The Math

Chart borrowed from David Park relates the share of the vote going to Democrats to the share of House seats controlled by Democrats. You can see that starting in 1994 we entered an era when Democrats have consistently underperformed their vote share. If the current Democratic majority can stay in place past the 2010 census, one assumes that will change. Still, it should always be remembered -- but especially in these days of heady optimism -- that the structure of American political institutions provides a substantial bias in favor of conservatism and makes it difficult for small progressive majorities to accomplish very much.

Comments

Andrew Gelman is a political scientist who's just posted a paper predicting that this advantage will shift this year:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/kastellec_et_al_2008_house_sv.pdf

Posted by spaz | June 3, 2008 1:34 PM

To what extent is that substantial bias the result of redistricting in states controlled by Republicans?

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 3, 2008 1:43 PM

Matthew Yglesias writes:

You can see that starting in 1994 we entered an era when Democrats have consistently underperformed their vote share.

This is a trivial consequence from the observation that in a binary winner-takes-all election system the losing party always underperforms its vote share on a local level. That is, it gets zero representatives from the district no matter what percentage of the vote it actually received in the district.

Posted by ndm | June 3, 2008 1:47 PM

"Still, it should always be remembered -- but especially in these days of heady optimism -- that the structure of American political institutions provides a substantial bias in favor of conservatism and makes it difficult for small progressive majorities to accomplish very much."

The structure of American political institutions provides a substantial bias in favor of rural voters, not one in favor of conservatism.

Of course, for Matthew, rural voters are by definition conservative, which is why he's so pleased to see a Democratic nominee who's weak among rural voters.

Posted by Petey | June 3, 2008 1:47 PM

I’m not sure if that’s necessarily the right conclusion to draw from this data. There’s also the question of dispersment of vote. The votes of Democrats tend to more concentrated geographically, while Republicans are more evenly spread out. But I do think the Democrats have altered that somewhat in recent years.

Posted by Eddy Elfenbein | June 3, 2008 2:02 PM

This is a trivial consequence from the observation that in a binary winner-takes-all election system the losing party always underperforms its vote share on a local level. That is, it gets zero representatives from the district no matter what percentage of the vote it actually received in the district.

I was going to remark on this as well. It's pretty obvious from looking at the chart, but due to various factors favoring the republicans, the break even point for Dems is actually above 50%. Of course, this does not explain the 2006 result, but gerrymandering is probably enough to make up the difference.

Posted by mpowell | June 3, 2008 2:03 PM

The structure of American political institutions provides a substantial bias in favor of rural voters, not one in favor of conservatism.

If you actually paid attention to this blog, you'd note that in addition to the rural bias that you identify, the multiple veto points in the system make change (and thus progressive change) harder.

Posted by Sam TH | June 3, 2008 2:31 PM

If the current Democratic majority can stay in place past the 2010 census, one assumes that will change.

Why? Isn't it state legislatures that matter, not Congress?

Posted by Glenn | June 3, 2008 2:38 PM

our election system is biased in favor of geography, not conservatism. our political system, if you include discourse and conventions, is heavily biased toward conservatism, insofar as it's impolite in modern society to call a quack a quack.

Posted by Cody | June 3, 2008 3:07 PM

"If you actually paid attention to this blog, you'd note that in addition to the rural bias that you identify, the multiple veto points in the system make change (and thus progressive change) harder."

One of the few times I've agreed with Yglesias on partisan strategy was back in '06 when we were both in favor of Bill Frist's "nuclear option" to destroy the filibuster and thus significantly weaken one of those veto points.

But that was back when Matthew was "reality-based". Now the trust-fund scumbag Yglesias has allied himself with the rest of the upscale blogosphere in its aim to rid the Party of both its social justice component and its rural component.

Posted by Petey | June 3, 2008 3:27 PM

The 1990s is when the impact of the 1986 Voting Rights Act was felt, which demanded that House districts be gerrymandered to produce "majority minority" districts to elect black and Hispanic Congressmen. Republicans have long supported this law because majority minority districts require concentrating so many Democrats in certain districts that the GOP is likely to win most of the close districts.

On the other hand, if voters overall go so heavily for the Democrats that the small GOP advantage in many districts is overwhelmed, then the whole House could tip overwhelmingly toward the Democrats. That's because Republican policy, implemented via the Voting Rights Act of 1986, has been to have fewer safe seats and more seats where the GOP has a marginal advantage. But that only is an advantage if you aren't getting whomped. In a landslide, it exaggerates your losses.

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 3, 2008 3:31 PM

I only know the Oregon figures (and you almost have to live here to know what's rural and what's not), but Obama was at least competitive in rural areas. Carried a couple of counties, including the Bend area, where I was actually pretty surprised.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | June 3, 2008 3:50 PM

Now the trust-fund scumbag Yglesias has allied himself with the rest of the upscale blogosphere in its aim to rid the Party of both its social justice component and its rural component.

I genuinely do not understand how anyone can think that supporting a black man who worked as a community organizer in Chicago housing projects for the Presidency is anti-social justice.

I realize that you believe very strongly in the power the campaign rhetoric and coalitions to determine behavior once elected. But if you read "Dreams from My Father", it's pretty obvious that Obama would be the most personally pro-social justice presidential candidate since the SPUSA stopped being a serious party.

Posted by Sam TH | June 3, 2008 4:58 PM