Academic Portfolio. Tony L. Hill. Table of Contents

Academic Portfolio Tony L. Hill

Table of Contents

Curriculum vitae Transcript Research statement Teaching philosophy Syllabi 1. The American Congress, Brandeis University, Spring 2010 2. Research Methods, Suffolk University, Spring 2010 3. American Government, College of the Holy Cross, Fall 2010 Course assignments, American Government, College of the Holy Cross, Fall 2010 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

First paper assignment: political culture Second paper assignment: public opinion Third paper assignment: U.S. Supreme Court case Final exam study guide Final exam

Course evaluations 1. College of the Holy Cross, Fall 2010 2. MIT, Spring 2007, Spring & Fall 2008 Writing samples 1. “Dissertation chapter, District Compactness and Voter Knowledge” 2. Working paper, “The Sudden Rise and More Sudden Fall of Instant Runoff Voting in Pierce County, Washington” 3. Working paper, “Causes and Consequences of Rejected Ballots among Francophone Canadians”

Tony L. Hill 409 Woburn Street Wilmington, Massachusetts 01887 (617) 447-9797 Internet: [email protected] Curriculum Vitae

EDUCATION Ph.D., political science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010. Dissertation: Redistricting and the U.S. House of Representatives: Illuminating Electoral Bias with the Brookes Method; Committee: Stephen D. Ansolabehere (adviser), James M. Snyder, Jr., Charles H. Stewart, III. M.A., political science, University of Minnesota, 2005. Committee: W. Phillips Shively (chair), Christopher M. Federico, Steven Ruggles. B.A., University of Minnesota (major: political science; minor: history). Certificate, Preparing Future Faculty (expected 2011), University of Minnesota. PUBLICATIONS Canadian Politics: Riding by Riding: An In-Depth Analysis of Canada’s 301 Federal Electoral Districts, 474 pp., Minneapolis: Prospect Park Press, 2002. Four articles in One Day in History: November 22, 1963, New York: HarperCollins, forthcoming. Subjects: Hardy Shoe Store, George Jeffries film, Oak Cliff neighborhood, weather report. Three articles in Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints and Voices, Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 2010. Subjects: William O. Douglas (1898-1980), Paul Wellstone (1944-2002), O.J. Simpson Trial. Nine articles in Encyclopedia of U.S. Campaigns, Elections and Electoral Behavior, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2008. Subjects: Richard J. Daley (1902-1976), Henry A. Wallace (1888-1965), Presidential Election of 1968, Jewish Vote, Retrospective Voting, Electoral histories of Illinois, Minnesota, New York, and Washington. Three articles in One Day in History: July 4, 1776, New York: HarperCollins, 2006. Subjects: Philadelphia, U.S. Bicentennial 1976, George III. “Franklin D. Roosevelt” in One Day in History: December 7, 1941, New York: HarperCollins, 2006.

Tony L. Hill Page 2

Twelve articles in Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections, New York: Facts on File, 2006. Subjects: 19th Amendment, 20th Amendment, 22nd Amendment, Butterfly Ballot, Contract with America, Faithless Electors, Florida 2000 Presidential Vote, Impeachment, Politics, Presidential Election of 2000, Presidential Election of 2004, Presidential Succession. Twenty articles in Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and the Right, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2005. Subjects: Democratic Party, Electorate: African-American, Electorate: Latino, Liberal Party of Canada, Prohibitionism, Republican Party, Thomas E. Dewey (1902-1971), Hubert H. Humphrey (1911-1978), Lyndon B. Johnson (1908-1973), Fiorello H. La Guardia (1882-1947), Alf Landon (1887-1987), Charles A. Lindbergh (1902-1974), Richard M. Nixon (1913-1994), Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill (1912-1994), Ronald Reagan (1911-2004), Franklin D. Roosevelt (18821945), Adlai E. Stevenson (1900-1965), Robert A. Taft (1889-1953), William Howard Taft (1857-1930), Wendell Willkie (1892-1944). Four articles in American Song Lyricists, 1920-1960, (Dictionary of Literary Biography vol. 265), Detroit: Gale Research, 2002. Subjects: Irving Berlin (1888-1989), Mitchell Parish (1900-1993), Ned Washington (1901-1976), Paul Francis Webster (1907-1984). “Gene Mammenga and Collective Bargaining for Teachers,” in Making a Difference in the Lives of Students, Minneapolis: Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, 2002. Contracted by Pearson Prentice-Hall to contribute content to online edition of Introduction to Logic by Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen, 2001. Author of several book reviews, published in St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Star Tribune (Minneapolis). CONFERENCE PAPERS “Discovering Racism in Election Results: Methodology and Case Study, Minneapolis 1997,” presented at the national conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 3-6, 2003, Chicago. “The Ternary Map: A Methodology for Mapping Three-Way Elections,” presented at the annual conference of the Canadian Political Science Association, May 30-June 1, 2003, Halifax, N.S. “A Simulation of Proportional Representation and Instant Runoff Voting in the 1993, 1997, and 2000 Canadian General Elections,” presented at the 17th biennial conference of the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States, November 19-23, 2003, Portland, Ore.

Tony L. Hill Page 3

“Presidential Strategies in Supreme Court Justice Selection,” presented at the national conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 15-18, 2004, Chicago. “Two Spheres: Federalism and Duality in Canada and the United States,” presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Law and Society Association, June 2-4, 2004, Winnipeg, Man. “The Micropolitics of Winnipeg: Its Historic and Contemporary Voting Patterns,” presented at the annual conference of the Canadian Political Science Association, June 3-6, 2004, Winnipeg, Man. “Electoral Bias and the New Democratic Party: Provincial Competition in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia,” presented at the annual convention of the Society for Socialist Studies, June 3-6, 2004, Winnipeg, Man. “Electoral Support for the Sovereignty Movement in Quebec, 1976-2004,” presented at the 11th Annual Underhill Graduate Student Colloquium, Carleton University, March 34, 2005, Ottawa. “Variability of Support for Sovereignty in Quebec, 1976-2004,” presented at the national conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 7-10, 2005, Chicago. “The Chrétien Effect: Assessing the Personal Electoral Impact of a Canadian Party Leader,” presented at the national conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 7-10, 2005, Chicago. “Partisan Differences Between Election-Day Voting and Absentee Voting in National Elections in Canada, 1993-2004,” presented at the annual meeting of the New England Political Science Association, April 29-30, 2005, Portland, Me. “Regional and Temporal Dimensions of Support for Sovereignty in Quebec, 1976-2004,” presented at the annual conference of the Canadian Political Science Association, June 2-4, 2005, London, Ont. “Partisan Differences Between Election-Day Voting and Absentee Voting in National Elections in Canada, 1979-2004,” presented at the 18th biennial conference of the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States, November 16-20, 2005, St. Louis. “Political Redistricting and the U.S. House of Representatives: An Analysis Incorporating the Brookes Method,” presented at the national conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 12-15, 2007, Chicago. “Non-Results and a few Results from Exit Polling in Canada, January 2006,” presented at the national conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 12-15, 2007, Chicago.

Tony L. Hill Page 4

“Electoral Bias and the Partisan Impact of Independent Redistricting Bodies,” presented at the national conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 3-6, 2008, Chicago. “District Compactness and Electoral Volatility in Canada and the United States,” presented to two panels at the national conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 2-5, 2009, Chicago. “Redistricting and Compactness in Canada and the United States,” presented at the annual conference of the Canadian Political Science Association, May 27-29, 2009, Ottawa. “Information and District Compactness: The Impact of Gerrymandering on Voter Knowledge,” presented at the national conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 22-25, 2010, Chicago. “The Sudden Rise and More Sudden Fall of Ranked Choice Voting in Pierce County, Washington,” presented at the national conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, March 31-April 3, 2011, Chicago. “Causes and Consequences of Spoiled Ballots among Francophone Canadians,” presented at the national conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, March 31April 3, 2011, Chicago. SEMINAR PAPERS “Presidential Strategies in Supreme Court Justice Selection,” Political Science 8313 (Executive Process), University of Minnesota, Fall 2001. “Discovering Racism in Election Results: Methodology and Case Study, Minneapolis 1997,” Political Science 8360 (Political Psychology of Race), University of Minnesota, Fall 2001. “The Ternary Map: A Methodology for Mapping Three-Way Elections,” Political Science 8990 (Directed Studies), University of Minnesota, Spring 2002. “A Simulation of Proportional Representation and Instant Runoff Voting in the 1993, 1997, and 2000 Canadian General Elections,” Political Science 8990 (Directed Studies), University of Minnesota, Fall 2002. “Electoral Support for Sovereignty in Quebec, 1980-2004,” Political Science 17.504 (Ethnic Politics), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Fall 2004. “Three Worlds: An Exploration of American Ideologies and Elazar’s Political Cultures,” Political Science 17.038 (American Political Thought), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Spring 2005.

Tony L. Hill Page 5

“Political Analysis of the Right to Strike for Minnesota Teachers, 1980,” Government 2335 (Power in American Society), Harvard University, Spring 2005. “Immigration and Political Attitudes in the United States,” Political Science 17.264 (Electoral Politics), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Fall 2005. “Political Redistricting and the U.S. House of Representatives: An Analysis Incorporating the Brookes Method.” Political Science 17.262 (Congress), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Fall 2005. RESEARCH ASSISTANTSHIPS Research assistant to Profs. Sidney Verba of Harvard University, Kay Schlozman of Boston College, and Henry Brady of the University of California – Berkeley, Summer 2009 – Summer 2011. Duties included data analysis, preparation of tables and figures, preparation of data for archival use. Research assistant to Silvia Teuber of Universität Zürich, Fall 2009. Duties included facilitating a fieldwork tour of the northeastern United States. Research assistant to Prof. Charles H. Stewart, III of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Department of Political Science, Summer 2006, Summer 2007, Spring 2009, Summer 2009. Duties included organizing archival data on legislative elections to U.S. Senate from 1871 to 1917; critiquing and updating data for second edition of Analyzing Congress (forthcoming from Norton); gathering and analyzing precinct-level data from recent national elections in various states. Research assistant to Profs. Stephen Ansolabehere and James M. Snyder, Jr. of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Department of Political Science, Summer 2003 – Fall 2006, Summer 2008, Spring 2011 – present. Duties include data collection and analysis for aggregate electoral research pertaining to party identification and vote choice; archival research; development of seminar curriculum for MIT Public Opinion Research Training Laboratory (PORTL). Research assistant to Prof. Charles H. Backstrom of the University of Minnesota Department of Political Science. Duties included data collection and analysis for the 100 Precinct Sample, an aggregate model used to project statewide winners on election night.

OTHER RESEARCH EXPERIENCE Editor, American Journal Experts, 2007. Consultant on survey research to MIT International Science and Technology Initiatives (MISTI) program, Center for International Studies, 2008-2009.

Tony L. Hill Page 6

Assisted Professor Philip Furia of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington in preparation of the manuscripts for his books The Poets of Tin Pan Alley: A History of America's Great Lyricists (Oxford University Press, 1990) and Ira Gershwin: The Art of the Lyricist (Oxford University Press, 1996). Also provided data used in his Irving Berlin: A Life in Song (Scribners, 1999). Assisted Professor Howard Pospesel of the University of Miami (Fla.) in preparation of the manuscripts to the third edition of his text Introduction to Logic: Propositional Logic (Prentice-Hall, 1997) and the second edition of his text Introduction to Logic: Predicate Logic (Pearson Prentice-Hall, 2003). Employed as a research analyst by the Minnesota Department of Revenue and the Minnesota Department of Economic Security. Prepared data for Property Taxes Collected in Minnesota, 1998 (Property Tax Bulletin No. 28), issued by Minnesota Department of Revenue, 1999. Prepared data for report to Minnesota Legislature on blood lead management, issued by Minnesota Department of Health. PRESENTATIONS Presenter, Graduate Work-in-Progress Seminar, MIT Department of Political Science, Spring 2010. Title: District Compactness of the U.S. House of Representatives and Voter Knowledge. Presenter, Graduate Work-in-Progress Seminar, MIT Department of Political Science, Fall 2009. Title: Redistricting and the U.S. House of Representatives: An Analysis Incorporating the Brookes Method. Poster presenter, “Change and Continuity in the Recent Canadian General Elections,” presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 3-6, 2009, Toronto. Poster presenter, “Change and Consistency in the Canadian General Election of 2008,” presented at the annual conference of the Canadian Political Science Association, May 27-29, 2009, Ottawa. Poster presenter, “Runoff Elections in Canada and the Democratic Deficit,” presented at the annual conference of the Canadian Political Science Association, May 30-June 1, 2007, Saskatoon, Sask.; (updated version) May 27-29, 2009, Ottawa. Presenter, Graduate Work-in-Progress Seminar, MIT Department of Political Science, Spring 2009. Title: Presidential Strategies in Supreme Court Justice Selection.

Tony L. Hill Page 7

Interviewed on “Montreal Today with Aphrodite Salas,” CINW-AM, Montreal, Que., January 2006. Subject: 2006 Canadian general election. Moderator and organizer, roundtable session, Northeastern Political Science Association, November 11-13, 2004, Boston. Panel title: The 2004 Canadian General Election: What Happened and Why. Poster presenter, “The Ternary Map: A Methodology for Mapping Three-Way Elections,” presented at the 100th annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 2-5, 2004, Chicago. Panelist, Canadian Political Science Association annual conference, June 3-6, 2004, Winnipeg, Man. Panel title: The Winnipeg Political Tradition. Author of question posed in leadership debate for Conservative Party of Canada, CBC Newsworld national television network, February 2004. Gave presentation on current events in Canadian politics at the Calgary Public Library, Calgary, Alta., March 2003. Interviewed on “The Dave Rutherford Show,” CHQR-AM, Calgary, Alta., March 2003. Subject: Canadian Politics: Riding by Riding. Interviewed on “The Stirling Faux Show,” CKNW-AM, Vancouver, B.C., nationally syndicated on the Corus Radio Network, March 2003. Subject: Canadian Politics: Riding by Riding. Interviewed on “Talk Politics” by Ken Rockburn, Cable Public Affairs Channel (CPAC), national cable television network, Ottawa, Ont., December 2002. Subject: Canadian Politics: Riding by Riding. Produced and hosted television program, Youth Concerns with Tony Hill, on community television in greater Minneapolis, (40 episodes). Gave presentation “Developing the Student Council as a Vehicle for Influencing School Policy” at the national convention of the National Association of Student Councils, Shawnee, Kans. Interviewed on “The Dick Pomerantz Show,” KSTP-AM, St. Paul, Minn. Subject: Censorship in schools. Gave presentation to Citizens for a Loring Park Community, Minneapolis, on history of Minneapolis street names.

Tony L. Hill Page 8

SEMINARS ATTENDED Training Institute on Qualitative Research Methods, Consortium on Qualitative Research Methods (CQRM), Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz., January 2-13, 2006. MIT Research Involving Human Subjects training, December 2005. Mathematics and Statistics Refresher Workshop, University of Minnesota, Aug. 22-30, 2005. Short course, “The Canadian Political System,” 100th annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Sept. 1, 2004, Chicago. Social Change Workshop, Institute for Humane Studies, George Mason University, Charlottesville, Va., June 19-25, 2004. Several leadership development workshops.

TEACHING EXPERIENCE Teaching Fellow, Harvard University, Government 50, “Political Science Research Methods,” Fall Semester 2011. Adjunct Assistant Professor, College of the Holy Cross (Worcester, Mass.), two sections of Political Science 100, “Principles of American Government,” Fall Semester 2010. Lecturer, Brandeis University, Politics 111a, “The American Congress,” Spring Semester 2010. Lecturer/instructor, Suffolk University, Government 120, “Research Methods,” Spring Semester 2010. Teaching assistant, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Political Science 17.20, “Introduction to the American Political Process,” Spring & Fall semesters 2007, Spring & Fall semesters 2008. Duties included conducting recitation sections and grading. Teaching assistant, Tufts University, Political Science 11, “American Government and Politics,” Fall Semester 2006, Spring & Fall semesters 2007. Duties included conducting recitation sections and grading. Teaching assistant, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, PA 5122, “Law and Public Policy,” Spring Semester 2003. Duties included development of assignments, lecturing, and grading. Tutor in logic.

Tony L. Hill Page 9

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE Peer reviewer, American Politics Research, American Journal of Political Science, PS: Political Science and Politics. Discussant, Midwest Political Science Association national conference, March 31-April 3, 2011, Chicago. Panel titles: Incumbency Advantage in the U.S. States: Gerrymanders and Public Financing Effects; When Do Ethnicity and Nationalism Matter Politically? Panel chair, Midwest Political Science Association national conference, April 22-25, 2010, Chicago. Panel title: Electoral Reform Proposals and Their Consequences. Discussant, Midwest Political Science Association national conference, April 22-25, 2010, Chicago. Panel title: Electoral Competitiveness. Discussant, Midwest Political Science Association national conference, April 2-5, 2009, Chicago. Panel titles: Committees in Congress; Citizen Politics. Short course co-chair and organizer, American Political Science Association annual meeting, August 27, 2008, Boston. Short course title: Canada and the United States. Panel chair, New England Political Science Association annual meeting, April 25-26, 2008, Providence, R.I. Panel title: Canadian Political Philosophy. Discussant, Midwest Political Science Association national conference, April 3-6, 2008, Chicago. Panel title: The Politics of Presidential Primaries (Co-Chairs’ Panel). Contributed election maps to exhibit, “Law and Order: The Career and Legacy of Minneapolis Mayor Charles Stenvig,” Elmer L. Andersen Library, University of Minnesota, March 5-May 10, 2007. Panel chair, Middle Atlantic and New England Council for Canadian Studies conference, September 21-24, 2006, Montreal. Panel title: U.S.-Canadian Trade Issues. Panel chair and organizer, Midwest Political Science Association national conference, April 7-10, 2005, Chicago. Panel title: Le Petit Gars: The Legacy of Jean Chrétien. Panel chair and discussant, Midwest Political Science Association national conference, April 7-10, 2005, Chicago. Panel title: The Geography of American Politics. Panel chair, Midwest Political Science Association national conference, April 15-18, 2004, Chicago. Panel title: Public Attitudes toward Government and Democracy. Discussant, Association for Canadian Studies in the United States biennial conference, November 19-23, 2003, Portland, Ore. Panel title: Canadian Political Parties.

Tony L. Hill Page 10

Moderator, Town Hall forum, “U.S.-Islamic World Relations,” Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, September 2003. GRANTS AND SCHOLARSHIPS University of Minnesota Department of Political Science, three travel grants totaling $450.00, 2003. Society for Socialist Studies, travel grant, $200.00 CAD, 2004. Institute for Humane Studies, George Mason University, summer seminar scholarship, $1000.00, 2004. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ph.D. fellowship, $249,000.00, 2004-2009. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, travel grants, $250.00, 2005; two grants totaling $875.00, 2006; two grants totaling $750.00, 2007; two grants totaling $1000.00, 2008; three grants totaling $2015.00, 2009; $800.00, 2010; training grant, $25.00, 2009. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, summer fellowships, $4000.00, 2005; $3000.00, 2006. $6000.00, 2007; $5000.00, 2008; $4700.00, 2009. Canadian Political Science Association, travel grants, $191.00 CAD, 2007; $663.00 CAD, 2009. American Political Science Association, travel grant, $150.00, 2009. LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE Chair, Tower Bell Foundation (formerly City Hall Carillon Committee). The organization produces the bell concerts at Minneapolis City Hall-Hennepin County Courthouse and seeks to lead a renovation of the bells. Appointed by Gov. Rudy Perpich to the (Minn.) Governor's Council on Youth. Also chaired a committee of that body. Parliamentarian, Minnesota Student Association. Consulting parliamentarian, Minnesota International Student Association. Student body president, Osseo High School, Osseo, Minn. North Central Association of Colleges and Schools Accreditation Self-Study Committee, Osseo High School; University of Minnesota (undergraduate representative). President, Minnesota Association of Student Councils (Hennepin Division).

Tony L. Hill Page 11

OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE Chair election judge, Minneapolis, Ward 3, Precinct 5, 1999-2003. Election judge, Minneapolis, Ward 2, Precinct 4, 1998. Employed in Minnesota state government. Exit poller, NBC News. PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS American Political Science Association Canadian Political Science Association Midwest Political Science Association Association for Canadian Studies in the United States 08/09/11

TRANSCRIPT NOT AVAILABLE IN THIS FORMAT

Research statement  Tony L. Hill      Nearly all of my research thus far has involved either aggregate  data or survey research.        Aggregate electoral research      A key focus of my research has been using aggregate  electoral data and other aggregate data to lend understanding to  questions surrounding elections and redistricting.  At the  University of Minnesota, Massachusetts Institute of Technology  (MIT), and Harvard University, I have been involved in large‐ scale aggregate data projects.  I often use aggregate data to  devise new models and methods.  I have devised my own model for  forecasting election‐night results that allows me to make  projections ahead of major news networks.  I have done  statistical analyses that not only describe political events but  also simulate potential political outcomes.  One of my conference  papers examined the ways party leaders can buoy other candidates  in their home regions.        Compactness of electoral districts is an important research  interest of mine stemming in part from my dissertation research.   My latest paper moves beyond merely describing compactness and  non‐compactness of electoral districts and highlights the impact  of compactness on voter knowledge and information utilization.      Survey research      Survey research is one of the most important tools in  analyzing voting behavior and the outcomes of elections.   I  studied at Minnesota under the late Charles H. Backstrom, who co‐ wrote the original standard text for political science survey  research.  At MIT, as a research assistant to Prof. Stephen  Ansolabehere and as one of the members of the annual teams  designing the surveys, I took part in the creation and  administration of one of the most exciting survey research  projects in the history of political science, the Cooperative  Congressional Election Study (CCES).  This inter‐university  project results in the creation of a dataset with an n greater  than 30,000.   Large‐scale survey research offers many  opportunities for increasing knowledge; in the case of CCES, many 

of the sub‐groups within the dataset have an n similar to the  total n of most political surveys.        I was one of the first scholars to conduct exit polling in  Canada.      Normative implications of my research      My research has touched on many interesting areas of  political science and larger social science research.  I devised  a method for examining election results for evidence of racism  and/or racial voting patterns.  My dissertation research on  redistricting included chapters on partisan and racial  gerrymandering and examined the normative factors informing each.   Other papers have examined the relevance of the sovereignty  movement in Quebec; elucidated key differences between  presidential and parliamentary systems; and posited a framework  that presidents use in selecting Supreme Court justices.  I have  done a brief examination of theories of American political  culture and would like to bring some hard data to this largely  philosophical area with survey research.      Interdisciplinary approaches    I have often drawn from other disciplines to bring  understanding to my political research.  Several papers I have  written rely heavily on the use of geographic information science  (GIS), which is a necessary tool of modern geography.       My 2002 book, Canadian Politics: Riding by Riding, uses  methods and approaches familiar to historians and sociologists,  and also a host of demographic description and inference of the  type familiar to all social scientists.  While some of this is  necessarily empirical, I use a deep body of empirical evidence to  support my theoretical suppositions in the discipline.  I hope to  develop new electoral analysis methods in my research.    Finally, my research also has possibilities for mentoring  graduate and undergraduate students eager to learn about the  process and methods of aggregate electoral research and survey  research; such learning would be beneficial to these future  scholars.   

Teaching Philosophy: Engaging the Students Tony L. Hill My teaching philosophy centers on the idea that I as the teacher am there to help the students learn, and the best way to do this is to engage the students in the material. The teacher needs to do this from the outset, as it is the teacher’s domain to decide what the students need to learn. Designing the course so that lectures, readings, supplemental material, and recitations work together and undergird each other is important. However, each of these things needs to have value on its own. Classes are ruined when class meetings serve no purpose than to review the readings. Ideally, lectures would consist of focused presentations keyed to the week’s readings, and student questions and discussions can be handled during designated parts of lectures, if there are no specific recitation sections. In engaging students to help them learn, it is essential to maintain a classroom style that facilitates student interest. This includes a lecture style that makes use of visuals and integrates with readings, underscoring the value of both lectures and readings. Well-planned and executed lectures create added value for the students, with an expectation that they are to learn. An instructor who shows up without a plan or presentation and instead rambles on the topic at hand or plods through various readings conveys to students that lectures have little value added beyond the readings and are less valuable to attend. In my lectures, I use slideshow presentations, but not at every lecture. I use them to illustrate visually-centered material, not to merely serve as an accompaniment for everything that is said. When I see students copying slides, that is not a teaching success. That is a sign that the student is not thinking about my lecture critically but is merely acting as a stenographer. Thus, slides that are filled with textual material do not serve a useful function. 1

Recitation section should never be a second lecture. Indeed, that is the only firm rule for recitation. In my recitations, I have used simulations to help students understand redistricting and the nature of public goods, to cite two examples. Establishing rapport with students is critical in getting them to take you seriously, not only as a grader, but as a source of information about the subject at hand. An important decision is how to engage the students in the curriculum. One way is to make assignments rewarding. One good way of doing this is allowing students some flexibility in what they study. Assigning students to review, for example, a particular Supreme Court decision, or a particular trend in public opinion polling, will predictably result in many students being not interested in the decision and turning in pedestrian work. A better approach is to engage the students’ individual interests by letting them pick a case or a topic of public opinion to review. This has the disadvantage for the instructor of presenting a large number of topics with which he or she is not familiar, but a good instructor should be able to recognize value in written work without being completely familiar with the underlying subject. In my teaching, I have consciously built assignments that challenge students to think. These are the three papers I assigned in Fall 2010 in my introductory American government class at College of the Holy Cross: 1.

Political culture paper. Examine the political culture of an American community. (It need not be the student’s hometown, but that is the community most students choose.) What drives the politics in that community? Who lives there? What is the economy like? What decisions does the community make about schools, parks, etc.? Who participates? Students may, but need not, incorporate the framework of Elazar in examining political culture.

2. Public opinion paper. Examine the state of public opinion about a particular issue in the United States. Evaluate a minimum of two public opinion polls, one of which is less than five years old. (Most students examine well over two; the median is five.) Students are reminded that the paper is about public opinion, not personal opinion. 2

3. Supreme Court paper. Examine a particular landmark case that was decided by the Supreme Court in the past 20 years. Read the Court’s decision, listen to the recording of oral argument and read briefs submitted by the parties and amici curiae. Students may either analyze the case from a neutral stance, in the manner of a journalist, or they make take an advocacy position with regard to one of the sides. These assignments were crafted to put students in contact with primary sources, rather than merely have them do library research of secondary and tertiary sources, as they have probably been accustomed to doing. For the political culture paper, students reviewed election results and also data from the Census Bureau and other web sites; many students interviewed political players in their hometowns. For the public opinion paper, students accessed survey research data, primarily at Gallup Brain and similar web sites. They were encouraged to review the crosstab data, not merely the write-up that accompanied the poll in newspapers. For the Supreme Court paper, as indicated, students listened to oral argument and read the Court decision (and minority opinions) and briefs from parties and amici curiae. Giving the students the option of incorporating an Elazar analysis into the political culture paper encouraged them to not only understand this theory but to think critically about their own communities. Letting the students put themselves into the position of an advocate encouraged them to think critically about how a particular side could most effectively be argued, and letting them take the position of a journalist encouraged critical thinking about how the case turned out for everyone involved. Grading is often a touchy subject with students. My philosophy of grading relates to an analogy about learning to drive a car. When one starts driving, the blips on the middle of the road can be distracting. One looks out across the seeming acre of hood and might obsess over every centerline blip. Someone who is overly focused on the blips can barely move the car. They proceed 50 feet, then make a correction, then run afoul of another blip, 3

then make another correction, and so on. To a grade-obsessed student, the points awarded on class assignments are the same thing. Experienced and confident drivers, on the other hand, know to focus on the road ahead, and the blips take care of themselves. My goal is to engage each of my students in the material. I know I am succeeding at this when student interest in the topic is evident through questions, class discussion, and attention being paid during lecture. On the other hand, a classroom full of stenographers demonstrates that the material and/or presentation of it is not stimulating student engagement. Another key indicator of student engagement is the written work. Generally, student engagement should make a difference in the written work. The political science teacher has succeeded when key points from discussion and lecture are reflected and cited in written work. Excellent faculty members know the value of good teaching, and of taking a personal interest in the success of individual students. Faculty with research abilities should use their research to enhance their teaching. They can do this by sharing their research (and other outstanding research) with their students in situations that might regard the students as fellow investigators. It also helps if instructors can use for expository purposes that research in which students can readily see the value. In this way, teaching also enhances research.

4

The American Congress It is the duty of the President to propose and it is the privilege of the Congress to dispose. – Franklin D. Roosevelt Spring 2010 Brandeis University MWΘ 1:10-2:00 p.m., Olin-Sang 104 Instructor: Office Hours:

Tony L. Hill [email protected] Wednesday 2-3 p.m., Golding 25

I. Rationale: Congress is the First Branch of the United States national government. Understanding Congress is central to knowing the institutions and processes of American national government and the larger political system. II. Course Aims and Objectives: Aims The course is designed to impart to students an understanding of the institutional framework of the United States Congress and how the players function within the legislative processes that have been established. For our purposes, the election of Senators and Members to Congress functions as an institution, as does the process leading to election. Specific Learning Objectives: By the end of this course, students will: Have working knowledge of the institutions and processes of the United States Congress and of congressional elections. Be able to analyze the process of legislation and be able to track a single piece of legislation through the process, elucidating not only the formal legislative process but also the informal mechanisms that influence legislation. Be able to relate the process and outcomes of the legislative branch to theories about Congress posited by the framers and by political scientists. Understand the role of leaders and parties in Congress and the interactions between Congress and the executive and judicial branches. Understand the concept of constituency and how Senators and Members relate to their multiple and overlapping constituencies. III. Format and Procedures: Typically, topics in Congress will be considered over three class periods. The first day of a topic will primarily be a lecture, and the other days will involve more discussion by the class. These discussions are enhanced by the students having done the readings and coming to class with the 1

background information on the particular topic from the textbook. In this way, discussion periods will be less rehashing material from the textbook and more of a critical analysis of the scholarly readings from the reader or supplemental material. Where a date or series of dates are given in the syllabus, students should do the readings for a particular period by the earliest date. However, flexibility is built into the schedule for taking additional time on particular topics, and the instructor will advise if the schedule is adjusted accordingly. IV. Assumptions There is no prerequisite for the course, but it is assumed that students have a basic working knowledge of American government and politics at the level of a first year college American government class. Students who have not taken such a course are apt to need to spend additional time with the textbook or with a broader resource that covers a greater breadth of topics than merely the legislative branch. V. Course Requirements: 1. Class attendance and participation policy: Participation in class constitutes 10 percent of the final course grade. Failure to attend will tend to lower the participation grade. Attendance is not mandatory (i.e., there is no specific number of absences that will trigger loss of participation points) but a record of attendance will be kept. 2. Course readings: Required: Stephen S. Smith, et al, The American Congress, 6th edition, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009. ISBN 978-0-521-74906-0. Stephen S. Smith, et al, eds., The American Congress Reader, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009. ISBN 978-0-521-72019-9. Elizabeth Drew, Citizen McCain, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002, any edition acceptable. This book is readily available online for 1 cent. Chris Matthews, Hardball: How Politics Is Played by One Who Knows the Game, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999. This book is readily available online for 1 cent. Highly recommended: Jack Plano & Milton Greenberg, The American Political Dictionary, 11th edition, San Diego: Harcourt College, 2001. ISBN 0155068679. 2

3. Assignments: 15% 30% 30% 15% 10%

Midterm exam Research paper Final exam Brief assignments Participation

V. Grading Procedures: Exams will consist primarily of identification items. Midquarter exam will also contain a set of multiple-choice questions and one essay question. Final exam will also contain two essay questions. Research paper will be graded on integration of class materials, conciseness, comprehensiveness, clarity, originality, and use of sources. VI. Academic Integrity From the Brandeis University Rights & Responsibilities Handbook, 2009-10, p. 8: Every member of the University community is expected to maintain the highest standards of academic integrity. A student shall not submit work that is falsified or is not the result of the student’s own effort. Infringement of academic honesty by a student subjects that student to serious penalties, which may include failure on the assignment, failure in the course, suspension from the University or other sanctions. A student who is in doubt regarding standards of academic honesty in a course or assignment should consult the faculty member responsible for that course or assignment before submitting the work. A student’s lack of understanding is not a valid defense to a charge of academic dishonesty. Students will seek guidance from the instructor before engaging in any collaboration on papers. No collaboration is allowed during exams. Talking and the use of electronic devices are not permitted. Collaborative behavior during examinations may result in failure of the exam, and higher-level disciplinary action is possible.

3

VII. Accommodations for students with disabilities Students who wish to request accommodation for a disability must obtain a letter from the director of Disabilities Services and Support. VIII. Tentative Course Schedule Topics January 20-21 Introduction; Constitutional and historical perspectives

Readings to be discussed Smith ch. 1 & 2; Part I of reader; Article I of Constitution (ch. 4 in reader); Federalist 10 & 51 (ch. 5 in reader)

January 25-27-28 Congressional elections

Smith ch. 3; ch. 6, 8 & 10 in reader; Matthews; Liberman, “Writing Political Science Papers: Some Useful Guidelines,” and “How to Research a Political Science Paper” (Queens College web site)

February 1-3-4 Senators and Members; comparative look at the parliamentary model

Smith ch. 4; Part IV of reader

February 8-10-11 Parties and Leaders

Smith ch. 5; Part V of reader

February 15-17-18 No class February 22-24-25 Congressional committees

Smith ch. 6; Part VI of reader; Fenno, Congressmen in Committees, ch. 1; start reading Drew

March 1-3-4 Interest groups March 8-10-11 Rules

Smith ch. 11; Part XI of reader; Wittenberg & Wittenberg, How to Win in Washington, ch. 1 & 2; finish Drew Smith ch. 7; Part VII of reader (skim ch. 24)

March 15-17-18 Floor action

Smith ch. 8; Part VIII of reader (ch. 27 most important)

4

Assignment

2/4 Research topics assignment due

Unekis, “Researching Congress,” PS 29 (4): 719-722, Dec. 1996 (JSTOR); Lanegran, “Fending Off a Plagiarist” (Chronicle.com)

3/22 Midterm exam

April 7-8 Congress and the president

Smith ch. 9; ch. 28-30, 32 in reader

4/8 Research outline due

April 12-14-15 Congress and the courts

Smith ch. 10; ch. 35 in reader; paper, “Presidential Strategies in Supreme Court Justice Selection” (MIT web site)

April 19-21-22 Additional topics

To be assigned

April 26-28-29 Additional topics

To be assigned

March 22-24-25 Preparation for research

March 29-31-April 1-5 No class

May 3-5 Wrap-up

5/5 Research paper due in class

May 10, 9:15 a.m.-12:15 p.m.

FINAL EXAM

5

Research Methods “Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what nobody else has thought”— Albert Szent-Gyorgyi (1893-1986) Spring 2010 218A Frank J. Donahue Building MWF 10:00-10:50 a.m. Instructor: Office Hours:

Tony L. Hill [email protected] Friday 11:00 a.m.-12:00 noon and by appt, 73 Tremont St., Room 1077

I. Rationale: The class exists to transform student focus from the basics of American government, as transpires in the first government course, to an orientation to the political science discipline and exploration of how scholarly research is done. These skills are key to success in the discipline and in academia at large. II. Course Aims and Objectives: Aims The course is designed to impart understanding of the principal branches of the political science discipline and how the discipline is more than merely rote learning about government. The course also focuses on scholarly, scientific thinking and teaches students to put them to practice in their writing. Specific Learning Objectives: By the end of this course, students will: Understand the subfields of the political science discipline and how they function, separately and in integration with one another Understand the processes scientists use to fashion workable research questions. Understand different types of data and the benefits and problems that can result from each of them. Be able to perform basic statistical tests and know why to perform them. Learn proper sourcing of research and how to cite sources properly and well. Write a research paper on a topic of their choosing utilizing research design and data analysis techniques learned in the course. III. Format and Procedures: This class will be less of a structured lecture experience and more of an interactive discussion of research concepts, research design, and writing skills, with emphasis on putting these things into 1

practice. Discussions are enhanced by the students having done the readings and coming to class with the background information on the particular topic from the textbook. In this way, discussion periods will be less rehashing material from the textbook and more of a critical analysis of the readings. Where a date or series of dates are given in the syllabus, students should do the readings for a particular period by the earliest date. However, flexibility is built into the schedule for taking additional time on particular topics, and the instructor will advise if the schedule is adjusted accordingly.

IV. My Assumptions It is assumed that students have a basic working knowledge of American government and politics at the level of a first year college American government class; most students have taken this course in the fall semester or in the previous academic year. Therefore, relatively little time will be spent reviewing the rudiments of American government and politics, and students should be prepared to use what they learned in American government to engage themselves in a research topic.

V. Course Requirements: 1. Class attendance and participation policy: Participation in class constitutes 10 percent of the final course grade. Failure to attend will tend to lower the participation grade. Attendance is not mandatory (i.e., there is no specific number of absences that will trigger loss of participation points) but a record of attendance will be kept. Given the highly interactive and practical nature of the course, it is essential that frequent attendance be a priority. 2. Course readings: Required: W. Phillips Shively, The Craft of Political Research, 7th edition, Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice-Hall, 2009. ISBN 978-0-13-602948-9. M.G. Bulmer, Principles of Statistics, New York: Dover, 1979. ISBN 978-0-486-63760-0. Russell Langley, Practical Statistics Simply Explained, New York: Dover, 1970. ISBN 978-0486-22729-0.

2

Highly recommended: Lisa Baglione, Writing a Research Paper in Political Science, Belmont, Calif.: Thomson Higher Education, 2006. ISBN 0-495-09262-2.

3. Assignments: 25% 15% 50% 25% 10%

Midterm exam Preparatory assignments for research paper (3) Research paper Statistics exercises (4 sets) Participation

V. Grading Procedures: Exam will consist primarily of identification items. Note that there will only be an exam covering the first part of the class dealing with research design; the exam will not cover the statistical material introduced in the second half of the class. Research paper will be graded on integration of material, conciseness, comprehensiveness, clarity, originality, and use of sources.

VI. Academic Integrity From the Suffolk University student handbook: Suffolk University insists upon the highest standards of academic integrity in all student work, both written and oral. We encourage students to respect the thoughts, ideas, and intellectual contributions of others. We expect all students, without exception, to credit the work of others through proper sourcing. This is a cornerstone of academic integrity. Students will seek guidance from the instructor before engaging in any collaboration on papers. No collaboration is allowed during exams. Talking and the use of electronic devices are not permitted. Collaborative behavior during examinations may result in failure of the exam, and higher-level disciplinary action is possible.

3

VII. Accommodations for students with disabilities Students who wish to request accommodation for a disability must obtain a letter from the Office for Disability Services . VIII. Tentative Course Schedule Topics January 20-22 Introduction; basics of political science discipline

Readings to be discussed

January 25-27-29 The nature of research

Shively ch. 1 & 2

February 1-3-5 Issues of measurement

Shively ch. 3-5

February 8-10-12 Writing workshop I

Liberman, “Writing Political Science Papers: Some Useful Guidelines,” and “How to Research a Political Science Paper” (Queens College web site); Lanegran, “Fending Off a Plagiarist” (Chronicle.com)

February 16-17-19 Research design

Shively ch. 6 & 7; Langley ch. 5

Assignment

2/1 Proposed research questions due

Midterm exam in class

February 22 February 24-26 Statistics: nature and probability

Langley ch. 1-2; Bulmer ch. 1-2

March 1-3-5 Statistics: distributions

Langley ch. 3-4; Bulmer ch. 3-4 (skim)

3/3 Research design due 3/10 Statistics exercises I due

March 8-10-12 Writing workshop II March 15-17-19 No class

4

March 22-24-26 Statistics: tests of significance

Shively ch. 10; Bulmer ch. 7-9 (skim); Langley excerpts of ch. 6 to be assigned 3/31 Statistics exercises II due

March 29-31-April 2 Writing workshop III April 5-7-9 Statistics in practice

Shively ch. 8-9

4/9 Working bibliography due

April 12-14-16 Survey research

To be assigned

4/16 Statistics exercises III due 4/21 Survey research design due

April 21-23 Intensive writing April 26-28 Finishing touches

Shively ch. 11

4/28 Research paper due

5

Principles of American Government The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest. – Thomas Jefferson Fall 2010 College of the Holy Cross TΘ 11:00 a.m.-12:15 p.m. OR 12:30 p.m.-1:45 p.m., Stein 120 Instructor: Office Hours:

Tony L. Hill [email protected] Thursday 2-4 p.m., or by appointment

I. Rationale: Knowledge of the American polity is essential for being an American citizen. This course is a basic introduction to the structure and processes of the American national government, including elections and public opinion. In addition to being mandatory for political science majors, the course serves as a good introduction to social science learning for any college student. II. Course Aims and Objectives: Aims The course is designed to impart to students an understanding of the institutional framework of the American national government and how the players function within the processes that have been established. Specific Learning Objectives: By the end of this course, students will:  

   

Have working knowledge of the institutions and processes of the American national government Understand the constitutional framework that established the American national government and also the extraconstitutional institutions, including political parties, administrative agencies, and bureaucracy, that have come about without constitutional imprimatur Understand the nature of American federalism Understand the process of legislation, encompassing not only the formal legislative process but also the informal mechanisms that influence legislation Understand the role of public opinion in the American democracy Understand the concept of constituency and how Senators and Members relate to their multiple and overlapping constituencies

1

III. Format and Procedures: Typically, topics will be considered over two class periods. These discussions are enhanced by students having done the readings and coming to class with the background information on the particular topic from the textbook. Where a date or series of dates are given in the syllabus, students should do the readings for a particular period by the earliest date. However, flexibility is built into the schedule for taking additional time on particular topics, and the instructor will advise if the schedule is adjusted accordingly. IV. Assumptions There is no prerequisite for the course. Students need come to the course only with an interest in learning more about the American political system. V. Course Requirements: 1. Class attendance and participation policy: Participation in class constitutes 10 percent of the final course grade. Failure to attend will tend to lower the participation grade. While there is no specific number of absences that will trigger loss of participation points, it is expected that participation will consist of more than mere attendance. Students are expected to come to class having read the assigned material. 2. Course readings: Required: Morris Fiorina, Paul E. Peterson, Bertram Johnson & William G. Mayer, The New American Democracy, alternate 6th edition, New York: Longman, 2009. ISBN 978-0-205-66294-4. Chris Matthews, Hardball: How Politics Is Played by One Who Knows the Game, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999. ISBN 0-684-84559-8. Stephen Skowronek, The Politics Presidents Make: Presidential Leadership from John Adams to Bill Clinton. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1997. ISBN 0-674-68937-2. Jan Crawford [Greenburg], Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court. New York: Penguin, 2007. ISBN 1594201013. See syllabus for additional short readings. These will also be announced from time to time.

2

3. Assignments: 15% 15% 15% 15% 30% 10%

Midterm exam Political culture paper Public opinion paper Supreme Court paper Final exam Participation

V. Grading Procedures: The midterm exam will contain identification items, multiple-choice questions, and one essay question. The final exam will be similar but may contain two essay questions. Papers will be graded on integration of class materials, conciseness, comprehensiveness, clarity, originality, and use of sources. VI. Academic Integrity From the Holy Cross policy on academic honesty, Course Catalog 2010-11, p. 18: All education is a cooperative enterprise between teachers and students. This cooperation requires trust and mutual respect, which are only possible in an environment governed by the principles of academic honesty. As an institution devoted to teaching, learning, and intellectual inquiry, Holy Cross expects all members of the College community to abide by the highest standards of academic integrity. Any violation of academic honesty undermines the student-teacher relationship, thereby wounding the whole community. Students will seek guidance from the instructor before engaging in any collaboration on papers. It is expected that little to none will be approved. No collaboration is allowed during exams. Talking and the use of electronic devices are not permitted. Collaborative behavior during examinations may result in failure of the exam, and higher-level disciplinary action is possible. VII. Accommodations for students with disabilities Students who wish to request accommodation for a disability must obtain a letter from the Office of Disability Services, 215A Hogan Campus Center.

3

VIII. Tentative Course Schedule Topics September 7, 9 American democracy

Readings to be discussed Fiorina ch. 1; Declaration of Independence (Fiorina appendix I)

September 14, 16 Designing the Constitution

US Constitution (Fiorina appendix II); Fiorina ch. 2; Federalist #10 (Fiorina appendix III); Federalist #51 (Fiorina appendix IV); Federalist #42 (find online)

September 21, 23 American federalism and political culture

Fiorina ch. 3 & 4; Elazar reading (to be placed on Moodle)

September 28, 30 Congress

Fiorina ch. 12; Matthews (chapters to be assigned)

October 5, 7 The Presidency

Fiorina ch. 13; Skowronek (chapters to be assigned)

Assignment

9/28 Political culture paper due

October 12, 14 No class October 19 The Executive Branch

Fiorina ch. 14

October 21, 26 The Judicial Branch

Fiorina ch. 15; Federalist #78 (find online); Crawford (chapters to be assigned) Midterm exam

October 28 November 2, 4 Campaigns and elections

Fiorina ch. 10 & 11; Matthews (chapters to be assigned)

November 9, 11 Public opinion and voting behavior

Fiorina ch. 5 & 6

November 16, 18 Political parties & media

Fiorina ch. 8 & 9

4

11/18 Public opinion paper due

November 23 Interest groups

Fiorina ch. 7

November 25 No class November 30, December 2 Civil liberties & civil rights

Fiorina ch. 16 & 17 12/7 Supreme Court paper due

December 7, 9 Wrap-up December 14-18

Exact date, time and place TBA

5

FINAL EXAM

POLS 100 – Fall 2010 Political analysis paper Prof. Tony L. Hill For your first paper, you will write a political analysis of a community in the United States. Most students write about their home towns, although this is not a requirement. Your job is to examine the political culture. Some of the questions which might be addressed: What drives the politics in this community? Who lives there? What issues are important to them? What parties does the community vote for in presidential elections, legislative elections, local offices? What is the community’s economy based on? Is it a bedroom community, a working class community, a major city? Is it growing or shrinking? Does the community spend luxuriously on its schools, city facilities, etc., or does it barely maintain what it has? It is high or low in income, jobs, housing, etc., for its state? The assigned reading by Elazar might inform this paper, although it is not a requirement that students address Elazar’s framework. The Elazar conception of political culture will be discussed next week in class. Some web sites that are apt to be useful are the Census Bureau (census.gov), city-data.com, and web sites for the community’s government, schools, and political parties. This paper should be 4-5 double-spaced pages. Attach additional sheets of photocopy or printout containing source material from the polls. This paper is due at the start of class on September 28.

POLS 100 – Fall 2010 Public opinion paper Prof. Tony L. Hill For your second paper, choose an issue of contemporary importance and write about the state of public opinion on this issue. You need to cite and discuss a minimum of two reputable public opinion polls. At least one of the polls must have been taken in the past three years. Most students cite and discuss more than two polls. Some examples of reputable public opinion polls are Gallup, Harris, and Zogby. Polls published in major newspapers (e.g., NY Times, Wall Street Journal, L.A. Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe) are generally considered reputable. Unacceptable polls include those done on the Internet where poll respondents decide voluntarily to participate. If in doubt, ask the instructor or a librarian. Archives of Gallup polls (Gallup Brain) and Harris polls are available online through Holy Cross libraries. The complete archives of the New York Times through 2007 is also available online at Holy Cross. This paper should be 4-5 double-spaced pages. Attach additional sheets of photocopy or printout containing source material from the polls. This paper is about public opinion, not your opinion. Excellent papers will avoid making opinionated statements about the issue under consideration. For example, if writing about abortion, do not make an argument for or against legal abortion. The paper is supposed to describe and discuss public opinion on the issue. This paper is due at the start of class on November 18.

POLS 100 – Fall 2010 Supreme Court paper Prof. Tony L. Hill For your third paper you will use primary source documents from the U.S. Supreme Court. These primary sources include 1. Briefs filed by parties and others with an interest in the case 2. The transcript and/or audio recording of oral argument before the Court 3. The published opinion of the Supreme Court. Begin by choosing a case of interest from this site: http://ezproxy.holycross.edu:2448/hottopics/lnacademic/ Use the link “Landmark Cases” under “Look up a Legal Case.” Here you can find (at least) the text of the published opinion. There might also be links to briefs and oral argument. If no briefs are available from the landmark cases page, access “Supreme Court Briefs” on the left side menu. Then search by name of party. More recent cases are apt to have more briefs available. The availability of online briefs is a legitimate criterion to use in choosing a case. Audio recordings of Supreme Court oral arguments and decision announcements can be found at www.oyez.org. You may write the paper in one of two modes: 1. From the point of view of an advocate. You may take a side on the case and assemble an argument that advances your side. In this instance, you will primarily use as source documents those briefs submitted in favor of the side you favor. The briefs submitted in opposition will be less important. In this mode, you may argue that what the Court ultimately did was either right or wrong, correct or incorrect. 2. From a neutral point of view. You do not take a side on a case but instead write more like a journalist. In this instance, you will probably use briefs from both sides of the case as source material. The decision of the Court will be more important in your paper than that of any particular side. This paper should be 4-5 double-spaced pages. This paper is due at the start of class on December 7, a date that will live forever in history in infamy.

POLS 100 Fall 2010 Professor Tony L. Hill Final exam study guide

These are some terms of the type that will be on the exam. (Some of these will be on the exam and some will not. There will be others on the exam not appearing on the study guide.) For each term, it is expected that you will write about 2/3 of a single blue-book page. Define the term in a few lines and then state its significance (i.e., why is this term important for political analysis?).

Example: Electoral College The electoral college is comprised of 538 individuals chosen within their home states (and D.C.) to elect the president every four years. Their votes are what count in the election of the president. Whoever wins a majority of electors becomes president. In all but Maine and Nebraska, a state’s electors are pledged in their entirety to one party (and team of candidates) or another. Electors are usually senior members of the state party, and it is a great honor to be chosen as an elector. Sometimes electors don’t vote as they are elected to do, and these are called “faithless electors.” The electoral college is significant because it means we don’t have direct election of the president by the popular vote in the U.S. A candidate can win a majority of the popular vote (as Al Gore did in 2000) but still lose the electoral college. The existence of the electoral college dictates the way presidential campaigns are run; it makes some small states (e.g., New Hampshire) critical in the election while some of the largest states (e.g., California, Texas, New York) are completely irrelevant in the campaign. It has frequently been the target of political reformers because it does not make the popular vote primary. Any reform to the electoral college would completely change the way presidential campaigns are run.

Study terms: margin of error certiorari habeas corpus straight ticket vs. ticket-splitting inside lobbyist closed primary recount equal protection clause bandwagon effect material benefit diversity (federal courts)

POLS 100

Fall 2010

Professor Tony L. Hill Final exam

Part I: Identification Choose three terms from group A and two terms from group B. Define each term and state its significance. (10 points each) Group A Equal protection clause Incorporation doctrine Judicial supremacy Montgomery bus boycott Restrictive covenants

Group B Inside vs. outside lobbying Straight ticket vs. split ticket voting Recount Solidary benefit

Part II: Essay question A Write on one of the following questions. (20 points) 1. What does Jan Crawford [Greenburg] conceive of as the fundamental division at the Supreme Court? Why is the Court fundamentally in conflict rather than in unity? Be sure to give helpful examples. 2. What steps did Clarence Earl Gideon go through to clear his name in Gideon’s Trumpet? What key decisions were made in the course of his case? Who decided? What were the implications of Gideon v. Wainwright for the judicial system? Part III: Essay question B Write on one of the following questions. (20 points) 1. Madison wrote of the problem of factions. Describe some ways that factions are involved in the U.S. political system. Give examples from the second half of the course how factions exert influence on decisionmakers. 2. How does public opinion influence decisionmakers? What is the role of public opinion polling in our modern democratic system? What types of polls exist, and how are they used to influence the legislative process?

Part III: Multiple choice Circle the answer of your choice. (2 points each) 1.

Which one of these ads was not sponsored by a presidential campaign directly but by independent players in support of a political campaign? a. Morning in America b. Daisy girl c. Willie Horton d. 3 a.m. phone ringing in the White House

2.

What propaganda technique is built around a slogan? a. Bandwagon b. Beautiful people c. The Big Lie d. Glittering generalities

3.

Which of these rules of Congress is listed in the constitution? a. Majority vote for speaker of the house b. Majority vote to override a presidential veto c. No member may be questioned by any court or prosecutor about any speech made in Congress d. Every member of the House to be elected from a congressional district

4.

Which of these is a federal trial court? a. 7th Circuit b. U.S. District Court c. Superior Court d. General Court

5.

What advantage do former legislators have as lobbyists? a. They can join members in the retiring room b. Legislators understand that former legislators have been in the same position as themselves c. They are apt to have access to key legislators d. All of the above

6.

Which of these groups is someone apt to join because of purposive benefits: a. American Automobile Association b. American Civil Liberties Union c. AARP d. country club

7.

What would a lobbyist hired fresh out of college be apt to do? a. Meet with high-ranking members of the committee b. Meet with legislators who aren’t on the committee c. Make a presentation to the subcommittee on behalf of the interest group d. Go duck hunting with Dick Cheney

8.

Which of these is true about bureaucracy? a. Most government employees have to pass a merit-based test to get hired b. Bureaucrats strive to carry out the will of the public c. Bureaucrats tend to be eager to bring about change d. Bureaucracy is highly adaptable to new ways of doing things

9.

What is true about campaign ads today as compared to the 1950s or 1960s? a. They are longer b. They are more likely to be focused on facts c. They are more likely to be set to a jingle d. They are less likely to include the candidate’s voice

10.

Who argues before the Supreme Court on behalf of the federal government? a. Attorney General b. Solicitor General c. White House Counsel d. A variety of private lawyers hired for that purpose

Don’t forget to write your name here ___________________________________

COURSE EVALUATION SUMMARY COLLEGE OF THE HOLY CROSS FALL 2010 POLITICAL SCIENCE 100 PROFESSOR TONY L. HILL

SECTIONS 04 & 05

Class Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior (no answer)

19 20 9 4 1

36.5% 38.5% 17.3% 7.7%

Male Female (no answer)

20 22 11

47.6% 52.4%

7 19 7 0 0 14 6

14.9% 40.4% 14.9% 0.0% 0.0% 29.8%

Gender

Cumulative GPA 4.00-3.50 3.49-3.00 2.99-2.50 2.49-2.00 below 2.00 Not established (no answer)

The grade I expect in this course is ____ my GPA: Above 12 33.3% About the same 24 66.7% Below 0 0.0% I attended this class: All of the time Almost all of the time Most of the time Some of the time

36 16 1 0

67.9% 30.2% 1.9% 0.0%

I usually came to this class: Well prepared 25 Somewhat prepared 26 Poorly prepared 2

47.2% 49.1% 3.8%

In this class I was: An active participant Quiet but attentive Inattentive

17.0% 83.0% 0.0%

9 44 0

Q. 1: The subject matter of this course was: Very challenging 1 1.9% Challenging 38 71.7% Not challenging 14 26.4%

Q. 2: The text and/or assigned readings contributed to my understanding of the course material: Substantially 29 54.7% Somewhat 20 37.7% Little 4 7.6% No text/readings 0 0.0% Q. 3: The overall planning and/or structure of this course was: Good 40 75.5% Satisfactory 12 22.6% Poor 0 0.0% Q. 4: The instructor’s presentation of the material was: Very clear 29 54.7% Satisfactory 23 43.4% Not clear 0 0.0% Q. 5: The evaluation of my work in this course was: Consistently fair 43 81.1% Generally fair 10 18.9% Unfair 0 0.0% Q. 6: Consultation with the professor outside of class was: Very helpful 7 13.2% Helpful 15 28.3% Not very helpful 2 3.8% I did not consult 29 54.7% Q. 7: This course has increased my capacity to think: Substantially 14 26.4% Somewhat 36 67.9% Not at all 3 5.7% Does not apply 0 0.0% Q. 8: The evaluation of my written work was: Helpful 40 76.9% Unhelpful 9 17.3% Does not apply 3 5.8% (no answer) 1 Q. 9: Overall, this course was: Excellent 12 Good 33 Average 8 Poor 0 Very poor 0

TOTAL ENROLLMENT: EVALUATIONS COMPLETED:

59 53

89.8%

22.6% 62.3% 15.1% 0.0% 0.0%

ABSTRACT OF COURSE EVALUATION COMMENTS COLLEGE OF THE HOLY CROSS FALL 2010 POLITICAL SCIENCE 100 SECTIONS 04 & 05 PROFESSOR TONY L. HILL

I attended this class (all of the time, almost all of the time, most of the time, some of the time): 

I was sick for one class.



Only missed once.

I usually came to this class (well prepared, somewhat prepared, poorly prepared): 

I always read the material.



I usually don’t have time to do all of the reading.



Normally I read the text beforehand.



I read everything, some things were confusing that is why it is sometimes but in class professor clarified the terms.

In this class I was (an active participant, quiet but attentive, inattentive): 

I contributed a few times.



Hard to participate because mostly lecture.



Not much room for participation, heavily lecture based.



No real opportunity for participation in class.



Lecture, not much participation.



I am more of a listener than an active participant.

More lecture.

Q. 1: The subject matter of this course was (very challenging, challenging, not challenging): 

I took American government in high school, so most of the material was new although I did learn a few things.



Everything was very straightforward.



I never studied American government before. me.



I understood the material very well and was not hard to understand.

The material was new to



A lot of the material was knew while some of it overlapped with previous classes.



Depended on what was presented.



A lot of information, but interesting and logical.



American politics are cut and dry, not too hard.

Q. 2: The text and/or assigned readings contributed to my understanding of the course material (substantially, somewhat, little, no text/readings): 

For exams only, not much for papers.



I now have a better understanding of the American government.



They contributed but the lectures were much more interesting and helpful.



We read several books that we barely talked about. It was frusterating to read 200 pages of a book and then only have to know 1 or 2 things from it and barely talk about it. The textbook was the only thing that was really useful.



Great textbook.



The textbook was a bit dry, but Supreme Conflict and Hardball were interesting and informative.



As the semester went on, it was difficult to keep up with the reading. Prof. Hill’s lectures were very clear and the reading was unnecessary.



We had books assigned in the course in which we didn’t talk much about.



I haven’t done any of the reading and am doing well.



Very clear, organized reading that provided a basis for lectures.



Power Points were taken directly from readings.



Notes are the best source of info, but I use the text as a reference.



Lectures are essentially by the book.



Help explain things in factual manner.



Other articles and books aside from Fiorina were useful, different perspectives.



The lectures were based on the textbook so the text readings were very helpful.



More current events information would have been helpful to read about.

Q. 3: The overall planning and/or structure of this course was (good, satisfactory, poor): 

Professor Hill could get at a topic easily – sometimes the stories didn’t really apply to American government.



When having powerpoint presentation, professor skips through some slides. Does not post slides on Moodle.



Lectures did get boring at times but not awful.



We always stayed on target and didn’t fall behind.



His planning of the course could be better.



Second half of the course was better planned.



Followed the syllabus very closely.



He was always very well prepared.



Order made sense, well organized.



The professor is definitely very knowledgeable and is perfect for the class.



Organized.



Not in order and was hard to take notes on powerpoints.



Clear structure but loose enough to go into detail when we asked questions.

Q. 4: The instructor’s presentation of the material was (very clear, satisfactory, not clear): 

Prof. Hill is very knowledgeable which is great but sometimes he gets so off topic and rambles which doesn’t really contribute to the class.



Sometimes you went on tangents (which is not necessarily a bad thing) but for the most part good job on presenting the material.



Lectures were very clear & interesting.



He clearly is very knowledgeable and has gotten better throughout the course.



Lectures were sometimes unorganized; became more interactive as the semester progressed.



Sometimes Prof. Hill went off on tangent. It was sometimes unclear if we were supposed to follow slide or him.



Not overly exciting or engaging but very clear.



Sometimes the powerpoints contained lots of unneeded information.



He is brilliant.



He is very knowledgeable about poli sci and up to date.



When the instructor taught he presented himself as knowledgeable and was able to convey that knowledge to me.



The slide were prepared by the book – and it seemed as though he hadn’t looked at the slides prior to class a few times.



Mixes in antedotes and personal stories too much which becomes difficult to know whether or not it will be on the exam.



Well planned out lectures.



He became more clear as semester went on.



Sometimes unclear, lots of digressions, not always very engaging.



Prof. Hill has a great sense of humor!



Prof. Hill added a ton of background and insight on the material we were studying.



A little boring but taught well.



Explained everything, really knew material.



Lectures are skipped around. be written down.



He is extremely smart.



Very clear lectures and very interesting; Professor Hill is obviously brilliant and makes it more motivating for the class.



At times powerpoint presentations of the material went too fast and although prof. knows material very well it may have been better to slow down for note-taking.



Sometimes had slide show but said something diff. and that threw me off in studying for exam.



Prof. Hill is very intelligent and taught the material well.

Not too clear on what is supposed to



Just used the powerpoints from the book, not his own, so we skipped around a lot and the flow of the class was disrupted, or he wouldn’t know why something was on a certain slide and would read them before talking to the class.

Q. 5: The evaluation of my work in this course was (consistently fair, generally fair, unfair): 

However, more information about the content of the exam would have been helpful.



Very fair grader.



First paper I did not get any feedback, but the exam and second paper I did which was helpful.



Very fair grader. challenging.



His evaluation of our exams was very different compared to the papers in the course. The multiple choice on the midterm exam seemed to be an unfair evaluation of our knowledge of the material.



Clarify paper topics better.



I thought it was fair on the papers but not on the midterms. were graded way too harshly.



Fair grader.



Fair, but I wish I had a bit more feedback.



He was very willing to help students do well in the class.



Always showed where improvement was needed and how to complete the assignment the best way possible.



Good grader.



Exam was difficult and very specific at times. better to quiz us on more general concepts.

Midterm difficult but papers were not extremely

Those

Would have been

Q. 6: Consultation with the professor outside of class was (very helpful, helpful, not very helpful, I did not consult): 

Good in office hrs/through email.



I consulted by email.



Answered all of my email questions and office hour questions.



Didn’t seem to want to see me, not too pleasant.



Wasn’t always great with responding to e-mails.



He was often busy with other things during office hours. good with answering e-mails.



I could not make the Professor’s only weekly office hours session.

Was not

Q. 7: This course has increased my capacity to think (substantially, somewhat, not at all, does not apply): 

I know more about American government to some degree. expecting the course itself to be different.



I have a better understanding of the way the government works.



I’ve learned to look at the American government in a new light (in particular as a college student).



Felt that a lot of the material was review.



I learned a lot of new information.



Real world applications were often presented to show the relevance in modern society.



Very factual class.



I know more about mechanics of govt, what terms mean that I read in papers or hear on the news.



I have learned a lot about the American political system and how to think analytically.



Last time I went of the government was in high school so it was good to learn about it again.

I was just

Q. 8: The evaluation of my written work was (helpful, unhelpful, does not apply): 

There were not many comments on my written work so I was not sure how to improve throughout the semester.



He could be a little more specific w/ his comments and write more on our papers.



It is somewhat helpful, but I feel like it could be better – more criticism of our work – more evaluative.



Lack of comments on writing assignments.



Made few comments on my papers.



Haven’t gotten much feed back but have gotten good grades.



More comments needed.



Sometimes I wish we had gotten more feedback on writing (as well as on our exams) to understand why we got points off.



He is fair, wants us to do well.



Was not helpful at first in the semester but became progressively more helpful.



It would be helpful if he wrote more comments.



Also he gave general tips before papers and afterwards helped clarify some common mistakes.



Although grading was fair, I would have liked some more feedback on my written papers.



My graded essays did not have comments or feedback, only a grade and a one sentence explanation of the grade.

Q. 9: Overall, this course was (excellent, good, average, poor, very poor): 

I’ve really learned a lot about politics (I think more than I would have from a different professor)



Overall enjoyed this class, amusing and taught in a well manner.



I liked it, but it was nothing new or exciting since I had taken the course before.

 

I learned a lot about American government, but it didn’t feel much like political science. I have enjoyed it and would suggest it to someone.



Prof. Hill is great :)



The lectures were very clear and all the grading was fair. Interesting course material and a fun learning environment. all a great course.

All in



Professor Hill is pleasant, well organized, and very educated on the topic. His lectures are informative and grading is very fair.



Great paper topics.



A bit boring at times, but definitely a useful class.



I really enjoyed this class.



Fun and interesting.



I have learned a great deal about how the government works. Overall, this has been an extremely enjoyable class.



Kind of boring, but important information. well if you put in the effort.



Not too challenging, but very good job of introducing concepts which were previously foreign to me.



Material and prof. were great but it could have been a bit more engaging.



Prof. Hill did his best to make this a fairly interesting course, but I found it somewhat boring.



Good class to learn basics and relevant information to society.



Prof. Hill is a good professor and a great guy. I enjoyed his class and learned a lot about politics and American government.

He makes it easy to do

Chapter 7 from Redistricting and the U.S. House of Representatives: Illuminating Electoral Bias with the Brookes Method by Tony L. Hill

Copyright © 2010 by Tony L. Hill All Rights Reserved

Chapter 7 - District Compactness and Voter Knowledge: Information Heuristics Through Favorable Partitioning

Having developed a workable and meaningful measure for compactness, the question arises as to the utility of compact districts. Scholars have often argued that compactness has no real impact on electoral districts. Polsby & Popper note that the harm gerrymandering causes ―is easier to characterize than to prove‖ (Polsby and Popper 1991, 304). Backstrom, Robins & Eller claim, ―It is, in truth, hard to develop a powerful case for the intrinsic value of having compact districts…‖ They argue that the only one who benefits from compactness is the representative herself, and then only if she lives at the center of the district (Backstrom, Robins and Eller 1990, 152). They concede, however, that compactness has ―a symbolic virtue‖ insofar as the esthetic value of compact districts serves as a cue to the public. ―Crooked districts,‖ they argue, ―lead the public, often correctly, to suspect crookedness by someone manipulating the districting process in order to gain unfair advantage.‖ (Ibid.) Fenno relates a telling anecdote from Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.). ―I don‘t know half the time whether I‘m in or out of the district. Neither do my constituents. They argue among themselves.‖ Ackerman and his constituency aides have been known to argue the question too: ―‗Are we in the district now?‘ ‗I think so.‘ ‗No, I don‘t think so.‘ ‗This must be the dividing line. I don‘t know, but it must be along here somewhere. It‘s crazy.‘‘‘ (Fenno 2000, 169, Yoshinaka and Murphy 2009, 451). If the Member of Congress and staff members based in the district and charged with dealing with constituent matters don‘t know where the district lines are, how can voters be expected to

118

do any better? It is tautologous that districts with clearly defined boundaries have clearly defined boundaries; these can be obvious to everyone involved. Past research on this question has not been particularly detailed with regard to the issue of district compactness. Niemi, Powell & Bicknell analyzed 1978 NES data with regard to the number of representatives overlapping in a community (i.e., metropolitan area) and found that voters who lived in communities with only one congressional district were more likely to know information about the incumbents and candidates than those from communities with more districts (Niemi, Powell and Bicknell 1986, 192). They found that congruence between the district and media market made it much more likely that voters would know about challengers in the congressional election, but the difference was much more scant when it came to knowing who the incumbent was (Niemi, Powell and Bicknell 1986, 196). Kramer analyzed a particular New York state assembly district that leaped from Staten Island to Lower Manhattan and found a large friends-and-neighbors effect in terms of voters from one island or the other siding with political candidates from the same island (Kramer 1990). If this is true in a state district (much smaller than a congressional district), the expectation would be that it is even more true in a large U.S. House district. Stern argues that a successful representative must be integrated fully with his or her districts. ―To represent fully the concerns of his constituency, a representative must not be merely an agent whose opinions match those of some ideological majority in his district, he must be attuned to a diversity of interests.‖ (Stern 1974, 400). On the other hand, rather than merely serving the district access problems of the Member, compact districts facilitate greater voter knowledge of the district. A poor district functions only

119

as an electoral district. A good district that is formed compactly from regular boundaries has purposes other than as an electoral district. A well-formed district is apt to function as an economic area, tourism region, or as a quadrant of a particular state. A compact district, such as the current 6th congressional district of Michigan, can be described as ―the southwest corner of Michigan‖; or ―the Kalamazoo and Benton Harbor area.‖ There is no significant quarrel with this designation. People in the district get most of their information from media in those cities. A non-compact district, however, such as the current 4th district of Massachusetts (or nearly any of that state‘s others) can only be described as ―the 4th district.‖ The people of the 4th really have nothing in common except that they live in the district. It does not conform to any economic or transportation function. The district awkwardly overlaps disparate media markets. The district includes two prominent Boston suburbs, Brookline and Newton, and then snakes westward, then southward, and then eastward to take in the disparate communities of Taunton and New Bedford. The district includes a minority of the city of Fall River. This is not a unified district by any measure. A large share of the residents of Brookline and Newton have

120

never been to New Bedford and perhaps have only a vague idea where it is. The daily concerns of these largely white-collar suburbs of Boston have little in common with the maritime New Bedford and old-era industrial cities of Taunton and Fall River. People in the 4th do not read the same newspapers. The newspaper editor in New Bedford, of course, focuses largely on the 4th because that is where nearly the entire newspaper readership resides. The media in Boston have many other districts to cover – some of which lie entirely within the Boston area – and cannot devote much coverage to the 4th. The newspaper editor in Fall River must contend with allocating most congressional coverage to the 3rd district, which includes much more of the Fall River area than does the 4th. The 3rd district is only slightly easier to comprehend than the 4th. It reaches upward from Fall River to contain Massachusetts‘s 3rd largest city, Worcester, although it does not include all of Worcester‘s suburbs. Some of them are included in the 2nd district, a congressional district dominated by Springfield, the second largest city in Massachusetts, although the 2nd does not totally dominate Springfield; a good share of metro Springfield is in the 1st congressional district.

121

In Illinois, the eight Downstate districts (11-12, 14-19) are all very non-compact. Race is a fairly small consideration in Downstate congressional redistricting since there is no opportunity to create a majority-minority district there. Rather, these compromises of compactness are caused by political gerrymandering. Downstate Illinois is a fairly Republican area; only the 12th district, including the heavily Democratic East St. Louis area, contains a compact Democratic area. Essentially, the Democratic legislature devised several districts with long tentacles reaching into Democratic areas of small and medium-sized cities (Springfield, Decatur, Bloomington, even Parma and Sterling) in order to advantage Democrats running in the 11th and 17th districts. This has been a successful strategy for them, as the party has been able to hold the 17th and won the 11th when it opened up in 2006. (The Democrats also won the 14th district in a special election in 2008 after Speaker Dennis Hastert retired.) These districts are much more suspicious-looking than those in use at the time it was routinely alleged that Illinois politics was controlled by machines, Chicago by the Democrats and the state government by the Republicans. Interestingly, Kaiser simulated a redistricting of Illinois early in the reapportionment revolution that not only produced districts that were much, much more compact than the present ones, but they were also more compact than the actual Downstate districts in use at the time. (Kaiser 1966, 210).

122

The case of the 17th is an interesting one. The Republican candidate in 2006 was a television news anchor from the Quad Cities, Andrea Zinga. Television news anchors have a long history of being able to win local and district-level elections. Although she lost to Democrat Phil Hare decisively (57-43%), Zinga surely would have had a better chance of winning had the boundaries of the district more closely corresponded to television market boundaries, as is often the case when districts are shaped using natural boundaries or those resulting from natural human transportation and communication patterns. As it was, the 17th contained only part of the Illinois side of the Quad Cities television market and then swept southward along the Mississippi River to take in Quincy and some territory stretching into Springfield and Decatur. Of course, ideals in redistricting should not favor the election of a television news anchor or any other person, but politicians of all stripes understand that campaign costs and efforts are reduced when the district is compact and can be reached through a minimum of media buys (Campbell, Alford and Henry 1984); in a district like the 17th, parties and candidates aiming to reach the entire district can only make inefficient use of broadcast media and newspapers: They only desire to reach a small percentage of viewers in each of many markets, because most of the viewers in those markets live in other congressional districts. The issue of multiple states in a media market is also a challenging one. Snyder and Strömberg report, ―newspapers exhibit an in-state bias, covering representatives from their home state more heavily than out-of-state representatives,‖ even when their market area overlaps into an adjoining state (Snyder and Strömberg 2010, 11). The 46th district of California presents another illustration of the role of compactness in the conception of a district and the decisions that follow from this

123

conception. The 46th contains most of its population in some coastal suburbs in northern Orange County. In an effort to create a safe Republican district as a part of the bipartisan gerrymander of California after the 2000 census, the district also includes the Palos Verdes Peninsula, at the southwest corner of Los Angeles County. In order to form a

Source: State of California

contiguous district, the 46th has a spaghetti strip running along the heavily Democratic city of Long Beach and the Los Angeles section known as San Pedro, also a heavily Democratic center. (A small functional part of Long Beach near California State University is included in the 46th.) The spaghetti strip includes some harbor islands, which are heavily industrial. (In the earlier version of this district created after the 1980 census, the spaghetti strip through Long Beach and San Pedro was so narrow that it was said to be contiguous only at low tide (Butler and Cain 1992, 61)). This district has no center as that term is used by ordinary people. There is no way to drive continuously across the district. The Orange County residents have little contact with the voters of the

124

Palos Verdes Peninsula, and vice versa. The ordinary driving distance between Huntington Beach, in the Orange County portion of the district, where Congressman Dana Rohrabacher maintains his district office, and Rancho Palos Verdes is 32 miles. According to Google Maps, this is a 47 minute trip under favorable traffic conditions. Nearly all of this trip takes place outside the borders of the district.

Source: Google Maps

If the incumbent congressman and any challengers are strategic about what they do, they spend most of their time in Orange County and hold a few events on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. They have little or no incentive to do anything with the spaghetti strip running across Long Beach and San Pedro. (The district also includes Santa Catalina Island with a population of about 4000 and unpopulated San Clemente Island.) In terms of media coverage, the district is at the center only for the residents of the Orange County portion, and even so, the main media serving the district (the Orange County Register and Los Angeles television stations) have many other districts to cover. For the Palos Verdes portion of the district, the main newspaper is the South Bay Daily Breeze. However, most of the residents of the South Bay area live in the much more compact 35th and 36th districts. So from the perspective of the Daily Breeze (and similar media), the 35th and 36th districts are their main market and the 46th is a periphery. The 125

Long Beach Press-Telegram (and other media in the country‘s largest suburb) have little incentive to do much with the 46th district. The vast majority of the population of Long Beach is in the 37th district and few people to the east or west pay much attention to the Long Beach paper. In a large media market, it is difficult for a new MC to get covered by the press when they are so accustomed to quoting and interviewing the more senior members of the local delegation. ―It does not appear that newspapers are mainly interested in providing necessary information to help voters,‖ Snyder and Strömberg allege, noting that newspapers are more likely to run articles about retiring members than those who are new and relatively unknown (Snyder and Strömberg 2010, 11). Voters in the spaghetti strip are at a tremendous disadvantage when it comes to learning about their Congressman and their district. Voters in the Palos Verdes Peninsula, essentially a panhandle of the district, also face a disadvantage. And even the voters in the Orange County portion of the district are at a disadvantage relative to the position they would be in if their district included only Orange County territory; by sharing part of what should be an Orange County district with people in a non-compact area, they are losing the focus of the Congressman, campaigns and media that would be enhanced in a compact district. When Congressman Rohrabacher holds a town hall meeting, it behooves him to concentrate on Orange County. Holding a town meeting in downtown Long Beach, even if one could be held in the block or two along the ocean that is in the spaghetti strip and part of the 46th, would likely be unsuccessful. The Long Beach media would not do much to publicize it, and the small population of the spaghetti strip would mean that there is no great pool of voters from which attendance at the meeting can be drawn. Even holding such an event in the eastern part of Long Beach

126

where the district is more than two blocks wide would not do much to engage the citizens of the spaghetti strip. The district is not much better descriptively than the Massachusetts 4th; it can be weakly described as a district ―on the harbor,‖ which might be true but doesn‘t convey the essence of the represented territory as neatly as the appellation ―Northeastern Minnesota‖ does for that state‘s 8th congressional district. In essence, the incumbent and contenders are forced to consciously choose to spend time in a particular area of the district. In a district that is both compact and small, this is not a choice that has to be made; merely being anywhere in the district is proximate to all other points in the district. A congressman representing, for instance, Milwaukee and a few suburbs need not consciously spend time in each neighborhood of the district; it will suffice for most to know that the congressman is present in the city. The same is not true for a member from a panhandled district like California 46. In essence, the extreme deviation from a compactness standard forces the politician to make a conscious choice to spend a certain amount of time in or effort on a particular part of the district. This is similar to the choices that have always confronted those who represent rural districts, who have to make constant decisions about how much in resources to allocate to particular communities within their districts. In this sense, then, redistricting with non-compactness complicates the lives of the politicians who serve them (or run to) relative to the effort that would be necessary were the districts more compact.

Obviously, adding a few more square miles of Orange County to

California 46 would eliminate the expense of resources involved in representational tasks for covering the elongated and unwieldy district in its present form.

127

In a world heavily dependent on information, when district boundaries impose restrictions on voter abilities to learn about politicians and on politicians‘ abilities to communicate with voters, democracy suffers. Voters are hampered in learning about politicians, and, it is assumed, politicians in learning about them. In a polity or media construction that consists of two large portions from two districts and a small section from a third district, the district contributing a small portion is apt to be marginalized. If the polity in question is a school district, government teachers are apt to invite representatives from the two main districts to speak at the school and participate in forums. The school district is likely to keep in close contact with those representatives and keep an eye on what legislative activities occupy them. The legislators from the third district are apt to recoil in horror at their exclusion from the activities of this school district, much as they strive to keep up with its activities and policies. These legislators are apt to be caught off-guard while campaigning or doing constituent service in the relatively small portion of their district that overlaps with this school territory. Geography is working against them. People who make decisions and are aware of the overlapping geography are likely to place a premium on inclusion of the politicians with the large overlap and minimize those who have only a small overlap; they might even assume they‘re bothering those legislators by attempting to make them aware of the activities of their polity. Politicians, of course, blanch at the notion of being excluded from anything. The example of the school district overlapping with several legislative districts resonates with real-world examples of media markets and congressional districts, including those mentioned above. Many congressional districts overlap neatly with

128

media markets, and for politicians who serve these districts (or have ambitions to), dealing with the media may be smooth sailing; they are apt to find that media in their districts are eager to hear from them and even seek them out. For politicians who have to deal with getting coverage in many media markets where the overlap with the territory is very small, dealing with the media can be nothing but an exercise in frustration. Politicians might tire of sending out press releases that go unreleased, and their press secretaries no doubt tire of making cold calls to newsrooms where the feeling is that this congressman has too few constituents in the newspaper‘s coverage area to warrant the amount of coverage the congressman feels he deserves. Since news coverage is an important aspect of voter information, these decisions that politicians and editors make are critical in the process of voters obtaining information. These media market-district overlaps are also crucial in congressional campaigns. A campaign can be made much more expensive when a party or candidate has to buy advertising time in a peripheral media market in order to reach a particular district. On the state level, this has many ramifications across the U.S. New Jersey, for example, is situated in two of the five largest media markets, New York and Philadelphia. It is extremely expensive and very inefficient for New Jersey parties and candidates to pay to advertise on the radio and television stations of these cities. It is inefficient because the New York Source for TV market maps: Dishuser.org from U.S. Census Bureau base maps

media market includes many more people in New York and Connecticut and even a few in Pennsylvania that the advertiser has to pay for when using the station (advertising rates take into

129

account the entire audience, not merely the ones the advertiser wants to reach); the Philadelphia market is mostly in Pennsylvania and also includes viewers in Delaware and Maryland. By contrast, when advertising in the media markets in California, advertisers pay for only viewers in California due to the remoteness of California from other states. Campaigns seeking to reach New Hampshire – not only a pivotal state in general elections but the location of the first and most prominent presidential primary – must pay for the expensive Boston media market. In his first bid for the U.S. Senate from West Virginia in 1982, Jay Rockefeller spent a considerable sum of money on the costly Washington media market, which he needed to reach only two small counties in the West Virginia eastern panhandle. Examples abound. Chicago and Cincinnati are needed to reach all of Indiana; reaching sparsely populated western Wisconsin requires paying for Minneapolis-St. Paul. Indeed, the only states that are coverable from a single media market that includes no significant population in adjoining states are Utah and Hawaii. Stewart and Reynolds point out that the television news boss in Bangor, Maine faces no decisions to make about which senate race to cover (the market is entirely within Maine), but the counterpart in Paducah, Kentucky has to consider multiple

130

senate races in the local coverage area, which includes parts of not only that state but also Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, and Tennessee. (Stewart and Reynolds 1990, 500). As a result, Maine voters hear only about their own state, whereas a Kentucky voter in the Paducah market hears about several states and doesn‘t get as much about the home state fed directly. (Ibid.) Stewart & Reynolds conclude that incumbents benefit from a fragmentary structure of television markets, because challengers are more dependent on television advertising and less likely to start with name recognition. Incumbents also get more free coverage by television (i.e., news coverage) than challengers (Stewart and Reynolds 1990, 512). At the congressional district level, relatively few districts are contained within a single media market or can be reached without incurring the expense of vast unrelated consumers. Some overlap a string of media markets that mostly expand into adjoining states. One object case is the 17th district of Illinois, stretching from the Davenport-Rock Island-Moline media market (which includes a fair chunk of Iowa) on the north end, through the Quincy-Hannibal media market (which is about half in Missouri), to the periphery of the St. Louis media market (a major market, the overwhelming majority of whose population is outside the district), then reaching through the Springfield area with a narrow tentacle and ending in part of Decatur. Even with the relatively inexpensive medium of radio, this district is a chore to cover. Not only are campaigns paying for listeners they don‘t want to reach, those listeners are fatigued by hearing constant advertising for campaigns they don‘t vote in. It complicates the matter of learning about one‘s own congressman and district when one hears so much unrelated and confusing input.

131

Data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) for 2008 can illuminate the impact of compactness on voter knowledge. CCES (hereafter CCES 2008) is a large-n Internet survey which includes close to 34,000 voters in its common content (Ansolabehere 2009). The survey asks several general knowledge questions of voters pertaining to the race, partisanship, and identity of their representatives. The theses articulated here are (1) compactness will impact voter knowledge at the congressional district level; (2) compactness will make little or no difference on voter knowledge at the statewide level; (3) extremes in redistricting disproportionately affect Democrats. The first two theses require little explanation. If the compactness thesis is correct, voters in non-compact districts are disadvantaged in learning about their representatives and districts more than those in compact districts, but the ability to learn about senators, governors, and the composition of Congress as a whole and of state legislatures is largely unaffected. The third thesis closely relates to the earlier chapters in this dissertation which elaborated on extremes of redistricting primarily being used for purposes of racial gerrymandering, which most heavily impact black voters, who are disproportionately a Democratic electorate, and also disadvantage white Democratic voters in the states that pack black Democratic votes; and that partisan gerrymandering, in the 21st century, has been most acerbic in Texas, where the Republican state government has successfully packed Democrats, employing in the process some of the least compact districts ever devised. The bipartisan gerrymander in California in 2002, for the perverse reason that because it created twice as many safe Democratic districts as safe Republican districts, and used extremes in non-compactness to accomplish this end, did ipso facto affect Democrats more than Republicans. The impact of these two gerrymanders, just by

132

themselves, is quite significant; California and Texas, the two largest states, have between them almost 20 percent of all congressional districts, and more than 20 percent if the states having only one or two districts are excluded. Thus, in the main, non-compact districts affect Democrats more than Republicans. McDonald points out, ―bias and responsiveness in national congressional elections can be accomplished by controlling the redistricting process in key states with large, heterogeneous populations‖ (McDonald 2006, 3-4). CCES 2008 asked respondents to give the race of their House member (CCES 2008, question 319). Overall, 82.5 percent gave the correct answer. However, this was not uniform across the country. Those who got the question correct were more likely to live in a compact district. The average Hill ratio of the district of respondents who answered correctly is 2.04; for those who answered incorrectly, it is 2.15. This difference is statistically significant at the p