InnoVoting: How Democracy Is Being Reshaped By Women\u27s Innovative Voting Activism & Candidacy

Non

Descriptive and Substantive Representation in Congress: Evidence from 80,000 Congressional Inquiries

A vast literature debates the efficacy of descriptive representation in legislatures. Though studies argue it influences how communities are represented through constituency service, they are limited since legislators’ service activities are unobserved. Using Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, we collected 88,000 records of communication between members of the U.S. Congress and federal agencies during the 108th–113th Congresses. These legislative interventions allow us to examine members’ “follow‐through” with policy implementation. We find that women, racial/ethnic minorities, and veterans are more likely to work on behalf of constituents with whom they share identities. Including veterans offers leverage in understanding the role of political cleavages and shared experiences. Our findings suggest that shared experiences operate as a critical mechanism for representation, that a lack of political consensus is not necessary for substantive representation, and that the causal relationships identified by experimental work have observable implications in the daily work of Congress.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/150606/1/ajps12443-sup-0001-SuppMat.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/150606/2/ajps12443.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/150606/3/ajps12443_am.pd

The problem of constitutional legitimation: what the debate on electoral quotas tells us about the legitimacy of decision-making rules in constitutional choice

Proponents of electoral quotas have a ‘dependent interpretation’ of democracy, i.e. they have formed an opinion on which decision-making rules are fair on the basis of their prior approval of the outcomes these rules are likely to generate. The article argues that this position causes an irresolvable problem for constitutional processes that seek to legitimately enact institutional change. While constitutional revision governed by formal equality allows the introduction of electoral quotas, this avenue is normatively untenable for proponents of affirmative action if they are consistent with their claim that formal equality reproduces biases and power asymmetries at all levels of decision-making. Their critique raises a fundamental challenge to the constitutional revision rule itself as equally unfair. Without consensus on the decision-making process by which new post-constitutional rules can be legitimately enacted, procedural fairness becomes an issue impossible to resolve at the stage of constitutional choice. This problem of legitimation affects all instances of constitutional choice in which there are opposing views not only about the desired outcome of the process but also about the decision-making rules that govern constitutional choice

The Politics of Women's Rights

xvi.266 hal.;24 c

Constitution Day 2020 A Century of Votes for Women: American Elections Since Suffrage

Christina Wolbrecht, University of Notre Dame, will present a live Zoom webinar based on her co-authored book A Century of Votes for Women: American Elections Since Suffrage (Cambridge 2020), which examines how women voted across the first 100 years since the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment. The lecture takes place at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 22, 2020. A Q&A session will follow her remarks. In addition to her work examining women\u27s voting patterns, Wolbrecht has authored or co-authored books and articles on the politics of women\u27s rights, women as political role models, and the representation of women. She is co-editor of the journal Politics & Gender and is on the Executive Committee of Women Also Know Stuff, an organization dedicated to promoting the work of women political scientists. Wolbrecht is professor of political science, director of the Rooney Center for the Study of American Democracy, and C. Robert and Margaret Hanley Family Director of the Notre Dame Washington Program. The event is supported by funds from the R. Gordon Hoxie Fund and sponsored by the American Democracy Project and the Departments of History and Political Science.https://scholarworks.uni.edu/campus_events/1002/thumbnail.jp

Partisanship and Pre-Floor Behavior: The Equal Rights and School Prayer Amendments

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/116242/1/prq00.pd

Replication Data for: The Resistance as Role Model: Disillusionment and Protest Among American Adolescents After 2016

These files are for replication of "Resistance as Role Model: Disillusionment and Protest Among American Adolescents After 2016" There are three files: a. codebook.docx: Word document with details regarding the dataset and variables b. replication do file.do: STATA do file with complete code for the analysis and predicted values used in the paper, including the appendix c. Resistance_RoleModel.dta: STATA dataset, with variables labele

The Politics of Democratic Inclusion

vi + 345 hlm., 23 cm