Why Cities Lose

May 15, 2019
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 poor...but also for universities, laboratory scientists, and social progressives," writes the author. As Rodden argues, only electoral reform--a switch to representation in proportion to overall vote share--or major demographic shifts can reduce the underrepresentation of urban interests. Valuable for specialists and political journalists.

COPYRIGHT(2019) Kirkus Reviews, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Starred review from June 1, 2019

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

Copyright 2019 Library Journal, LLC Used with permission.

July 29, 2019
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.