Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACTI show herein how to develop fundable proposals to support your research. Although the proposal strategy I discuss is commonly used in successful proposals, most junior faculty (and many senior scholars) in political science and other social sciences seem to be unaware of it. I dispel myths about funding, and discuss how to find funders and target funding programs. I then outline how to write a proposal; and detail how to respond to reviews.

Open Source Software for Libraries: from Greenstone to the Virtual Data Center and Beyond

One person, one vote. With this principle, the Court permanently changed representation in the United States. Equal population requirements changed the face of legislative redistricting in the 1960s, when the Supreme Court applied it to congressional districts in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), and to state legislatures in Reynolds v. Sims, 84 S. Ct. 1362 (1964). Equality in district population was valued not only as instrumental to other goals but also for itself, as Justice Black explained in Wesberry: "As nearly as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's. . . . To say that a vote is worth more in one district than another would . . . run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government."As Justice Brennan made clear, the Court based its decision in large part on a particular understanding of the historical meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and of article 1, section 2, of the Constitution. And as widely accepted as this principle has come to be, it has been subject to severe historical criticism, criticism that has never been resolved. For example, Berger (1977) claims that malapportionment was historically present and accepted before and during the creation of the Fourteenth Amendment and hence that the equal protection clause could not have implied the equal population principle (from chapter 5): "Certainly there was no disclosure that such intrusion [on apportionment] was contemplated; there is in fact striking evidence that malapportionment was an accepted practice."

In the last decade, Ohio reformers advocated redistricting by formula: selecting the redistricting plan that scores best on a predefined objective scoring function that combines prima facie neutral criteria with political goals of plan fairness and district competition. In the post-2010 redistricting, these reformers hosted a public competition where prizes were awarded to the best legal plan scored on the reformers' formula. The submitted plans provide a unique opportunity to evaluate how redistricting by formula may work in practice. Our analysis finds the public yields a broader range of redistricting plans, on indicia of legal and public policy interest, than developed by the state legislature. The Pareto frontier reveals plans that perform better than the legislature's adopted plan on one and two dimensions, as well as the reformers' overall scoring function. Our evaluation reveals minimal trade-offs among the components of the overall competition's scoring criteria, but we caution that the scoring formula may be sensitive to implementation choices among its components. Compared with the legislature's plan, the reform community can get more of the four criteria they value; importantly, without sacrificing the state's only African American opportunity congressional district.

Accelerating technological change is one of the defining characteristics of this era. And the intersection of information, technology, and politics is a constantly changing arena. Technological change can provide the subject for political debate, such as in the controversy over electronic voting (see Tokaji 2005); affect the means by which politics is conducted, such as in the use of information technologies to provide government services and collect regulatory feedback (see Fountain 2001; West 2005; and Mayer-Schonberger and Lazer 2007); or challenge our understanding of political theories and concepts, such as the meaning of privacy and of the public sphere (see Etzioni 2000 and Sunstein 2007 on the meaning of privacy and the compartmentalization of "public" speech, Bimber 2003 on the effect of information technologies on democracy, and Benkler 2006 on the reinterpretation of the public sphere). Each of these perspectives is visible locally, regionally, nationally, and globally.