Convention Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events! Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: American Political Science Association URL: http://www.apsanet.org
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p63886_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

Anderson, Melissa. and Doherty, Brendan. "Parties Under Siege or Parties in Control? Gauging Causal Influences on Australian Ballot Reform Laws" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia Marriott Hotel, Philadelphia, PA, Aug 27, 2003 <Not Available>. 2009-05-26 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p63886_index.html>

Anderson, M. and Doherty, B. , 2003-08-27 "Parties Under Siege or Parties in Control? Gauging Causal Influences on Australian Ballot Reform Laws" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia Marriott Hotel, Philadelphia, PA Online <.PDF>. 2009-05-26 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p63886_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Review Method: Peer Reviewed Abstract: The sweeping adoption of Australian ballot laws in the late 1800s and early 1900s changed the nature of elections in the United States. Most accounts attribute the Australian ballot movement to good government reformers who led the effort to take elections out of the hands of political parties, and cite this measure and other Progressive Era reforms as critical to the subsequent decline in party strength in the early years of the 20th century. The central question of this study is how, when the parties were so overwhelmingly dominant in the nineteenth-century political system, did laws that seemingly would restrict their influence succeed in getting passed in almost every state in the union? While no systematic study of the causes of ballot reform exists, there are two schools of thought about how the reforms came to pass. One sees political parties as the main targets of the ballot reform movement. A competing perspective argues that many state party leaders actually supported the adoption of the Australian ballot laws. They did so in an attempt to wrest power from autonomous local party leaders and to head off growing challenges from third parties. Our goal is to examine systematically the partisan dynamics in the 42 states that passed Australian ballot laws between 1888 and 1910. We generate hypotheses based on these competing schools of thought, and evaluate which approach, if any, is supported by the evidence. We suggest that there is no one simple story behind ballot reform; thus, our study both attempts to answer questions about the nature of ballot reform and suggests directions for further research.

Do State Election Laws Really Hurt Third-Parties? Ballot Access, Fusion, and Elections to the US House of Representatives

To Run or Not to Run: The Influence of Partisan Bias and Responsiveness on Party Competition in Southern State House Contests in the 1990s