Comment on “Campaign Resource Allocations under the Electoral College”

American Political Science Review

Volumn 69, Issue 1, 1975, Pages 155-156

  Brams, Steven J ^a   Davis, Morton D ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84976164403     PISSN: 00030554     EISSN: 15375943     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/1957892     Document Type: Article

References (3)

1. Steven J. Brams and Morton D. Davis, “The 3/2’s Rule in Presidential Campaigning,” American Political Science Review, 68 (March 1974), p. 126.
2. In fairness to our critics, they seem to recognize this to be the problem when they say (p. 144) that “the 3/2’s rule should not be tested against a proportional rule unadjusted for competitiveness”—and then proceed to test an adjusted rule—but this statement is difficult to reconcile with the statements quoted above implying that the 3/2’s rule also ignores the relative competitiveness of states. In any event, we believe that the simplest and most natural “adjustment” for competitiveness is the definition of Piwe gave above, which, given the assumptions of our model, yields the 3/2’s result. By way of comparison, we shudder at the complexity and ad hoc quality of the statistical model used to derive estimates of competitiveness in Table 5 of Colantoni, Levesque and Ordeshook.
3. Steven J. Brams and Morton D. Davis, “Models of Resource Allocation in Presidential Campaigning: Implications for Democratic Representation,” in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Democratic Representation and Apportionment: Quantitative Methods, Measures and Criteria, ed. L. Papayanopoulos, 219 (New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1973), 105–123, esp. 118–121