Abstract: Proto-straw polls appeared in the presidential election of 1824. These precursors to modern election polls originated out of a combination of short-term political changes associated with the end of the first American party system in general and the demise of the congressional caucus system of nomination in particular and long-term developments associated with growing democratization, centralization, and quantification. When looking for the origin of election polls, many people turn to 1936 when Gallup, Roper, and Crossley conducted polls on the RooseveltLandon race. Others cite the presidential straw polls of the Literary Digest starting in 1916 or similar newspaper straw polls going back to the mid nineteenth century (Robinson, 1932; Jensen, 1969, 1980). But George Gallup himself stated that "the earliest counterpart of modern opinion surveys" occurred in 1824 (Gallup and Rae, 1940:34-35). Based on evidence supplied by Emil Hurja,l Gallup cited preelection tallies in North Carolina and Delaware as the first polls.2 To determine whether these were the first election polls and, if so, how they evolved, we examine the political situation in the United States leading up to the 1824 presidential election, how political developments in general and the demise of the congressional caucus method of nominating presidential candidates in particular led to the emerTOM W. SMITH is Director of the General Social Survey at the National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago. This paper was presented to the Social Science History Association meeting in Chicago, November 1988. 1. Hurja was a political analyst, author, and magazine editor. From 1932 to 1937 he was executive director of the Democratic National Committee. 2. Later Gallup (1972:240) characterized these as "straw polls/votes" and inferred that at least the one in North Carolina had been conducted by a newspaper. Apparently all based on Gallup's report, 1824 has been cited as the starting date of polls by many other authors (Lydgate, 1944; Parten, 1950, Albig, 1956; Fenton, 1960; Tankard, 1972; Webb and Wybrow, 1974; Marsh, 1979, 1982; Martin, 1984; Hennessey, 1985; Converse, 1987; Gollin, 1987; Bradbum and Sudman, 1988). Most misdescribe the 1824 straw polls as being conducted by newspapers. Public Opinion Quarterly Volume 54:21-36 ? 1990 by the American Association for Public Opinion Research Published by The University of Chicago Press / 0033-362X/90/0054-01/$2.50 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.17 on Fri, 02 Sep 2016 05:49:03 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Abstract: In this paper, we formalize existing normative criteria used to judge presidential selection contests by modeling the translation of citizen votes in primaries and caucuses into delegates to the national party conventions. We use a statistical model that enables us to separate the form of electoral responsiveness in presidential selection systems, as well as the degree of bias toward each of the candidates. We find that (1) the Republican nomination system is more responsive to changes in citizen votes than the Democratic system; (2) non-PR primaries are always more responsive than PR primaries; (3) surprisingly, caucuses are more proportional than even primaries held under PR rules; (4) significant bias in favor of a candidate was a good prediction of the winner of the nomination contest. We also (5) evaluate the claims of Ronald Reagan in 1976 and Jesse Jackson in 1988 that the selection systems were substantially biased against their candidates. We find no evidence to support Reagan's claim, but substa...

Abstract: the emphasis candidates place upon individual state contests (Rice and Kenny 1985; Norrander and Smith 1985; Rice 1982). Indirectly, the identities of the nominees are influenced by these institutional factors (Mayer 1987). The purpose of this research is to provide a partial test of Aldrich’s assumption &dquo;that the institution of party nominations the rules, laws, procedures, and norms that describe how presidential hopefuls become party nominees plays a major role in structuring the politics of nominations and, consequently, in the behavior of candidates and the outcome of their campaigns&dquo; (1980; 2). Candidates expend campaign resources in large part to win delegates. The relationship between resources allocated and delegates won may be conditioned by the rules under which the delegates are chosen and the methods by which the delegates are allocated among candidates. Delegate selection and allocation rules can dramatically alter the number of dele-

Abstract: mined. Consistent with earlier research, party elites saw themselves as ideologically similar to the candidates they preferred and dissimilar to candidates they did not prefer for the presidential nomination. However, respondents tended to assimilate the positions of candidates they liked more than they contrasted the ideological positions they disliked. Perceived electability had a strong influence on perceived ideological similarity, with similarity greatest when the preferred candidate was seen as a possible winner. An exception was found among supporters of Jesse Jackson.

Abstract: At a time when people say money is dominating politics and hence parties, this paper shows that a strong party organization dominates money. This research investigates the relative power of money and party strength in the race for gubernatorial nomination. The hypothesis predicts that the importance of money varies with party effort. To test this a comparison is made between party effort and money in states where the primary determines the outcome of the nominating process and in states where the parties make gubernatorial endorsements. Multiple regression analysis is used to estimate the relative influence of measures of money and effort on the primary or convention outcomes. The results indicate that more money is spent and that money is highly related to the outcomes of primary contests where the party does not endorse. Less money is spent, and money is not a major explanation for the success of candidates in endorsing conventions and the primaries that follow.

Abstract: EARLY in the spring of 1925, the groups that constituted Germany's traditional or \"black-white-red\" Right nominated Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg as their candidate to be President of the Weimar Republic. The nomination of Hindenburg came at the time as a surprise. Yet, while the effect of the 78-year-old monarchist Field Marshal's election on the viability of the Republic has been the subject of a venerable historical debate, the significance of the maneuvering behind his nomination has received much less attention. The fact is that most right-wing leaders were not at all as

Abstract: The limits on presidential power the imperilling of the presidency a presidential candidate for the 1980s changing in terms of the debate tax reform and the Bork nomination failure and achievement in foreign policy presidential leadership the Reagan legacy.

Abstract: This article employs content analysis to study topics and themes of televangelist Pat Robertson's televised “700 Club” in the last months of 1988 and early 1989, after Robertson lost the race for the Republican presidential nomination and a Bush administration took office. The study found that in the 30 episodes analyzed, social, political, and religious topics each accounted for about one-third of topics mentioned. The tone of political discussions was often disapproving. Areas of the world emphasized were North and South America and the Middle East. The study speculates that the religious right is keeping its hand in the national agenda-building process.

Abstract: Both of these books grew out of a singularly fascinating and important legal and political event, the Senate's rejection of Judge Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987. Taken together they shed considerable light on two important issues of constitutional governance: how the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution; and the proper role of the Senate in fulfilling its constitutional responsibility to advise and consent to Supreme Court nominations. Far more than the speeches and other superficial events which trivialized our constitutional bicentennial, the Bork nomination controversy forced the nation to consider how, in one very important matter, the Constitution actually worked and whether there was cause for alarm or need for reform. Judge Bork, of course, views these events as evidence of two major flaws in the system: the continued heresy of the left-liberal tradition of "political judging" which has "seduced" the law, indeed torn it from its very roots and thus threatened its legitimacy; and a confirmation process that itself has become excessively political and which, at least in his case, pandered shamelessly to public opinion. He sees himself as a martyr to defense of the Supreme Court from neo-Marxist marauders, the victim of a conspiracy of the "intellectual and knowledge class" to maintain its domination of the Court (to say nothing of the law schools, our legal culture, and the law itself). The "political passions of three decades [had converged] on a single empty chair" (at 341). "I was," he writes, "a symbol they needed to destroy" (at 345). For him the war between the classes continues and he, now having resigned his federal judgeship and thus no longer encumbered by the judicial robe, proposes to wage it intensely. This book, an advocate's brief, is presumably just the first salvo. Bork is

Abstract: For Ethan Bronner, the nomination and rejection of Judge Robert Bork as a Justice of the Supreme Court is the story of the Reagan era's climactic political moment: the vast majority of the American people rose up to defend the Modern Court' and its protection of the individual and the politically weak from President Reagan's challenge of majority rule under the New Right's morality.2 In Battle for Justice, Bronner concludes,

Abstract: I HAVE LONG HELD the utmost respect for Barry Mackintosh's views and opinions, and in his reasoned response to my article, he makes a number of good points. His comments demonstrate that there is room for disagreement as there always will be whenever subjective decisions are made regarding the designation of a National Historic Landmark. I am particularly pleased, however, to see that Mackintosh has modified an earlier view that the Chambers farm is the best property to recognize the Hiss/ Chambers controversy' and now claims that it "was at least as important as any other locale." I can heartily agree with this modified stance. Rather than quibble over each and every point raised by Mackintosh, I would like to address a number of generic National Historic Landmark (NHL) program issues he raises which warrant additional discussion. First, the issue of theme/special studies and who should prepare them. In the case of the Chambers Farm, it is clearly evident that Interior Secretary Hodel refused to consider designating a National Historic Landmark recognizing the historic significance of Alger Hiss.2 But I wonder what would have happened if, instead of advancing the Chambers Farm nomination, Mackintosh had recommended Hiss's Volta Place home (a site which retains considerable integrity of fabric and is associated with both principal figures) be designated instead? I doubt the nomination would have seen the light of day. This raises the issue of who should prepare landmark studies, National Park Service historians whose findings are subject to review and possibly influence by politicos within the Department of Interior before they are "finalized," or independent scholars doing theme and special studies under contract? I believe that in many instances, the Chambers Farm being one, the cause of history would be best served if the task of preparing comparative theme and special studies were contracted out to subject matter specialists.

Abstract: Considering the eleven major events of the last five centuries of Church history in Latin America, it can be concluded that the policy of the Vatican during the three centuries of Portuguese-Spanish domination granted the Iberian states all the effective power of the Church and accepted that all the actions of these states were thereby justified Having taken up directly with the newly emancipated states in the 19th century, politicians in the Vatican considered the United States to be the guarantor of its policy on the Latin American continent (see the cases of Cuban, Puerto Rican and “Cristeros” political emancipation and the present-day situation in Central America) For the Vatican and its policy, the interests of the Latin American peoples are not as important as the nomination of the hierarchy that echoes in Rome the interests of the Curia In other words, to take the example of a Cardinal's nomination, the idea behind it is more that of a forthcoming Consistory for the election of a conservative po

Abstract: Following the 1968 Democratic National Convention, both major parties "opened up" their presidential nomination process, and primaries became the principal way of selecting delegates to state and national conventions. Critics argued that this new openness would encourage the infusion of ideologues into the selection process, the very kind of delegates who would place principle above pragmatism, write party platforms detrimental to building a majority coalition, and seek the nomination of "pure" candidates with no chance of electoral success.' If the supporters of any presidential candidate in recent years could be cast as this new type of party activist, they likely would be those Republicans committed to Pat Robertson. Robertson supporters were generally portrayed as (1) newly mobilized, (2) ideologically driven, and (3) more committed to the candidate than to the party. While not all newly mobilized party activists remain in party politics following an election, some do, despite the fact that their candidates may no longer be on the scene and their issue(s) may have lost salience.2 Because of continued activism among those mobilized during previous campaigns, newcomers never completely take over the presidential party. At the same time, with new arrivals, the party "never goes back to being what it was before a particular campaign either."3 Consequently, the Robertson campaign,

Abstract: On 13 November 1598, exactly two months into his reign, Philip III received a letter from four councillors of Inquisition which complained that the Inquisitor General, Pedro Portocarrero, had inveigled him into approving the nomination of a man of notoriously impure blood, Luis de Mercado, for one of the two councillorships of Inquisition served by councillors of Castile. He immediately distanced himself from his Inquisitor General, suspending the appointment while investigations were made into the allegation; Portocarrero's career was clearly now as much at risk as Mercado's.2 The case which thereby began coursed its way for nearly three years through many of the most sensitive areas of national and inquisitorial politics and sheds light not only on these but also on areas which normally lie of their nature hidden beyond the historical record—in particular, it is suggestive of the way in which family and political vendettas could be pursued over several generations and of the way in which the Inquisition...

Abstract: Recently I went back into my files to reminisce over the exciting and challenging years that have passed so quickly since Iris Carl, the chair of the Election Committee, invited me to accept the honor of a nomination for president-elect. There I found and read the position statement that I had written as a candidate in 1986 and decided that it was a most appropriate opening for these remarks. The following statement is what I wrote then:

Abstract: The “Jewish Seat” on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, which had been occupied by Justices Brandeis, Cardozo and Frankfurter, was after the tatter's retirement in 1962 offered to Arthur Joseph Goldberg. He was not the only Jewish candidate whom President Kennedy considered for nomination: the other was Paul Freund, Frankfurter's successor on the faculty of Harvard Law School and his intimate friend. Opinions were divided whether Freund's candidature was eliminated because of Goldberg's superior merit, or because the President nourished a grudge against him for having twice refused appointment as solicitor-general, or perhaps because there were already two many Harvard men in high office — a fact which had aroused criticism in some quarters. Goldberg had, for about one year, been Secretary of Labor in Kennedy's cabinet: though his actual successes in ameliorating strike-ridden labor relations were (to say the least) doubtful, the President and his aides at any rate had ample opportunity to acquaint themselves with his personal and professional qualities; and if an assumption of mutuality is in order, Goldberg on his part admired and revered the President well nigh unreservedly. Goldberg's reputation also outside the White House must have been well established: he was the only Jewish candidate for the Supreme Court whose nomination was unopposed and approved after a perfunctory hearing. The opposition to previous Jewish nominations, even to that of Cardozo who was otherwise uncontested, had always had antisemitic undertones which were absent (or suppressed) in Goldberg's case. It was suggested that had Kennedy survived there might have been yet another Jewish appointment to the Supreme Court: not so much because being himself the first Catholic to be elected President, he was particularly sensitive to religious discrimination, as because of his celebrated meritocracy, determined to recruit the best man available for every office.

Abstract: JOHN G. BURKE (1917-1989) ROBERT P. MULTHAUF John Burke, who explained to me a few years ago his disinclination to accept nomination as president of SHOT on the grounds that he “would be seventy by then,” died on February 21, 1989, at the age of seventy-one after a battle with lung cancer. Burke is best known as the author, in 1986, of Cosmic Debris: Meteorites in History (Berkeley: University of California Press), of which a reviewer in Isis observed, “the word ‘definitive’ comes to mind.” He was a member of the history faculty at UCLA from 1962 until his retirement in 1981, during which time he published Origins of the Science ofCrystals (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966), and, with John Greene, The Science of Minerals in the Age of Jefferson (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1978). Why would an obvious practitioner of the history of science be offered a nomination to the presidency of SHOT? Because he was a man of several careers, of which the history of technology was not the least. His article, “Bursting Boilers and the Federal Power,” in Technology and Culture 7 (1966) won the Usher Prize (1967) and was repeatedly republished and translated. His instinct for the unusual and the important was further exemplified in “Wood Pulp, Water Pollution, and Advertising,” also published in this journal (vol. 20, 1979). His modesty is suggested by his failure to refer in his curriculum vitae to other works, beyond numbering them as “about 35.” Burke was born in Boston on August 12, 1917. After education at the legendary Boston Latin School and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, from which he received the degree of B.S. in “physical metallurgy” in 1938, he was employed by the Bethlehem Steel Company as a field engineer at Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and Hous­ ton until 1941, when he briefly became chief of the Heat Treatment Division at the Watertown Arsenal. By 1943 he was a pilot of B-17 aircraft in the 390th Bomber Group of the Eighth Air Force, a career Dr. Multhauf is retired from the Smithsonian Institution and living in San Rafael, California. 921 922 Robert P. Multhauf John G. Burke that ended on his thirteenth mission, when his plane was shot down over the Netherlands. From the spring of 1944, Burke “enjoyed” a fifteen-month stay at the Stalag Luft prisoner-of-war camp, during which he managed to obtain a radio and, with a fellow prisoner, Lowell Bennett, to establish a clandestine newspaper called Pow Wow. Being in charge of “foreign news,” John was in a position, when the camp guards disappeared at the end of the war, to lead an exodus to Paris in a borrowed jeep, living by selling “liberated” German guns until he was himself liberated (he was subsequently awarded the Air Medal and Oak Leaf Cluster). Burke returned to employment with Bethlehem Steel and then with Cummins Diesel Engines, in Pittsburgh, until 1949, when he moved to Tulsa and acquired, with an associate, his own firm, Dry Ice Container Corporation, manufacturer of pressurized storage vessels for carbon dioxide. During the next decade he married Peggy Porter, established a family, and prospered sufficiently to enable him to realize an ambition to return to school. With remarkable speed Burke was awarded, by Stanford University, the degrees of M.A. (1960, with a dissertation on “Joseph Black’s Concept of Heat”) and Ph.D. (1962, with a dissertation on “The Establishment and Early Development of the Science of Crystallogra- John G. Burke (1917-1989) 923 phy”). For the next nineteen years he was a member of the history faculty at UCLA, during which time he also served as dean of the College of Letters and Science at that university, treasurer of the History of Science Society, and a member of the SHOT Executive Council. Burke offered courses in the history of technology as early as 1963, when this journal was in its fourth volume and when it was still possible to doubt that there was any such being as a professional historian of technology. He was still offering such courses at the University of Washington after he had retired from UCLA and was living near...

Abstract: Abstract It was a tense moment when Marshal Costa e Silva received the presidential sash on March 15, 1967. Castelo Branco and his allies had stubbornly fought Costa e Silva’ s nomination. Having lost that battle, they pushed through a welter of new laws and a new constitution, ostensibly to consoli date the Revolution, but also to box in the new government.

Abstract: Résumé Résumé : L'attribution des prénoms aux enfants dans les familles franco-maghrébines est considérée dans cette recherche comme un indicateur du rapport de force entre deux lignées familiales visant à reproduire à travers une même descendance deux identités nationales, culturelles et religieuses. Les résultats de l'étude montrent que les chances de voir triompher l'une ou l'autre lignée dans la lutte pour la nomination dépendent du rapport de domination entre les époux, ce rapport pouvant se prédire d'après leurs positions respectives dans la hiérarchie des sexes et des cultures.