Politics, and the redistricting process through which it is carried out, has always been part of our history. In the last four decades, however, the frequency with which redistricting has taken place has grown dramatically. Through a series of theoretical, historical, and case study essays by leading scholars, Redistricting in the New Millennium addresses the complications of redistricting from before the 1812 plan setting gerrymandering to the latest Congressional races. The essays take the reader through the complicated issues of redistricting, addressing partisan, incumbent, racial, and judicial concerns. The book is essential for students of politics as well as anyone interested in the political process.

Despite heightened partisanship in the U.S. Congress and constituencies split along ideological lines, congressional representatives frequently buck their parties and seldom do precisely what voters ask. In "Personal Roots of Representation," Barry Burden challenges standard explanations of legislative preferences to emphasize the important role that personal influences play in representatives' voting behavior.

This timely book is the first to examine the extent to which the very same values, experiences, and interests that shape congressional members as individuals and guide their own life choices similarly shape their policymaking decisions. Burden takes a close look at legislative decision making in the areas of tobacco regulation, vouchers and school choice, and religion and bioethics. He finds that personal factors become more significant when legislators are acting proactively rather than reactively, grappling with specific policy issues, and defending rather than challenging the status quo. Marshaling both qualitative and quantitative evidence, Burden reveals that the personal roots of representatives' actions can be as influential as the usual suspects of partisanship and constituency--and that personal factors quite often have the greatest impact when the policymaking stakes are at their highest.

"Personal Roots of Representation" is a provocative book that raises pressing new questions about legislative discretion and the accountability of our elected officials.

Policymaking in the realm of elections is too often grounded in anecdotes and opinions, rather than in good data and scientific research. To remedy this, The Measure of American Elections brings together a dozen leading scholars to examine the performance of elections across the United States, using a data-driven perspective. This book represents a transformation in debates about election reform, away from partisan and ideological posturing, toward using scientific analysis to evaluate the conduct of contemporary elections. The authors harness the power of newly available data to document all aspects of election administration, ranging from the registration of voters to the counting of ballots. They demonstrate what can be learned from giving serious attention to data, measurement, and objective analysis of American elections.

Representing researchers from diverse subfields who analyze how and why uncertainty affects American politics, this study reconnects research traditions that have seldom related to one another. Though used by formal theorists, empiricists, and historians in a parallel fashion, the notion of uncertainty has often been introduced only to explain away anomalies, provide backing for a larger argument, or justify a particular methodology. Uncertainty has rarely been considered in its own right or as a concept that might connect researchers from different subfields.

Representing researchers from diverse subfields who analyze how and why uncertainty affects American politics, this study reconnects research traditions that have seldom related to one another. Though used by formal theorists, empiricists, and historians in a parallel fashion, the notion of uncertainty has often been introduced only to explain away anomalies, provide backing for a larger argument, or justify a particular methodology. Uncertainty has rarely been considered in its own right or as a concept that might connect researchers from different subfields.

Policymaking in the realm of elections is too often grounded in anecdotes and opinions, rather than in good data and scientific research. To remedy this, The Measure of American Elections brings together a dozen leading scholars to examine the performance of elections across the United States, using a data-driven perspective. This book represents a transformation in debates about election reform, away from partisan and ideological posturing, toward using scientific analysis to evaluate the conduct of contemporary elections. The authors harness the power of newly available data to document all aspects of election administration, ranging from the registration of voters to the counting of ballots. They demonstrate what can be learned from giving serious attention to data, measurement, and objective analysis of American elections.

"In Why Americans Split Their Tickets," Barry C. Burden and David C. Kimball argue that divided government is produced unintentionally. Using a new quantitative method to analyze voting in presidential, House, and Senate elections from 1952 to 1996, they reject the dominant explanation for divided government, that ticket splitting is done to balance parties that are far from the center. The ideological positions of candidates do not matter in American elections, but voters favor centrist candidates rather than a mix of extremists. When candidates of opposing parties adopt similar platforms, ticket splitting arises. For voters, ideological differences between the parties blur and other considerations such as candidate characteristics exert a greater influence on their voting decisions. Among their other findings, the authors link changes in congressional campaigns--namely the rise of incumbency advantage and the greater importance of money in the 1960s and 1970s--to ticket splitting and argue, in addition, that the transformation of the South from a Democratic stronghold to a Republican-leaning environment has made regional factors less important.
Burden and Kimball draw upon a diverse and unique range of data as evidence for their argument. Their analyses rely on survey data, aggregate election returns, and new ecological inference estimates for every House and Senate election from 1952 to 1996. This approach allows for the examination of divided voting in traditional ways, such as choosing a Democratic presidential candidate and a Republican House candidate on a single ballot, to less traditional forms, such as voting in a midterm House election and choosing a state's Senatedelegation.
Barry C. Burden is Assistant Professor of Government, Harvard University. David C. Kimball is Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Missouri, St. Louis.