Suchergebnisse

Despite very different historical and constitutional bases for how we nominate presidential candidates andelect presidentsto office, as well as very different political processes (sequential versus simultaneous voting), both the presidential nominating process and the Electoral College are rooted in state elections, not a national election, and both create state winners and losers. Previous research has not explored the role of state influence or state self-interest in presidential elections. States that voteearlyinthenomination process benefit,asdo battlegroundstatesinthe generalelection,especially small-populationstates.Giventhefundamentallydifferenttypes ofelectionsexaminedinthis paper, it is surprising that very similar forces shape efforts to nationalize presidential elections. Popular reform options of both the nomination process (national primary) and the general election (national popular vote) focus on a single national election in which the nation�s interests, rather than state interests, are paramount. This analysis of 2008 panel survey data shows that citizen opinions on nationalizing presidential elections through a national primary or national popular vote for president are based on strategic decisions defined by short-term electoral politics and long-term self-interest rooted in an individual�s state

Despite very different historical and constitutional bases for how we nominate presidential candidates andelect presidentsto office, as well as very different political processes (sequential versus simultaneous voting), both the presidential nominating process and the Electoral College are rooted in state elections, not a national election, and both create state winners and losers. Previous research has not explored the role of state influence or state self-interest in presidential elections. States that voteearlyinthenomination process benefit,asdo battlegroundstatesinthe generalelection,especially small-populationstates.Giventhefundamentallydifferenttypes ofelectionsexaminedinthis paper, it is surprising that very similar forces shape efforts to nationalize presidential elections. Popular reform options of both the nomination process (national primary) and the general election (national popular vote) focus on a single national election in which the nation�s interests, rather than state interests, are paramount. This analysis of 2008 panel survey data shows that citizen opinions on nationalizing presidential elections through a national primary or national popular vote for president are based on strategic decisions defined by short-term electoral politics and long-term self-interest rooted in an individual�s state

Influential economic models predict that as inequality increases, the public will demand greater redistribution. However, there is limited research into the determinants of support for redistributive tax increases because such proposals have been so rare in America in recent decades. We use Washington State's Proposition 1098 to examine how economic self-interest, concerns about inequality, and partisanship influence support for redistributive taxation. The results show that all of these factors influenced support, with strong support among the lower income, indicating that when the distributional implications of policies are clear, citizens can translate their self-interest and broad attitudes into congruent redistributive preferences.

How should we measure broadband adoption by individuals and communities, given different modes of access, including home broadband, smartphone use, and public access? We measure online activities and indicators of skill to understand opportunities for digital citizenship, or participation in society online. Based on a 2011 survey in Chicago, we find more mobile phone adoption among Blacks than among non-Hispanic Whites, and greater likelihood of Internet use for job searches among residents who rely primarily on smartphones to go online than among home broadband adopters. Yet our analysis also shows that broadband at home remains critically important for digital citizenship, and that the growth in mobile phone use has not erased inequalities in participation online and seems unlikely to do so. Moreover, smartphones are not bridging the gap in disadvantaged communities. Multilevel statistical models show inequality in both Internet access and economic and political activities across geographic areas, or communities. Technology disparities that are patterned by place have implications for opportunity and equity at the neighborhood level.