PS 2200: American Government and Politics
Fall 2010
3-4:55 Monday
4801 Wesley W. Posvar Hall
Professor Kristin Kanthak
4605 Posvar Hall
(412)648-7279
Office Hours: M 1-3
The purpose of this course is to provide you with an overview of some of the classic and new controversies in American politics. You cannot expect by the end of the course to have a complete, or even a partially complete, picture of research in American politics, but you will have a taste for some of the areas Americanists study. You can also expect to learn more about constructing a proper research paper, to hone your ability to read work in political science with a critical eye, and to think about political science as an evolving literature rather than a disjointed collection of articles and books.
Required texts
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy.
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking
Mayhew, David R. 2004.Congress: The Electoral Connection, 2nd ed.
McCarty, Nolan, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. 2006. Polarized America.
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1972.The Concept of Representation.
Segal, Jeffrey A. and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited.
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
Assignments
Your grade in this class will be based on your performance on three assignments, as follows:
Weekly reaction papers: 20 percent
Discussion facilitator: 10 percent
Annotated bibliographies: 30 percent
Final research design: 40 percent
Weekly reaction paper: Each week, you should prepare a 1-2 page critical reaction to the readings for that week. You may discuss all of the readings or select one or more on which to focus your comments (of course, you’re expected to have read them all). Four sets of questions that might help spur some thoughts for you (and which will form the basis for the start of in-class conversation) are:
- What is the motivation behind the paper? Why did the authors write it? What is the puzzle?
- What is the null hypothesis? How would we know if the data do not confirm the theory?
- What are the premises? What assumptions do the authors make? What choices do they make? Would you make similar assumptions/choices?
- What are the conclusions? What is the paper’s contribution to the literature?
You are required to complete 10 reaction papers over the course of the semester. This means that you may have 4 bye-weeks, of your choosing, in which you do not write a reaction paper. You may choose to use these bye-weeks when you are especially busy with other work, or when the papers or books assigned don’t move you to put pen to ink. Each reaction paper is due at noon, to my departmental mailbox, on the day of the class for which the discussion of those readings will be held.
Discussion facilitator: Once this semester, you will be asked to serve as the facilitator for a class discussion. On those days, you should be sure that you have carefully read the papers and can ask incisive questions of your fellow students. You may use the questions above as guidelines, but you should not feel limited by them.
Annotated bibliographies: You will be writing four annotated bibliographies with at least 10 citations each on topics of your choosing (with my approval) in American politics. Look for more on these assignments in a separate document.
Research design: You will be writing an original research design based on one of the topics you chose for the annotated bibliography assignment. You do not have to do the actual research; you must construct the design, complete with a theory that connects to the extant literature and empirically testable hypotheses that connect to the theory.
Due dates
There are several written assignments, along with the weekly reaction papers, due throughout the course of the semester. All deadlines mean that the work should be completed prior to the class meeting that day. Important dates to keep in mind are:
Sept. 20: Bibliography one due
Oct. 12: Bibliography two due
Nov. 1: Bibliography three due
Nov. 22: Bibliography four due
Dec. 13: Research design due
Policies
Late work: I accept no late work. Be sure to budget your time so that you can get all of your work done prior to the due date.
Incompletes: I do not give incompletes except in the most dire of circumstances beyond your control.
Cheating: You can be assured that I will not decrease the value of your eventual decree by tolerating cheating. Cheaters will fail the course and will be reported to the proper University authorities.
Schedule of readings
August 30: Introduction, preliminaries
September 6: Labor Day (NO CLASS)
September 13: The theoretical underpinnings of the study of American politics
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. The Concept of Representation.
September 20: Political Ideology
Downs, Anthony. An Economic Theory of Democracy.
Alford, John R., Carolyn L. Funk, and John R. Hibbing. 2005. “Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?” American Political Science Review. 99(2):153-167.
Canes-Wrone, Brandice and Kenneth W. Shotts. 2007. “When Do Elections Encourage Ideological Rigidity?” American Political Science Review. 101(2):273-288.
Jessee, Stephen A. 2009. “Spatial Voting in the 2004 Presidential Election.” American Political Science Review. 103(1):59-81
September 27:Public Opinion and Voting Behavior: The Classics
Zaller, John R.The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion.
Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. Chs. 2, 6,7,19.
Converse, Philip. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Apter, David E. Ideology and Discontent.
Carmines, Edward and James Stimson. 1980. “The Two Faces of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review. 74:78-91.
October 4: Public Opinion and Voting Behavior: New Controversies
Nelson, TE and DR Kinder. 1996. “Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion.” The Journal of Politics. 58(4):1055-78.
Gomez, Brad T. and J. Matthew Wilson. 2001. “Political Sophistication and Economic Voting in the American Electorate: A Theory of Heterogeneous Attribution.” American Journal of Political Science. 45(4):899-914.
Barker, David C. and James D. Tinnick. 2006. “Competing Visions of Parental Roles and Ideological Constraint.” American Political Science Review. 100(2):249-263.
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Jonathan Rodden, and James M. Snyder, Jr. 2008. “The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review.
102(2):215-232.
Lupia, Arthur and Jesse O. Menning. 2009. “When Can Politicians Scare Citizens into Supporting Bad Policies?” American Journal of Political Science. 53(1):90-106.
Bartels, Brandon L. and Diana C. Mutz. 2009. “Explaining Processes of Institutional Opinion Leadership.” The Journal of Politics. 71(1):249-261.
Hopkins, Daniel J. 2010. “Politicized Places: Explaining Where and When Immigrants Provoke Local Opposition.” American Political Science Review.. 104(1):40-60.
Alvarez-Diaz, Angel, Lucas Gonzalez, and Benjamin Radcliff. 2010. “The Politics of Happiness: On the Political Determinants of Quality of Life in the American States.” The Journal of Politics. 72(3):894-905.
Dancey, Logan and Paul Goren. 2010. “Party Identification, Issue Attitudes, and the Dynamics of Political Debate.” American Journal of Political Science 54(3):686-699.
October 12: Polarization(TUESDAY)
McCarty, Nolan, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. 2006. Polarized America.
Ansolabehere, Stephen; Jonathan Rodden; and James M. Snyder, Jr. 2006. “Purple America.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. 20(2):97-118.
Stoker, Laura and M. Kent Jennings. 2008. “Of Time and the Development of Partisan Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science. 52(3):619-635.
October 18: Turnout and Participation
Rosenstone, Steven J. and John Mark Hansen.1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. Chs. 1-2.
Putnam, Robert D. 1995. “Tuning In, Turning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America.” PS: Political Science and Politics. 28:664-683.
Finkel, Steven E. and John G. Geer. 1998. “A Spot Check: Casting Doubt on the Demobilizing Effect of Attack Advertising.” American Journal of Political Science. 42(2):573-595.
McDonald and Popkin. 2001. “The Myth of the Vanishing Voter.” American Political Science Review. 95(4):963-974.
McClurg, Scott D. 2006. “The Electoral Relevance of Political Talk: Examining Disagreement and Expertise Effects in Social Networks on Political Participation.” American Journal of Political Science. 50(3):737-754.
Nickerson, David W. 2008. “Is Voting Contagious? Evidence from Two Field Experiments.” American Political Science Review. 102(1):49-57.
Alvarez, R. Michael, Asa Hopkins, and Betsy Sinclair. 2010. “Mobilizing Pasadena Democrats: Measuring The Effects of Partisan Campaign Contacts.” The Journal of Politics. 72(1):31-44.
Hayes, Danny and Seth C. McKee. 2010. “The Participatory Effects of Redistricting.” American Journal of Political Science. 53(4):1006-1023.
October 25: Congress: The Classics
Mayhew, David R. Congress: The Electoral Connection.
Polsby, Nelson. 1968. “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives.” American Political Science Review. 62:144-168.
Riker, William H. 1980. “Implications from the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions.” American Political Science Review. 74(2):432-446.
November 1: Congress: New Controversies
Krehbiel, Keith. Pivotal Politics.
Cox, Gary W. and Mathew D. McCubbins. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Chs. 1-2.
Woon, Jonathan. 2008. “Bill Sponsorship in Congress: The Moderating Effect of Agenda Positions on Legislative Proposals.” The Journal of Politics. 70(1):201-216.
Carson, Jamie L., Gregory Koger, Matthew Lebo and Everett Young. 2010. “The Electoral Costs of Party Loyalty in Congress.” American Journal of Political Science. 54(3):598-616.
November 8: Political Parties and Partisanship
MacKuen, Michael B., Robert S. Erikson, and James A. Stimson. 1989. “Macropartisanship.” American Political Science Review. 83:1125-1989.
Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? Pp. 3-61.
Hetherington, Mark. 2001. “Resurgent Mass Partisanship: the Role of Elite
Polarization.”American Political Science Review. 98(3):515-528.
Woon, Jonathan and Jeremy C. Pope. 2008. “Made in Congress? Testing the Electoral Implications of Party Ideological Brand Names.” The Journal of Politics. 70(3):823-836.
Jones, David R. 2010. “Partisan Polarization and Congressional Accountability in House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science. 54(2):323-337.
Layman, Geoffrey C, Thomas M. Carsey, John C. Green, Richard Herrera, and Rosalyn Cooperman. 2010. Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics. American Political Science Review. 104(2):324-346.
Gordon, Sanford C. 2010. “Assessing Partisan Bias in Federal Public Corruption Prosecutions.” American Political Science Review. 103(4):534-554.
November 15: Presidency
Neustadt, Richard E. 1990. Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents.Ch. 3.
Ragsdale, Lyn and John J. Theis, III. 1997. “The Institutionalization of the American Presidency.” American Journal of Political Science. 41:1280-1318.
Moe, Terry M. and Wiliam G. Howell. 1999. “Unilateral Action and Presidential Power: A Theory.” Presidential Studies Quarterly. 29(4):850-873.
Cameron, Charles. 2000. Veto Bargaining. Ch. 2
Krause, George A. and Jeffrey E. Cohen. 2000. “Opportunity, Constraints, and the Development of the Institutional Presidency: The Case of Executive Order Issuance, 1939-96.” The Journal of Politics. 62(1):88-114.
McCarty, Nolan. 2000. “Presidential Pork: Executive Veto Power and Distributive Politics.” American Political Science Review. 94(1):117-129.
Canes-Wrone, Brandice and Kenneth W. Shotts. 2004. “The Conditional Nature of Presidential Responsiveness to Public Opinion.” American Journal of Political Science. 48(4): 690-706.
November 22: Bureaucracy
Moe, Terry. 1984. “The New Economics of Organization.” American Journal of Political Science. 28: 739-777.
Bawn, Kathleen. 1995. “Political Control versus Expertise: Congressional Choices about Administrative Procedures.” American Political Science Review. 89:62-73.
Carpenter, Daniel P. 1996. “Adaptive Signal Processing, Hierarchy, and Budgetary Control in Federal Regulation.” American Political Science Review. 90(2):283-302.
Carpenter, Daniel P. 2001. The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy, pp.1-64.
Shipan, Charles. 2004. “Regulatory Regimes, Agency Actions, and the Conditional Nature of Political Influence.” American Political Science Review. 98(3):467-480.
Krause, George A., David E. Lewis and James W. Douglas. 2006. “Political Appointments, Civil Service Systems, and Bureaucratic Competence: Organizational Balancing and Executive Branch Revenue Forecasts in the American States” American Journal of Political Science. 50(3):770-787.
November 29: Supreme Court
Segal, Jeffrey A. and Harold J. Spaeth. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited.
Moraski, Bryon and Charles R. Shipan. 1999. “The Politics of Supreme Court Nominations.” American Journal of Political Science. 43:1069-1095.
Bonneau, Chris W., Thomas H. Hammond, Forrest Maltzman, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 2007. “Agenda Control, the Median Justice, and the Majority Opinion on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science. 51(4):890-905.
Bartels, Brandon L. 2009. “The Constraining Capacity of Legal Doctrine on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review. 103(3):474-495.
December 6: Race, Gender and Politics
Huddy, Leonie and N. Terkildsen. 1993. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science. 37(1):119-147.
Cameron, Charles; David Epstein and Sharyn O’Halloran. 1996. “Do Majority-Minority Districts Maximize Substantive Black Representation in Congress?” American Political Science Review. 90(4):794-812.
Branton, Regina P. and Bradford S. Jones. 2005. “Examining Racial Attitudes: The Conditional Relationship Between Diversity and the Socio-Economic Environment.” American Journal of Political Science. 49:359-372.
Campbell, David E. and Christina Wolbrecht. 2006. “See Jane Run: Women Politicians as Role Models for Adolescents.” The Journal of Politics. 68:233-47.
Peffley, Mark and Jon Hurwitz. 2007. “Persuasion and Resistance: Race and the Death Penalty in America.” American Journal of Political Science. 51(4):996-1012.
Kanthak, Kristin and George A. Krause. 2010. “Valuating Diversity in Political Organizations: Gender and Token Minorities in the U.S. House of Representatives.” Forthcoming. American Journal of Political Science.
Hajnal, Zoltan L. 2009. “Who Loses in American Democracy? A Count of Votes Demonstrates the Limited Representation of African Americans.” American Political Science Review. 103(1):37-57.
December 13:Representation, Accountability, and Policy-Making
Lupia, Arthur and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1998.The Democratic Dilemma. Pp.1-93.
Shipan, Charles R. and Craig Volden. 2008. “The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion.” American Journal of Political Science. 52(4):840-857.
Healy, Andrew and Neil Malhotra. 2009. “Myopic Voters and Natural Disaster Policy.” American Political Science Review. 103(3):387-406.
Lax, Jeffrey R. and Justin H. Phillips. 2009. “Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness.” American Political Science Review. 103(3):367-386.
Ansolabehere, Stephen. 2010. “Constituents’ Responses to Congressional Roll-Call Voting.” American Journal of Political Science. 54(3):583-597.
Ensley, Michael J., Michael W. Tofias, and Scott DeMarchi. 2009. “District Complexity as an Advantage in Congressional Elections.” American Journal of Political Science. 53(4):990-1005.
Boehmke, Frederick J. and Daniel C. Bowen. 2010. “Direct Democracy and Individual Interest Group Membership.” The Journal of Politics. 72(3):659-671.
1