<span style="font-size: 100%; font-family: Arial; color: #000000;" data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Understanding the consequences for democracy and representation of various electoral structures has never been easy. Scholars from the Reverend Dodgson to Kenneth Arrow to Gary King have all undertaken theoretical and empirical studies of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of different electoral arrangements, yet these debates continue with no resolution in sight.

more »

... rical studies often cannot distinguish social from structural effects, while analytic studies often make assumptions that diminish our ability to apply the findings to any real world comparison. Such enterprises are most difficult when the electoral systems under consideration are concurrently in the midst of structural, social and issue evolution. The two preceding papers undertake a difficult task; i.e., separating the consequences of structural change from those of social change in the US South during a period of great flux in racial and partisan power relations. Much of the disagreement between these two analyses\u2014and perhaps some of the agreement as well\u2014can be attributed to the conceptual and methodological difficulties of the enterprise they undertake. The two key questions addressed are: 1) which party benefited from the change to single-member districts, winner-take-all elections, from various multimember district electoral formats, and 2) which party benefited from redistricting?&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:2111744,&quot;11&quot;:0,&quot;14&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0},&quot;15&quot;:&quot;arial,sans,sans-serif&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10,&quot;24&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:3,&quot;3&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:3}}">Understanding the consequences for democracy and representation of various electoral structures has never been easy. Scholars from the Reverend Dodgson to Kenneth Arrow to Gary King have all undertaken theoretical and empirical studies of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of different electoral arrangements, yet these debates continue with no resolution in sight. Empirical studies often cannot distinguish social from structural effects, while analytic studies often make assumptions that diminish our ability to apply the findings to any real world comparison. Such enterprises are most difficult when the electoral systems under consideration are concurrently in the midst of structural, social and issue evolution. The two preceding papers undertake a difficult task; i.e., separating the consequences of structural change from those of social change in the US South during a period of great flux in racial and partisan power relations. Much of the disagreement between these two analyses—and perhaps some of the agreement as well—can be attributed to the conceptual and methodological difficulties of the enterprise they undertake. The two key questions addressed are: 1) which party benefited from the change to single-member districts, winner-take-all elections, from various multimember district electoral formats, and 2) which party benefited from redistricting?</span>