bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Sizing Up Candidates
Authors: Buchanan Bruce 
Published: May 2006

Europeans, says the New York Times, are “amused” at the “exacting moral yardsticks” applied to Americans seeking high public office (Markham, 1987). The American people, a Times-Mirror poll reports, are not amused but irritated—at what they regard as media overkill on candidate character (Rosenstiel, 1987). Influential Washington Post columnist David Broder deplores the tendency of political reporters to “swoop down” on presidential candidates with embarrassing questions about “the sin of the week,” and calls for guidelines to help reporters stay on course (Broder, 1987). Another Times-Mirror poll finds that only 14 percent of Americans give top priority to candidate character. Instead, a whopping 49 percent felt a candidate's “ability to accomplish things” was most important, while 33 percent gave the highest priority to “stand on issues” (Skelton, 1987).These reactions, though skewed by media treatment of 1988 presidential candidates like Hart, Biden, and Robertson, nonetheless raise important questions about how Americans take the measure of would-be leaders. How reasonable, for example, are the priorities assigned by the Times-Mirror poll respondents to the various qualifications for office? Which among the evaluated categories (character, competence and issue position) affords the surest forecast of eventual presidential performance? Whatever its evaluative priority, what dimensions of character are relevant to the presidency and measurable in candidates? How can presidential competence be defined, and the extent of its presence in candidates assessed? When is the most appropriate time during the campaign to examine character, competence and issue position? Below are some answers offered as food for thought.
Public Lives and the Limits of Privacy
Authors: Levinson Sanford 
Published: May 2006

The general topic of this symposium—the interplay between public careers and private lives in the selection of presidential candidates—is important. Many debates around dinner tables undoubtedly followed the disclosure by the Miami Herald of Gary Hart's time spent with Donna Rice. In the United States especially, as Tocqueville pointed out 150 years ago, we tend to believe that the law speaks with insight, even if not necessarily with finality, on issues of public importance. This explains, I suspect, my presence in this forum. The embarrassing reality, though, is that the law of privacy is at best tangential to the concerns behind the symposium.I might best fulfill my task—to comment on the legal regulation of disclosures of private facts regarding public figures—in a sentence: The very fact that public figures are by definition “newsworthy” means that in fact they forego any legal protection against the publication of true facts about them, however embarrassing or offensive such publication might be. There is simply no case law supporting the claim of a public figure seeking political office to enjoy a “right of privacy.” The courts rightly have held that the recognition of any such right would disserve the democratic process itself, for it would inevitably deprive the public of truthful information relevant to deciding who should exercise public responsibilities.
Reflections on the New Hampshire Primary
Authors: Rueter Theodore 
Published: May 2006

This past January, I conducted a class on “Presidential Elections: The New Hampshire Primary” with 13 students from Middlebury College. We spent one week in Middlebury, primarily watching presidential debates held this summer and fall. On January 11, we headed to New Hampshire. I have ten strong impressions of the New Hampshire presidential primary:Penetration: The political process in New Hampshire is open and accessible. Each student had at least one “brush with greatness.” A Dole volunteer was the lead driver in Dole's motorcade before and after the January 15 Dartmouth debate, and was in Dole's holding room before and after the debate. A Bush volunteer drove George Bush's truck, went to Bush's estate in Maine, and was within 10 feet of Air Force Two her first night on the job. A Kemp volunteer met Kemp and Hart her first night in New Hampshire.
Does Approval Voting Elect the Lowest Common Denominator?
Authors: Brams Steven J. , Fishburn Peter C. 
Published: May 2006

Approval voting (AV) is a voting system in which voters can vote for as many candidates as they wish in a multicandidate election—one with more than two candidates (Brams and Fishburn, 1983). Like plurality voting (PV), in which voters are restricted to casting just one vote, the candidate (or candidates) with the most votes wins, with each candidate approved of receiving one full vote.The salient difference between AV and PV in multicandidate elections is that voters, by indicating that they approve of more than one candidate under AV, can help more than one to get elected. This feature of AV tends to prevent a relatively extreme candidate, who may be the favorite of a plurality of the electorate but is anathema to the majority, from winning. Whereas under PV an extremist can win if two or more moderate candidates split the centrist vote, under AV centrist voters can prevent the extremist's election by voting for more than one moderate. Insofar as the moderate candidates share the votes of their centrist supporters, then one will be elected—and the proverbial will of the majority will be expressed.
The Gulf War and Political Science
Authors: Maxwell Mary 
Published: May 2006

Ronald Moe's lucid article, “Political Science and the Savings and Loan Crisis” (1991), considered what the political scientist's role might have been in regard to that crisis (had not our profession given up its expertise in that area). His comments led me to reflect on the role of the political scientist in relation to another national crisis—the Gulf War of 1991. During the war, and in the months preceding it, it seemed that political science—or at least my specialty, international relations (IR)—had no role to play. This strange fact results from certain paradoxes that actually encourage us to foster a separation between academic expertise in international relations, and public knowledge of how foreign policy decisions are made.Within hours of the war's beginning, I called several IR colleagues to get their opinions as to why the United States had taken the plunge. I got appropriate, you might say textbook, answers. One colleague went right for the military rationale: “to save us from the Peace Dividend,” “to give us the chance to test new weapons,” and—one that I wouldn't have thought of myself—“to deplete inventory.” Another mentioned the more abstract balance-of-power principle, expressed in this case as “to keep our little brothers (i.e., the Third World) in their place,” while others thought of domestic factors, such as “to divert attention from the S&L crisis,” or economic advantages, such as “Saudi is footing the bill.”
E. E. Schattschneider and the Responsible Party Model
Authors: White John Kenneth 
Published: May 2006

Shortly before his death in 1971 E. E. Schattschneider said, “I suppose the most important thing I have done in my field is that I have talked longer and harder and more persistently and enthusiastically about political parties than anyone else alive.” Schattschneider's claim is not boastful, but factual. Exactly fifty years ago he completed Party Government, a book that remains a “must” read for students of the U.S. party system. But Schattschneider did more than write books. As Chairman of the APSA-sanctioned Committee on Political Parties, he presided over a debate that resulted in the seminal report, Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System. Like Party Government, this also is a “must” read. Evron Kirkpatrick proclaimed it “a landmark in the history of political science as policy science” (1971). Clinton Rossiter said he would “recommend it … to all who are interested in moving toward stronger party government” (1960). Theodore J. Lowi ranked the Schattschneider committee report as “second only to the 1937 President's Committee on Administrative Management as a contribution by academics to public discourse on the fundamentals of American democracy” (1985). William Crotty believed it exercised “the most significant influence on the debate over the operation of political parties that occurred between the Progressive period and the party reform movement of the 1970s” (1980).The responsible party model has had a long life in part because of the passionate arguments Schattschneider made on its behalf.
The Politics of E. E. Schattschneider
Authors: Mileur Jerome M. 
Published: May 2006

E. E. Schattschneider was a self-proclaimed “realist.” It seems an honest label for one whose theory of politics begins with a newspaper report of a fist fight that escalated into a riot and whose ultimate criticism of democratic theory is that those who defined the term never saw a modern democracy in operation. Schattschneider made no pretense of being a political philosopher, yet his hard-boiled practicality seems well-informed by classical political thought. Indeed, his idea of politics is Aristotelian to the core, though recast rather like a Shakespearean play updated in the vernacular, setting, and dress of West Side Story. As such, Schattschneider's politics defy easy categorization in the political science of his time. Widely respected and honored within the discipline, he seems nonetheless a kind of anti-hero—a bit out of step with his peers and skeptical about much of the prevailing “wisdom” in the discipline.Schattschneider was out of step as well with the reformist politics of his time. A child of Progressivism, he was schooled at the University of Wisconsin and shared the general optimism of Progressives—their passion for social and political engineering, their faith in a democratic politics and an informed citizenry. But unlike most Progressives, Schattschneider was concerned more with politics than with democracy. For him, politics was fundamental; it was the foundation upon which democratic government had to be built.
E. E. Schattschneider: A Bibliographic Note
Authors: Murphy Russell D. 
Published: May 2006

E. E. Schattschneider spent his professional career at Wesleyan University, an institution that prides itself in being aggressively anti-bureaucratic. Given the age we live in, there is doubtless merit in this stance. But there are costs as well. I say this because when asked to provide a bibliographic listing of Schattschneider's publications, I quickly learned that the written record, so essential to any well functioning bureaucracy, was a sometime thing at the University. There was no official file, I was told, either in the central administration or in the University Archives, that contained information on Schattschneider's career at Wesleyan.But Wesleyan was also a small place during Schattschneider's years—in 1930, the year Schattschneider joined the faculty, the University graduated 93 seniors. And being a small place, it scrutinized closely the comings and goings of its faculty. It did so, among other ways, in an annual publication with the nondescript title, The Mid-Winter Bulletin. Each bulletin listed, albeit sporadically, faculty activities for the previous year. Here one could read about who attended what professional meeting, who lectured at which university, who spoke to which civic group, and who preached at the then mandatory campus chapel services. One also could read about faculty awards and honors, and about faculty appointments to committees, on and off campus.
Redefining U.S.-West European Relations in the 1990s: West European Public Opinion in the Post-Cold War Era
Authors: Smith Steven K. , Wertman Douglas A. 
Published: May 2006

Fundamental U.S.-West European security and economic relations are being subjected to a thorough re-examination—and potential redefinition—on both sides of the Atlantic. This is occurring as the Cold War is now a topic for historians and as the economies of the 12 European Community (EC) members become increasingly integrated as a result of the EC's 1992 initiative and its ambitious plan for the 1990s. The former Warsaw Pact nations are working to develop stronger economic, political and even security ties with both the United States and Western Europe. The dramatically reduced security threat coupled with strong domestic budget pressures in the United States are leading to a substantial reduction in the American military presence in Western Europe. On the economic front, the EC and the European Free Trade Area are forming a gigantic 19-country free trade area, with the potential of future expansion to include some East European nations. Meanwhile, the United States and Western Europe continue their prolonged deadlock in GATT trade negotiations primarily over the EC's large agricultural subsidies.The attitudes of European publics toward the United States will play a critical role as European and American leaders sort out their new relationship. Therefore, it is of interest to scholars and policymakers alike to examine the trends in West European public opinion as they relate to America, its policies and its perceived role in the post-Cold War future.
Measuring Electoral Change: Look Before You Abandon Swing
Authors: Gibson John G. 
Published: May 2006

Political scientists should reject Richard Rose's advice in PS (1991) to abandon the use of swing, in favor of his own alternative measures of electoral change, in three or multiparty electoral contests. Given the ubiquity of such electoral contests, this advice has a great potential influence on future election studies. However, a balanced judgment requires subjecting alternative measures to equal scrutiny. This note will do this by bringing relevant evidence to bear on the actual performance of swing and Rose's alternative, as a measure of variations in electoral movements between different areas. The findings are most revealing and in the final section of this note reasons for them will be put forward.Rose maintains, in his critique of David Butler and Stephen D. Van Beek (1990), that swing can only be meaningfully used as a measure of electoral change between elections where virtually the entire vote is split between two parties. On this basis he claims that “swing is not applicable in nine-tenths of competitive party systems because two parties do not monopolize the vote.” As Rose shows, reliance on swing can ignore important changes in third party votes, which may often be an important determinant of the swing between the two main parties.
Latino Elected Officials in the 1990s
Authors: Pachon Harry , DeSipio Louis 
Published: May 2006

Thirty years ago, political activity in the Latino community was relatively unknown at the national level. While there were Hispanic elected officials (HEOs) and Latino community activism, no one spoke of “Latino” politics or the “Hispanic” vote in national politics (Moore and Pachon 1985, chap. 10; Jennings and Rivera 1984). When analysts examined Latino politics, study was confined to the Southwestern states, New York City and perhaps Dade County, Florida. Now, however, Hispanics are one of this country's largest ethnic groups. Hispanics will be the largest ethnic minority group in the nation early in the 21st century (Edmonston and Passel 1991). Consequently, the political life of this community is coming under increasing attention. As examples, see May 1987; Didion 1987.This overview examines one facet of the increasing Latino political presence—the growing number of Hispanics elected to office at all levels of government. Because the reapportionment and redistricting that will take place in the next two years will increase the number of districts containing a majority Latino population, this discussion is particularly timely. Many newly apportioned districts will elect Latinos to office for the first time. Thus, this overview may be used to assess Latino office holding in 1990 and will serve as a baseline for measuring the impact of post-1990 redistricting on Latino public-officeholding.
Taking the Initiative: Direct Legislation and Direct Democracy in the 1980s
Authors: Magleby David B. 
Published: May 2006

The last decade has seen a resurgence in interest in three direct democracy devices—the initiative, the popular referendum and the recall. These processes reflect the Progressive Era reformers' aim of enlarging the role of citizens and voters as well as restricting or checking the power of intermediary institutions such as state and local legislatures, political parties, and elected executives. The focus of this article is to examine the increased use of the initiative and popular referendum at the state level as well as how the process actually works. The related processes of the recall and teledemocracy are addressed in other articles in this symposium.Statewide Provisions for Initiative, Popular Referendum and RecallThe initiative process permits petitioners to write and, if a sufficient number of valid signatures are gathered, place those proposals on the ballot. The initiative can be placed directly on the ballot (the direct initiative); or before the legislature. If the legislature does not enact the measure or otherwise satisfy the sponsors of the initiative, the sponsors can gather additional signatures and place their proposal on the ballot (the indirect initiative). Five times as many states have the direct initiative as the indirect and, in states that permit both, proponents typically prefer to go directly to the ballot.
Arizona “High Noon”: The Recall and Impeachment of Evan Mecham
Authors: McClain Paula D. 
Published: May 2006

April 4, 1988 marked the end of the most divisive and tumultuous period in the history of Arizona politics. For the first time in its seventy-six years as a state, Arizona, and the nation, witnessed the removal of a sitting governor, Evan Mecham, by conviction on impeachment charges by the Arizona Senate. Evan Mecham was the first governor in United States history to be confronted with a recall, impeachment and criminal indictment simultaneously. Although removed from office, the impact of Mecham's fifteen-month administration will permeate the social and political fabric of Arizona, as well as cloud its national image, for many years to come. This essay will briefly examine the concept of recall as an exercise in direct democracy, and the factors and context surrounding the recall drive and impeachment proceedings of Governor Evan Mecham.The Recall and Arizona's ProvisionThe recall is one of three aspects of the concept of “direct democracy,” the others being referendum and initiative. According to Wilcox (1912, p. 169) the initiative and referendum are instruments in the exercise of “pure democracy” which supplement representative government—the initiative is direct participation on the part of citizens in legislative action, while the referendum is an exercise in veto action. Conceptually, however, the recall is different. It does not involve direct citizen participation in the legislative activities of government, but is concerned with their ability to remove officials, principally elected but in some rare instances appointed, from office before the end of their term. As Wilcox stated, recall “… is simply the guaranteed right of the people to discharge their public servants when the public servants cease to be satisfactory to them” (Wilcox, 1912, p. 169).
Politics and Society in the USSR: A Traveller's Report
Authors: Lipset Seymour Martin 
Published: May 2006

In July I was in the Soviet Union for two weeks as one of eight American political scientists who were guests of the Soviet Political Science Association. This meeting was a follow-up to one held two years earlier in which six Soviets had met with an American group in Williamsburg, Virginia. We learned a lot from our Soviet colleagues in that session, since two years into the Gorbachev glasnost era they felt free to argue strongly among themselves about the social and political roots of Stalinism, and to explain how Gorbachev was chosen by a Politburo still dominated formally by the Old Guard, people who would a few years later be referred to in discussions with Americans as “the previous regime.”It is appropriate to speak of parliamentarianism in the Soviet Union. For, as I shall briefly try to show, what is evolving in Moscow is a Presidential-Congressional system, a government which if it can be institutionalized, constitutionalized, along the lines it is developing, will resemble the American. It is, of course, far away from that stage as yet.
Three Steps Back for Women: German Unification, Gender, and University “Reform”
Authors: Ferree Myra Marx , Young Brigitte 
Published: May 2006

The process of German unification has been a series of political surprises. Before the chain of events of summer and fall 1989 that led to the fall of the Wall on November 9, 1989, few could have predicted the “change of direction” (die Wende) of the government that followed. Fewer still would have suspected how quickly the overthrow of Honecker and his government would be supplanted by a drive toward economic and then political unification. In less than a year, on December 3, 1990, the GDR ceased to exist, being wholly absorbed as five new states in the existing legal and political structures of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). This has meant a wholesale restructuring of every social institution in the German Democratic Republic (GDR), not merely the economy; the method of unification chosen meant that all East German laws and organizations had to be brought into conformity with a virtually unaltered West German legal and social system.This process has been troubled and troubling in many different respects, but not the least of the surprises to many observers has been the important role gender has played in the unification process. Not only did the government face sufficient protest that it needed to defer reconciling the different legal regulations of abortion in the two states, but shortly after the unification treaty was signed and its practical consequences began to be felt, the observation became commonplace that “women were the losers” in this process.
Congressional Term Limits, State Legislative Term Limits and Congressional Turnover: A Theory of Change
Authors: Fett Patrick J. , Ponder Daniel E. 
Published: May 2006

During the first Congress of the United States, two measures to amend Article I of the Constitution were considered which, if ratified, would have limited the number of successive terms held by senators and representatives. Those measures were defeated and the issue was not considered again for over 150 years. However, since 1943 when the proposal was first resurrected in Congress, interest in the idea has grown to the point that from January 1981 through February 1992 no less than 69 proposals to limit the tenure of our national legislators were introduced into Congress (Richardson 1991, 80-90, 93-100; Richardson 1992, 1).Today the idea of limiting the number of successive terms a member of Congress may hold is hotter than ever. Fanned by the support of the 1988 and 1992 Republican National Conventions, and fueled by the efforts of several special interest groups, the idea has achieved high levels of public support nationally. A nationwide poll of likely voters conducted two weeks before the 1992 elections showed that 79% favored congressional term limitations (Shafer 1992). In an impressive burst of voter resolve, 15 states have passed amendments to their constitutions that attempt to limit the number of successive terms that their own U.S. representatives and senators may serve in office.