Political geography is one of the most exciting subdisciplines to emerge from the "spatial turn" in the social sciences. Arising largely within the discipline of geography, political geography has deep implications for political science, and yet these implications have not yet been widely recognized among political scientists. Conversely, political geographers have not yet profited enough from the rich field of political science. Political geography has the potential to dramatically transform many areas of established political science research. We focus on two: (a) the study of "contextual effects" on political behavior and (b) the study of governance by applying the "new institutionalism." By spatializing the basic premises of these political science subfields, researchers can find new ways of looking at old questions. We conclude that political scientists should move beyond territorial questions of geography and begin thinking about the intrinsic spatiality of all political action, events, and institutions. DEFINITIONS AND BACKGROUND Definitions of "political geography" vary widely today, thanks to the effusive growth of this field of inquiry over more than a century. Most generally, political geography seeks to show "the relevance of the spatiality of all types of power and their interaction" (Flint 2003, p. 107). Within this most inclusive definition, the broadest division within political geography hinges on the definition of "political." Traditionally, political geography was concerned with the environmental, regional, and spatial aspects of the state, its subdivisions, and its relationships with other states. The second, and much more recent, category defines political geography as the study of the spatial dimension of gender, class, environmental, sexual, religious, and identity politics, no matter how those politics are connected to formal state institutions (

Instant-runoff voting (IRV)-a relatively new electoral reform adopted in several cities in the United States-gives voters the option to rank-order more than one candidate preference for each office. When no candidate initially obtains a majority of first choice votes, rank-ordered preferences are used to "instantly" calculate a winner without requiring a separate runoff election. The impact of IRV on racial group voter turnout in urban elections has not previously been subject to rigorous analysis. Based on racial group interest theory, I argue that the complexity of IRV increases information costs and obscures racial group interests for voters. Analysis of precinct-level racial group voter turnout rates in five San Francisco mayoral elections from 1995 to 2011 reveals a significant relationship between IRV and decreased turnout among Black and White voters. IRV exacerbates turnout disparities related to age and education in the population, but decreases the effect of income. The relationship between turnout and racial diversity is diminished among some groups.Understanding how electoral rules and institutions impact voter turnout in urban elections is one of the most important questions for those who are interested in the quality of democracy in cities. The history of urban reform is replete with political factions who attempt to alter the rules governing voting and elections as a way to advance the interests and goals of their political coalition and allied groups (Bridges & Kronick, 1999;Trounstine, 2008). Writing and rewriting the rules governing how and when people vote in urban and local elections has a tremendous impact on who turns out to vote in, and, ultimately, has an influence on who wins those elections (Hajnal & Trounstine, 2005.One legacy of the urban reform movement in the United States is the prevalence of nonpartisan mayoral elections, which require a separate runoff election if no candidate initially receives a majority of the votes cast. Several cities in the United States have recently adopted a particular set of electoral rules that eliminate the need for a separate runoff election. These electoral rules, known in the United States as instant-runoff voting (IRV) or ranked-choice voting (RCV), are a variation on alternative vote (AV) procedures used in several jurisdictions around the world. IRV/RCV balloting systems provide voters the option of rank-ordering a number of preferred candidates from the list of candidates for each elected office. In some jurisdictions voters are allowed to rank-order as many candidates as are listed. As adopted in San Francisco, voters are only given the option to rank-order as many as three preferred candidates, and recording fewer than three candidate preferences will not invalidate a voter's ballot. In an IRV/RCV election, if no candidate receives a majority of first place votes in the initial tally, the candidate with the fewest first place votes is eliminated. Second and third place votes are reallocated from the eliminated candidate to the remaining candid...

No abstract

No abstract

Politics in American cities is largely driven by racial group cleavages, and voting in urban elections is polarized along racial lines. Several cities have implemented a relatively new reform to urban elections called ranked-choice voting (RCV), which eliminates the plurality runoff election by giving voters the option to rank-order several vote preferences. This article examines whether the expanded preference choices associated with ranked-choice voting reduce the level of racially polarized voting in mayoral elections. In the first stage of analysis, precinct-level election results from Oakland, CA, and San Francisco, CA, are used to explore variation in racially polarized voting before and after the implementation of RCV. The second stage of analysis uses a difference-indifferences design to analyze racially polarized voting in RCV cities compared to non-RCV cities. The results indicate that racially polarized voting did not decrease due to the implementation of RCV. Rather, the results show that RCV contributed to higher levels of racially polarized voting between white and Asian voters. 1 In the U.S., RCV is also commonly referred to as Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV). Outside of the U.S, it is more commonly known as Alternative Voting (AV). 2 The eight cities that have implemented RCV in municipal elections as of March 2018: Berkeley,