Abstract: In a modern democracy, all citizens theoretically are guaranteed an equal opportunity at political representation. This paper shows that democratic theory does not always hold in practice in the United States. Discourse analysis is applied to the language used in the 1990 hearings conducted by the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the nomination of Judge David H. Souter to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Results show that while women are noticeably present as witnesses in hearings, they are not treated on an equal footing with men. Women's access to the political debate is limited, because they are given proportionally less time to speak than male witnesses. Further, empirical measures indicate that the effectiveness of women's testimony is undermined by senators' responses. Although women utilize what is defined as masculine language to compete within a male-dominated institution, gendered expectations can prevent them from being treated as authoritative witnesses.

Abstract: Previous literature has argued that MPs selected by party elites in a central and exclusive way are more disciplined than those belonging to parties with more inclusive and participative mechanisms of candidate selection. This hypothesis has been usually tested measuring the existence of voting blocs in parliamentary groups (taking for granted that voting blocs are the result of party discipline) and party rules on candidate selection (ignoring how selection process takes place). By using data from a survey of a representative sample of Spanish members of parliaments, we study the impact of candidate selection on how cohesion in parliamentary groups is built. Results show that where nomination for the electoral list rests on party elites, decisions are imposed through discipline. By contrast, parliamentary group cohesion is achieved through deliberative processes of decision-making in more decentralised and inclusive groups.

Abstract: Are the effects of candidate selection through party primaries largely disruptive for political parties or do they have some redeeming features? Icelandic parties have used inclusive nomination pro

Abstract: (ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)An uncertain future for "One Country Two Systems"Before police in riot gear fired rounds of tear gas at unarmed protesters on September 28, few could have expected that the siege of the government headquarters would turn the scripted Occupy Central (zhanling zhonghuan...) into Hong Kong's biggest and most unprecedented pro-democracy movement amidst its electoral reforms.(1) In the next twoand-a-half months, protesters of what became the Umbrella Movement (yusan yundong????)(2)would occupy major roads in the city's busiest districts, set up tents, stock up supplies, and protect their territories with makeshift barricades, sometimes with human chains, to stop police incursion and opposing groups. Across the encampments, they would press on for a focused goal - "genuine universal suffrage" (zhen puxuan???) for election of their Chief Executive, the city's top leader - until police officers cleared the last occupied site on December 15. This article assesses the implications of the Umbrella Movement as it drew to a close. It explains how the movement morphed from the Occupy Central movement, and reviews the controversy raised over the city's rule of law and constitutional relations with mainland China. Despite having amplified democracy supporters' yearnings for universal suffrage, the movement, in which no compromise was offered by Beijing and the Hong Kong government, will likely deepen social cleavages and send the city toward an uncertain future.From Occupy Central to the Umbrella MovementThe Umbrella Movement was set against a protracted debate over the electoral reform of the city's Chief Executive election. According to the National People's Congress ruling in 2007, Hong Kong may finally introduce universal suffrage for the election of the fifth Chief Executive in 2017 - after it was twice denied by Beijing for its 2007 and 2012 elections.(3) If universal suffrage is implemented in 2017, Chief Executive candidates would be elected by a popular vote instead of being selected by an election committee - but they must be selected by a nominating committee to ensure that the elected leader would not oppose the central government and that he/she would "love the country and love Hong Kong" (aiguo aigang ????), a requirement set out by numerous Chinese officials. In addition, Hong Kong's Basic Law requires this nominating committee to be "broadly representative" and to operate "in accordance with democratic procedures," but it does not clearly outline the composition of the committee or the nomination procedure.(4)The nomination process soon became the focal point of contention. Across the pro-democracy camp, there were widespread concerns that the nomination process will act as a safety valve to screen out candidates regarded unfavourably by Beijing. Fearing that the election might turn out to be "fake universal suffrage" (jia puxuan???), democracy supporters argued that they have not only the right to be elected but also the right to be nominated, and thus they deserve a more democratic and inclusive nomination process. (5) Many insisted on the introduction of civic nomination (gongmin timing ????), a mechanism that would allow the public to bypass the nominating committee and directly nominate Chief Executive candidates, but which has been rejected by the government as a contravention of the Basic Law. (6) Some would accept a more democraticallyformed nominating committee, as long as there was reform on its composition and/or a reasonably lower nomination threshold.The idea of Occupy Central was floated amidst the debate. In early 2013, law professor Benny TaiYiu-ting sketched the early vision of Occupy Central in a series of newspaper articles and interviews.(7)Tai proposed a large-scale civil disobedience (gongmin kangming????) movement in which participants would block traffic to petition for universal suffrage in the CE election that would comply with "international standards. …

Abstract: Institution of Nomination and the Policy Ideology of Primary Electorates ∗ Seth J. Hill † September 29, 2015 Abstract Many hypothesize that the divergence between Democratic and Republican members of Congress is partly attributable to partisan primary elections. Yet most empirical evidence on the influ- ence of primary elections finds small to no effect on member behavior. I argue that existing designs that compare members elected out of nomination systems with more open rules of ac- cess to members elected out of more closed systems rest on the crucial and untested assumption that more closed institutions lead to more polarized primary electorates. With survey opinions, turnout validated to voter files, and an IRT model of ideology, I characterize the preferences of Democratic and Republican primary electorates and general electorates in each House district in 2010 and 2012. To the extent that there is a relationship between primary ideology and closed primary institution, it is in the direction opposite that hypothesized. I then show that the primary electorate diverges from the general electorate in every House district and even from supporters of the party in the general election in almost every district, which is consistent with a centrifugal influence of primary voters. These results suggest that institution of nomination may not have a large influence on the type of voters who turn out, and that some other feature of nominating contests must be implicated in polarized primary voters. ∗ I have benefited from comments by seminar participants at Princeton, Stanford, UCLA, and Washington Uni- versity, Andy Hall, Greg Huber, Gary Jacobson, Thad Kousser, Jeff Lewis, Sam Popkin, Chris Tausanovitch, Lynn Vavreck, the editors, and anonymous reviewers. † Department of Political Science, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive #0521, La Jolla, CA 92093-0521; sjhill@ucsd.edu, http://www.sethjhill.com.

Abstract: In this research note we test the argument that centralised and exclusive nomination methods result in more diverse lists of candidates than do those organised with a more inclusive, decentralised selectorate. We do so using a database of candidate information compiled for the 2010 and 2013 Australian federal elections and an analysis of the House of Representatives selection rules for every state and territory branch of the Labor and Liberal parties. The Australian parties provide an excellent opportunity to examine this proposition as there is significant diversity in the types of selection methods used, both within and between the major parties. Our findings reveal significant differences between the two parties, even when similar methods of selection are used. We show that methods of preselection where authority is shared between local members and the central party are more likely to select female candidates, but only when this is supported by a willing party culture.

Abstract: During a January 9, 2009, press conference (1) announcing members of his national security team, President-elect Barack Obama responded to this question from Hans Nichols of Bloomberg News: "Will you be appointing big donors in the time-honored tradition to foreign embassies to serve as ambassadorships? Or will you draw solely from the ranks of career foreign service?" He responded as follows: "Are there going to be political appointees to ambassadorships? There probably will be some. ... I think it would be ... disingenuous for me to suggest that there are not going to be some excellent public servants but who haven't come through ... the ranks of the civil service." While he did not provide a definitive yes or no regarding the prospect of appointing big donors, the president-elect gave strong hints that he would do so, following the well-trod path of other chief executives before him. Indeed, in the ensuing months, when making his nominations to the United Kingdom, France, Japan, and Denmark, he would nominate individuals who had either bundled or donated at least $100,000 to his campaign or inauguration. (2) Additionally, he would nominate former six-term Democratic congressman Timothy Roemer to be his ambassador to India and David Huebner--general counsel for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation--to be his ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa; while neither had contributed significant amounts to President Obama's campaign, they both provided political assistance in other ways. Representative Roemer--who was also a member of the 9/11 Commission---endorsed then candidate Obama during the Democratic primary and was a strong advocate of his foreign policy; the nomination of the openly gay Huebner was perceived as a gesture to shore up support within the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. (3) Worrying to many in the media was that none of aforementioned had prior diplomatic experience; indeed, while relatively rare, scandals caused by ambassadors without prior diplomatic experience had been detrimental to American interests in the past. For example, during his tenure as President Richard Nixon's ambassador to Jamaica, Vincent de Roulet--who had no previous diplomatic experience, but donated $75,000 to President Nixon's reelection campaign--publicly referred to Jamaican locals as idiots and children, closed off the American embassy's restrooms to Jamaican visa applicants, offered to improperly support one candidate in a national election in return for a promise to refrain from nationalizing the U.S.-owned bauxite industry, and was eventually declared persona non grata by the Jamaican government and expelled from the country; this move was followed by the tripling of Jamaican taxes and royalties on purchases made by American companies. (4) Overall, critics at home and abroad lambasted President Obama's decisions as nothing but the perpetuation of the politics of patronage, to the possible detriment of American interests abroad. (5) Indeed, over the course of his first term, approximately one-quarter of all his nominees for ambassadorships and other chiefs of mission to foreign states would begin their tenure without previous Foreign Service experience; four of them--his ambassadors to Malta, Luxembourg, Kenya, and the Bahamas--resigned after the State Department's Office of the Inspector General issued reports alleging neglect and the fostering of dysfunction and low staff morale. (6) However, as Figure (1) illustrates, the proportion of nonprofessional ambassadorial appointments is roughly in line with prior presidents, if not reflective of a larger trend toward a greater emphasis on formal Foreign Service experience. (7) Nonetheless, despite their prevalence, nonprofessional ambassadors are not uniformly distributed, as certain countries are more attractive postings than others. Figure 2 displays several regional patterns; nonprofessional appointments are common in Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, China, India, Japan, Canada, and the Caribbean. …

Abstract: Some state political party organizations that hold nominating conventions implement affirmative action (AA) policies to encourage the nomination of women and minority candidates. This paper assesses whether these policies help or hinder female candidates seeking statewide office. On the one hand, these policies could benefit female candidates since they demonstrate an organization's commitment to diversity. On the other hand, diversity and AA policies may have negative, unintended consequences for female candidates such as promoting gender stereotype activation or creating a stigma of incompetence for female candidates. I examine whether and how delegates’ awareness of these policies shapes candidate evaluations, gender stereotypes, and nominee choice. I test this by analyzing unique survey data from Democratic state nominating convention delegates who evaluate candidates in statewide nominations in four states. The results suggest that while evaluations of the female candidate are not downgraded, focus o...

Abstract: This study examines the theoretical and practical justifications of local community participation as a stakeholder group in the nomination of a World Heritage Site in Jatiluwih Village, Bali, Indonesia. The study adds to current knowledge by contributing an in-depth understanding of local community participation in the nomination process of a World Heritage Sites. The background for this study is based on the increasingly important involvement of the community in the process of the identification of potential sites and the nomination of proposed sites since some designations and nominations of World Heritage Sites have sparked tensions and protests to the detriment of the sites concerned. These tensions and protests occurred because those sites were designated without free, prior and informed consent from the local communities who live in the designated/nominated area. There is, therefore, a need to investigate the ways in which the local community as a stakeholder participates in the nomination process of a World Heritage Site and how they also participate in the decision-making processin the local context. In order to meet the aim of this research, a qualitative case study methodology was deployed which prioritises interviews conducted with the local community in Jatiluwih Village. To further enhance this study, various data collection methods such as field observations and documentations (news clippings, photos, blog, and minutes of meetings) were conducted in addition to the interviews conducted. Forty-six semi-structured interviews were carried out with the local community as stakeholder in Jatiluwih Village between May to August 2012 and another twelve interviews were conducted from stakeholders such as private sectors, public sectors and NGOs. Both sets of interviews with the local community and other stakeholders (public/private sectors and NGO) were analysed by using content analysis. Three themes (participation; participation in World Heritage; and Jatiluwih and tourism; and nine sub themes (meetings; government initiated programmes; religious participation; awareness of World Heritage status the dissemination of information on the nomination process; hopes and concerns on the label; threat for the status in the future; about Jatiluwih; and local community’s perception on tourism) were identified with the interviews conducted with the local community as a stakeholder group. From other stakeholders such as NGOs, private and public sectors, two themes (first dossier and second dossier) and eight sub themes (first dossier; inexperience; lobbying; roles of international expert; roles of NGO; roles of volunteers; roles of governing assembly; and the lack of enthusiasm of the government) were identified to represent the process of the nomination and the creation of the dossier. The majority of World Heritage research to date has taken place within a post-inscription context, which unavoidably limits the scope for understanding the whole process of World Heritage Site designation, especially with regard to how the site is designated and the role of local people who live in the proposed site. This study, therefore, contributes by investigating the local community participation as stakeholder during the nomination process of a World Heritage Site. By examining local community participation therefore it can identify their types of participation and barriers to participation in the process of nomination. Moreover, by exploring the local community participation and their views during this stage, it provides the opportunity to identify their potential roles after the site is being designated. The implications of this study relate to the need for a more proactive approach to the identification of the local community as a worthy participant in the nomination process that builds from an understanding of cultural, political and economic features. In addition, World Heritage practitioners and academics need to understand and identify the fundamental underlay of local community participation in the process of nomination. In the future, it is thus hoped that local communities will be engaged and empowered to participate in the process of nomination with them possessing heightened levels of awareness about the importance of their involvement in the identification and nomination of their sites as World Heritage.

Abstract: The nomination of ideologically extreme candidates in party primaries has led many scholars and observers to speculate about the role played by different kinds of primary systems. Models of candidate competition that account for the two-stage nature of the electoral process suggest that more restrictive primary systems produce more ideologically extreme candidates. In contrast with previous research that examines the relationship between primaries and legislative ideology, we focus on how primary systems affect the ideological extremity of candidates’ campaign platforms. Using data on more than 85,000 major party candidates for Congress and state legislatures from 1980-2012, we find no evidence that the restrictiveness of primary participation rules is systematically associated with candidate ideology.

Abstract: “Most of us spend too much time on the last twenty-four hours and too little on the last six thousand years.” – Will DurantThe sharply contrasting experiences of John G. Roberts, Jr. and William Howard Taft with the Article II, Section 2 appointments process illustrate that the long view of history is governed by perspective. William Howard Taft, the twenty-seventh President, also later became the tenth Chief Justice of the United States. Taft was nominated for the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court — a position he openly admired — on June 30, 1921, and was confirmed by the Senate in a closed executive session the very same day. The current Chief Justice, John Roberts, Jr., experienced a more peripatetic journey in his ascension to the high court. President George H.W. Bush first nominated Justice Roberts to the federal bench in 1992. Despite his nomination, he never received a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which first reviews nominees before reporting them out to the Senate for a vote. Roberts was nominated a second time a decade later, and again, never received a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. His third nomination — to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, by President George W. Bush in 2003 — was the charm. That time, Justice Roberts received a hearing, was reported out favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and received a positive vote by the Senate. Two years later, in 2005, he was nominated and confirmed as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.Professor Weaver provides his perspective of the Appointments Clause filtered by the lens of history. He eloquently argues that the Article II, Section 2 process that gives the Senate “advice and consent” power over the Executive’s nominations of judges, officers of the United States, and ambassadors “wasn’t supposed to be easy.” In fact, he observes that the Senate’s role in the confirmation process — likely included because of a basic distrust of government — sometimes has been “contentious and ideologically driven.” Professor Weaver’s historical review also emphasizes that Judge Robert Bork’s failed 1987 nomination to the United States Supreme Court was not a watershed moment in the Senate’s consideration of ideology in performing its advice and consent function, with ideological considerations utilized in confirmation proceedings as far back as the country’s nascent years in the late 1700s.While I align with Professor Weaver about the Bork proceedings and the well-established use of ideology in the appointments process, we hold differing perspectives on what the appointments-process history means. Specifically, our divergence extends roughly for 225 years, with the first difference extending to his sanguinity with the Senate’s historical deference to presidential nominees — a deference that essentially eschews a responsibility to advise — and the second difference concerning his characterization of the current era as only digressing from traditional functionality by “a matter of degree rather than [representing] a reflection of a fundamental shift in the nature of the confirmation process.” That assessment improperly conflates “a matter of degree” with seismic cultural, technological and political changes over the past several decades that have greatly enhanced the dysfunction of the appointments process.A central premise of this paper is that the brilliance of the Appointments Clause has become obscured by dysfunction past and present. The Senate’s deference to the President’s nominees in the past was just as damaging to effective government as some of the political polarization and obstruction of the current day. In other words, the appointments process has changed over time, but not necessarily for the worse. Historical rubber-stamping of nominees by the Senate, with lightning-fast approval, is not preferable to careful and reflective consideration and the opportunity for collaborative competency between two branches of government. Yet, today’s new appointments process is fraught with peril, from wholesale refusal to act in a timely manner to staged public hearings designed to reveal nothing. Some of these new tactics are inconsistent with the process values of the clause and have a far-reaching impact.Vacancies in the federal courts, in particular, broadly impact the quality of justice in the country. With an implied presumption of confirmation favoring an executive who nominates with discretion, this paper suggests that the Senate ought to provide a robust but controlled check on presidential discretion through due diligence and individualized public evaluation, while also ensuring that its own rules do not get in the way of a timely and effective process.This Essay first explores the Clause’s antecedents in the Age of Enlightenment and its emergence in the Constitutional Convention in 1787, showing how its sturdy separation-of-powers foundation was built. In Part II, the Essay focuses on the historical realities of the Clause’s two-branch process, especially how the operability of two political bodies naturally yields results consonant with the etiquette and political sensibilities of the day. Then, in Part III, it offers several suggestions on how to cabin the potentially untrammeled discretion of the Senate in responding to presidential nominations.

Abstract: This study examines how political party organizations shape campaign participation in advanced industrialized parliamentary democracies. In some parties, members directly nominate candidates to run for parliament. In others, selection is the sole responsibility of the party leadership. Two countervailing arguments are presented: one stating that member participation will increase incentives to get involved in campaigns; the other contending that democratic nominations expose internal party divisions and depress participation. The hypotheses are tested using cross-national election surveys and original candidate selection data. Participation is measured in two ways: campaign activity and political persuasion. The results suggest that partisans are more likely to participate when leaders, rather than members, select candidates. In addition, the article examines the role of party ideology, size, incumbency, and heterogeneity in shaping participation.

Abstract: Introduction Presidential debates, whether in the general election or during the preprimary and primary seasons, have long held a fascination for not just political junkies and the press corps, but also for the general public. These events often attain large viewing audiences hoping to not only catch glimpses of insight into their presumptive leaders' policy positions, but also to compare these competitors in terms of intelligence, personality, and values. While viewership might be diminished during primary debates, with mainly dedicated partisans paying close attention, these events can play a key role in defining who the major contenders for a party's nomination will be, leading to change in opinions toward, and support of, candidates among the undecided (Benoit, McKinney, and Stephenson 2002, 316; Fridkin et al. 2007; Lanoue and Schrott 1989; Yawn et al. 1998). However, as noted by Hillygus and Jackman (2003, 595) "the effect of a campaign event depends on previous preferences, partisan dispositions, and political context," a finding seen more specifically in debate audiences (Benoit and Hansen 2004; Benoit, McKinney, and Stephenson 2002; Lang and Lang 1978; Munro et al. 2002; Yawn et al. 1998). Although policy positions certainly play a role in candidate assessment, during debates they take a back seat to viewer evaluation of candidate performance, with primary debates focusing on policy less and character more than general election debates (Benoit 2011). As a result, self-presentation and connection with the audience, both live at the debate venue and watching via mass media (Peifer and Holbert 2013), is important for conveying personality and character--of which nonverbal behavior plays an important role. Competing candidates walk a fine line between assertiveness and politeness toward their opponents (Bull and Wells 2002; Dailey, Hinck, and Hinck 2005; Pfau and Rang 1991; Seiter and Weger 2005; Seiter et al. 2010) in which mastery of their facial displays (Newton et al. 1987; Patterson et al. 1992; Stewart 2012; Stewart and Ford Dowe 2013; Stewart, Salter, and Mehu 2009; Sullivan and Masters 1988), body language (Dumitrescu, Gidengil, and Stolle 2015; Gentry and Duke 2009; Koppensteiner and Grammer 2010; Koppensteiner, Stephan, and Jaschke 2015; Kramer, Arend, and Ward 2010), and vocal behavior (Gentry and Duke 2009; Kalkhoff and Gregory 2008) plays a key role in viewer assessment. Although research on nonverbal behavior by candidates, and how it communicates intelligence, personality, values and stress levels, is a burgeoning field (Bucy 2011; Bucy and Bradley 2004; Dumitrescu, Gidengil, and Stolle 2015; Grabe and Bucy 2009; Koppensteiner, Stephan, and Jaschke 2015), relatively little attention has been given to audience attention to the candidates and their response in the form of applause, laughter, and boos. (1) While other nonverbal cues can have an effect on the viewing audience, especially if greater attention is given the candidates in terms of their speaking time, perhaps more important for those watching the televised coverage is how the debate audiences react to the candidates. This is because primary debates, which by their nature involve in-group competition among the candidates for the mantle of leadership, may be seen as relying upon the mobilization of support from the audience that is audibly evidenced through laughter and applause. Lanoue and Schrott (1989, 305n.7) note in their analysis of a 1984 Democratic Party presidential primary debate "that the two candidates most often interrupted by applause and laughter in Dallas (Jackson and Gore) were the ones most often chosen by our subjects as having 'won' the debate." Furthermore, primary debates are much more raucous affairs than general election debates, with substantially more applause and laughter. Specifically, Stewart (2012) found nearly two and four times more audience laughter, respectively, in preprimary and primary debates when compared with the general election debates during the 2008 presidential election. …

Abstract: This article assesses the impact that direct election of regional presidents has had on party politics in Italy. It finds regional presidents exert a growing personalisation of power within parties at sub-national levels, primarily through their capacity for political nomination and de facto status as party negotiators in the governing coalition. While presidents may shape structures of regional party competition, they remain constrained by coalitional politics and can struggle to assert their authority against powerful governing partners or local powerbrokers rooted in the legislature. They also possess few mechanisms to consolidate their position at national level, consistent with a broader tendency towards ‘stratarchy’ in multi-level parties. Although the distinction between densely and loosely structured parties remains relevant, a common trend towards ‘cartelisation’ at sub-national levels is noted as political parties prioritise the control of state resources and the governing legitimacy this entail...

Abstract: Using attributed graphs to model network data has become an attractive approach for various graph inference tasks. Consider a network containing a small subset of interesting entities whose identities are not fully known and that discovering them will be of some significance. Vertex nomination, a subclass of recommender systems relying on the exploitation of attributed graphs, is a task which seeks to identify the unknown entities that are similarly interesting or exhibit analogous latent attributes. This task is a specific type of community detection and is increasingly becoming a subject of current research in many disciplines. Recent studies have shown that information relevant to this task is contained in both the structure of the network and its attributes, and that jointly exploiting them can provide superior vertex nomination performance than either one used alone. We adopt this new approach to formulate a Bayesian model for the vertex nomination problem. Specifically, the goal here is to construct a ‘nomination list’ where entities that are truly interesting are concentrated at the top of the list. Inference with the model is conducted using a Metropolis-within-Gibbs algorithm. Performance of the model is illustrated by a Monte Carlo simulation study and on the well-known Enron email dataset. WIREs Comput Stat 2015, 7:400–416. doi: 10.1002/wics.1365 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

Abstract: Heather Kirkpatrick's Mary Meets Mohammad is a noteworthy case study of an Australian documentary feature that was not only privately funded, but one that was also used in unconventional community screenings and social media publicity to eventually get the attention of the mainstream media, distribution networks and human rights film festivals. In other words, it bypassed the local and international film festival exhibition route traditionally used by independent film-makers, yet still received a Walkley Award nomination. What is significant in this case is not the distribution/exhibition context in isolation, but how this intersects with the political content of the film (based on an unlikely friendship between an elderly Tasmanian woman and a Muslim Hazara asylum seeker) to invoke particular responses and establish a dialogue. In this article, I will simultaneously map the screening trajectory of the film, the growing responsiveness of the mainstream media and film distribution networks to the very exis...

Abstract: By all accounts, presidential elections are costly undertakings. Will Rogers once stated, “Politics has got so expensive that it takes lots of money to even get beat with nowadays” (Rogers 1931). While Rogers comically exaggerated the cost of elections nearly a century ago, today campaigns and elections take substantial amounts of money, a reality that is often underestimated in American politics. One estimate of the combined cost of the 2012 presidential nomination and general election was $2.6 billion (Choma 2013). This raises the obvious question: Where does this money come from? Surprisingly, even though spending by wealthy individuals and outside groups has risen dramatically in recent years, the majority of the money raised still comes from individual donors (Christenson and Smidt 2012).

Abstract: This research presents a theory of political polarization which argues that changes in American society, political culture, institutions, media, and technology combine to create conditions favorable to political polarization at the mass and elite levels through a process known as party sorting. As ideological conservatives sorted into the Republican Party and ideological liberals sorted into the Democratic Party, each party became ideologically homogenous. Homogeneity allows ideological polarization amongst political elites, political activists, and the American electorate to increase because it promotes ideological extremism and discourages ideological moderation through “group think.” Without the presence of liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats to raise alternative viewpoints, to oppose the party’s status quo on issues, and to foster compromise with the opposition party, ideological extremism increases and the two parties diverge ideologically. The dissertation empirically demonstrates two important effects that political polarization is having on the American political system. Analysis of the American electorate reveals a sharp increase in polarization between Republican and Democratic voters over the past decade. The preferences of Republican and Democratic voters are increasingly divergent. The analysis then examines the ideological distribution of all presidential primary candidates since 2000 using ideal point estimation. The analysis reveals that individual primary candidates are becoming more ideologically extreme, creating more ideologically extreme candidate fields. There was a sharp increase in ideological extremism between the 2008 and 2012 Republican contests with many 2012 Republican candidates far to the ideological right of comparable Republican candidates in earlier cycles. By providing empirical evidence of mass level polarization and elite polarization outside of congressional elites, the dissertation makes an important contribution to the political polarization literature. Index Words: political polarization, nomination campaigns, ideology, political behavior, voters Polarization in U.S. Presidential Nomination Campaigns

Abstract: The article aims at discussing the genesis of the social belief in the economic instruments of environmental management. The argumentation will bring into focus the questioning of the hypothesis that the consolidation of the environmental issue in the contemporary poli-tico-social agenda is closely linked to the nomination capacity developed by the marginal utility theory, as an historic cultural fact, in the course of the 20th century. The study discusses how the neoclassical marginalism affects the description of impasses and the prescription of themes of the modern environmental agenda, contributing for the debate on the forms of experimentation and nomination that modern societies keep over their self-recognition framework.

Abstract: Nomination is an important instrument in the estate planning. There are a few institutions offering this instrument to assist the heirs accelerating the process of claiming deceased’s estate such as Employee Provident Fund (EPF), Pilgrimage Fund and Takaful contribution. The nominee has the responsibility to claim the fund and distribute it to the legal heirs in line with Islamic law of inheritance (faraid). However, most of the nominees fail to fulfill their responsibility appropriately. Thus, the purpose of this study is to review the conditions and requirement of nominee The finding shows few issues have to be taken into consideration in the process of nomination and several circumstances due to irresponsible nominees. This study suggests the respective authorities to undertake additional effort in increasing the public awareness on these matters and the laws and regulations must be enacted.

Abstract: AcknowledgmentsIntroduction1. Elections, Parties, and Politics2. Quest for the Nomination: Appealing to the Base3. Campaigns: Opportunities and Challenges for Incumbents4. Campaigns: Opportunities and Obstacles for Challengers5. Presidential Transitions6. Launching a Presidential TermConclusionNotesIndex

Abstract: Twenty per cent of the Finnish MPs elected at the April 2011 general election stood as MEP-candidates at the May 2014 European Parliament election, the highest proportion in Western Europe. Why? Who do Finnish MPs – and indeed former MPs – want to be MEPs and, more particularly, why do the political parties run a distinctively high proportion of parliamentarians on their Euro-lists? This article seeks to assess the impact of the electoral system and the electoral cycle on candidate incentives and party nomination strategies at ‘second order’ European Parliament elections using Finland as a case study.

Abstract: In recent years, commentators have complained about what they regard as an increasingly dysfunctional confirmation process for judges and high-ranking executive officials, and the proper role for the Senate in the confirmation process has been much debated. This Article suggests that confirmations have been contentious throughout American history, and that the focus on ideological issues in today’s confirmation proceedings is not anomalous. Indeed, historically, both Republicans and Democrats have used the confirmation process to delay or oppose nominations when the President hails from a different political party, and, sometimes, even when the President comes from the same party but there are ideological objections to the nominee. That the appointments process has, at times, been difficult and contentious should come as no great surprise. The Framers of the United States Constitution intentionally created a governmental structure that was more prone to obstructionism than other comparable systems. Relying on concepts like “separation of powers,” and “checks and balances,” the Framers sought to constrain the federal government in ways that would limit the possibilities for governmental abuse. The appointments power reflects this approach. Like many other constitutional powers, it is a shared power. Although the President has the power to nominate Article III judges, as well as ambassadors and “officers,” nominees can only be confirmed with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. By placing the power to appoint in two politically elected entities, the Constitution establishes a system whereby political influences will sometimes have a major impact on the confirmation process. Although contentiousness can arise during any type of nomination, some Supreme Court nominations have been particularly bitter. Both the Senate and the American public have increasingly become aware Copyright © 2015 Russell L. Weaver. † Professor of Law & Distinguished University Scholar, University of Louisville, Louis D. Brandeis School of Law. WEAVER IN PRINTER FINAL (COMPLETED) (DO NOT DELETE) 5/7/2015 6:32 PM 1718 DUKE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 64:1717 that the courts make law and that the political and judicial attitudes of nominees matter. Under such circumstances, the Senate’s inquiry quite naturally goes beyond the simple question of whether a nominee is qualified or unqualified. However, the confirmation process is more difficult today, even for nonjudicial nominees, because of the bitter partisanship that has infected the U.S. political system.

Abstract: The prerogative of boards of directors to nominate the members of the board for election by the shareholders is now challenged by institutional investors determined to acquire the right, under certain conditions, to nominate their own candidates. This challenge to a board prerogative is called proxy access by shareholders to the director nomination process.As a result of amendments to the existing regulations in the United States, there has been a flood of proposals from shareholders to institute rules granting them access to the nominating process. In Canada, a form of access is already provided for by the Canadian Business Corporations Act (CBCA), but the conditions of this access are not perceived – by institutional investors, in particular – as sufficiently congenial because, among other factors, of the differential treatment for candidates put forward by shareholders.Several plausible arguments may be marshalled in support of access to the nominating process by shareholders, such as the enhanced legitimacy of the directors sitting on the board. However, this proposal also raises a host of issues related to the logistics of its application and the potential adverse effects on governance and board dynamics. After an in depth analysis of the arguments for and against proxy access, IGOPP concludes that any process that would grant shareholders the right to put forward candidates for election to the board, whether such a process arises from new regulations or spontaneous proposals from shareholders, is unwise and likely to create serious dysfunctions in corporate governance.We do recommend however that the nomination committee of the board implement a robust consultation process with the corporation’s significant shareholders and report in the annual Management Information Circular on the process and criteria adopted for nominating any new director.Given the popularity of proxy access proposals among institutional shareholders, this policy position includes an appendix outlining the typical features, conditions and mechanics proposed for this shareholder access to the director nominating process. All these aspects of the proxy access initiative raise difficult questions to which we unfortunately find few satisfactory answers.

Abstract: In this article, we identify a fundamental contradiction in the law of fiduciary duty of corporate directors across jurisdictions, namely the tension between the uniformity of directors’ duties and the heterogeneity of directors themselves. American scholars tend to think of the board as a group of individuals elected by shareholders, even though it is widely acknowledged (and criticized) that the board is often a largely self-perpetuating body whose inside members dominate the selection of their future colleagues and eventual successors. However, this characterization is far from universally true internationally, and it tends to be increasingly less true even in the United States. Directors are often formally or informally selected by specific shareholders (such as a venture capitalist or an important shareholder) or other stakeholders of the corporation (such as creditors or employees), or they are elected to represent specific types of shareholders (e.g. minority investors). The law thus sometimes facilitates the nomination of what has been called “constituency” directors. Once in office, legal rules tend nevertheless to treat directors as a homogeneous group that is expected to pursue a uniform goal. We explore this tension and suggest that it almost seems to rise to the level of hypocrisy: Why do some jurisdictions require employee representatives that are then seemingly not allowed to strongly advocate employee interests? Why can a director representing a specific shareholder not advance this shareholder’s interests on the board?Behavioral research indicates that directors are likely beholden to those who appointed them and will seek to pursue their interests in order to maintain their position in office. We argue that for many decision-making processes, it does not matter all that much what specific interest directors are expected to pursue by the law, given that across jurisdictions, enforcement of the corporate purpose is highly curtailed.

Abstract: The analysis empirically tests the determinants of the demand for acknowledgement in the Tentative List, an inventory of properties that States Parties intend to consider for the nomination in the World Heritage List (WHL). We find evidence that there are some sociopolitical and institutional variables that influence in a significant way the choice of states in requiring the admission of their properties in Tentative List. Namely, these variables represent the cultural relevance of a country and its role inside UNESCO, this last result being consistent with the findings of other previous analyses (Bertacchini and Saccone, 2012; Frey et al., 2013). Our conclusions unveil the possible reasons behind WHL imbalance, which date back to the submissions of Tentative Lists, the first act of national initiative.