Suchergebnisse

"Analyzes changing patterns of immigration, settlement, demography, family structure, and religion, describing trends and their impacts on 2008 politics and beyond. Lays out implications for public policy and shows how these trends have shaped the Red and Blue divisions and might break apart those blocs in new and surprising ways"--Provided by publisher

Résumé Les diasporas serbe, croate, kosovare et bosniaque ont-elles influencé la politique américaine dans les Balkans ? Interrogation légitime si l'on considère leur activisme à la fin de la Guerre froide et l'évolution de la politique étrangère américaine en ex-Yougoslavie de 1989 à 1995. Le Congrès américain occupe une place centrale dans cette analyse, comme cible principale du lobbying des diasporas, et comme origine de la pression sur l'exécutif par son vote historique de juillet 1995 pour la levée de l'embargo en Bosnie. On verra que la coalition des groupes de pression pro-bosniaques issus de la société américaine a pesé de toute son influence sur les parlementaires. Or cette coalition n'aurait pas été possible sans la mobilisation dès 1989 des diasporas « yougoslaves » aux États-Unis.

Democracy for Realists assails the romantic folk-theory at the heart of contemporary thinking about democratic politics and government, and offers a provocative alternative view grounded in the actual human nature of democratic citizens. Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels deploy a wealth of social-scientific evidence, including ingenious original analyses of topics ranging from abortion politics and budget deficits to the Great Depression and shark attacks, to show that the familiar ideal of thoughtful citizens steering the ship of state from the voting booth is fundamentally misguided. They demonstrate that voters--even those who are well informed and politically engaged--mostly choose parties and candidates on the basis of social identities and partisan loyalties, not political issues. They also show that voters adjust their policy views and even their perceptions of basic matters of fact to match those loyalties. When parties are roughly evenly matched, elections often turn on irrelevant or misleading considerations such as economic spurts or downturns beyond the incumbents' control; the outcomes are essentially random. Thus, voters do not control the course of public policy, even indirectly. Achen and Bartels argue that democratic theory needs to be founded on identity groups and political parties, not on the preferences of individual voters. Now with new analysis of the 2016 elections, Democracy for Realists provides a powerful challenge to conventional thinking, pointing the way toward a fundamentally different understanding of the realities and potential of democratic government

"Who Votes Now? compares the demographic characteristics and political views of voters and nonvoters in American presidential elections since 1972 and examines how electoral reforms and the choices offered by candidates influence voter turnout. Drawing on a wealth of data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey and the American National Election Studies, Jan Leighley and Jonathan Nagler demonstrate that the rich have consistently voted more often than the poor for the past four decades, and that voters are substantially more conservative in their economic views than nonvoters. They find that women are now more likely to vote than men, that the gap in voting rates between blacks and whites has largely disappeared, and that older Americans continue to vote more than younger Americans. Leighley and Nagler also show how electoral reforms such as Election Day voter registration and absentee voting have boosted voter turnout, and how turnout would also rise if parties offered more distinct choices."--Publisher's description

"In this book, Peter Nardulli challenges the conventional wisdom that citizens are "manageable fools," with little capacity to exercise independent judgment in the voting booth. Rather, he argues, voters are eminently capable of playing an efficacious role in democratic politics and of routinely demonstrating the ability to evaluate competing stewards in a discriminating manner."--Jacket

"Who Votes Now? compares the demographic characteristics and political views of voters and nonvoters in American presidential elections since 1972 and examines how electoral reforms and the choices offered by candidates influence voter turnout. Drawing on a wealth of data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey and the American National Election Studies, Jan Leighley and Jonathan Nagler demonstrate that the rich have consistently voted more often than the poor for the past four decades, and that voters are substantially more conservative in their economic views than nonvoters. They find that women are now more likely to vote than men, that the gap in voting rates between blacks and whites has largely disappeared, and that older Americans continue to vote more than younger Americans. Leighley and Nagler also show how electoral reforms such as Election Day voter registration and absentee voting have boosted voter turnout, and how turnout would also rise if parties offered more distinct choices."--Publisher's description.

Introduction: federalism, political identity, and American state politics -- Going inside states: the geography of local political behavior -- State politics and presidential voting, 1988-2000 -- California -- Florida -- Texas -- Colorado -- Minnesota -- Georgia -- Connecticut -- Maryland -- Oregon -- Michigan -- New York -- Illinois -- Sectionalism and political change in the states -- The challenge of ecological inference -- Complete ecological inference estimates, by state -- Complete voter transition results, by state

Constructing a theory of local voting behavior -- Group interest theory and local elections -- From rioting to Watergate: Los Angeles, 1969 and 1973 -- Tough enough to turn L.A. around :Los Angeles, 1973 to 1993 -- Vote your hopes, not your fears : New York, 1965 to 1993 -- Racial conflict and retrospective voting -- Down but not out : A liberal revival in 2001 -- Changing urban politics in the new millennium

A fresh look at contentious elections in American history.

Why do some voters split their ballots, selecting a Republican for one office and a Democrat for another? Why do voters often choose one party to control the White House while the other controls the Congress? Barry Burden and David Kimball address these fundamental puzzles of American elections by explaining the causes of divided government and debunking the myth that voters prefer the division of power over one-party control. Why Americans Split Their Tickets links recent declines in ticket-splitting to sharpening policy differences between parties and demonstrates why candidates' ideological positions still matter in American elections. "Burden and Kimball have given us the most careful and thorough analysis of split-ticket voting yet. It won't settle all of the arguments about the origins of ticket splitting and divided government, but these arguments will now be much better informed. Why Americans Split Their Tickets is essential reading for anyone interested in understanding the major trends in U.S. electoral politics of the past several decades."--Gary Jacobson, University of California, San Diego "When voters split their tickets or produce divided government, it is common to attribute the outcome as a strategic verdict or a demand for partisan balance. Burden and Kimball strongly challenge such claims. With a thorough and deft use of statistics, they portray ticket-splitting as a by-product of the separate circumstances that drive the outcomes of the different electoral contests. This will be the book to be reckoned with on the matter of ticket splitting."--Robert Erikson, Columbia University "[Burden and Kimball] offset the expansive statistical analysis by delving into the historical circumstances and results of recent campaigns and elections. ... [They] make a scholarly and informative contribution to the understanding of the voting habits of the American electorate-and the resulting composition of American government."--Shant Mesrobian, NationalJournal.com

Women haven't always had the right to vote. From such diverse voices as John Stuart Mill and Cokie Roberts, the absolute right of both women and men to vote has been affirmed. And yet, resistance to women's suffrage even by women themselves has a long and painful history. In this exciting volume, thirteen theologians and religious leaders in America look back at the historic victory in 1920 when women in the United States won the right to vote. They then assess the current situation and speak into the future. Women with 2020 Vision: American Theologians on the Voice, Vote, and Vision of Women commemorates the 100th anniversary of women in the United States obtaining the right to vote, a story that must be told and retold and reflected upon in light of the current sociopolitical-theological realities

"Presidential campaigns do matter for the outcome of elections. The effects of presidential campaigns are systematic and predictable." "These arguments, based on careful analysis of campaigns and previous studies of them, refute the common wisdom of political scientists that campaigns do not matter and the implied belief of journalists, evidenced in their reporting every four years, that little else matters." "James E. Campbell offers "the theory of the predictable campaign," incorporating the fundamental conditions that systematically affect the presidential vote: political competition, presidential incumbency, and election-year economic conditions."--Jacket

Richard K. Scher, a Florida-based political scientist, discusses voting rights in the United States and the democratic system, describing the impact of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and examining how the control of the ballot and the voting process can be manipulated.