Search results

Rather than support a call for the end to official secrecy, it is contended that democratic states must acknowledge the deleterious effects that official secrecy has upon national societies, especially the creation of paranoid thinking among citizens, & take measures to reduce such potential harm. After providing a definition of "official secrecy," the necessity of not revealing certain information to the public (eg, to preserve military strategies) & the various uses of official secrecy (eg, the concealment of embarrassing situations involving political actors) are considered. Three distinct strategies for obscuring information are then identified -- complete concealment, concealment coupled with no official responses to inquiry, & disinformation. Although US political actors have typically concealed information so that inquiry is never considered, several examples of certain politicians' use of disinformation are presented. Noting that official secrecy frequently produces paranoid thought & has engendered a culture in which paranoid thinking has become accepted, three recommendations for reducing such potentially harmful thought are offered, eg, official secrets should be made publicly accessible after a set period of time. The implications of not taking measures to alleviate paranoid thought caused by official secrecy for democratic stability are also contemplated. J. W. Parker

AbstractIn meeting the threat posed by terrorism, the democratic state also faces a paradox: those practices best suited to defending the state are often least suited to democracy. Such is the case with official secrecy, which has received renewed attention. Military and intelligence operations frequently depend on secrecy for their success. At the same time, democracy depends on openness, a fact too often neglected by democratic theory. Official secrecy subverts citizen autonomy and in so doing creates fertile ground for paranoid-style thinking. For the United States, a history of secrets and lies has left a legacy of distrust and paranoia.

Discusses political change in southern states and in Alabama, the 1986 gubernatorial race as a "campaign that mattered," and reaction to realignment involving a shift in attitudes toward state-level parties, while attitudes were untouched toward their national-leval counterparts.

ABSTRACTGood education requires student experiences that deliver lessons about practice as well as theory and that encourage students to work for the public good—especially in the operation of democratic institutions (Dewey 1923; Dewy 1938). We report on an evaluation of the pedagogical value of a research project involving 23 colleges and universities across the country. Faculty trained and supervised students who observed polling places in the 2016 General Election. Our findings indicate that this was a valuable learning experience in both the short and long terms. Students found their experiences to be valuable and reported learning generally and specifically related to course material. Postelection, they also felt more knowledgeable about election science topics, voting behavior, and research methods. Students reported interest in participating in similar research in the future, would recommend other students to do so, and expressed interest in more learning and research about the topics central to their experience. Our results suggest that participants appreciated the importance of elections and their study. Collectively, the participating students are engaged and efficacious—essential qualities of citizens in a democracy.

This paper is the result of a nationwide study of polling place dynamics in the 2016 presidential election. Research teams, recruited from local colleges and universities and located in twenty-eight election jurisdictions across the United States, observed and timed voters as they entered the queue at their respective polling places and then voted. We report results about four specific polling place operations and practices: the length of the check-in line, the number of voters leaving the check-in line once they have joined it, the time for a voter to check in to vote (i.e., verify voter's identification and obtain a ballot), and the time to complete a ballot. Long lines, waiting times, and times to vote are closely related to time of day (mornings are busiest for polling places). We found the recent adoption of photographic voter identification (ID) requirements to have a disparate effect on the time to check in among white and nonwhite polling places. In majority-white polling places, scanning a voter's driver's license speeds up the check-in process. In majority nonwhite polling locations, the effect of strict voter ID requirements increases time to check in, albeit modestly.