Suchergebnisse

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution saw the Senate as their paramount creation. To James Madison, it was "the great anchor of the government," and in his seminal plans for a new national government, the Senate figured as the most prominent and powerful institution, to be endowed with a potent combination of legislative, executive, and judicial prerogatives that were greater and more wide-ranging than those of either the House or the president. In the four months that the Framers met in Philadelphia, they spent more time and energy deliberating on the Senate than on any other single institution or issue, devoting most of the first seven critical weeks to the upper house, and thereafter, though more scattered, the equivalent of another week or two of consideration. In contrast, they focused on the House, executive, and federal judiciary for a few weeks each at most, and spent even less time on such vital issues as sectionalism and slavery. By the end of the Convention, the Framers had created an imposing chamber, possessing far more power and autonomy than any other upper house heretofore created in independent America. Small wonder, then, that in assessing the work of the Convention, the influential delegate from Connecticut, Roger Sherman, pronounced it "the most important branch in the government." Smaller wonder still that the Framers would comprise over half the membership of the first Senate.

Aus der geschichtlichen Rückblende heraus (1789-1899) versucht die Autorin Karrieremuster und parlamentarisches Verhalten von Mitgliedern des amerikanischen Kongresses zu untersuchen. Sie kommt zu dem Ergebnis, daß durchaus nicht immer Karrieredenken zu einer Bewerbung für den Kongreß führte, sondern dieses eher beeinflußt wurde von Entscheidungen von Parteiführern, von Wandlungen des Wahlsystems und Entwicklungen der politischen Kultur. Hinzu kamen die Bedeutung der sozialen Verankerung und Reputation sowie des persönlichen Besitzstandes. (SWP-Wgn)

What should major parties out of power do to win elections? To answer that question, we need to understand what these parties do to recapture political ascendancy and whether their actual behaviour differs from their optimal behaviour. In this article, we propose a systematic, replicable method of identifying the competitive strategies that American parties out of power have adopted in their pursuit of the presidency. We present a taxonomy of party strategies, which we operationalize by comparison of utility functions for hypothetical voters. Using both directional and proximity models of issue voting, we compute these utility functions for each presidential election from 1852 to 1996, controlling for variables that systematically affect voting, including economic conditions and incumbency. These results suggest that, contrary to the views of many political scientists and party activists, there is no single optimal strategy through which parties out of power can regain it. Rahter, several competitive strategies offer similar prospects for electoral success. (British Journal of Political Science / FUB)

Guidance for the National Healthcare Disparities Report -- Copyright -- REVIEWERS -- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS -- PREFACE -- REFERENCE LIST -- Contents -- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -- GUIDING THE NATIONAL HEALTHCARE DISPARITIES REPORT -- CONCLUSION -- REFERENCE LIST -- 1 COMMITTEE REPORT -- 1-1. MEASUREMENT OF SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS IN DISPARITIES RESEARCH -- 1-2. MEASUREMENT OF DISPARITIES IN ACCESS TO AND WITHIN THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM -- 1-3. MEASUREMENT OF DISPARITIES IN HEALTH CARE SERVICES AND QUALITY -- 1-4. MEASUREMENT OF GEOGRAPHIC DISPARITIES IN HEALTH CARE -- 1-5. SUBNATIONAL DATASETS -- 1-6. GENERAL ISSUES -- 1-7. CONCLUSION -- Reference List -- 2 MEASURING THE EFFECTS OF SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS ON HEALTH CARE -- 2-1. STUDYING THE EFFECTS OF SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS ON HEALTH -- 2-2. REVIEW OF METHODS USED IN STUDYING THE EFFECTS OF SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS ON HEALTH -- 2-3. REVIEW OF METHODS USED IN STUDYING DISPARITIES IN HEALTH CARE -- 2-4. METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN STUDIES OF HEALTH CARE DISPARITIES -- 2-5. CONCLUSION -- Reference List -- 3 MEASURING DISPARITIES IN HEALTH CARE QUALITY AND SERVICE UTILIZATION -- 3-1. RACE, ETHNICITY, AND DIFFERENCES IN HEALTH CARE -- Equalities in Health Care Services and Quality -- Disparities in Health Care Services and Quality -- Hyperdisparities in Health Care Services and Quality -- 3-2. CREATING A NATIONAL HEALTHCARE DISPARITIES REPORT -- Data Sources -- Patient Assessments -- Medical/Administrative Record Data Audits -- Health Status Outcomes -- Approaches to Reporting -- 3-3. CONCLUSION -- Reference List -- 4 MEASURING DISPARITIES IN ACCESS TO CARE -- 4-1. SETTING THE CONTEXT -- 4-2. EVOLVING CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS OF ACCESS TO CARE -- 4-3. ACCESS TO CARE AND THE QUALITY FRAMEWORK -- 4-4. CHALLENGES TO EXAMINING DISPARITIES IN ACCESS -- Data and Measurement -- Socioeconomic Position -- Cumulative Effects -- Managed Care.