Suchergebnisse

1. Bruce Cain, declare as follows: …2. Based on my study of redistricting, I believe that the attempt to define unbiased and objective standards of political fairness is futile. The reasons for this are several. First, there are many possible standards of political fairness, and political scientists do not agree as to which is best, as is demonstrated by the contradictory arguments in the declarations of Professors Grofman and Baker. Professor Baker argues for a compactness criterion while Professor Grofman disparages the use of what he terms "formal criteria" such as the shape of district lines and proposes instead a seats-votes measure. Secondly, the two standards of political fairness proposed by Grofman and Baker will prove contradictory in many circumstances, and this will force the courts to choose between them. Thirdly, the proposed standards are inconsistent with other redistricting criteria—particularly, with the court's efforts in the last decade to protect racial and ethnic minority voting strength. Finally, attempts to use fairness formulae are fundamentally flawed and impractical: they underestimate the many complex factors that determine the outcome of an election and overestimate the capacity of social scientists to predict future electoral outcomes.

1. Bruce Cain, declare as follows: …2. Based on my study of redistricting, I believe that the attempt to define unbiased and objective standards of political fairness is futile. The reasons for this are several. First, there are many possible standards of political fairness, and political scientists do not agree as to which is best, as is demonstrated by the contradictory arguments in the declarations of Professors Grofman and Baker. Professor Baker argues for a compactness criterion while Professor Grofman disparages the use of what he terms "formal criteria" such as the shape of district lines and proposes instead a seats-votes measure. Secondly, the two standards of political fairness proposed by Grofman and Baker will prove contradictory in many circumstances, and this will force the courts to choose between them. Thirdly, the proposed standards are inconsistent with other redistricting criteria—particularly, with the court's efforts in the last decade to protect racial and ethnic minority voting strength. Finally, attempts to use fairness formulae are fundamentally flawed and impractical: they underestimate the many complex factors that determine the outcome of an election and overestimate the capacity of social scientists to predict future electoral outcomes.

As a detailed look at the rising stakes and urgency of the various interconnected issues, this book is an important first step toward that understanding--and consequently toward the rethinking and reengineering that will allow people to live sustainably in the American West under the conditions of future global warming.

Why do American political reform efforts so often fail to solve the problems they intend to fix? In this book, Bruce E. Cain argues that the reasons are an unrealistic civic ideal of a fully informed and engaged citizenry and a neglect of basic pluralist principles about political intermediaries. This book traces the tension between populist and pluralist approaches as it plays out in many seemingly distinct reform topics, such as voting administration, campaign finance, excessive partisanship, redistricting, and transparency and voter participation. It explains why political primaries have promoted partisan polarization, why voting rates are declining even as election opportunities increase, and why direct democracy is not really a grassroots tool. Cain offers a reform agenda that attempts to reconcile pluralist ideals with the realities of collective-action problems and resource disparities

Why do American political reform efforts so often fail to solve the problems they intend to fix? In this book, Bruce E. Cain argues that the reasons are an unrealistic civic ideal of a fully informed and engaged citizenry and a neglect of basic pluralist principles about political intermediaries. This book traces the tension between populist and pluralist approaches as it plays out in many seemingly distinct reform topics, such as voting administration, campaign finance, excessive partisanship, redistricting, and transparency and voter participation. It explains why political primaries have promoted partisan polarization, why voting rates are declining even as election opportunities increase, and why direct democracy is not really a grassroots tool. Cain offers a reform agenda that attempts to reconcile pluralist ideals with the realities of collective-action problems and resource disparities

This text assembles the evidence of how democratic institutions and processes are changing and considers the larger implications of these reforms for the nature of democracy. The findings point to a new style of democratic politics that expands the nature of democracy