What Do Pacific Political Science Students Do?

University of the Pacific junior Kyle Sasai, center, has August School eighth-graders write down his email address Wednesday during a visit to the east Stockton school. Sasai founded the HopeStreet Backpack Outreach program, which mentors Stockton middle school students as they make the transition to high school and encourages them to consider college.

Sometimes they help at risk students see the possibility of a successful future:

On Wednesday, Sasai, along with 11 other Pacific students, went to August School in east Stockton to start mentorships with soon-to-be high schoolers as part of his HopeStreet Backpack Outreach, a program Sasai founded in 2011.

The middle school students received backpacks for starters. But the most valuable gift is perhaps the mentors themselves.

They’ll be responsible for giving the August students advice throughout their upcoming high school careers about peer pressure, homework and even how to ask a girl to prom.

“Don’t ask a girl to prom over text,” Sasai said, and giggles followed. “It makes it awkward.”

Sasai offered the younger students Pacific campus tours when they’re ready and provided his contact information. “I want you guys to ask me anything,” he said.

The ongoing contact is a much appreciated resource at August, which has a largely disadvantaged student population, said Principal Lori Risso. All of the children receive free or reduced-price lunches.

“A lot of the kids think they can’t afford to go to college,” Risso said. The Pacific volunteers, she said, can relate to the kids and encourage them to seek scholarships and other financial aid.

“It makes the vision of going to high school and college possible.”

Kyle who excels in the classroom as a political science major and a member of the Pacific Legal Scholars program, has proven that academic excellence can go together seemlessly with community leadership.

Sasai . . . founded the program his first year of college. Since then, he has gathered volunteers to fill backpacks, write the kids letters and train for the continuing interaction.

Pacific mentors are each assigned about five students to befriend and help guide.

With the students they reached this year, they have connected with 500 middle school students since 2011.

 

Your 112th Congress: Most. Polarized. Ever.

The DW-NOMINATE scores for the 112th Congress were released by VoteView yesterday (original post). The title of this post gives the punchline away, but according to the NOMINATE measure the 112th Congress was the most polarized since Reconstruction. Here’s the graph to go with it:

NOMINATE uses every vote cast during a congress to estimate the ideological positions of each member. Since membership overlaps and individual members’ ideologies do not change much over time, it is possible to compare comparing the ideology of members today with members from the past. The measure is scaled from -1 (the most liberal member) to +1 (the most conservative member). What you see above is the ideological distance between the average Republican and the average Democrat in the House and Senate over time.

Where does all that polarization come from? Mostly the Republican Party, though note that this is not anything new. The average Republican has been getting more conservative since the mid-1970′s.

Here’s VoteView’s statement:

The 112th Congress closed unceremoniously this month with a series of votes (by the House and Senate) to avert the “fiscal cliff”. With this data, we can now analyze roll call voting in the 112th Congress in its entirety and place the amount of Congressional polarization seen over the last two years in historical context. … And … this phenomenon has been asymmetric: contemporary polarization of the parties is almost entirely due to the movement of congressional Republicans to the right. Polarization is measured as the difference between the Republican and Democratic means on the first DW-NOMINATE dimension, which represents the ideological (liberal-conservative) scale.

Did Outside Money Matter in House Races?

In our local congressional contest, Jerry McNerney’s campaign was not only out raised and out spent by Ricky Gill’s campaign (at least through the third quarter), but Republican aligned outside groups also spent far more money on behave of Gill than Democratic aligned groups spent on behalf of McNerney. The Center for Responsive Politics data show a nearly 5:1 advantage for Gill in outside spending. (Outside groups spent $4.80 on behalf of Gill for every $1 spent on behalf of McNerney.) Despite this imbalance, Gill lost.

What about other House contests? Did outside spending make a difference across the country? In a word, no. The result we saw here, according to an analysis by Lee Drutman, Alexander Furnas, Amy Cesal and Alex Engler at the Sunlight Foundation, was repeated in House races across the country.

They write:

One of the emerging post-campaign narratives is that all the outside money (more than $1.3 billion) that poured into the 2012 election didn’t buy much in the way of victories. And as we dig through the results in detail (our extensive data visualizations and analysis are below), the story holds up: we can find no statistically observable relationship between the outside spending and the likelihood of victory.

The kicker in the analysis is this chart:

The vertical axis is the Republican’s vote share. The horizontal axis is the Republican’s advantage in outside spending. Can you spot a relationship? I can’t.

So why didn’t outside spending matter much in 2012? Drutman and his colleagues offer a handful of explanations:

1. National factors were more important.
2. Outside spending produced a backlash.
3. Money has diminishing marginal returns.
4. Outside spending is more about offense.
5. Candidate spending matters more.

I’m not sure which of these I agree with most. What about you?

[h/t the Monkey Cage]

Institutionalism (and the Limits Thereof)

One of main theoretical perspectives in political science is new institutionalism. Although this concept can take a number of forms (see here), the basic idea is that rules governing a particular kind of political behavior affect the final outcomes we see. So, for example, the fact that would-be presidential candidates have to campaign in a large number of state primaries early in the year (a phenomenon called frontloading) means that they spend a significant amount of time the year before working to gain the support of party elites.

One of the key insights of the new institutionalism is that the rules matter. The implication is that if you want to get a different result, perhaps you should try changing the rules. More than many state, California has long taken this insight to heart. In the last election we say two significant, institutional changes implemented in an effort to change the political culture in Sacramento.

The first change was the creation of the Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC). The CRC was created by Prop. 11 (2008) to draw all state-level legislative districts, and its authority was expanded by Prop. 20 (2010) to include congressional districts. The hope was that by taking control over redistricting away from the state legislature, California would get better, more competitive districts, which would force candidates to moderate their partisanship.

The second change was the adoption of the top-two or majority runoff system of elections (Prop. 14). Instead of a series of partisan nominating contests–wherein registered partisans vote for a set of party nominees–followed by a general election contest among all the party nominees, California now has a a two-stage electoral process. In the first stage, all the candidates who filed for office compete for votes. Any registered voter can caste her ballot for any candidate, just as in the November election. The top two vote getters (and only the top two) in this first stage election then face each other in a run-off election in November. Here again, the goal was to reduce the influence of partisanship. In this case, the assumption was that by opening up the electorate, candidates would have to moderate their stances in order to be one of the top two.

One of the primary criticisms of the new institutionalism is that it focuses attention on the wrong place. Here, the hope is that by changing the way districts are drawn and who gets to vote for what candidates, candidates will change their behavior. But what if neither really makes a difference? What if the source of partisanship behavior–and the perceived disfunction in Sacramento–doesn’t stem from the rules but other actors? Most of the research on the effects of redistricting (see here, here, and here) and electoral systems (see here, here, and here) on partisanship indicate that it comes from (a) party actors who screen candidates, (b) the kinds of candidates who seek office, and (c) the preferences of voters (though, importantly, not the difference between primary and general election voters). The electoral rules don’t affect these factors.

So does this mean the new institutionalism is wrong to focus on the importance of the rules? No. It just means you have to target the reform at the right source. So far

The California State Capitol building in Sacramento. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

, Californians haven’t done that.

Related articles

• The “Old” New Institutionalism versus the “New” New Institutionalism (orgtheory.wordpress.com)
• New maps needed (toledoblade.com)

Republican Exceptionalism? Or What Happened to the Republican Foreign Policy Establishment?

Seal of the United States Department of State. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Welcome back! This is the first in our annual series of “Applying Political Science” posts. In a series of weekly posts, University of the Pacific Political Scientists will demonstrate how the tools of political science–concepts, analytical approaches, theories, etc.) can help us explain and understand current affairs. It being campaign season, you can expect a number of posts regarding the 2012 elections. You will also see discussions of a wide range of non-election matters.

My primary interest in political science is International Relations and, specifically, foreign policy. In not particular order, here are a few observations about a particularly interesting aspect of the current presidential campaign.

American Exeptionalism. More years ago than I care to remember I published a book called Consensus and the American Mission. It was an effort to see how various strains of American Exceptionalism had affected U.S. foreign policy during different periods of the Cold War. Back then the phrase “American Exceptionalism” was not used very much in academic discussions and not at all in public rhetoric. But these days, it seems that everybody is an American Exceptionalist. Madeline Albright, a Clinton secretary of state, and President Obama have both called the US the “indispensable nation.”

The Republicans, though, seem to have decided that American Exceptionalism is their foreign policy brand. In a recent interview, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice offered that Governor Romney’s foreign policy advantage over President Obama is that Romney “would understand American Exceptionalism.” In fact, the platform adopted by the Republican National Convention last week simply calls its section of foreign and national security policy “American Exceptionalism.”

We are the party of peace through strength. Professing American exceptionalism – the conviction that our country holds a unique place and role in human history – we proudly associate ourselves with those Americans of all political stripes who, more than three decades ago in a world as dangerous as today’s, came together to advance the cause of freedom. Repudiating the folly of an amateur foreign policy and defying a worldwide Marxist advance, they announced their strategy in the timeless slogan we repeat today: peace through strength – an enduring peace based on freedom and the will to defend it, and American democratic values and the will to promote them. While the twentieth century was undeniably an American century – with strong leadership, adherence to the principles of freedom and democracy our Founders’ enshrined in our nation’s Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and a continued reliance on Divine Providence – the twenty-first century will be one of American greatness as well.

It is never a good thing-on any position of the political spectrum–to allow a slogan to substitute for careful thought. So, here are a few things to think about regarding American Exceptionalism and US foreign policy.

The major analytical approaches in International Relations generally don’t have much use for exceptionalist ideas. Realists like Stephen M. Walt tend to regard American Exceptionalism as a myth and a dangerous, self-deluding one at that. For realists, all states use power to pursue their interests in a competitive world. An ideology like American Exceptionalism–the belief that the US is a uniquely virtuous country with a special mission in the world–is likely to lead to imprudent and probably dangerous behavior in the world. Liberals conclude that it may be necessary for “an indispensable nation” to step up in order to provide critical international public goods. On the other hand, no nation is likely to be THE indispensable nation forever or in every situation. Exceptionalist rhetoric may coincidentally lead the US to step us in crucial situations, but it could also ironically lead the US away from providing the “best shot” to providing international public goods. Indeed, there is a whiff of desperation in the insistence on American Exceptionalism. Assuming that the US cannot maintain its recent hegemonic position in world affairs, crowing about our exceptionalism seems more like denial, and an unfortunate putting off of thinking seriously about US strategy in world where US power is not supreme. 

In addition, like many slogans “American Exceptionalism” conceals a vital debate about what, if anything, is exceptional about the US. Is it the political economy of relatively unregulated capitalism? Is it a stride toward freedom in the working out of democratic political institutions? Is it the rule of law and the realization of equal rights under law? Is it an apocalyptic battle against the forces of evil? Is it the preservation of the essence of Western Civilization? All of these have their roots in the US experience and US culture. But there are obvious tensions among these versions of American exceptionalism. To allow “American Exceptionalism” to be treated as a simple slogan would be to risk instituting the version favored by whoever can shout loudest. That would shut down necessary critical voices.

As is so often true, clear thinking is not the result of simplistic slogans.

For more on the death of the Republican Foreign Policy Establishment, check this space later in the semester.

Related articles

• The GOP’s Insipid American Exceptionalism (cato-at-liberty.org)
• Despite fights about its merits, idea of American exceptionalism a powerful force through history (religion.blogs.cnn.com)
• American Exceptionalism: the view from the Republican peanut gallery (dailymaverick.co.za)
• Amid a campaign of American exceptionalism, reminders of Romney’s international past (washingtonpost.com)
• Matt Welch on How American Exceptionalism Routed Paul-Family Foreign Policy (reason.com)
• Beware the Specter of American Exceptionalism (bobcornwall.com)
• GOP message: ‘We’re more American than you’ (summitcountyvoice.com)
• Ryan’s Missionary Foreign Policy (theamericanconservative.com)

Elinor Ostrom Dies

Photo by Ric Cradick

Via the Monkey Cage:

Nobel Prize winner and political scientist Elinor Ostrom has died. Dr. Ostrom is primarily known for her work on collective action problems and how societies solve them (see her book Governing the Commons), for which she won the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics. She took issue with the idea that governments are always necessary to reach socially optimal outcomes (although they are necessary in some cases), and instead believed that communities can and do solve these kinds problems on their own.

Here’s an interview Dr. Ostrom did with NPR’s Planet Money team after winning the Nobel, where she explains her pioneering work on the tragedy–or, as she calls it, the problem–of the commons. Be sure to listen for the deer.

Update: Here’s Indiana University’s obituary for Dr. Ostrom.

Related articles

• Interview With Nobel Prize Winner Elinor Ostrom On Climate Change (chimalaya.org)
• Ostrom Does What Economists Should Do (cafehayek.com)
• Ironic Nobel Prize Award in Economics: Ostrom & Williamson (ritholtz.com)
• A Well-Deserved Nobel (due-diligence.typepad.com)

Educating voters about voting by mail

In 2008, in partnership with the San Joaquin County Registrar of Voters, a group of faculty from a variety of programs at Pacific designed and executed a voter education campaign. The education campaign had three primary goals: (1) to reduce voter induced error in elections (e.g., improperly marking a ballot), (2) to reduce polling-place induced error in elections (e.g., improperly enforcing regulations), and (3) increasing voter awareness and positive perceptions of voting by mail.

At this year’s Midwest Political Science Association meeting, Prof. Dari Sylvester and I presented an analysis of the campaign’s effects relative to this last goal. The main question was, did knowledge about and positive perceptions of voting by mail increase as a result of the education campaign?

To assess these impacts, we relied on three waves (in May, July, and November) of random telephone surveys of registered voters conducted as part of the broader project. The surveys asked respondents four questions of interest:

1. Who can vote by mail?
2. How does one sign up for permanent vote by mail?
3. Are there any advantages to voting by mail? Respondents were prompted to provide up to three advantages.
4. Are there any disadvantages to voting by mail? Again, respondents were prompted to provide up to three responses.

Using these questions  we constructed four variables:

1. Who: The respondent correctly identified who could vote by mail (everyone)
2. How: The respondent correctly identified how to sign up for permanent vote by mail (a variety of ways)
3. Convenience: The respondent identified convenience as an advantage to voting by mail
4. Net advantages: The number of advantages identified by the respondent minus the number of disadvantages

The table below presents the change in each of these variables over the three survey waves.

There are a couple of important points that come out of this table. First, people already know a lot about voting by mail. Generally, we expect between 10 to 30 percent of respondents to answer recall questions like these correctly. Here, roughly two-thirds of respondents were able to answer these questions correctly and thought of voting by mail as convenient–even before the education campaign began. As such, there wasn’t a whole lot of educating to do about vote by mail.

Second, while we can identify some statistically significant increases in voter knowledge and perceptions over the course of the education campaign, the effects are relatively small. In part, this is because of the relatively high starting values for each variable. At the same time, though, it is also because relatively few people reported exposure to the campaign in the surveys (and many of those that did report exposure likely weren’t exposed to it). Given the limited reach of the campaign, there was very little educating that could be done–even if people didn’t already know a lot.

Related articles

• June Primary Voting Begins Monday (yubanet.com)
• S.F. voters are snail mailers (sfgate.com)

Sex, Drugs, and Genital Photos: Does Character Count in Political Elections?

Image via Wikipedia

Though we publicly eviscerate politicians who engage in extramarital affairs, hire prostitutes, or send photos of their genitalia, we remained glued to the screen when such news flashes across the computer or t.v.  Former frontrunner Cain is now reconsidering whether to continue his push for the Republican party nomination after a set of damaging accusations of harassment and infidelity were revealed.  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/us/politics/herman-cain-may-quit-after-affair-and-harassment-accusations.html.

This summer, Rep. Anthony Weiner resigned his office after finally admitting he had sent photographs of his genitals to a number of women and he has been laying low since.  On the contrary, Eliot Spitzer scored a spot as a political commentator for CNN in the aftermath of his resignation from the governorship of NY — after it was revealed that he had hired the services of prostitutes illegally.

In 1998, President Clinton was impeached (though not removed), when the House found him guilty of lying under oath about an affair he had with his intern.

Does questionably moral private behavior impinge on one’s ability to conduct his or her professional office?  Can one cheat on one’s wife without necessarily “cheating” his constituents?

What do Americans think?  In other words, what is the real impact of private scandal on voter preferences for candidates?  In the minds of Americans, does character count?

Scholars have only begun to wrap their brains around the first question.  For instance, political scientists Maule and Goidel conducted an experiment to determine what variables influence reactions to a variety of political scandals (Maule and Goidel 2003).  Interestingly, the sex of the officeholder had a role in determining individual reactions to scandal, though the type of scandal and individual acceptance of gender stereotypes did as well.

But what if you’re the unfortunate politician who’s been accused of scandalous wrongdoing?  When accused of a scandal, what is the most effective political strategy an official can take?  Deny?  Confirm?  Sigal et al. (1988) experimentally tested atttitudes toward fictitious candidates who denied or apologized for either sexual or financial misconduct.  Their findings indicated that individuals were more likely to vote for the candidates who denied misconduct rather than apologized for it.

At the end of the day at the voting booth, we’ll all need to answer the normative question about whether character should count.  Regardless, the next year promises to be a scandal-filled and glorious presidential race.

Related articles

• Political Affairs Now An Open Book – NPR (npr.org)
• Cain Can’t Top NY Pols in Sexcapade Contest (newyork.ibtimes.com)
• Herman Cain Is ‘Reassessing’ His White House Bid After New Sex Scandal (businessinsider.com)
• Political Sign of Apocalypse: The Non-Denial Denial (swampland.time.com)
• Herman Cain Affair Allegations Are Irrelevant (usnews.com)

Is It a Good Idea to Cut Congressional Pay?

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Texas Governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry has put forth a set of proposals to       uproot and overhaul Washington. Perry proposes deep reforms for all three branches of the federal government, including a constitutional amendment to put limits on Supreme Court terms and the elimination of three cabinet-level departments (and you know which three I mean).

It is Perry’s ideas about Congress that have raised the most recent attention.  He is calling for a part-time “Citizens’ Congress” whose members would hold “real jobs” in their communities. To encourage Representatives and Senators to get or hold onto real jobs he would cut congressional salaries in half.  Given the historically low congressional approval ratings (One recent poll suggested that people would like a communist takeover of the US more than they like the current Congress,) a lot of the public may think Perry’s proposal makes a good deal of sense.

Take a closer look, though.  The popular perception may be the Congress has raised the salaries of its members frequently and substantially.  The current annual salary of a member of Congress is $174,000. Not bad, but far less than a successful college football coach might make.  In fact, Congress is very reluctant to raise its members’ salaries. Imagine campaign ads, “Congressman Jones voted 8 times to raise his own salary. . . .”  Political scientist Matt Glassman points out that congressional salaries adjusted for inflation are barely higher than they were a century ago.

What may be more interesting is the finding in a recent article by Jeffrey R. Lax and Justin H. Phillips that more professional (meaning in part well-paid) state legislatures are more responsive to public opinion in general ideological terms and on specific policy measures. Of course, you can’t simply assume that what is true for state legislatures would automatically be true for the U.S. Congress, but it is food for thought.

Interestingly, none of Perry’s uproot and overhaul proposals apply to (drum roll) the Presidency. You might expect that weakening Congress, the courts, and the bureaucracy would tend to strengthen the White House.  Oops!

Related articles

• Perry’s Plan (nebraskaenergyobserver.wordpress.com)
• Rick Perry has ideas on how to reform government (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)
• Perry calls for government overhaul (mercurynews.com)
• Rick Perry’s Wrongheaded “Government Reform” Plan (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Perry Plan Would Make Big Changes To Washington (npr.org)
• Is Rick Perry plan to ‘uproot’ Washington enough to overcome ‘oops’ debate moment? (VIDEO) (csmonitor.com)
• Perry: Washington Needs To Be Rebuilt From The Ground Up (npr.org)
• Rick Perry wants a part-time Congress (dailykos.com)

On Gerrymandering and Its Effects

Image via Wikipedia

Gerrymandering—the drawing of electoral districts to advantage some groups over others—is a dirty word in American politics. In this post, I want to explore some of what we know about gerrymandering and its implications for California and American politics.

Why gerrymander? The Constitution requires that representation in the House of Representatives be apportioned to states on the basis of population. As such, every ten years we count the number of people living in each state and, after making sure that each state gets one House member, divvy up the rest. Big population states like California get more House seats and smaller states get just the one. A variety of Supreme Court cases, however, have applied the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause to the process of drawing legislative districts (at all levels of government) resulting in a requirement that each district have roughly the same population. So after each Census, states and localities have to redraw their district lines to ensure that the districts are roughly equal. Given that success in a legislature depends on the number of friendly faces there, political parties and interest groups will necessarily be interested in how the lines are drawn.

How are the lines drawn? Until recently in California, the state legislature (i.e., the Assembly and the Senate) was responsible for drawing the lines defining its members’ districts and those for the House of Representatives. If the legislature couldn’t agree on a set of maps, or it couldn’t get the governor to sign off on the maps it created, then responsibility for drawing the lines went to a set of retired judges called Special Masters. At different points in time, the legislature pursued different strategies for this process. Beginning in the 1960’s, the legislature pursued a partisan gerrymander—Democrats tried to maximize the number of Democratic districts. To some extent, these efforts were thwarted by Republican governors, but the process became especially nasty following the 1990 Census.

Following the 2000 Census, everyone agreed to an incumbency protection gerrymander—regardless of an incumbent’s party, the incumbent would be made safe. Republicans would be assured of essentially the same number of seats that they currently held, as would Democrats. As a result, very few seats in the California legislature and in the California House delegation changed hands between 2002 and 2010.

So what? This process—redrawing of district lines—has been blamed for almost every problem in American and California politics. Ideologically polarized legislators? Gerrymandering did it. Budget crises? Gerrymandering did it. Overly combative parties? Gerrymandering did it. Inability pass important legislation? Gerrymandering did it. Unequal influence in the legislature? Gerrymandering did it.

The redistricting process therefore became a target for political reformers. Want to fix politics? Fix the way district lines are drawn. So in 2008, Californians enacted Prop. 11 and created the Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC). No longer would state legislators be able to pick their own constituents. Instead, an independent commission would draw the lines for the Assembly and Senate (and Board of Equalization, though no one really cares about them). In 2010, the CRC’s mandate was expanded to include House districts as well.

Thus, over the past summer, the CRC worked to redraw California’s 177 legislative districts: 80 Assembly districts, 40 Senate districts, 53 House districts, and four Board of Equalization districts. The process, as described by Michelle DiGuilio in her recent visit to Pacific, was intensive. The CRC travelled all over the state listening to people describe their ideal districts (though notably not the legislators themselves), and then used that information to draw districts that met a variety of legal requirements (e.g., equal size, Voting Rights Act, and respecting communities of interest).

Okay, that’s a lot of information. Again, so what? So, all of this hand wringing and reform may be for naught. There is very little evidence that gerrymandering contributes at all to the problems people think it does. For example, as illustrated below, the U.S. Senate became just as polarized as the House (and at roughly the same time), even though its districts are not subject to redistricting like House districts are.

[Ed. The above image comes from Voteview.com, which presents work on measuring ideology in Congress and other legislatures.]

Similarly, within California, counties, whose lines don’t change, have become much more polarized over time. Moreover, redistricting, instead of insulating legislators from their constituents, actually increases legislative turnover and responsiveness.

So gerrymandering isn’t important? Not at all. Gerrymandering is very important, just not in the ways people tend to think about. Effective gerrymanders can have significant policy implications. In California, for example, it makes a difference whether there are 23 or 24 Republicans in the Senate. If there are 23, Republicans can’t stop Democratic efforts to raise taxes. If there are 24, Republicans can. Republican opposition to Democratic efforts to raise taxes, though, is not a result of gerrymandering. Too many people have made the latter argument.

[Ed. (11/2): Hey! It's a redistricting song: http://www.propublica.org/article/video-the-redistricting-song.]

Related articles

• California vs. the Gerrymander: Why Republicans Are Quaking (time.com)
• CA Supreme Court denies 2 redistricting challenges (sfgate.com)
• Ill. makes redistricting hall of fame (politico.com)
• California: Why Redistricting Is Worrying Republicans (time.com)