Suchergebnisse

Twenty years ago the Kentucky General Assembly was one of the least powerful and least effective legislatures in the country, almost entirely dominated by the governor. Over the past two decades the legislature has changed -- gradually and with little public attention -- into a far more powerful, professional, and independent body.This book is a study of that process of change: its causes, the obstacles encountered, and the political and policy consequences. It is a study of changing relationships between governor and legislature, caused in part by less aggressive gubernatorial leadership and

This is a study of Kentucky political parties: how they are organized and how they nominate and elect candidates. Because state politics in Kentucky is dominated by the Democratic Party, a major portion of the study is devoted to the Democratic primary candidates, campaign techniques, funding, of elections, and voting patterns.As in other slates, campaign techniques in Kentucky are changing. During the 1950s and 1960s the Democratic Party had two dominant factions, and candidates for statewide office sought factional allies among local party organizations. Now factional alignments have disappe

▪ Abstract  As laboratories, states are faced with a new agenda of social experimentation. This article first considers state elections and parties, including state realignment, party endorsements and primary elections, uncontested seats, and campaign finance. A second topic is the governorship, including governors' careers, changes in power, party leadership, and legislative programs and tactics used in negotiating with legislators. A third section considers the state legislatures, including term limits, professionalism, leadership, committees, roll-call voting, and representation. Another subject closely related to all aspects is the variety and organization of interest groups, their power, and whom they represent. The conclusion is that the states as laboratories are now equipped to handle the social experimentation that devolution has handed down to them.

As laboratories, states are faced with a new agenda of social experimentation. This article first considers state elections & parties, including state realignment, party endorsements & primary elections, uncontested seats, & campaign finance. A second topic is the governorship, including governors' careers, changes in power, party leadership, & legislative programs & tactics used in negotiating with legislators. A third section considers the state legislatures, including term limits, professionalism, leadership, committees, roll-call voting, & representation. Another subject closely related to all aspects is the variety & organization of interest groups, their power, & whom they represent. The conclusion is that the states as laboratories are now equipped to handle the social experimentation that devolution has handed down to them. 84 References. Adapted from the source document.

In this study of preprimary gubernatorial endorsements by state parties, we find that the endorsee is less likely to be challenged in a primary if the endorsement is based on state law rather than party rules; though in both situations, the percentage of contested endorsees who win has been declining. Evidence from a number of 1994 endorsing conventions shows that the gubernatorial endorsee is more likely to win nomination if (a) the party endorses a politically strong candidate, (b) the endorsing convention is reasonably united and representative of party primary voters, and (c) the endorsee receives considerable tangible support as a result of being endorsed.

Whether receiving a party endorsement increases chances of success; based on a study of nine state party conventions in 1994; US.

We examine three alternative explanations for national policy shifts surrounding critical elections. We examine evidence for cohort, turnover, and partisan effects. Data for all congresses are used, and four critical elections-1828, 1860, 1896, and 1932-receive particular attention. The cohort and turnover hypotheses as explanations for critical election policy shifts are not supported. However, support for the partisan dominance hypothesis is strong. Political party membership and strength, rather than an influx of congressional newcomers with different socialization and characteristics, is associated with major policy swings.