While state election processes in the United States are well defended, malicious actors have already identified and tried to exploit one facet of those processes: voter registration. Since there is every reason to believe attacks will happen again, election security has become the topic “du jour” for state and federal legislators.
From the abstract:
Recent work has offered competing explanations for the long-term evolution of corporate political action in the United States. In one, scholars have theorized that long-term structural changes in the American political and economic landscape may have radically transformed inter-corporate network structures and changed the political orientation of corporate elites. In another, a small group of corporate elites continues to dominate government policy by advocating for class-wide interests through occupying key positions in government and policy planning groups. We offer new evidence of patterns in and predictors of political strategies among the nation’s elite corporate directors. We utilize an original dataset (the Longitudinal Elite Contributor Database) linked with registries of corporate directors and their board memberships. We ask: (1) has the political activity, unity, or pragmatism of the corporate elite declined since 1982; and (2) are individuals who direct multiple firms more pragmatic in their political action? Evidence suggests that corporate elites are more politically active and unified, and continue to exercise pragmatic political strategies vis-à-vis their campaign donations. Using random- and fixed-effects models, we present evidence to suggest that becoming a member of the inner circle has a significant moderating effect on elite political behavior. We offer an alternative mechanism of elite coordination that may help explain the continued political cohesion of the corporate elite.
In the wake of assessments about foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election, concerns have been mounting about the security of the 2018 midterm elections. Security efforts are complicated by the complex, multidimensional election life cycle, with each dimension involving a broad array of components. The main dimensions can be thought of as election administration, campaign activities, and media coverage….
Cutting off unions’ fair share fees for collective bargaining reflects the desire of Republicans to suppress the political speech of their opponents, argues John K. Wilson.
Source: Eric Joseph van Holm, American Review of Public Administration, Online First, Published July 30, 2018
From the abstract:
Civic participation is a touchstone of American government, yet it has declined steadily over the past 50 years. Alongside changes in the relationship between American citizens and their government has been a stark increase in the levels of income and wealth concentration. While there is strong evidence that income inequality drives down participation at the national level, there have been fewer studies on the effects for local governments. This article studies the relationship between participation in departmental policy making and income inequality at the local level across the United States in a sample of small and mid-sized cities. When accounting for aspects of the government’s structure, local department culture, and community demographics, income inequality has a significant, though mixed, effect on civic participation. While changes in a community’s income inequality diminish the likelihood of citizens participating in government decision making, the present level of income inequality correlates with higher rates of engagement.
To win in Texas, the Democratic Party will need to build a progressive ecosystem that can engage key constituencies—particularly young voters—throughout the year.
Most of our assessments of the electorate in 2016 are dependent on estimates. Polling before the election that suggested where people were leaning; exit polling after the fact that gives us some sense of who actually turned out. When more than 137 million people vote, understanding exactly who they were and why they voted the way they did necessarily involves some guesswork.
On Thursday, though, Pew Research Center released an unusually robust survey of the 2016 electorate. In addition to having asked people how they voted, Pew’s team verified that they did, giving us a picture not only of the electorate but also of those who didn’t vote. There are a number of interesting details that emerge from that research, including a breakdown of President Trump’s support that confirms much of his base has backed him enthusiastically since the Republican primaries.
The data also makes another point very clear: Those who didn’t vote are as responsible for the outcome of the election as those who did…..
The Soviet Union and now Russia under Vladimir Putin have waged a political power struggle against the West for nearly a century. Spreading false and distorted information – called “dezinformatsiya” after the Russian word for “disinformation” – is an age-old strategy for coordinated and sustained influence campaigns that have interrupted the possibility of level-headed political discourse. Emerging reports that Russian hackers targeted a Democratic senator’s 2018 reelection campaign suggest that what happened in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election may be set to recur…..
Today The New York Times published an interactive map that lets you explore the 2016 presidential election at the highest level of detail available: by voting precinct.
This map, although nearly two years old, continues to define American politics. The vast majority of people who voted for Donald J. Trump say they approve of his job performance today, while the vast majority of Hillary Clinton voters say they disapprove.
On the neighborhood level, many of us really do live in an electoral bubble, this map shows: More than one in five voters lived in a precinct where 80 percent of the two-party vote went to Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton. But the map also reveals surprising diversity.
Our organizers talked to 300,000 voters, across racial and party lines, since the 2016 election. Here’s what we learned about rebuilding working-class power at the polls.