Politics and elections 97and of congressional districts was historically one of the major reasons for
the difference in emphasis between congressional and presidential politics.
The fact that the election of the president depended so greatly on the large
urbanised states contrasted strangely with the electoral base of Congress.
Rural interests dominated many state legislatures, a domination often main-
tained by mal-apportionment. In their turn, the state legislatures created
congressional districts that over-represented rural interests. In Texas in
1962 the largest congressional district contained 951,527 people while the
smallest had only 216,371. Thus the different constituencies of president and
Congress emphasised strongly differing interests.
In 1962, however, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down
a judicial decision with endless political ramifications. In the case of Baker
v. Carr the Court decided that it was unconstitutional for a state to retain
a mal-apportioned legislature, and the American courts set about re-shap-
ing the American legislatures. In 1964 the Supreme Court applied the same
principle to congressional districts, stating that ‘as nearly as is practicable,
one man’s vote in a Congressional election is to be worth as much as an-
other’s.’ The effect of this ruling was to reduce the over-representation of
rural areas, and to give greater importance to the role of suburbia in modern
America. The increase in the number of Representatives from suburban dis-
tricts increased the number of independent-minded members of Congress,
and also the incidence of ticket-splitting, for the affluent suburban elector-
ate is generally better educated and independent minded. President Clinton
drew a good deal of support from these areas in 1996, in spite of the fact that
many of the districts that voted for him elected Republicans to the House of
Representatives.
Elections and the states
Each of the fifty states elects its governor, state legislators, and state and lo-
cal officials, often on the same day and on the same ballot as presidential and
congressional elections, although many cities, townships, school districts and
other elective bodies have elections at other times of the year. It is difficult to
generalise about this enormous array of elections and the way in which they
are conducted. The governorship of a great state, like New York or Califor-
nia, Pennsylvania or Texas, is an office to be coveted, both for its own sake
and because it may form that essential basis of state political power that is
needed in order to make a bid for the presidency itself. At the other end of the
political spectrum, it may be the height of political ambition to become one
of the selectmen of a New England town of a few hundred people. The move-
ment of the great tides of national politics may affect the outcome of some of
the state and local contests, and equally the politics of the presidency itself
may be dependent upon the outcome of local political battles. State politics
is not wholly autonomous and distinct from national politics, but neither is
it dependent upon, or subservient to, national trends. Indeed, the candidacy