The Jobs Model of presidential election forecasting predicted well in 2004. The model,based on data available in August 2004, generated an error of only 1.3 percentage pointswhen forecasting the incumbent share of the two-party popular vote (Lewis-Beck and Tien2004). In contrast, the median forecast from seven teams of statistical modelers was off 2.6percentage points (Campbell 2004, 734). We believe that the Jobs Model was more accuratebecause it broadened measurement of economic performance, a conceptual variable lying at thecore of most of these efforts. Take, as a representative example, the Growth Model in Table1, Column 1. Its forecast for George W. Bush was 54.0% (almost exactly at the median for theabove-mentioned group of forecasters). This model was earlier reported by us, but rejectedon grounds of specification error (Lewis-Beck and Tien 2004, 754). We argued that thechanging nature of the American economy required attention to a hitherto neglectedvariable—job creation. When this variable, new jobs over the presidential term, is added tothe Growth Model, the fit statistics improve dramatically (see Table 1, Column 2,).

Few would dispute that religion has played a fundamental role in shaping our understanding of human relationships, including marriage, and what types of relationships are permitted. However, science, especially biology, has also played an important role in government regulation of marriage (Bittles and Neel 1994; Ottenheimer 1990; Dupuis 2002; Ellison 2004; Strasser 2002). A cursory overview of government regulations of marriage reveals laws that establish age requirements, necessitate testing for diseases, ban nuptials between individuals with biological relations, set limits on the number of spouses, and ban interracial marriage (miscegenation), among other things (Barlow and Probert 2004; Bratt 1984; Cott 2000; Micklos and Carlson 2000; Moran 2001; Ottenheimer 1990; Scott 2000). Certainly some of these policies reflect a religious based morality, but some, such as those that ban marriages between individuals within a family, also reflect a biological understanding of potential problems associated with the offspring of these couples (Bratt 1984; Ottenheimer 1990; Cott 2000; Micklos and Carlson 2000; St. Jean 1998; Scott 2000; Stoddard 2003).

Undergraduate students should not just study political theory. Theyshould theorize. Writing-intensive political theory courses can helpthem do so sooner. By preparing an original political vision, autopia or a dystopia, throughout the course of the semester,students read and compare the texts of the course against their ownemerging texts and move into more critical and systematic politicalanalysis. As a political theorist, my focus is not so much onutopias or dystopias as a subject of study per se,but on tapping into the creative freedom, critical distance, andhard-hitting insights of these traditions while teaching writing. Itake seriously Berlin's above-stated concern for the “place and modeof operation” conveyed to the student through the process oflearning to write. Visionary writing accelerates students'appreciation of the complexity of another's theory, but also oftheir own standpoint and capacity for agency and judgment.Khristina Haddad is assistant professor,department of political science, Moravian College. She teaches awriting-intensive course on visionary political writing and isaffiliated with German Studies and Women's Studies. Her researchinterests include politics of time and temporality, HannahArendt, political action, fear, feminist theory, women'sstudies, and, in particular, the politics of women'shealth.I am greatly indebtedto friends and colleagues who helped me along at various stagesincluding (in alphabetical order) Robert Humanick, Eleanor Linn,Bob Mayer, Karla Morales, Laurie Naranch, Gary Olson, MiguelinaOrtiz, Martha Reid, Joanna Vecchiarelli Scott, Lyman TowerSargent, Joel Wingard, and Elizabeth Wingrove. Thanks go also toall those whose dedicated work inspires student writers andteachers of writing at the Gayle Morris Sweetland Writing Centerat the University of Michigan, to helpful commentators at theSociety for Utopian Studies' Annual Meeting in Toronto, to twoanonymous reviewers at PS, and to three groupsof students who shared their visions with me.

The research on voter turnout in America is impressive in quantityand quality, but it lacks breadth. National and state elections havereceived most of the attention, while the myriad of other elections,from municipal contests to policy referenda, have often beenignored. As a result, we know a great deal about turnout in stateand national elections, and much less about turnout in other races.The temptation is to generalize the state and national conclusionsto other elections, but this is risky. For example, in a recentaggregate-level study of small town elections in Iowa, Rice andSchlueter (2004) report a relationshipthat runs contrary to virtually all of the state and nationalliterature: education and turnout are negatively correlated; thatis, the citizens in better-educated communities vote in localelections at lower rates than the citizens in less-educatedcommunities. This finding exposes the limitations in ourunderstanding of voter turnout. If all we want is to speak withassurance about turnout in state and national elections, then thecurrent literature is very helpful. If, however, we want to be ableto speak more generally about turnout (and speak more specificallyabout turnout in elections other than state and national contests),then we need to study more types of elections.For a copy of the data, contact Professor Tom W. Rice,department of political science, University of Iowa, Iowa City,IA 52241 (tom-rice@uiowa.edu).

Doctoral students in political science are understandably concernedwith job placement. Most students enter graduate school with an eyeto academia and want to know what they must do to secure their idealacademic position. Faculty members readily offer guidance on how toincrease students' likelihood of obtaining an academic job. AndPS has published many articles that focus onthis topic, ranging from empirical descriptions of the job market topersonal accounts of job-hunting experiences. Unfortunately,graduate students often receive anecdotal or contradictory advice.To help rectify this, we undertook a more systematic examination ofthe qualities department hiring committees seek when grantinginterviews to job applicants.Theauthors would like to thank John Coleman, Katherine CramerWalsh, Charles Franklin, the anonymous reviewers atPS, and the survey respondents.

The battle over lesbian and gay rights has gained increased prominence in the political arena. Discrimination against homosexuals may have been widely accepted in the past, but today such discrimination is strongly debated. In 2004, the presidential candidates as well as members of Congress squared off on whether to enshrine a ban on gay marriage into the Constitution. Analyzing the 106th–108th Congresses reveals that member and district characteristics greatly influence the level of support for gay and lesbian rights. Democrats are far more supportive of pro-gay and -lesbian initiatives than Republicans. Region similarly plays a key role. Southerners are more tepid in their support for gay and lesbian rights than their northern colleagues. At the same time, New England representatives are even more liberal than other northerners. Despite strong opposition to gay marriage within the churches of their communities, African-American and Latino representatives are especially likely to support gay and lesbian rights. Church membership also guides representative behavior, though not always as conventional wisdom might indicate. Catholic representatives are not more hostile to gay and lesbian rights than other representatives. Moreover, the influence of religious affiliation on congressional voting behavior is declining. Constituency characteristics, such as urbanicity and education, also shape representative behavior but play a secondary role.

Based on George Bush's net approval rating of −1% in the final Gallup Poll in June, a 3.7%growth rate for real GDP during the first two quarters of 2004, and the fact that theRepublican Party had controlled the White House for only one term, the time-for-change modelpredicted that Mr. Bush would win reelection with 53.7% of the major party vote. Thisforecast was made in late July, before the Republican National Convention and more thanthree months before Election Day.

I must first confess that I was long a skeptic about the use ofsimulations in the classroom. I had, after all, gotten along quitefine without them. My courses were full, my teaching evaluationsgood.Bruce A. Wallin is associateprofessor, department of political science, NortheasternUniversity. He is author of From Revenue Sharing toDeficit Sharing: General Revenue Sharing and Cities(Georgetown University Press, 1998), winner of the 1999 APSAaward for Best Book on Urban Politics. Most recently, he editeda symposium on “Tax and Expenditure Limitations: A QuarterCentury after Proposition 13,” published in PublicBudgeting and Finance (vol. 24, no. 4, winter2004).For more information onthis simulation, including the class syllabus and detailedexamples, visit PSOnline atwww.apsanet.org/ps/wallinonline.pdf.

On Labor Day, 57 days before the election, using the Gallup poll's division of likelyvoters and GDP growth during the second quarter of the year, the trial-heat and economyforecasting model predicted that George W. Bush would receive 53.8% of the two-party popularvote (Campbell 2004a). Out of concerns about relying too heavily on a single poll and thepossible complications associated with the Republican Convention running right up to theLabor Day weekend, a companion model based on the pre-convention Gallup poll, the netconvention poll bump, and the economy was constructed. It forecast a slightly closerelection, with a Bush vote of 52.8%.

Canada's June 28th, 2004, federal election was an exciting and, in several respects a surprising contest. One major surprise was the election campaign itself. Rather than being the predictable, boring event many commentators had anticipated, the campaign was a closely fought battle between a longtime governing party and a new opposition party that had been formed only six months before the election was called. A second surprise, at least for some observers, was turnout, with participation in a national election falling to the lowest level in Canadian history. A third, potentially very significant, surprise was the success of the separatist Bloc Québécois, accompanied by a resurgence of support for Quebec sovereignty. After the election, the future of Canada's national party system, indeed, the future of Canadian democracy, appeared more problematic than had been the case only a few months earlier.

Positive turnout rates in the United States and elsewhere are widelyconsidered “an embarrassing limitation of the economic approach topolitics” because, for any one voter, “the costs of casting a ballotin any large election are almost always greater than the potentialbenefits, which are dependent on the unlikely occurrence of castingthe winning or tie vote in an election” (Knack1992, 133). Green and Shapiro (1994), whose scathing critique of the rational choicefield centers on the work of Anthony Downs (1957), trenchantly put it: “Rational choice theoristshave trotted out an astonishing variety of conjectures about thecosts and benefits of voting, in the process generating an enormousliterature, possibly larger in terms of academic citations and sheerbibliographic length than any other rational choice literature inAmerican politics” (47–48), yet they still have no answer as to whypeople vote when, according to their arguments, reason says theyought not. Grofman (1993), paraphrasingMorris Fiorina, has referred to the failure of rational choicetheory to explain turnout as the “paradox that ate rationalchoice.”We are indebted to CloverBehrend-Gethard for bibliographic assistance.

Judicial decisions are an integral part of American politics and,despite the presence of written and explicated opinions of federaljudges, the internal deliberations and decision making processes ofjudges themselves remains a mystery to many. A burgeoning body ofliterature focuses on the use of simulations to engage students andbridge theory to practical application. Few simulations target thejudicial component of politics, despite its natural disposition forgroup participation in a simulation project.Richard J. (Rick) Hardy is the director of theInstitute for Leadership in Civic Education, director of theNational Institute for Advanced Civic Studies (sponsored by theCenter for Civic Education), and assistant director of theHonors College at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Heregularly teaches courses in American politics, constitutionallaw, and the Supreme Court. His publications include:Government in America (Houghton Mifflin),Missouri Government and Politics (MissouriPress), Civic Education (Pearson), andPolitics: The Art of Drawing Dividing Lines(Thomson). Hardy also serves as a political commentator fornumerous national outlets and is a presidential elector in theElectoral College. Chapman Rackaway teaches courses in Americangovernment, political campaign management, political parties,and voting behavior at Fort Hays State University. He is thedirector and advisor for the Political Campaigns and Managementtract at FHSU. He has published in the Journal ofPolitics and has consulted on numerous state andnational political races. Laurie E. Sonnier currently teachessocial studies courses at St. Martin high school in OceanSprings, Mississippi. She earned her B.A. in political scienceat the University of Southern Mississippi and her M.Ed. inEducation from Bowie State University. Laurie has won numerousteaching awards and has been actively involved with the NationalCouncil for the Social Studies and the Center for CivicEducation. She is the co-editor of Voices of Advocacy inAmerican Democracy (Pearson).

In this paper we compare the August 1st forecast of the 2004 presidential election generated with the fiscal model with those made with the seven models of what we call the “Campbell Collection,” after James E. Campbell, the editor or co-editor of several forecasting symposia that have appeared in the American Politics Quarterly (October, 1996) and in successive issues of PS: Political Science and Politics (October, 2004 and January, 2005). For reasons that will become evident, Ray Fair's “presidential vote equation” (Fair 2002a, 2002b) is also included in the comparison. First, given space constraints, we present only a brief summary of the theoretical model. (For a more extended discussion, interested readers are encouraged to pursue the relevant references.) Then, as we did pursuant to issuing a forecast for the 2004 election, we estimate the model over the 22 elections held between 1916 and 2000, showing the out-of-sample results. Finally, we evaluate the model relative to the Campbell Collection on operational and substantive criteria.

The forecasting model I wrote about in the October 2004 issue of PS(Holbrook 2004) is best described as a referendum model. Itincorporates presidential approval (Gallup polls averaged from June through August), ameasure of aggregate satisfaction with personal finances weighted by the tone of economic news (averaged from June through August), and a dummy variable coded “1”for years in which the incumbent party had held the White House for at least two consecutiveterms and “0” for all other years. The first two variables are intended to capture thepolitical and economic performance of the incumbent administration, while the latter(borrowed from Abramowitz 1988) is based on the idea that it maybe easier to convince voters that it is “time for a change” if the incumbent party has heldthe White House for at least two consecutive terms.

In recent years, arriving on the job market with published work hasshifted from a desirable condition to a necessity. Even middlinguniversities can afford to ignore applications from job applicantswithout peer-reviewed articles in scholarly journals. Thus, it isimportant for graduate students to focus as early as possible onpublishing their work.I wish to thankBrian Brox, Jonathan Hartlyn, and Nancy Maveety for comments onan earlier draft.

The civic engagement track participants represented researchinstitutions, four-year liberal arts institutions, and secondaryschools. Although our teaching experiences, pedagogical approaches,and subject matter specialties varied greatly, we embraced thisdiversity as an opportunity to share common concerns about teachingcivic engagement.

For all the signs of a dead heat in the horserace polls and strong hints of a victory forSenator John Kerry in exit polls on Election Day itself, the reelection of George W. Bushproved predictable from a model with a leading indicator available as far back as January.The forecast published in the October 2004 issue of PS was initially postedon January 29, 2004, the day after the New Hampshire Primary. It claimed, with 95%certainty, that President George W. Bush would defeat Democrat John Kerry in November. Theforecast, which was not subject to any revision throughout the remainder of the electionyear, gave Bush 54.7% and Kerry 45.3% of the major-party vote. It missed the actual divisionof the major-party vote by a little more than one unit of the forecast error (2.7). All inall, a satisfactory performance of the model.

As part of its mission to address issues of recruitment, retention,and integration of women and people of color in the profession, theAPSA Task Force on Mentoring periodically publishes articles on someaspect of mentoring that will help political scientists movesuccessfully through the profession. This brief symposium on“Publishing Your First Book” is just one such example of thisinitiative. For more information about the Task Force and itsongoing projects, contact Linda Lopez, APSA Director of Educationand Professional Development Programs, at llopez@apsanet.org.

Making a realistic assessment of your goals in publishing a book, andmatching a publisher with the text and with your goals is the firststep in bringing your research effort to completion. Socialscientists write books hoping to influence an election, change thepolitical debate, shift an academic focus, get tenure, or get a job.A good book, well-published, can help achieve someof these goals—but there are other ways to work toward them. Authorsand publishers will be happiest, and readers best served, if authorstake stock of the possible, and then market their books topublishers who are best suited to help with the goals they'vechosen. Beyond writing the book, the author has three clear tasks:deciding on realistic goals for the book; executing due diligence infinding the right publishing house; and making the gist of the bookaccessible to an educated, but not necessarily expert, reader bywriting a good proposal. Matching expectations to the book will helpidentify the most appropriate presses.

In the 2005 APSA Teaching and Learning Conference's Diversity Track,some 30 participants representing a wide range of colleges anduniversities came together to discuss issues related to teaching andlearning about diversity. Diversity-focused pedagogy recognizescommonalities of individual and group experience defined by race,gender, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, age, and ability, butit touches much broader circles. One of the most important aspectsof the track was the diversity of its participants—not usually oneof the discipline's strong points. The wide range of backgrounds andexperiences reflected by the track's participants highlighted thevalue of diversity to the profession, as well as the fact thatpolitical scientists carry different burdens at a wide range ofinstitutions. Participants in this track found that our senses ofwhat defines diversity, the importance of teaching about diversity,and what teaching techniques effectively illustrate diversity were,well, diverse.

Rapidly changing technology has created countless new opportunities for political scientists in teaching and research. One such innovation is the development of web surveys. Web surveys are accessed online by respondents and the data can be downloaded directly into a statistical program such as SPSS. While web surveys require respondents to have Internet access, which precludes conducting general population surveys via the web, in fact many of the populations of interest to political scientists such as interest groups, elected officials, and bureaucrats have near universal access to the web. The purpose of this article is to review the advantages and disadvantages of this technique and to outline important design and implementation considerations relevant to political science.