Gerrymandering Opposition: Minority-Concentrated Districts and Electoral Competition in Mexico

Abstract

Can institutions that are designed to improve minority representation also have an effect on electoral competition? We address this question by examining how minority-concentrated districts (MCDs)—designed to empower indigenous populations—affected minority participation and party competition in Mexico. Using an original dataset and a matching design that helps alleviate causal inference problems inherent to observational studies, we find that MCDs had no effect on minority participation but enhanced electoral competition. Field-research reveals that MCDs weakened one-party dominance by assembling minority voting blocs that were amenable to opposition-party appeals. More broadly, our results suggest that the mobilization of minority voting blocs can promote electoral competition in transitional democracies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    We use the term minority-concentrated districts (MCDs) rather than the more conventional majority-minority districts because we adopt the Mexican government’s threshold for such a district, which is that at least 40 % of its inhabitants are ethnic minorities.

  2. 2.

    Cameron, Epstein, and O’Halloran (1996) point out that this concentration of minority voters also reduces overall support for legislation that advances minority interests.

  3. 3.

    These include all eleven states with MCDs plus eight states that do not have MCDs. The resulting dataset has 2048 municipalities out of a total of 2457 in Mexico.

  4. 4.

    Given that the average population of districts is over 325,000 inhabitants, only highly urban municipalities compose their own districts or are split into multiple districts. None of these urban municipalities have sizable indigenous populations and these are thus excluded from the analysis.

  5. 5.

    We chose to analyze midterm elections for two reasons: first, the 2009 midterm election was 4 years after the 2005 redistricting, allowing more time for this treatment to take hold than the 2006 election; second, we expect midterm elections to better reflect the response of voters to their districts’ composition than presidential elections, where coattail effects of the presidential race may play a larger role.

  6. 6.

    The prohibition of reelection in Mexico lessens the risk that our results are confounded by an incumbency effect of the type described by Hayes and McKee (2009).

  7. 7.

    In our main dataset, the PRI received the most votes in 88 % of the municipalities in 2003 and 85 % of the municipalities in 2009. In 2003, the PRI received the second-most votes in all municipalities for which it was not the top vote getter and only failed to receive the first or second-most votes in two municipalities in 2009.

  8. 8.

    Three of these 19 party representatives were appointed by the PRI, and two were appointed by the Partido Verde Ecologista de México (PVEM), a party that often runs in coalition with the PRI. The remaining 14 seats were split among parties that typically oppose the PRI, including three from the PAN, four from the PRD, four from the Partido de Trabajo (PT), and three from Convergencia (IFE 2005b, pp. 136–367).

  9. 9.

    Unfortunately, the details of these requests were not made publicly available. However, an analysis of the 2015 redistricting episode reports that all parties suggested modifications to the scenario generated by the automated algorithm and that 111 out of 544 (20 %) were adopted (Trelles, Altman, Magar, and McDonald 2015).

  10. 10.

    Genetic matching is an evolutionary search algorithm that achieves optimal “balance” on covariates between treatment and control units using observational data. It has been shown to outperform other matching techniques such as propensity-score matching (Sekhon 2011).

  11. 11.

    See Appendix B for a complete list of formal redistricting criteria. Several of these were unlikely to introduce bias and thus not included in the matching algorithm.

  12. 12.

    These 246 municipalities exclude 12 treatment units that were dropped through the use of a caliper because satisfactory matching control units could not be found. The caliper was implemented to improve balance on municipal percent indigenous, the percentage indigenous of the old district, and percent new neighbors.

  13. 13.

    As a robustness check, we tested the effect of MCDs on the effective number of parties, using the Laakso-Taagepera (1979) measure. The estimated effect was positive, but not significant, likely due to the fact that the congressional elections observed continued to be largely two-party races, albeit with narrower vote margins.

  14. 14.

    We also observe greater vote shares for the PRI and lower turnout for mestizo voters reassigned to MCDs than mestizo voters in control municipalities, suggesting that this treatment demobilized this group and caused it to support opposition parties less.

  15. 15.

    We also implemented an original field-research based EI technique, described in greater detail in Meng and Palmer-Rubin (2012).

  16. 16.

    The organization that spearheaded the Zapatista rebellion, the Ejercito Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (National Zapatista Liberation Army) withheld from forming party alliances.

  17. 17.

    Analysis by Sonnleitner (2012b, pp. 91–115) shows that indigenous nominations to the federal Chamber of Deputies increased significantly following the redistricting. In the two federal elections prior to redistricting, four indigenous candidates were elected to this chamber in 2000 and seven were elected in 2003. Following redistricting, 18 were elected in 2006 and 16 were elected in 2009. However, our own analysis did not find that indigenous nominees were more common in newly formed MCDs than in previous MCDs. This accords with qualitative findings; indigenous organization and party representatives reported that nominations of local authorities to municipal office was a much more common inducement offered to indigenous groups than legislative nominations.

References

  1. Alimadhi F, Bhaskar BN, Lau O, Wittenberg J. ei.RxC: Hierarchical multinomial-dirichlet ecological inference model for R x C tables; 2007.

  2. Ansolabehere S, Snyder JM, Stewart C. Old voters, new voters, and the personal vote: using redistricting to measure the incumbency advantage. Am J Polit Sci. 2000;44(1):17–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barreto M. Si se puede! Latino candidates and the mobilization of Latino voters. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2007;101(3):425–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barreto M, Villarreal M, Woods N. Metropolitan Latino political behavior: voter turnout and candidate preference in Los Angeles. J Urban Aff. 2005;27(1):71–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Benton A. Bottom-up challenges to national democracy: Mexico’s (legal) subnational authoritarian enclaves. Comp Polit. 2012;44(3):253–71.

  6. Birnir JK. Divergence in diversity? The dissimilar effects of cleavages on electoral politics in new democracies. Am J Polit Sci. 2007;51(3):602–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bobo L, Gilliam Jr FD. Race, sociopolitical participation, and black empowerment. Am Polit Sci Rev. 1990;84(2):377–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bobrow-Strain A. Intimate enemies: landowners, power, and violence in Chiapas. Durham: Duke University Press; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Burguete Cal y Mayor A. Etnopolítica electoral: micro regiones y representación territorializada en municipios pluriétnicos en Chiapas. Paper presented at the conference Coloquio Incursiones indígenas en los escenarios electorales en América Latina, Mexico City; 2007.

  10. Brace K, Grofman B, Handley L. Does redistricting aimed to help blacks necessarily help Republicans? J Polit. 1987;49(1):169–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cameron C, Epstein D, O’Halloran S. Do majority-minority districts maximize substantive black representation in congress? Am Polit Sci Rev. 1996;90(4):794–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chandra K. Why ethnic parties succeed: patronage and ethnic head counts in India. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chhibber P. Democracy without associations: transformation of the party system and social cleavages in India. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cleary M. Indigenous autonomy and insulation from electoral competition in Oaxaca, Mexico. Paper presented at the conference on Native Peoples in Mexico and the U.S.: approaches to exclusion, San Diego, CA; 2009.

  15. Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social (CONEVAL). 2010. Análisis y medición de la pobreza: anexo estadístico-pobreza 2010. Retrieved from: <http://www.coneval.gob.mx/Medicion/Paginas/Medici%C3%B3n/Anexo-Estadistico-Pobreza-2010.aspx>.

  16. Diaz-Cayeros A, Magaloni B, Weingast BR. Tragic brilliance: equilibrium hegemony and democratization in Mexico. Working Paper, Hoover Institution, Stanford University; 2003.

  17. Eisenstadt T. Usos y costumbres and postelectoral conflicts in Oaxaca, Mexico, 1995–2004: an empirical and normative assessment. Lat Am Res Rev. 2007;42(1):52–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fox J. How does civil society thicken? The political construction of social capital in rural Mexico. World Dev. 1996;24(6):1089–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gay C. The effect of black congressional representation on political participation. Public Policy Inst Calif. 2001;95(3):589–602.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gibson E. Boundary control: subnational authoritarianism in federal democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Giraudy A. The politics of subnational undemocratic regime reproduction in Argentina and Mexico. J Polit Lat Am. 2010;2(2):54–84.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Goodnow R, Moser R. Layers of ethnicity: the effects of ethnic federalism, majority-minority districts, and minority concentration on the electoral success of ethnic minorities in Russia. Comp Polit Stud. 2012;45(2):167–93.

  23. Grindle M. Audacious reforms: institutional invention and democracy in Latin America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Harvey N. The Chiapas rebellion: the struggle for land and democracy. Durham: Duke University Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hayes D, McKee SC. The participatory effects of redistricting. Am J Polit Sci. 2009;53(4):1006–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hayes D, McKee SC. The intersection of redistricting, race, and participation. Am J Polit Sci. 2012;56(1):115–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Henderson J, Sekhon J, Titiunik R. Cause or effect? Turnout in hispanic majority-minority districts. Working Paper; 2012.

  28. Hill KA. Does the creation of majority black districts aid Republicans? An analysis of the 1992 congressional elections in eight southern states. J Polit. 1995;57(2):384–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Instituto Federal Electoral (IFE). Acuerdo del Consejo General del Instituto Federal Electoral por el que se establece la demarcación territorial de los trescientos distritos electorales federales uninominales en que se divide el país para su utilización en los procesos electorales federales 2005–2006 y 2008–2009, Agreement CG28/2005; 2005a.

  30. Instituto Federal Electoral (IFE). Distritación 2004–2005: camino para la democracia; 2005b.

  31. Jensenius F. Power, performance, and bias: evaluating the electoral quotas for scheduled castes in India. (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley; 2013.

  32. Keele L, White I. African American turnout in majority-minority districts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, WA; 2011.

  33. Laakso M, Taagepera R. ‘Effective’ number of parties: a measure with application to West Europe. Comp Polit Stud. 1979;12(1):3–27.

  34. Magaloni B. Voting for autocracy: hegemonic party survival and its demise in Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  35. McMillan A. Standing at the margins: representation and electoral reservation in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Meng A. Ruling parties in authoritarian regimes: a theory of endogenous institutional change. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA; 2015.

  37. Mickey R. The beginning of the end for authoritarian rule in America: Smith v. Allwright and the abolition of the white primary in the Deep South, 1944–1948. Stud Am Polit Dev. 2008;22(2):143–82.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Meng A, Palmer-Rubin B. A case for case studies: a multi-method strategy for ecological inference. Qualitative and Multi-Method Research. 2012;10(2):21--26.

  39. Palmer-Rubin B. From frame to campaign: indigeneity in the political arena. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, WA; 2011.

  40. Posner D. Institutions and ethnic politics in Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Rus J. The “comunidad revolucionaria institucional:” the subversion of native government in highland Chiapas. In: Joseph G, Nugent D, editors. Everyday forms of state formation: revolution and the negotiation of rule in modern Mexico. Durham: Duke University Press; 1994. p. 265–300.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Sekhon J. Multivariate and propensity score matching software with automated balance optimization: the matching package for R. J Stat Softw. 2011;42(7):1–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sekhon J, Titiunik R. When natural experiments are neither natural nor experiments. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2012;106(1):35–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sonnleitner W. Elecciones chiapanecas: Del régimen posrevolucionario al desorden democrático. Mexico City: El Colegio de México; 2012a.

  45. Sonnleitner W. La representación legislativa de los indígenas en México: De la representatividad descriptiva, a una representación de mejor calidad; 2012b.

  46. Tate K. Black political participation in the 1984 and 1988 presidential elections. Am Polit Sci Rev. 1991;85(4):1159–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Trejo G. Religious competition and ethnic mobilization in Latin America: why the Catholic church promotes indigenous movements in Mexico. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2009;103(3):323–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Trelles A, Altman M, Magar E, McDonald MP. Transparency, automated redistricting, and partisan strategic interaction: the case of Mexico. Paper presented at the Electoral Integrity Project Workshop, San Francisco, CA; 2015.

  49. United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Informe sobre desarrollo humano de los pueblos indígenas en México: El reto de la desigualdad de oportunidades; 2010.

  50. Valelly R. The two reconstructions: the struggle for black enfranchisement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Voss S, Lublin D. Black incumbents, white districts: an appraisal of the 1996 congressional elections. Am Polit Res. 2001;29(2):141–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Leonardo Arriola, Svitlana Chernykh, Ruth Berins Collier, David Collier, Danny Hidalgo, María Inclán, Robert Powell, Jasjeet Sekhon, Laura Stoker, Leonard Wantchekon, Jason Wittenberg, three anonymous reviewers, and members of the SCID Editorial collective for suggestions and comments. We also thank seminar participants in U.C. Berkeley’s Comparative Politics Colloquium and Statistics of Causal Inference Seminar, and the Empirical Implications of Theoretical Models Summer Institute for helpful comments, as well as Jonathan Fox and Willibald Sonnleitner for sharing data. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the 2012 Midwest Political Science Association. We acknowledge Mexico’s Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía and Instituto Federal Electoral for providing census and electoral data.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian Palmer-Rubin.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 120 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meng, A., Palmer-Rubin, B. Gerrymandering Opposition: Minority-Concentrated Districts and Electoral Competition in Mexico. St Comp Int Dev 52, 64–86 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-015-9206-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Redistricting
  • Minority participation
  • Electoral competition
  • Indigenous politics
  • Mexico