The coalition politics of RCV at mid-century

Jack Santuccijms346@georgetown.edu

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I Why repealed?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I Why repealed?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I Why repealed?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I Why repealed?I Land use conflict?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