Suchergebnisse

Cover; Title; Copyright; Dedication; Contents; List of Figures; List of Tables; Acknowledgements; 1 Are You Ready to Rumble? It Is Election Season Again!; 2 The "Good": How Competitive Elections Positively Affect Citizens and Democracy; 3 The "Bad": How Competitive Elections Negatively Affect Citizens and Democracy; 4 The "Ugly": Competitive Elections Are More Negative, Even on Twitter; 5 Final Thoughts on Competition; References; Appendix; Index.

"Competition seems to be an inevitable part of present-day elections in the United States. However, recent publications have debated whether we should encourage or discourage competitive elections. In Competitive Elections and Democracy in America, Heather Evans closely examines the debate over competition in elections and questions whether or not they are beneficial for democracy in the US. Evans clearly lays out the basis of the debate over competition and defines what exactly constitutes a competitive election. She then uses an innovative data set that she assembled to analyze the 2006-2010 congressional elections, testing whether the competitiveness of an election affects citizens' political knowledge, political interest, and opinions of Congress, their representatives, and the governmental system as a whole. She subsequently evaluates the positive effects that competitive elections have on constituencies, and in turn gives equal weight to the negative effects. An examination of the effects "ugly" campaigns have on voters is also incorporated, relevant to today's oft-used "mud-slinging" campaign tactics. Evans concludes with a thoughtful and analytical assessment of whether competition is valuable for elections, and how to increase competition if it indeed has merit for political campaigns. Through the book's analyses, Evans demonstrates that competitive elections do have lasting effects on voters that go beyond just the length of a campaign. Her research reinforces the vital role that political competition plays in modern democracies, and offers a careful evaluation of how and why competitive elections affect citizens in the US"--

"Competition seems to be an inevitable part of present-day elections in the United States. However, recent publications have debated whether we should encourage or discourage competitive elections. In Competitive Elections and Democracy in America, Heather Evans closely examines the debate over competition in elections and questions whether or not they are beneficial for democracy in the US. Evans clearly lays out the basis of the debate over competition and defines what exactly constitutes a competitive election. She then uses an innovative data set that she assembled to analyze the 2006-2010 congressional elections, testing whether the competitiveness of an election affects citizens' political knowledge, political interest, and opinions of Congress, their representatives, and the governmental system as a whole. She subsequently evaluates the positive effects that competitive elections have on constituencies, and in turn gives equal weight to the negative effects. An examination of the effects "ugly" campaigns have on voters is also incorporated, relevant to today's oft-used "mud-slinging" campaign tactics. Evans concludes with a thoughtful and analytical assessment of whether competition is valuable for elections, and how to increase competition if it indeed has merit for political campaigns. Through the book's analyses, Evans demonstrates that competitive elections do have lasting effects on voters that go beyond just the length of a campaign. Her research reinforces the vital role that political competition plays in modern democracies, and offers a careful evaluation of how and why competitive elections affect citizens in the US"--

AbstractPublication in scholarly journals is a key to scholarly success. However, previous studies have shown that across many disciplines, including political science, women publish significantly less than men and prefer to use qualitative methodology. In this article, we explore the accuracy of these trends by examining a decade's worth (2000–09) of women's publications in four top political science journals (the American Political Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science, the Journal of Politics, and PS: Political Science and Politics). Using a systematic content analysis, we determine the gender ratio of the authors, funding sources, methods, and the ratio of qualitative and quantitative studies. We find that while women publish less than men in each of these venues, their publication rates resemble their representation in the field.

AbstractBackgroundPrevious research demonstrates that congressional communication on Twitter is gendered. Congresswomen are more likely to tweet about issues than Congressmen during elections, and they are also more likely to tweet about "women's issues" (healthcare, education, reproductive rights, welfare) than their male counterparts.ObjectivesGiven the partisan and gendered coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) pandemic effects researchers have documented, we examine whether Congressmembers. communication about COVID‐19 is also gendered and partisan.MethodsTo examine how Senators and House Representatives were discussing the pandemic online, we collected the tweets sent by members of both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate from February 1st until May 14th, 2020.ResultsGender and partisanship shape how members communicate about COVID‐19 on Twitter, and this is especially pronounced in the framing of COVID‐19 in terms of "women's issues."ConclusionWe find evidence that there is a gendered partisan divide in both the frequency and framing of the issue on Twitter. This divide is likely to continue to shape how the public thinks about the pandemic and how elites. respond to the pandemic.

ABSTRACTThis article examines the factors that influence whether members of Congress tweet about the #MeToo movement. Whereas social-identity theory suggests that congresswomen would be more likely to tweet about #MeToo, congressional research argues that increased polarization has resulted in congresswomen bucking gender stereotypes and embracing more partisan behavior than might otherwise be expected (Pearson and Dancey 2011). We examine how gender, partisanship, and ideology shape the Twitter activity of members of Congress surrounding the #MeToo movement using an original dataset of their tweets since October 2017 when the #MeToo movement gained prominence on Twitter. Our findings show that gender and ideology are the strongest predictors of whether Congress members tweet about the #MeToo movement. Liberals—particularly liberal women—are leading the charge in bringing prominence to the #MeToo movement on Twitter.