|
課程名稱 |
選舉與投票專題
SEMINAR ON ELECTION AND VOTING BEHAVIOR |
|
開課學期 |
96-1 |
|
授課對象 |
社會科學院 政治學研究所 |
|
授課教師 |
王鼎銘 |
|
課號 |
PS7572 |
|
課程識別碼 |
322 M4840 |
|
班次 |
|
|
學分 |
2 |
|
全/半年 |
半年 |
|
必/選修 |
選修 |
|
上課時間 |
星期二3,4(10:20~12:10) |
|
上課地點 |
社法研7 |
|
備註 |
公共行政、本國政治、比較政治
總人數上限：10人
外系人數限制：3人 |
|
|
|
|
課程簡介影片 |
|
|
核心能力關聯 |
核心能力與課程規劃關聯圖 |
|
課程大綱
|
|
為確保您我的權利,請尊重智慧財產權及不得非法影印
|
|
課程概述 |
This course is designed to familiarize students with the major themes and research in the area of voting behavior and elections. There are two important components to this course: the required reading and the independent research project. The readings provide students with a broad overview of the important literature in different areas of research on voting behavior. The independent project will be the analysis of the coming legislation election.
Most of the class meetings will focus on assigned readings. Students are expected to have completed the readings and come to class ready to discuss important aspects of those readings. Student will be assigned to present the readings each week. Those who are not responsible to the topic that week should also prepare the critical questions for discussions. |
|
課程目標 |
The independent research project will take the form of a paper on the aspect of 2008 legislative election. Students will take this opportunity to apply the electoral theory into reality analysis. Although students are flexible to define the important and interesting topic for this election, it should also cover the potential election outcome, the implication to the future public policy, and its impact to the March presidential election. A final presentation is required. |
|
課程要求 |
Reading Assignment 30%
Participation 30%
Research Project 40%
|
|
預期每週課後學習時數 |
|
|
Office Hours |
每週二 16:00~17:00
每週三 09:00~10:00 備註： by appointment |
|
指定閱讀 |
|
|
參考書目 |
TOPIC 1: The Evolution of the Electoral Studies
1. Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip, Miller, Warren, and Donald Stokes. 1960. The American Voter Chicago, University of Chicago Press. chpt. 2, 19.
2. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York: Harper and Row. chpt. 1, 3
3. Fiorina, Morris. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Chpt.1
4. Berelson, Bernard, Lazarsfeld, Paul, and Willian McPhee, 1954. Voting Chicago: University of Chicago Press, preface, chpt. 13
5. Holbrook, Thomas. 1996. Do Campaigns Matter? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. chpt.1
TOPIC 2: Political Change and Realignment
1. Mayhew, David R 2000. “Electoral Realignments,” Annual Review of Political Science 3: 449-474.
2. Nardulli, Peter. 1995. “The Concept of Critical Realignment, Electoral Behavior, and Political Change” American Political Science Review 89: 10-22.
3. Miller, Gary, and Schofild. 2003. “Activists and Partisan Realignment in the United States.” American Political Science Review 97: 245-260.
TOPIC 3: Party Identification
1. Fiorina, Morris. 1981. Retorspective Voting American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Chpt. 4, 5
2. Keith, Bruce, Magelby, David B. Nelson, Candice J., Orr, Elizabeth, Westyle, Mark, and Raymond Wolfinger. 1992. The Myth of the Independent Voter, Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Chpt. 5
3. MacKuen, Michael, Erikson, Robert, Stimson, James. 1989. “Macropartisanship” American Political Science Review 83: 1125-1142
4. Bartels, Larry. 2002.”Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952-1996.” American Journal of Political Science 44: 35-50.
5. Bartels, Larry. 2000.”Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions” Political Behavior 24: 117-150.
6. Adams, Greg D.1997. “Abortion: Evidence of Issue Evolution.” American Journal of Political Science 41: 718-737
TOPIC 4: Issue Voting
1. R. Michael Alvarez; Jonathan Nagler, 1998, “Economics, Entitlements, and Social Issues: Voter Choice in the 1996 Presidential Election,: American Journal of Political Science 42: 1349-1363.
2. Fiorina, Morris, Abrams, Samuel, and Jeremy Pope. 2003. “The 2000Persidential Election: Can Retrospective Voting Be Saved?” British Journal of Political Science Review 33: 163-187
3. MacKuen, Michael B, Robert S. Erikson, and James A. Stimson. 1992. “Peasants or Bankers? The American Electorate and the U.S. Economy.” American Political Science Review 86: 597-611
4. Norpoth, Helmut. 1996. “President and the Prospective Voter.” Journal of Politics, 58: 776-792
5. Rabinowitz, George and Stuart Elaine MacDonald. 1989. “A Directional Theory of Voting.” American Political Science Review 83: 93-121
6. MacDonald, Stuart E., Ola Listhaug, and George Rabinowitz. 1991. “Issue and Party Support in Multiparty Systems.” American Political Science Review 85: 1107-1131.
7. Dow, Jay. 1998. “Directional and Proximity Models of Voter Choice in Recent U.S. Presidential Elections.” Public Choice, 96: 259-270.
8. Kramer, Jorgen, and Hans Rattinger. 1997. “The Proximity and the Directional Theories of Issue Voting: Comparatives Results for the U.S. and Germany.” European Journal of Political Science 32: 1-29.
TOPIC 5: Strategic Voting
1. Austen-Smith, David. 1987. “Sophisticated Sincerity: Voting over Endogenous Agendas.” American Political Science Review 81: 1323-1330.
2. Blais, Andre and R.K. Carty. 1991. “The Psychological Impact of Electoral Laws: Measuring Duverger’s Elusive Factor.” British Journal of Political Science 21: 79-93.
3. Cox Gary W., 1990, “Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives in Electoral Systems”, American Journal of Political Science 34: 903-935.
4. Cox, Gary W. 1994. “Strategic Voting Equilibria under the Single Nontransferable Vote.” American Political Science Review 88: 608-621.
5. Cox, Gary W. 1996. “ Is the Single Non-transferable Vote Superproportional? Evidence from Japan and Taiwan.” American Journal of Political Science 40: 740-755.
6. Hsieh, John Fuh-Sheng and Richard G. Niemi. 1998. “Can Duverger’s Law be Extended to SNTV? The Case of Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan Elections.” Electoral Studies 18: 101-116.
7. Jesse, G. Neal. 1999. “Candidate Success in Multi-Member Districts: An Investigation of Duverger and Cox.” Electoral Studies 18: 323-340.
TOPIC 6: Information and Elections
1. Downs, Anthony. An Economic Theory of Democracy. Chpters 11-13
2. Luipa, Arthur. 1994. “Short-cuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review 88:63-76.
3. Lau, Richard, and David Redlawsk. 2001. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Coginitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science 45:951-971.
4. Zaller, John. 1991. “Information, Values, and Opinions.” American Political Science Review 85: 1215-37.
5. Freedman, Paul, Franz, Michael, and Kenneth Goldstein. 2004. “Campaign Advertising and Democratic Citizenship.” American Journal of Political Science. 48: 723-41
TOPIC 7: Campaigns
1. Finkel, Steven E. 1993. “Reexaming the ’Minimal Effects’ Model in Recent Presidential Campaigns.” Journal of Politics 55: 1-21
2. Shaw, Daron R.1999”The Effect of TV Ads and Candidate Appearances on Statewide Presidential Votes, 1988-96,” American Political Science Review 93: 345-361
3. Hillygus, D. Sunshine and Simon Jackman. 2003 “Voter Decision Making in Election 2000: Campaign Effects, Partisan Activation, and the Clinton Legacy.” American Journal of Political Science, 47: 583-596.
4. Petrocik, John, Benoit, William, and Glenn Hansen. 2003.”Issue Ownership and Presidential Campaigning, 1952-2000.” Political Science Quarterly 118: 599-626.
TOPIC 8: Negative Campaigning
1. Ansolabehere, Stephen, Shanto Iyengar, Adam Simon, Nicholas Valentino, 1994, “Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate?” American Political Science Review, 88: 829-838.
2. Ansolabehere, Stephen, Shanto Iyengar, Adam Simon, 1999, “Replicating Experiments Using Aggregate and Survey Data: The Case of Negative Advertising and Turnout”, American Political Science Review, 93: 901-909.
3. Finkel, Steven and John G. Geer, 1998, “A Spot Check: Casting Doubt on the Demobilizing Effect of Attack Advertising”, American Journal of Political Science, 42: 573-595.
4. Freedman, Paul, and Ken Goldstein, 1999, “Measuring Media Exposure and the Effects of Negative Campaign Ads”, American Journal of Political Science, 43: 1189-1208.
5. Wattenberg, Martin and Craig Leonard Brians, 1999, “Negative Campaign Advertising: Demobilizer or Mobilizer?” American Political Science Review, 93: 891-899.
6. Lau, Richard, 1985, “Two Explanations for Negativity Effects in Political Behaviors”, American Journal of Political Science, 29: 119-138.
7. Lau, Richard, Sigelman,Lee, Heldman, Caroline, and Paul Babbit. 1999. “The Effects of Negative Political Advertisements: A Meta-Analytic Assessment.” American Political Science Review 93: 851-876.
8. Lau, Richard and Gerald Pomper, 2001, “Effects of Negative Campaigning on Turnout in U.S. Senate Elections, 1988-1998”, Journal of Politics, 63: 804-819.
9. Lau, Richard and Gerald Pomper. 2002. “Effectiveness of Negative Campaigning in U.S. Senate Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 46: 47-66.
TOPIC 9: Election Fraud
1. Argersinger, Peter H. 1985. New Perspectives on Election Fraud in the Gilded Age.” Political Science Quarterly 100: 669-687.
2. Rundquist, Barry S., Gerald S. Strom and John G. Peters. 1977. “Corrupt Politicians and Their Electoral Support: Some Experimental Observations.” American Political Science Review 71: 954-963.
3. Fackler, Tim and Tse-min Lin. 1995. “Political Corruption and Presidential Elections, 1929-1992.” Journal of Politics 57: 971-993.
4. Peters, John G., and Susan Welch. 1980. “The Effects of Charges of Corruption on Voting Behavior in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 74: 697-708.
5. Welch, Susan, and John R. Hibbing. 1997. “The Effects of Charges of Corruption on Voting Behavior in Congressional Elections, 1982-1990.” Journal of Politics 59: 226-239.
TOPIC 10: Political Participation.
1. Timpone, Rich J. 1998. “Structure, Behavior, and Turnout in the United States.” American Political Science Review :92: 145-158.
2. Brady, Henry, Sidney, Verba, and Kay Lehman. 1995. “Beyond ESE: A Resource Model of Political Participation.” American Political Science Review 98: 271-294.
3. Plutzer, Eric. 2002. “Becoming a Habitual Voter: Inertia, Resources, and Growth in Young Adulthood.” American Political Science Review 96: 41-56.
4. McDonald, Michael P., and Samuel L. Popkin. 2001. “The Myth of Vanishing Voter.” American Political Science Review 95: 963-974.
5. Blais, Andre, and Angieszka Dobrzynska. 1998. “Turnout in Democracies.” European Journal of Political Research.33: 239-61.
TOPIC 11: Ethnics and Sex
1. Sigelman, Carol K.,Sigleman, Lee, Walkosz, Barbara, and Michael Nitz. 1995. “Black Candidates, White Voters: Understanding Racial Bias in Political Perceptions.” American Journal of Political Science 39: 243-65.
2. Valentino, Nicholas A., Vincent L. Hutchings, and Ismail K. White. “Cues that Matter: How Political Ads Prime Racial Attitudes During Campaigns” American Political Science Review 96: 75-90.
3. Kaufmann K, and John Petrocik. 1999.”The changing politics of American men: Understanding the sources of the gender gap” American Journal of Political Science 43: 864-87
4. McDermott, Monica. 1998.”Race and Gender Cues in Low-Information Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 51: 895-918
5. Dolan, Kathleen A. 1998.”Voting for Women in the ‘Year of the Woman’.” American Journal of Political Science 42: 272-93. |
|
評量方式
(僅供參考) |
|
|