/Neubauer, M. G. & Zeitlin, J. (2003). Outcomes of Presidential Elections and the House Size. Political Science and Politics, 36(4), 721-725. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096503003019
dc.relation	/ref/Pfiffner, J. P. (2001). Reevaluating the Electoral College. Manuscrito no publicado, George Mason University, Estados Unidos.
dc.relation	/ref/Poston, D. L. (1997). The US Census and congressional apportionment. Society, 34(3), 36-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-997-1005-6
dc.relation	/ref/Pukelsheim, F. (2017). Proportional Representation. Apportionment Methods and Their Applications. Nueva York: Springer.
dc.relation	/ref/Ross, T. (2004). The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy. The Heritage Foundation. Recuperado de https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/the-electoral-college-enlightened-democracy
dc.relation	/ref/Schmeckebier, L. F. (1941). Congressional Apportionment. Washington: The Brookings Institution.
dc.relation	/ref/Sides, J., Tesler, M. & Vavreck, L. (2017). The 2016 U.S. Election: How Trump Lost and Won. Journal of Democracy, 28(2), 34-44. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2017.0022
dc.relation	/ref/Smith, L. A. (S. F.). Senatorial and Judicial First Amendment Rhetoric of Hugo LaFayette Black. Communication Law Review. Recuperado de http://www.commlawreview.org/Archives/v7i1/Senatorial%20and%20Judicial%20First%20Amendment%20Rhetoric%20of%20Hugo%20LaFayette%20Black.pdf
dc.relation	/ref/National Archives, Estados Unidos. Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text. (1787 - ratified 1788). The Characters of Freedom. Recuperado de http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
dc.relation	/ref/Treaty Establishing the European Comunities. (1957). Treaty of Paris and Rome. Recuperado de https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12002E/TXT
dc.relation	/ref/United States Census Bureau. (2008). Joseph Adna Hill. Recuperado de https://www.census.gov/history/www/census_then_now/notable_alumni/joseph_adna_hill.html
dc.relation	/ref/United States Code. (2006). 2.§ 2a. Reapportionment of Representatives. 18 de Junio de 1929, ch. 28, §22, 46 Stat. 26. Recuperado de https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2006-title2/pdf/USCODE-2006-title2-chap1-sec2a.pdf
dc.relation	/ref/United States Census Bureau. (2012a). 2010 Apportionment Results. Recuperado de https://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/data/2010_apportionment_results.html
dc.relation	/ref/United States Census Bureau. (2012b). Computing Apportionment. Recuperado de https://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/computing.html
dc.relation	/ref/Willcox, W. F. (1928). The Apportionment of Representatives. Science, 67(1745), 581-582. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.67.1745.581
dc.relation	/ref/Willcox, W. F. (1929a). The Apportionment Situation in Congress. Science, 69(1780), 163-165. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.69.1780.163-a
dc.relation	/ref/Willcox, W. F. (1929b). Professor Huntington's Method in Controversy. Science, 69(1787), 357-358. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.69.1787.357-c
dc.relation	/ref/Willcox, W. F. (1942). An Untried Method of Federal Reapportionment. Science, 95(2472), 501-503. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.95.2472.501
dc.relation	/ref/2018 Midterm Election Results. (27 de noviembre de 2018). New York Times. Recuperado de https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/us/elections/calendar-primary-results.html
dc.rights	Derechos de autor 2020 Forum. Revista Departamento de Ciencia Política	es-ES
dc.rights	https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0	es-ES
dc.source	Forum. Revista Departamento de Ciencia Política; No. 18 (2020): July-December, 2020. Migration: Old and New Patterns, Old and New Discourse; 166-195	en-US
dc.source	Forum. Revista Departamento de Ciencia Política; Núm. 18 (2020): Julio-diciembre de 2020. Migración: viejos y nuevos patrones, viejos y nuevos discursos; 166-195	es-ES
dc.source	2216-1767
dc.source	2216-1775
dc.subject	apportionment	en-US
dc.subject	elections	en-US
dc.subject	electoral system	en-US
dc.subject	electoral reform	en-US
dc.subject	proportional representation	en-US
dc.subject	democracy	en-US
dc.subject	participation	en-US
dc.subject	politics	en-US
dc.subject	leadership	en-US
dc.subject	electoral studies	en-US
dc.subject	electoral laws	en-US
dc.subject	apportionment methods	en-US
dc.subject	prorrateo	es-ES
dc.subject	elecciones	es-ES
dc.subject	sistema electoral	es-ES
dc.subject	reforma electoral	es-ES
dc.subject	representación proporcional	es-ES
dc.subject	democracia	es-ES
dc.subject	participación	es-ES
dc.subject	política	es-ES
dc.subject	liderazgo	es-ES
dc.subject	estudios electorales	es-ES
dc.subject	leyes electorales	es-ES
dc.subject	métodos de prorrateo	es-ES
dc.title	Apportionment Laws and Constitutional Seats: Mathematics vs. Politics	en-US
dc.title	Leyes electorales y escaños constitucionales: matemática vs. política	es-ES
dc.type	info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type	info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type	Estudo de caso	es-ES
dc.type	Case study	en-US