Search

This paper examines correct voting as a criteria for comparing democratic performance across electoral systems. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper considers a range of policies championed by New Labour which have made an impact on the lives of lesbian and gay citizens. It bares witness to the contested terrain of gender, sexuality and hetero-normativity and the impact of policies based upon stereotype and binary understandings of gender and sexual orientation. The level of cultural and political hostility toward lesbians and gay men prior to the election of New Labour and the overwhelming changes in policy since 1997 begs the question 'Why is New Labour 'lesbian and gay friendly'?' The account below considers each policy in turn exploring the larger context of political culture, economic focus that underpinned the whirlwind 'triumph' of social justice. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Electoral competition has long been held as a required and essential component of a smoothly functioning democracy. This common wisdom suggests that representative responsiveness is likely to decrease as the level of general election competitiveness falls off. The closer the election the more uncertain the incumbent member of the legislature is about her ability to get reelected, which motivates her to work harder to win votes (i.e. campaign harder, spend more time in the district, secure more pork projects, modify voting behavior in the legislature, etc.). In turn these activities should increase voter satisfaction and efficacy. This final linkage is what we take up here. Namely, do voters in districts that have competitive elections demonstrate higher levels of efficacy and higher levels of satisfaction with the representative and with the legislature itself? Using survey data from the most recent elections in three western democracies with single member district systems (UK, Canada, and the U.S.) we find no such connection. Rather, the winner/loser dichotomy is primal. Electoral competitiveness has no measurable effect on voters (be they winners or losers). This finding has important implications for democratic theory and for redistricting. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]