Publisher's Weekly Review
Political scientist Rodden (Hamilton's Paradox), of Stanford's Hoover Institution, argues in this insightful but dry work that the ways rural areas seem to control national elections are as old as the republic itself and didn't start with recent gerrymandering. The winner-take-all system (rather than proportional representation), a relic of British colonial rule, and the persistence of two parties have exacerbated a power struggle between city and country that goes back to Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, producing a Democratic Party with a lock on urban centers and statewide offices in certain states, while the Republican Party carries the exurbs and rural areas which oftentimes translates into decisive control of other state legislatures and Congress. In Pennsylvania, Rodden's main case study, Republicans have controlled the legislature for decades thanks to the clustering of Democrats in urban areas. Rather than focusing on the 2016 presidential election or the 2018 midterms, Rodden dives deeply into the historical context and patterns, concluding that ending underrepresentation of city dwellers will probably require redistricting or proportional representation. This polished and data-heavy examination will interest serious political enthusiasts, academics, and data geeks, but probably not the general reader. (June)
Kirkus Review
The enduring importance of geography in American politics.Many argue that partisan gerrymandering causes cities to lose to rural areas in countywide, winner-take-all elections. That is too simple an explanation, writes Rodden (Political Science/Stanford Univ.; Hamilton's Paradox: The Promise and Peril of Fiscal Federalism, 2005). Much more important is the geographical location of a political party's base. In many states, urban areas are largely Democratic. The Democrats often win majorities there but fall short in pivotal districts outside the city that decide control of Congress and state legislatures. In this data-dense book, the author takes a deep look at the familiar urban-rural political divide, examines its implications for democracy (not good), and suggests ways to reduce polarization. He also shows how similar patterns affect elections in other Western democracies. In an intriguing section, he traces the roots of the American divide to the era of labor unrest before World War I, when left-leaning workers lived in urban working-class neighborhoods. In industrial Reading, Pennsylvania, they could win majorities in urban city council wards but found it harder to achieve victory in wards with more white-collar workers and business owners. Today, with the rise of the knowledge economy, this "pattern of political geography" continues even though city residents are now a far more heterogeneous collection of urban interest groups (working poor, immigrants, young progressives, etc.). Democrats cluster in "growing, affluent city centers like Seattle and San Francisco, as well as in smaller knowledge-economy hubs like Durham and Ann Arbor." They fight "a perpetual battle for the party's soul," pitting firebrands against those trying to soften the party's reputation to win rural votes. "A victory for the left is a victory not only for the urban poorbut also for universities, laboratory scientists, and social progressives," writes the author. As Rodden argues, only electoral reforma switch to representation in proportion to overall vote shareor major demographic shifts can reduce the underrepresentation of urban interests.Valuable for specialists and political journalists. Copyright Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
Booklist Review
With shrewd insights, Rodden, a professor of political science at Stanford, lays out a compelling, intricate, and meticulously documented case for the geographic basis of contemporary political strife. The political crisis of our time, he argues, is the sectional divide between city and country. In the United States and certain other countries, urban voters get short shrift in political representation a product of geographically delineated, winner-take-all electoral districts. Because urban voters have become the near-exclusive constituency of left-leaning parties, the Left in many countries faces an undemocratic structural disadvantage. In the U.S., Rodden's main focus, Democrats often lose even when they get more votes, a profound stress on the political system. A study of the political history of Reading, Pennsylvania, since 1877 adds texture and context, as does the book's frequent references to the UK, Canada, and Australia, which have similar systems and face similar challenges. Surprisingly, Rodden makes little of another element of American antidemocratic politics racial barriers to voting. Yet he does offer a powerful, well-developed perspective on the nature of our contemporary politics, and compelling suggestions to fix it.--Sam Kling Copyright 2019 Booklist
Choice Review
Political polarization is a fact in American politics, but Rodden provides a compelling reason for its cause. As Bishop and Cushing do in The Big Sort (CH, Dec'09, 47-2303), Rodden argues that the underlying choices people make about where to live drives polarization. However, he provides evidence that settlement patterns were defined by pre-existing neighborhoods, roads, canals, and railways built to accommodate the Second Industrial Revolution (late 19th and early 20th centuries). He also makes the compelling case that dominant political ideologies of those living in cities will always have an electoral disadvantage, even when in the majority, against conservative rural populations. This combination of "sorting" and single-member plurality electoral structure ensures that concentrations of left-leaning voters in urban centers will lead to rural-conservative dominance in district-based legislative elections. Rodden notes that a system of proportional representation may mitigate these inherent disadvantages for the left. Though Rodden addresses it briefly, there is a larger discussion to be had about the extent to which he may be describing evidence of a realignment. Summing Up: Highly recommended. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty. --Jim Twombly, Elmira College
Library Journal Review
Rodden (political science, Stanford Univ.; Hamilton's Paradox) looks beyond gerrymandering and voter suppression to offer a nuanced understanding of the Democratic Party's inability to maintain majority representation despite consistently winning popular votes. At the heart of this issue, argues the author, is the contemporary U.S. urban-rural divide, which connects with the larger history of political geography beginning during the Second Industrial Revolution. By comparing countries with small winner-take-all districting vs. large proportional representation zones, Rodden's well-researched narrative offers critical insights into why the U.S. government has become a rigid two-party system and how the geographical concentration of Democrats is undermining their ability to win elections. Many will find this helpful in explaining how the Republican and Democratic parties have grown so partisan, and may also serve to illuminate potential reforms that could alleviate urban-rural polarization. VERDICT A timely and critical work that explains the ramifications of operating a winner-take-all election approach in U.S. state and federal districting.--Matt Gallagher, Univ. of the Sciences, Philadelphia