DOCSLIB.ORG

CURRICULUM VITAE Bob Darcy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

May 2021 CURRICULUM VITAE Bob Darcy PERSONAL CITIZENSHIP: United States and European Union (Ireland) DATE OF BIRTH: February 25, 1942 at Elizabeth, New Jersey MILITARY SERVICE: U.S. Army 1966-1968 Sp5 HOME ADDRESS: 2215 West Fifth Avenue (405) 624-0381 Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 USA [email protected] EDUCATION Ph.D. (Political Science) University of Kentucky, Lexington, 1971 Dissertation: "Communications and Political Attitudes." M.A. (Political Science) University of Kentucky, Lexington, 1970 B.A. (Political Science and Philosophy) University of Wisconsin (Madison), 1965 Mathematical Models of Political Science, Virginia Polytechnic and State University, Summer, 1973. ICPSR Summer Training Program in Quantitative Methods of Social Research, University of Michigan, 1970 ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE Oklahoma State University, Regents Professor of Political Science and Statistics Emeritus, 2010-present Oklahoma State University, Regents Professor of Political Science and Statistics, 1991-1995; 1995-1999; 1999-2003; 2003-2010. Liaoning Normal University, Dalian China, Visiting Professor Fall 2010 Tel Aviv University, Israel, Visiting Scholar, Fall, 2007. Keele University, England, Bruce Fellow, Spring, 1998. Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland, Visiting Academic, Department of Political Science, Hilary & Trinity, 1993. University of New South Wales, Australia, Visiting Professor of Politics, Spring, 1991. National University of Ireland, University College, Galway, Visiting Professor of Political Science, Spring, 1988. Queen's University of Belfast, Northern Ireland, Honorary Senior Research Fellow in Political Science, Fall, 1987. University of New Orleans, Visiting Professor of Political Science, Summer, 1985. University of Connecticut, Short Term Guest Professor, Political Science , February - March, 1984. Academy of Korean Studies, Seoul, Korea; Visiting Research Scholar, Summer, 1983. Oklahoma State University, Professor (1985-91), Associate Professor (1980-85), Assistant Professor (1977-80) of Political Science and Statistics. George Washington University, Assistant Professor of Political Science and Public Affairs, 1971-77. Nagpur University, Nagpur, India; Visiting Research Scholar, Summer, 1971. FIELDS OF SPECIALIZATION Page 2 Teaching and Research Areas: American Politics (American Government, Elections and Voting, Women in Politics, Oklahoma Politics) Research Methods (Statistics, Data Analysis) Courses Taught: American Government, Elementary Statistics, Elections and Voting, Women in Politics, Oklahoma Politics, Fundraising for Non-Profits, Public Opinion, Introduction to Statistics, Data Analysis, Scope and Methods of Political Science, Analysis of Statistical Interaction, Methods of Legislative Research, Political Socialization, Political Parties, Legislative Behavior, Computers and Society, Political Behavior, Introduction to Political Science, The Presidency, The Electoral College (teleconference), Seminar in Korean Politics, Islamic Women Policy PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Invited Lectures (selected): College of the Muscogee Nation, Okmulgee, OK, February, 2010 Gwangju Women’s University, Gwangju, South Korea November 2006 Uri Party Foundation, Seoul, November 2006 Korea University, Seoul, November 2006 West Virginia University, February 2006 Wilson Center, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. February, 2006 State University College at Buffalo, April 2005 Oklahoma Library Association , Norman, April 2005 Oklahoma City University Law School, February 2005 OSU Regents Professors, April, 2004 Muskogee Public Library, March, 2003 East Central University, Ada, OK, April 2001 Cameron University, Lawton, OK, March 2000 US Embassy, London, England, November, 1999 Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, OK, November, 1999 Winter Judicial Conference, Oklahoma City, OK, November, 1999 American Bar Association, Denver, September, 1999 Tulsa World, News & Editorial staff, August, 1999 Summer Judicial Conference, Oklahoma City, OK, July, 1999 Sovereignty Symposium XII, Tulsa, OK, June, 1999 Appellate Judges Winter Conference, Guthrie, OK, Dec. 1998 Women in Law Conference, Tulsa, OK, November, 1998 Keele University, England, March 1998 Appellate Judges Winter Conference, Guthrie, OK, Dec. 1997 University of Central Oklahoma, Edmond, November, 1994 Oklahoma University, Norman, March, 1994 Clinch Valley College, Virginia, October, 1993 Korean Institute for Women & Politics, Seoul, July 1993 Keele University, England, May, 1993 Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland, April, 1993 Institute of International Relations, Mozambique March 1993 Higher Institute of Pedagogy, Mozambique, March, 1993 University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa, March, 1993 University of the Western Cape, South Africa, March, 1993 University of Massachusetts, Amherst, November, 1992 Springfield College, Springfield, Mass., November, 1992 College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio, January, 1992 Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Netherlands, October 1991 Universiteit Twente, Enschede, Netherlands, October 1991 Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, Netherlands, October 1991 Page 3 Consejo Supremo Electoral de Venezuela, September 1991 Universidad Simon Bolivar, Caracas Venezuela September 1991 University of New South Wales Canberra Australia April 1991 University of New Orleans, February, 1991 Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, February, 1991 Research Institute for Women & Politics, Seoul, July, 1989 Helsingin Yliopisto (U. of Helsinki), Finland, May, 1988 University College Dublin, Ireland, April, 1988 University of Swaziland, Kwalnseni, March, 1988 Makerere University, Kampala Uganda, March, 1988 Institute of Teacher Education Kyambogo Uganda, March, 1988 Kenyatta University, Nairobi Kenya, March, 1988 Kenya Institute of Mass Communications Nairobi, March, 1988 University College Galway, Ireland, February, 1988. Queen's University, Belfast, N. Ireland, October, 1987 Keimyung University, Taegu Korea, September, 1986 Kyung Hee University, Seoul Korea, August, 1986 University of Connecticut, Storrs, February, 1984 Universitat Hamburg FRG, December, 1983 Universitat Frankfurt FRG, December, 1983 Universitat Stuttgart FRG, December, 1983 University of Goteborg, Sweden, November, 1983 Academia Sinica Taipei, Taiwan, China, August, 1983 Academy of Korean Studies, Seoul, Korea, July, l983 University of Wyoming, Laramie, November, 1981 Southwestern College, Winfield, Kansas, September, 1977 Member (Current): American Political Science Association (life member), An Cumann Polaiteolaiochta na hEireann (Ireland); Cumann Seanchais Bhreifne (Ireland), Oklahoma Political Science Association (life member), Rotary International Member (Previously Active): Midwest Political Science Association, Southern Political Science Association, Western Political Science Association, Southwestern Political Science Association, American Association for Public Opinion Research, , Midwest Political Science Association, Southern Political Science Association, Western Political Science Association, Southwestern Political Science Association, American Association for Public Opinion Research, American Association of University Professors. Expert Witness: On behalf of the Attorney General of Arizona in the case of Brian Mecinas; C.V. ex. Rel. Carolyn Vasko; PTTI Serrano; DNC Services Corp., d/b/a Democratic National Committee; DSCC; and Priorities USA v. Katie Hobbs, in her official capacity as the Arizona Secretary of State in the United States District Court District of Arizona. Case No. 19-cv-05547-DJH (2019-2010) (2019-20). On behalf of the Attorney General of New Hampshire in Ralph Akins, et al. v. Secretary of State of New Hampshire in Merrimack County Superior Court, Docket No. 04-E-0360 concerning effect of ballot position on voting (2004-5). On behalf of defendants in cases CR-98-44-A and CR-99-59-A, United States v. Orange and United States v. Bolden in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma concerning jury selection (2003-5). On behalf of the City of Tulsa in case 02-CV-082 B Jackson v. City of Tulsa in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma concerning Page 4 racial disparities in police practices (2002). On behalf of the Attorney General of Oklahoma in case CIV-00-1071-L Beaver v. Clingman, et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma concerning a challenge to the Election Laws of Oklahoma, Primary Elections (2002-5; Heard before the US Supreme Court January 18, 2005, Decision May 23, 2005. On behalf of the Attorney General of New York in case 98 CIV 4920 Koppell v. New York State Board of Elections in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning a challenge to the Election Laws of New York, Ballots (1999 - 2000). On behalf of the City of Glenpool, Oklahoma in case Rodger Cutler v. City of Glenpool 98-CV-781-B in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma concerning racial profiling (1999). On behalf of the Attorney General of North Carolina in case #1-97 CV01123 "Sutherland v. Hunt" in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina concerning a challenge to the constitutionality of the Election Laws of North Carolina, Ballots (1998). On behalf of the Attorney General of Oklahoma in case CIV-96-1929-A “Atherton, et al. v. Ward, et al.” in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma concerning the constitutionality of Oklahoma’s election laws (1998). On behalf of the Attorney General of New Hampshire in case C.94-477-M "Gilmore v. Gardiner" in the
Recommended publications
  • Can't Turn Me Around

    Can't Turn Me Around

    CAN’T TURN ME AROUND: AN ORAL HISTORY PLAY by Julie Pearson Little Thunder This play is based on interviews conducted by Dr. Tanya Finchum and Juliana Nykolaiszyn for the Oklahoma Oral History Research Program at Oklahoma State University. It includes first person accounts from nine of the forty-six women in the interview series, who served in the Oklahoma Legislature from 2007-2010. Classroom curriculum and specific lessons are also included in the interview collection. To access written transcripts or audio interviews, go to https://library.okstate.edu/search-and-find/collections/digital- collections/wotol/women-legislators/ This is a public domain play. No royalties are required for performances so long as they are given free of charge. However, any public performance must include a program acknowledgement of the playwright. 1 A NOTE ABOUT STYLE This is a presentational play which can be done Reader’s Theater style or as a memorized performance. Posture, voice and various costume elements such as scarves and jackets can be used to indicate the change from actor to character and vice versa. Because this play relies upon these transitions for its theatrical effect, and to emphasize the fact that the women legislators lines are quotes from their interviews, I distinguish between actors and interviewees by listing one or the other first. For example: Actor #3/LAURA BOYD means the actor starts as herself and then presents Boyd. When the notation is reversed, LAURA BOYD/Actor #3, Boyd gets the emphasis. https://library.okstate.edu/search-and-find/collections/digital- collections/wotol/women-legislators/ 2 CAST OF CHARACTERS Bernice Mitchell and Hannah Atkins/Actor #1 (African Americans) Lisa Johnson Billy/Actor #2 (Native American, Chickasaw) Laura Boyd/Actor #3 (white) Audience member/Actor #4 (white) Kathleen Wilcoxson/ Actor #5 (white) Betty Boyd/Actor #6 (white) 3 ACTOR #3 This is how Bernice Mitchell started out in politics.
  • Minutes October 23, 2008, 1:30 – 3:30 P.M

    Minutes October 23, 2008, 1:30 – 3:30 P.M

    Oklahoma Commission on the Status of Women Regular Meeting Minutes October 23, 2008, 1:30 – 3:30 p.m. Room 104, State Capitol Building The Oklahoma Commission on the Status of Women met in Room 104 of the State Capitol Building on October 23, 2008. Vice Chair Mary Walker called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. Commissioners Present: Fern Bowling, Rebecca Kennedy, Lou Kerr, Lou Kohlman, Joyce Martin, Bernice Mitchell, Jilda Motley, Jennifer Paustenbaugh, Claudean Reynolds, Nancy Rothman, Mary Walker Commissioners Excused: Patty Bryant, Bob Darcy, Lee Denney, Sally Frasier, Vicki French, Lyn Hester, Kathryn Jones, Denise Kinzie, Debbe Leftwich, Valeska Littlefield, Pat Martin, Chris Morriss, Anita Norman, Pam Peterson, Patti Presley Commissioners Absent: Toni Calvey, Catherine Haynes, Valerie Thompson. Advisory Council Members Present: Glenda Carlile. Tya Smith (Staff). Visitors Present: Latisha Edwards, OPM. Women’s Leadership Moment: Lou Kohlman gave the Women’s Leadership Moment. Maj. General LaRita Aragon was the Journal Record 2008 Woman of the Year. Jan Peery accepted an award on behalf of the YWCA for its contribution to Oklahoma women. Also honored for contributions to Oklahoma women were N.E.W. Leadership, the Oklahoma Heart Association’s “Go Red for Women” program, and Dress for Success. Listed among the Journal Record’s “50 Women Making a Difference” were Commissioners Rep. Lee Denney and Lou Kerr, and Advisory Council members Laura Boyd, Kay Martin, and Jan Peery. In addition, Lou Kerr received a national award this year. In Oklahoma election news, according to Jean Warner’s Oklahoma Women’s Network tally, twenty-two women are on the ballot for races overall.
  • American Review of Politics Volume 37, Issue 1 31 January 2020

    American Review of Politics Volume 37, Issue 1 31 January 2020

    American Review of Politics Volume 37, Issue 1 31 January 2020 An open a ccess journal published by the University of Oklahoma Department of Political Science in colla bora tion with the University of Okla homa L ibraries Justin J. Wert Editor The University of Oklahoma Department of Political Science & Institute for the American Constitutional Heritage Daniel P. Brown Managing Editor The University of Oklahoma Department of Political Science Richard L. Engstrom Book Reviews Editor Duke University Center for the Study of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender in the Social Sciences American Review of Politics Volume 37 Issue 1 Partisan Ambivalence and Electoral Decision Making Stephen C. Craig Paulina S. Cossette Michael D. Martinez University of Florida Washington College University of Florida [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract American politics today is driven largely by deep divisions between Democrats and Republicans. That said, there are many people who view the opposition in an overwhelmingly negative light – but who simultaneously possess a mix of positive and negative feelings toward their own party. This paper is a response to prior research (most notably, Lavine, Johnson, and Steenbergen 2012) indicating that such ambivalence increases the probability that voters will engage in "deliberative" (or "effortful") rather than "heuristic" thinking when responding to the choices presented to them in political campaigns. Looking first at the 2014 gubernatorial election in Florida, we find no evidence that partisan ambivalence reduces the importance of party identification or increases the impact of other, more "rational" considerations (issue preferences, perceived candidate traits, economic evaluations) on voter choice.
  • American Exceptionalism and Government Shutdowns: a Comparative Constitutional Reflection on the 2013 Lapse in Appropriations Katharine G

    American Exceptionalism and Government Shutdowns: a Comparative Constitutional Reflection on the 2013 Lapse in Appropriations Katharine G

    Boston College Law School Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School Boston College Law School Faculty Papers 5-2014 American Exceptionalism and Government Shutdowns: A Comparative Constitutional Reflection on the 2013 Lapse in Appropriations Katharine G. Young Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/lsfp Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Katharine G. Young. "American Exceptionalism and Government Shutdowns: A Comparative Constitutional Reflection on the 2013 Lapse in Appropriations." Boston University Law Review (2014). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law School Faculty Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM AND GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNS: A COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL REFLECTION ON THE 2013 LAPSE IN APPROPRIATIONS KATHARINE G. YOUNG∗ INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 991 I. THE U.S. SHUTDOWN AND POLITICAL DYSFUNCTION ......................... 993 II. COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL IMPASSE ..............................................................................................
  • Journal Header of Some Sort

    Journal Header of Some Sort

    House Journal - Committees 1333 STANDING COMMITTEES of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES First Session Fifty-third Legislature ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT George Faught, Chair Purcy Walker, Vice-Chair Gary Banz Pam Peterson David Brumbaugh Mike Reynolds Will Fourkiller Mike Shelton Charles Key Weldon Watson Fred Jordan Mark McCullough AGRICULTURE, WILDLIFE AND ENVIRONMENT Phil Richardson, Chair Todd Russ, Vice-Chair John Bennett Curtis McDaniel Lisa Billy Tom Newell Dennis Casey Charles Ortega John Enns Leslie Osborn Larry Glenn R.C. Pruett Tommy Hardin Brian Renegar Mike Jackson Mike Sanders Steve Kouplen Jerry Shoemake James Lockhart Steve Vaughan 1334 House Journal - Committees APPROPRIATIONS AND BUDGET Earl Sears, Chair Scott Martin, Vice-Chair Don Armes Joe Dorman Lisa Billy Chuck Hoskin Gus Blackwell Guy Liebmann Mike Brown Jerry McPeak Doug Cox Jason Nelson David Dank Ron Peters Lee Denney Purcy Walker Dale DeWitt Education Subcommittee Lee Denney, Chair Corey Holland, Vice-Chair Gary Banz Jadine Nollan Dennis Casey Marty Quinn Ann Coody Jabar Shumate Sally Kern Todd Thomsen Jeannie McDaniel Cory Williams General Government and Transportation Subcommittee Guy Liebmann, Chair Harold Wright, Vice-Chair George Faught Jason Murphey Larry Glenn Eric Proctor Dennis Johnson Seneca Scott Charles Key T.W. Shannon Randy McDaniel Randy Terrill Human Services Subcommittee Jason Nelson, Chair Richard Morrissette, Vice-Chair Elise Hall Brian Renegar Jeannie McDaniel Dustin Roberts Ron Peters Sue Tibbs Pam Peterson Steve Vaughan
  • The Political Science Program in the Australian National University's

    The Political Science Program in the Australian National University's

    Democratic Audit of Australia – December 2005 The Mathematics of Democracy: Is the Senate really proportionally representative?1 Scott Brenton Australian National University Former Prime Minister Paul Keating memorably described the Senate, when the Democrats and Greens shared the ‘balance of power’, as ‘unrepresentative swill’. After the Liberal-National Coalition government won a Senate majority at the 2004 federal election that description has assumed an unintended – and at least partially accurate – meaning. Whilst most discussion has focused on the implications of the executive gaining control of the legislature for the first time in almost two-and-a-half decades, of greater concern is that the majority of voters did not vote for the Coalition in the Senate. The Coalition parties2 only received 45.09 per cent of the first preference vote in the Senate but won 21 of the 40 seats up for election, or 52.5 per cent of the seats. In Queensland – the state that delivered the Coalition its majority at the last election – the Liberal Party won half the seats with only 38.29 per cent of first preferences, whilst the National Party won only 6.61 per cent of first preferences. National Party Senator Barnaby Joyce, the self-proclaimed balance-of-power holder, won his seat with less than half a quota on first preferences, and after a 2.55 per cent swing against the Nationals from the previous election. How proportionally representative is the Senate’s electoral system? As many eminent psephologists note – including Antony Green3, Campbell Sharman4 and Malcolm Mackerras5 – the Senate’s electoral system of Proportional Representation 1 Thanks to Marian Sawer, Antony Green and John Uhr for suggesting some useful references and to Peter Brent and an anonymous reviewer for editorial advice.
  • Earle Page and the Imagining of Australia

    Earle Page and the Imagining of Australia

    ‘NOW IS THE PSYCHOLOGICAL MOMENT’ EARLE PAGE AND THE IMAGINING OF AUSTRALIA ‘NOW IS THE PSYCHOLOGICAL MOMENT’ EARLE PAGE AND THE IMAGINING OF AUSTRALIA STEPHEN WILKS Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, Or what’s a heaven for? Robert Browning, ‘Andrea del Sarto’ The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything. Edward John Phelps Earle Page as seen by L.F. Reynolds in Table Talk, 21 October 1926. Published by ANU Press The Australian National University Acton ACT 2601, Australia Email: [email protected] Available to download for free at press.anu.edu.au ISBN (print): 9781760463670 ISBN (online): 9781760463687 WorldCat (print): 1198529303 WorldCat (online): 1198529152 DOI: 10.22459/NPM.2020 This title is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). The full licence terms are available at creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode This publication was awarded a College of Arts and Social Sciences PhD Publication Prize in 2018. The prize contributes to the cost of professional copyediting. Cover design and layout by ANU Press. Cover photograph: Earle Page strikes a pose in early Canberra. Mildenhall Collection, NAA, A3560, 6053, undated. This edition © 2020 ANU Press CONTENTS Illustrations . ix Acknowledgements . xi Abbreviations . xiii Prologue: ‘How Many Germans Did You Kill, Doc?’ . xv Introduction: ‘A Dreamer of Dreams’ . 1 1 . Family, Community and Methodism: The Forging of Page’s World View . .. 17 2 . ‘We Were Determined to Use Our Opportunities to the Full’: Page’s Rise to National Prominence .
  • The States and Territories Ferran Martinez I Coma and Rodney Smith

    The States and Territories Ferran Martinez I Coma and Rodney Smith

    9 The States and Territories Ferran Martinez i Coma and Rodney Smith In November 2015, Bill Shorten declared that, if elected, his government would provide $100 million towards the construction of a new Townsville football stadium. The Queensland Labor government would match the funding. The stadium would primarily serve as the home ground for the newly crowned NRL Premiership winners, the North Queensland Cowboys (Australian Labor Party (ALP) 2015). In the months leading up to the 2016 federal election, Shorten continued to promote his stadium proposal, challenging the Coalition to equal his commitment (Peel 2016). Business analysts criticised Labor’s plan, while the Coalition remained uncommitted (Ludlow 2016). During the fourth week of the election campaign, after the Queensland government announced it would increase its funding to $140 million, Malcolm Turnbull matched Shorten’s stadium promise as part of a broader ‘City Deal’ for Townsville. The State’s Assistant Minister for North Queensland welcomed this new bipartisanship, while criticising the time it took Turnbull to make his promise (Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) 2016; Liberal Party of Australia (LPA) 2016b). Townsville’s football stadium illustrates some of the ways in which federalism and party competition interact in Australian federal elections. The fact that Labor controlled the State government gave federal Labor the possibility of an initiative that created policy and electoral dilemmas for the federal Coalition. As events transpired, the Queensland government was able to leverage State infrastructure funding from both federal major 211 DOUBLE DISILLUSION parties. Had the Queensland government been in Liberal–National Party (LNP) hands, as was the case until early 2015, the dynamics of the stadium decision would have been quite different.
  • Australian Electoral Systems — How Well Do They Serve Political Equality?

    Australian Electoral Systems — How Well Do They Serve Political Equality?

    Australian Electoral Systems — How Well Do They Serve Political Equality? Prepared by Graeme Orr Law Faculty Griffith University, Brisbane for the Democratic Audit of Australia Political Science Program Research School of Social Sciences The Australian National University Report No. 2 The Democratic Audit of Australia—Testing the Strength of Australian Democracy An immigrant society PAGE ii The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and From 2002 to 2004 the Political Science Program in the Australian National PAGE iii should not be taken to represent the views of either the University’s Research School of Social Sciences is conducting an audit to assess Democratic Audit of Australia or The Australian National University Australia’s strengths and weaknesses as a democracy. © The Australian National University 2004 The Audit has three specific aims: ISBN paperback 0-9751925-0-7, online 0-9751925-1-5 (1) Contributing to Methodology: To make a major methodological Cover: Polling day, 10 November 2001, in Burnside, South Australia. contribution to the assessment of democracy—particularly through the Thanks to the Australian Electoral Commission for this image. study of federalism and through incorporating disagreements about National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication data: ‘democracy’ into the research design; Orr, Graeme. (2) Benchmarking: To provide benchmarks for monitoring and international Australian electoral systems, how well do they serve political equality? comparisons—our data can be used, for example, to track the progress of Bibliography. government reforms as well as to compare Australia with other countries; ISBN 0 9751925 0 7 (3) Promoting Debate: To promote public debate over democratic issues and ISBN 0 9751925 1 5 over how Australia’s democratic arrangements might be improved.
  • Chapter Five: Increasing the Size of Parliament

    Chapter Five: Increasing the Size of Parliament

    Chapter 5: Increasing the Size of Parliament This is an appropriate place to show the five sections of the Constitution that are the basis of my case. They begin with section 7 which this book mentions more often than any other, especially the words “directly chosen by the people of the State”. Notice the similarity of the Senate words to those in section 24 requiring that the House of Representatives “shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth”. The origin of those words is easy to explain. Our Founding Fathers wanted to copy the US Constitution and the American Founding Fathers provided in their ARTICLE ONE, section 2: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States. .” It was the intention of the American Founding Fathers that their House of Representatives be the ONLY genuinely democratic part of their Constitution. The reason why our Founding Fathers added the word “directly” to the American “chosen” was to ensure that BOTH senators and lower house members be elected in a candidate-based electoral system. That has continued from federation right through to the present day for members of the House of Representatives. That it has not been so for senators is what this book is mainly about. 1 There is a Part VI of the Constitution with four sections. The one below is the second of the four. The idea that the size of the Parliament should be increased is unpopular among voters but is now quite popular among commentators.
  • Oklahoma Commission on the Status of Women Kate Barnard Award Presentation February 24, 2011

    Oklahoma Commission on the Status of Women Kate Barnard Award Presentation February 24, 2011

    Oklahoma Commission on the Status of Women Kate Barnard Award Presentation February 24, 2011 Commission Members Present: Rita Aragon, Patty Bryant, Fern Bowling, Rep. Lee Denney, Deena Fisher, Catherine Haynes, Joyce Horton Sanders, Ashley Kehl, Rebecca Kennedy, Denise Kinzie, Lou Kohlman, Valaska Littlefield, Joyce Martin, Bernice Mitchell, Chris Morriss, Jennifer Paustenbaugh, Patti Presley, Nancy Rothman, Holly Shelton, Nancy Smith, Mary Walker and Adeline Yerkes Commissioner Members Excused: Malaka Elyazgi , Carolyn McLarty, Rep. Pam Peterson, Peggy Thompson Commissioner Members Absent: Devon Shannon and Valerie Thompson Advisory Council Members: Kitti Asberry, Glenda Carlile, Linda Edmondson, Sheryl Lovelady, Kay Martin, Marjan Seirafi-Pour, Heather Simon, Correna Wilson Distinguished Guests: Past Hall of Fame Inductees: The Honorable Rita Aragon, Secretary of Veterans Affairs and present OCSW Commissioner, Suzanne Edmondson, Dr. Kay Goebel, Esther Houser, Lynn Jones, Jackie Longacre, Dr. Kay Martin, Bernice Mitchell, present OCSW Commissioner, Betty Price, Dr. Jeanine Rhea 2011 inductees: Minister Chloe Brown, Joy Culbreath, Marsha Mitchell, Ardina Moore, Dr. Cindy Ross, The Honorable Kathryn Taylor, former mayor of Tulsa and former Secretary of Commerce, Tourism and Workforce Development, Helen Thompson Women Elected Officials: Honorable Lee Denney, State Representative District 33; Honorable Marian Cooksy, State Representative District 39; The Honorable Lisa Billy, State Representative, District 42, The Honorable Emily Virgin,
  • Proportional Representation in Theory and Practice the Australian Experience

    Proportional Representation in Theory and Practice the Australian Experience

    Proportional Representation in Theory and Practice The Australian Experience Glynn Evans Department of Politics and International Relations School of Social Sciences The University of Adelaide June 2019 Table of Contents Abstract ii Statement of Authorship iii Acknowledgements iv Preface vi 1. Introduction 1 2. District Magnitude, Proportionality and the Number of 30 Parties 3. District Magnitude and Partisan Advantage in the 57 Senate 4. District Magnitude and Partisan Advantage in Western 102 Australia 5. District Magnitude and Partisan Advantage in South Eastern Jurisdictions 132 6. Proportional Representation and Minor Parties: Some 170 Deviating Cases 7. Does Proportional Representation Favour 204 Independents? 8. Proportional Representation and Women – How Much 231 Help? 9. Conclusion 247 Bibliography 251 Appendices 260 i Abstract While all houses of Australian parliaments using proportional representation use the Single Transferable Vote arrangement, district magnitudes (the numbers of members elected per division) and requirements for casting a formal vote vary considerably. Early chapters of this thesis analyse election results in search for distinct patterns of proportionality, the numbers of effective parties and partisan advantage under different conditions. This thesis argues that while district magnitude remains the decisive factor in determining proportionality (the higher the magnitude, the more proportional the system), ballot paper numbering requirements play a more important role in determining the number of (especially) parliamentary parties. The general pattern is that, somewhat paradoxically, the more freedom voters have to choose their own preference allocations, or lack of them, the smaller the number of parliamentary parties. Even numbered magnitudes in general, and six member divisions in particular, provide some advantage to the Liberal and National Parties, while the Greens are disadvantaged in five member divisions as compared to six or seven member divisions.