Suchergebnisse

This book examines the causes and consequences of black representation in state legislatures. African Americans have a troubled history when it comes to wielding political power. This reality makes it important to consider the factors that increase their presence in state government. This book shows that there is more to explaining black representation than the presence of black people; instead institutional traits also affect the racial composition of legislatures. Surprisingly, Clark finds that black political involvement and political attitudes hinge on the proportion of African Americans making up a state legislature, as well as the degree to which that proportion reflects the demographic makeup of the state.

Although record turnout in the 2008 election is primarily credited to Obama's candidacy, did the presence of black elected officials in the state legislature play a role in mobilizing black voters? Did patterns of mobilization differ among black voters? Using the 2008 American National Election Study that I merged with contextual data, I find that disengaged black voters in states with a greater number of black state legislators, or what I refer to as collective descriptive representation, were more likely to be contacted, and as a result, were more likely to vote. On the other hand, neither collective descriptive representation nor being contacted influenced the political behavior of engaged black voters. This suggests that in 2008, descriptive representation and experiencing contact mattered more for mobilizing disengaged black voters than for mobilizing engaged black voters. Adapted from the source document.

The following is a comparative case study analysis of automobile insurance in Canada. The purpose of this analysis is to construct an appropriate model of automobile insurance for the province of Ontario. The first chapter is a literature review designed to give the reader enough background information to understand the analysis of the study. This is followed by a research design which outlines the units of analysis, the content of the case analyses, the criteria used in the comparative analysis, and the techniques employed throughout the study. The third chapter consists of four case studies: Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and Alberta. This chapter is broken into two parts including a historical review, and a current model section. The fourth chapter is a comparative analysis which examined the four jurisdictions according to the criteria given in the research design. This is supplemented by a survey of the literature most relevant to the pre-established criteria. Finally in chapter five, a model of automobile insurance for the province of Ontario is designed, based on the data derived from the case studies and the comparative analysis.Dept. of History, Philosophy, and Political Science. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis1992 .C573. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 31-04, page: 1569. Thesis (M.A.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 1992.

Abstract
In Crawford v. Marion County (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that voter identification requirements are lawful on the grounds that, even if they do not prevent fraud, they can instill confidence in voting. However, this reasoning ignores the historical and contemporary racial biases in the enactment and administration of restrictive voting policies in the United States. This legacy likely colors the extent to which Black and white voters see reforms as deterring fraud versus increasing suppression, and as such, how confident they are in election outcomes. We examine how increasing voter restrictions affects voter fraud beliefs and voter confidence among Black and white voters. We find that the enactment of restrictive policies decreases fraud beliefs among white voters but has no effect on fraud beliefs for Black voters; however, Black voters are less confident in elections when conducted with more restrictive policies while white voters are not. Finally, we find suggestive evidence that the racial gap in the effects of restrictive voting policies on voter confidence is partially undergirded by racial elite signaling.

Members of historically underrepresented groups—women, African Americans, Latinos, and workers—are serving in American legislatures in increasing numbers. However, legislators wield substantially greater power in the lawmaking process when they hold leadership positions. Incorporation of these groups into leadership positions could indicate fuller political representation, but scholars to date have not assessed how well these groups are represented in leadership. We analyze original data describing the backgrounds of approximately 2,200 leaders in 30 states between 2003 and 2014. The data show that, on average across states, members of these groups are as well represented in state legislative leadership positions as they are in rank-and-file membership, but there is substantial variation across states and across parties. We then ask what factors might explain this variation and explore institutional characteristics, like the number of leadership positions or leader selection methods. The results show that legislative chambers with a higher number of leadership posts tend to have more women in leadership, and that selection through elections is associated with decreased African American presence in leadership. The findings have implications for minority incorporation and influence in American politics.

AbstractMembers of historically underrepresented groups—women, African Americans, Latinos, and workers—are serving in American legislatures in increasing numbers. However, legislators wield substantially greater power in the lawmaking process when they hold leadership positions. Incorporation of these groups into leadership positions could indicate fuller political representation, but scholars to date have not assessed how well these groups are represented in leadership. We analyze original data describing the backgrounds of approximately 2,200 leaders in 30 states between 2003 and 2014. The data show that, on average across states, members of these groups are as well represented in state legislative leadership positions as they are in rank-and-file membership, but there is substantial variation across states and across parties. We then ask what factors might explain this variation and explore institutional characteristics, like the number of leadership positions or leader selection methods. The results show that legislative chambers with a higher number of leadership posts tend to have more women in leadership, and that selection through elections is associated with decreased African American presence in leadership. The findings have implications for minority incorporation and influence in American politics.

Women have organized around their gendered identity to accomplish political goals both inside and outside legislatures. Formal and informal institutional norms shape the form this collective action takes and whether it is successful. What, then, are the favorable conditions for organizing women's caucuses inside legislatures? Using an original dataset and employing an event history analysis, we identify the institutional conditions under which women's caucuses emerged in the 50 US states from 1972 to 2009. Within a feminist institutional framework, we argue that women's ability to alter existing organizational structures and potentially affect gender norms within legislatures is contextual. Although we find that women's presence in conjunction with Democratic Party control partially explains women's ability to act collectively and in a bipartisan way within legislatures, our analysis suggests that institutional-level variables are not enough to untangle this complicated phenomenon. Our work explains how gender and party interact to shape legislative behavior and clarifies the intractability of institutional norms while compelling further qualitative evidence to uncover the best conditions for women's collective action within legislatures.

American politics scholars have long distinguished between legislature-level "collective" and legislator-level "dyadic" representation. However, most research on these concepts focuses on elite-level outcomes (e.g., policy output or roll-call behavior), and whether one or both forms leads to the representation of citizen interests. Less is known about the demand side of the relationship—whether constituents prefer collective or dyadic representation. Yet the citizen perspective is critical to both scholarly and normative discussions of representation. Through a novel survey experiment administered to national samples of Americans, we examine citizen preferences for collective and dyadic representation with respect to two important social identities: race and political partisanship. We posit that citizens prefer collective over dyadic representation because collective representation provides better representation of constituents' interests via substantive and symbolic benefits. We show results that support this expectation, and then conclude by discussing the implications for scholarly and normative understandings of representation in American politics.

The 113th Congress has a record number of racial and ethnic minorities serving on Capitol Hill. Using the 2008 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), we examine what this increased descriptive representation of racial minorities means for legislative responsiveness and citizen–representative communication in the U.S. House. We argue that descriptive representation will improve the constituent–legislator relationship across racial groups, but that shared race should matter more for blacks and Latinos as racial minorities unaccustomed to legislative responsiveness. Our findings follow these expectations and suggest that the presence or lack of descriptive representation is an integral part of how citizens experience representation in the U.S. House.