Task Force on Political Science, Electoral Rules, and Democratic Governance

Electoral rules help to make democracy work. Small variations in them influence the type of democracy that develops. The field of political science has defined the study of why and how this happens. Political scientists have contributed to the world of electoral systems as scientists and as engineers. Taking stock of recent scientific research, this report shows that context modifies the effects of electoral rules on political outcomes in specific and systematic ways. It explores how electoral rules shape party systems, the inclusion of women and minorities, the depth and nature of political competition, and patterns of redistribution and regulation. It considers institutional innovations that could promote political equality. Finally, the report describes the diverse ways that political scientists are producing an impact on the world by sharing and applying their knowledge of the consequences of electoral rules and global trends in reform

2020-06-26/27/28 DAILY UNM GLOBAL HEALTH COVID-19 BRIEFING

Executive Summary: NM Highlights: State fair cancelled. Phase 2 reopening stalls. Fewer New Mexicans staying home. ABQ July 4 celebration plan. NM case update. US Highlights: Family members infected following surprise birthday party. New cases spike in Texas due to early reopening of bars. International Highlights: 50% in Austria ski resort have antibodies. Economics, Workforce, Supply Chain, PPE: Why people do not wear masks. Mask filtration efficiencies compared. Masks worn incorrectly. Ultraviolet-based biophotonic technologies. Improved mask designs. Mask wearing controversy. Epidemiology Highlights: Contamination through air flow paths. Contamination of wastewater circulation. Healthcare Policy Recommendations: Moralizing COVID-19 mitigation practices contributes to social polarization. Misperception of exponential infection growth by Americans is common but can be corrected. Adjust quarantine plans for the findings that older patients might have a longer incubation period. Hazards of school reopening in European countries with high transmission rates. Practice Guidelines: Several Brazilian recommendations are published on managing lung cancer, performing laparoscopic surgery, and breastfeeding. Guidelines are provided and managing gynecological cancer. Testing: Test accessibility, frequency and speed of reporting matters more than sensitivity. Prolonged shedding of SARS-CoV-2. Sensitivity of nasopharyngeal and swabs testing. Testing algorithm for essential workers. Drugs, Vaccines, Therapies, Clinical Trials: dexamethasone trial preprint criticized, smallpox-based COVID-19 vaccine, 27 new clinical trials. Other Science: Pandemic sees increased alcohol consumption. Charlson Comorbidity Index predicts poor outcomes. CT features associated with severity. Immune-inflammatory tests associated with severity. Hepatic complications

The higher education impact agenda, scientific realism and policy change: the case of electoral integrity in Britain

Pressures have increasingly been put upon social scientists to prove their economic, cultural and social value through ‘impact agendas’ in higher education. There has been little conceptual and empirical discussion of the challenges involved in achieving impact and the dangers of evaluating it, however. This article argues that a critical realist approach to social science can help to identify some of these key challenges and the institutional incompatibilities between impact regimes and university research in free societies. These incompatibilities are brought out through an autobiographical ‘insider-account’ of trying to achieve impact in the field of electoral integrity in Britain. The article argues that there is a more complex relationship between research and the real world which means that the nature of knowledge might change as it becomes known by reflexive agents. Secondly, the researchers are joined into social relations with a variety of actors, including those who might be the object of study in their research. Researchers are often weakly positioned in these relations. Some forms of impact, such as achieving policy change, are therefore exceptionally difficult as they are dependent on other actors. Strategies for trying to achieve impact are drawn out such as collaborating with civil society groups and parliamentarians to lobby for policy change

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