Governors tend to appoint Senators who most resemble voters in the state, rather than ideologues.

For over a century, state governors have had the power to appoint US Senators to vacant seats, a power which runs against the idea of Senators as being democratic representatives. But do governors appoint those with similar ideologies to themselves? In new research which reviewed senate candidates considered by governors to fill vacancies, Christopher Cooper, H. Gibbs Knotts, and Jordan Ragusa find that while they rarely appoint senators from a different party, they tend to skew towards the middle – appointing those who are closest to the ideology of the state’s median voter

When the Personal Vote Is Not Enough: The Failure of Charter Reform in Columbia, South Carolina

The choice of city structure is one of the most important choices that citizens and elected representatives face in local government. While we know a good deal about the macro-level trends in a city structure, we know comparatively less about why residents in individual cities may opt for one structure or another. In this paper, we focus on the unsuccessful 2013 single-issue referendum in Columbia, South Carolina, addressing why, despite support from key players, the city chose not to adopt a strong-mayor form of government. Using precinct-level data, we find support for the personal vote hypothesis. We discover that support for the sitting mayor is a significant predictor of support for reform, although the lack of voter mobilization city-wide may be too much of a factor for reform advocates to overcome. This investigation leads us to a number of conclusions that are relevant for both academics and practitioners who want to understand structural change in local government

Southern Democrats’ split with Republicans over Confederate symbols is more recent than you might think.

Following the recent police killing of George Floyd, recent months have seen Confederate monuments and symbols removed from public display in parts of the Southern US and elsewhere. And while Southern Republicans generally oppose Democrats who are pushing for these changes, this is a relatively recent development, argue Christopher A. Cooper and co-authors

Perceptions of Effectiveness and Job Satisfaction of Pre-Law Advisors

Despite playing an important role, preprofessional advising has received little research attention. For this study, 313 U.S. preprofessional advisors were surveyed in 2015. Drawing on work adjustment and social cognitive career theories, we analyzed the job satisfaction and perceived effectiveness of pre-law advisors. The major findings reveal that advisors having a law degree, the ability to secure more resources, and a commitment to spending significant hours weekly in advising tend to be more satisfied and perceive themselves to be more effective in helping students gain admission to law school and preparing them for academic success than other pre-law advisors. Other factors related to participant self-perceptions on advising future law students are also discussed

First in the South: The Importance of South Carolina in Presidential Politics

This article is a case study of the influential South Carolina presidential primary. Starting in 1972, primaries and caucuses became the selection process for nominating the major parti) presidential nominees and in 1980 South Carolina was the first southern state to hold its Republicanprimary. The Palmetto State established itself as First in the South for casting votes in Democratic and Republican presidential primaries and its early placement on the primary calendar gives it an outsied role in the selection of eventual nominees. We provide an overview of all the Democratic and Republican contests in South Carolina dating back to 1980 and then illustrate the remarkable demographic changes that have recently occurred within these parties\u27 primary electorates. Next, we examine voter preferences among likely 2016 South Carolina primary voters with survey data from the Winthrop Poll. Fast, we conclude with a synopsis of why South Carolina has been and likely will continue to play a pivotal role in presidential nomination contests

The Nationalization of Special Elections for the U.S. House of Representatives

<p>Scholars and political commentators have argued that special elections to the U.S. House of Representatives are national contests, serving as a referendum on the president's party and a predictor of future election outcomes (Sigelman 1981; Smith and Burnnell 2010). But the empirical record is mixed, with one leading study demonstrating that candidate and district characteristics <i>alone</i> explain special election outcomes (Gaddie, Bullock, and Buchanan 1999). We investigate this disagreement by comparing special election and open-seat results using new data for the period 1995–2014. We find that while candidate characteristics affect special election outcomes, presidential approval is predictive of special election outcomes as well. Furthermore, we find that the effect of presidential approval on special election outcomes has increased in magnitude from 1995 to 2014, with the 2002 midterm representing an important juncture in the nationalization of special elections. We conclude that special elections have developed into national contests since the 1970s and situate this development within broader electoral trends.</p