PS 3 Reader Notes

PS 3 Reader Notes - Political Science 3 Spring 2010...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Political Science 3 Spring 2010 Reader “Field Study: Just How Relevant is Political Science?” By Patricia Cohen October 20, 2009: Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, proposed prohibiting the National Science Foundation from “wasting any federal research funding on poli sci projects” this month Jeffrey C. Isaac (Indiana Univ): “We poli scientists can and should do a better job of making the public relevance of our work clearer and of doing more relevant work” “Mr. Prestroika” roused colleagues to protest the American Political Science Association and its flagship journal, the American Political Science Review, arguing that the two were marginalizing scholars who focused on traditional research based on history, culture, and archives Joseph Ny (Harvard): “There are parts of the academy which, in the effort to be scientific, feel we should stay away from policy – it interferes with the science.” Peter Katzenstein (Cornell): “Graduate students often speak in terms of “an interesting puzzle,” a small intellectual conondrum that tests the ingenuity of the solver, rather than the large, slppy and unmanageable problems that occur in real life.” Rogers Smith (Upenn): “The question should determine the method. ..but they can't tell how political phenomena should be understood and interpreted – whether a protest, for instance, is the result of a genuine social movement or an interest group, whether it is religious or secular.” Senator Coburn attacked the American National Election Studies financed by the Nat'l Science Foundation: “The $91.3 million that the foundation spent on social science projects over the last 10 years should have gone to biology, chemistry, or pharmaceutical science.” Arthur Lupia (U of Michigan): “I try to identify problems and then identify solutions o them, to find the type of scientific method that can answer the question.” “Postponing the California Recall to Protect Voting Rights” By Hendry E. Brady (Berkeley) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals postponed the California Gubernatorial Recall Election on September 15, 2003 The three-judge panel leaned upon the 2000 Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore to justify postponing the October 7 th election until better voting systems could be installed in six CA counties The panel's decision responed to a lawsuit filed on August 7, 2003 by the American Civil Liberties Union. The lawsuit argued that Votomatic style prescored punch cards (PPC) perform much worse than any other voting system, thus violating the equal protection clause of the 14 th Amendment (votes in counties using this system were less likely to be counted) Although some residual votes (perhaps 0.75% in a pres election) are intentional, the essence of the case was that the remaining residual votes are machine errors that could be avoided with better systems such as optical scanning (scantron), Direct Record Electronic systems (teller
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 06/27/2011 for the course POLI SCI 3 taught by Professor Stoker during the Spring '10 term at Berkeley.

Page1 / 7

PS 3 Reader Notes - Political Science 3 Spring 2010...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online