No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

In recent decades, political science has turned to the study of agenda setting as a central aspect of collective decision-making environments. The content of the public agenda -and the issue agendas of political institutions -make significant social change possible. 1 Recent studies suggest that these political institutions are engaged in both competitive relationships, as they identify and pursue both active and latent public issues, and more complex cue-taking relationships. 2 For separated powers, the problems of co-operation and competition with one another are entwined with internal collective decision-making dilemmas.In this study, we focus on the tension within a political institution between agenda setting as a mechanism for internal organizational maintenance, and agenda setting as a consequence of that institution's interaction with other branches of government and the general public. Specifically, we examine agenda setting by the United States Supreme Court, and ask the question of why the Court allocates more or less of its valuable agenda space to one policy issue over others. Our study environment is the policy issue composition of the Court's docket: the Court's attention to criminal justice policy issues relative to other issues. Among the most important powers of the Court is the power to apportion its agenda space among policy issues.Pacelle argues that the Court's agenda-building process, its culling of cases and issues from numerous petitions, may represent the most important sequence of decisions the Court makes. 3 But the Court's docket is a finite agenda space on which some issues are provided with a larger proportion of the Court's attention. 4 Allocating space to an issue can promote the issue's national visibility and legitimacy as an important public concern. 5

Objectives. In contemporary U.S. elections there is no shortage of allegations concerning election fraud. These claims are, however, based in large part on anecdotal evidence, unsubstantiated assertions, or the study of reported complaints. The absence of a general methodology to actively search for evidence of election fraud has resulted in policy arguments devoid of empirical data and systematic analyses. Methods. In this article, we present a general methodology to study contemporary election fraud based on the Knowledge Discovery in Databases (KDD) process. We then apply this approach to a case study of a particular type of fraud. Results. After examining approximately 2.1 million votes cast during the 2006 general election in Georgia, we find no evidence that election fraud was committed under the auspices of deceased registrants. Conclusion. In this article, we have introduced a general methodology for the scientific study of election fraud. We urge social scientists to make use of such a framework to investigate the prevalence of different types of fraud across varying election cycles and jurisdictions.

In late 1999, Congress enacted financial modernisation legislation that dramatically deregulated the financial services industry and expanded the powers of financial institutions in the USA. In keeping with this deregulation and expanded powers, the regulatory landscape and enforcement mechanisms also changed. While many applaud this legislation, others point to previous US experience where financial deregulation overwhelmed federal regulators and resulted in massive failures of financial institutions and, consequently, in huge federal bailouts. The authors examine here the prospect of supplementing regulation with certain forms of private intervention. Specifically, they address the question: is there a role for whistleblowing and bounty hunting as means of supplementing existing regulation in the financial services industry?

The choice between public and private emergency ambulance services is generally based on histological experience within the community. No empirical evidence exists that supports an argument that either public or private emergency ambulance services are better, per se. On a macro level, this debate is based on the question of the role of government and the role of the marketplace in the delivery of public services and medical care, and the comparative efficiencies of public and private organizations. On a micro or community level, these philosophical concerns are supplemented with issues relating to protection of individual jobs and investments, upholding of community tradition, and maintenance of existing relationships. Other specific values that are considered include the role of profit and equity--fairness of coverage. A rational choice would be based on consideration of efficiency and effectiveness. The effectiveness of an emergency medical services system is primarily based on its ability to provide patients with the level of care that they need within a clinically appropriate time. Efficiency is the ratio between inputs and outputs. One factor that can increase efficiency is the availability of excess production capacity that can be used to provide emergency ambulance service, with a low marginal cost of adding this to the other functions. A rational model is intended to change the level of the debate to one that is less based on values, but it is impossible for a community to select an ambulance provider in a value-free environment.

No abstract