DOCSLIB.ORG

Quin Monson Vita Jan 29 2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Quin Monson Vita Jan 29 2021 Joseph Quin Monson curriculum vitae Department of Political Science Brigham Young University 745 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Provo, UT 84602 Phone: (801) 422-8017 Email: [email protected] Positions 2011 to present Associate Professor, BYU Department of Political Science 2020 to present Director, BYU Office of Civic Engagement Leadership 2014 to present Senior Scholar, BYU Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy (CSED) 2014 to present Founding Partner, Y2 Analytics 2014 to 2017 Associate Chair, BYU Department of Political Science 2012 to 2014 Director, CSED 2004 to 2011 Assistant Professor, BYU Department of Political Science 2008 to 2012 Associate Director, CSED 2003 to 2004 Instructor, BYU Department of Political Science 2002 to 2008 Assistant Director, CSED 1999 to 2001 Graduate Teaching Associate, Dept. of Political Science, Ohio State Univ. 1998 to 2000 Editorial Associate, American Journal of Political Science. 1996 to 1998 Graduate Research Associate, Center for Survey Research, Ohio State Univ. Education Ph.D. Political Science, Ohio State University, 2004 Dissertation: Polling in Congressional Election Campaigns M.A., Political Science, Ohio State University, 1999 BA/MA (combined degree), Public Policy, cum laude, Brigham Young University, 1996 Language: read, speak, and write Portuguese. 1 Publications Books Campbell, David E., John C. Green, and J. Quin Monson. 2014. Seeking the Promised Land: Mormons and American Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Magleby, David B., J. Quin Monson, and Kelly D. Patterson, eds. 2007. Dancing Without Partners: How Candidates, Parties, and Interest Groups Interact in the Presidential Campaign. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Magleby, David B., J. Quin Monson, and Kelly D. Patterson, eds. 2007. Electing Congress: New Rules for an Old Game. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Magleby, David B. and J. Quin Monson, and Kelly D. Patterson, eds. 2004. The Last Hurrah? Soft Money and Issue Advocacy in the 2002 Congressional Elections. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Articles Karpowitz, Christopher F., Tyson King-Meadows, J. Quin Monson, and Jeremy C Pope. “What Leads Racially Resentful Voters to Choose Black Candidates?” Forthcoming. The Journal of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1086/708952. Karpowitz, Christopher F., J. Quin Monson, and Jessica R. Preece. 2017. “How to Elect More Women: Gender and Candidate Success in a Field Experiment” American Journal of Political Science 61: 927–943. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12300. Karpowitz, Christopher F., J. Quin Monson, and Kelly D. Patterson. 2016. “Who’s In and Who’s Out: The Politics of Religious Norms” Politics and Religion 9:508-536. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1755048316000456. Hassell, Hans J.G. and J. Quin Monson. 2016. “Representational Inconsistency: Presentation of Self and Explanations of Washington Activity in Campaign Mail and Franked Mail” Congress and the Presidency 43:206-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2016.1148079. Claassen, Ryan L. and J. Quin Monson. 2015. “Does Civic Education Matter? The Power of Long-Term Observation and the Experimental Method” Journal of Political Science Education 11:404-421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2015.1069197. Barber, Michael J., Christopher B. Mann, J. Quin Monson, and Kelly D. Patterson. 2014. “Online Polls and Registration Based Sampling: A New Method for Pre-election Polling” Political Analysis 21:321-335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpt023. Hassell, Hans J. G. and J. Quin Monson. 2014. “Campaign Targets and Messages in Direct Mail Fundraising” Political Behavior 36:359-376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9230-8. Claassen, Ryan L., David B. Magleby, J. Quin Monson, Kelly D. Patterson. 2013. “Voter Confidence and the Election-Day Voting Experience” Political Behavior 35: 215-235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-012-9202-4. 2 Campbell, David E., John C. Green, and J. Quin Monson. 2012. “The Stained Glass Ceiling: Social Contact and Mitt Romney’s ‘Religion Problem’” Political Behavior 34:277–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-012-9200-6. Karpowitz, Christopher F., J. Quin Monson, Kelly D. Patterson, and Jeremy C. Pope. 2011. “Tea Time in America? The Impact of the Tea Party Movement on the 2010 Midterm Elections” PS: Political Science & Politics 44:303-309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1049096511000138. Karpowitz, Christopher F., J. Quin Monson, Lindsay Nielson, Kelly D. Patterson, and Steven A. Snell. 2011. “Political Norms and the Private Act of Voting.” Public Opinion Quarterly 75:659- 685. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr024. Grant, J. Tobin, Stephen T. Mockabee, and J. Quin Monson. 2010. “Campaign Effects on the Accessibility of Party Identification” Political Research Quarterly. 62: 811-821. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1065912909336269. Hall, Thad E., J. Quin Monson, and Kelly D. Patterson. 2009. “The Human Dimension of Elections: How Poll Workers Shape Public Confidence in Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 62: 507-522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1065912908324870. Campbell, David E., and J. Quin Monson. 2008. “The Religion Card: Gay Marriage and the 2004 Presidential Election.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72:399-419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn032. Claassen, Ryan L., David B. Magleby, J. Quin Monson, and Kelly D. Patterson. 2008. “‘At Your Service’: Voter Evaluations of Poll Worker Performance.” American Politics Research 36:612- 634. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X08319006. Hall, Thad E., J. Quin Monson, and Kelly D. Patterson. 2007. “Poll Workers and the Vitality of Democracy: An Early Assessment.” PS: Political Science & Politics 40: 647-654. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S104909650707103X. Gale, Kristina, Betsey Gimbel Hawkins, Richard Hawkins, David B. Magleby, J. Quin Monson, and Kelly D. Patterson. 2005. “Effects of the Stand by Your Ad Provision on Attitudes about Candidates and Campaigns.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 35: 771-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5705.2005.00276.x. Campbell, David E., and J. Quin Monson. 2003. “Following the Leader? Mormon Voting on Ballot Propositions.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42: 605-619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-5906.2003.00206.x. Mulligan, Kenneth, J. Tobin Grant, Stephen T. Mockabee, and J. Quin Monson. 2003. “Response Latency Methodology for Survey Research: Measurement and Modeling Strategies.” Political Analysis 11:289-301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpg004. Magleby, David B. and J. Quin Monson. 2003. “The Noncandidate Campaign: Soft Money and Issue Advocacy in the 2002 Congressional Elections.” PS: Political Science & Politics 36: 401- 409. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3649226. 3 Lacy, Dean, and Quin Monson. 2002. “The Origins and Impact of Electoral Support for Third- Party Candidates: A Case Study of the 1998 Minnesota Gubernatorial Election.” Political Research Quarterly 55:409-437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591290205500207. Mockabee, Stephen T., J. Quin Monson, and J. Tobin Grant. 2001. “Measuring Religious Commitment Among Catholics and Protestants: A New Approach.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40:675-690. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0021-8294.00084. Book Chapters Monson, J. Quin and Kelly N. Duncan. 2020. “Passive Zionism vs. Christian Zionism: Latter-day Saint and Evangelical Protestant Attitudes About Israel” in Covenants and Communities: Jews and Latter-day Saints in Dialogue, edited by Mark S. Diamond and Andrew C. Reed. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University and New York: Central Conference of American Rabbis. Aldridge, Alejandra Gimenez, Christopher F. Karpowitz, J. Quin Monson, and Jessica Robinson Preece. 2020. “How Political Parties Can Diversify Their Leadership” in Good Reasons to Run: Women and Political Candidacy, edited by Shauna Shames, Rachel I. Bernhard, Mirya R. Holman, and Dawn Langan Teele. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Campbell, David E., Christopher F. Karpowitz, and J. Quin Monson. 2015. “A Politically Peculiar People: How Mormons Moved Into and Then Out Of the Political Mainstream.” In Randall Balmer and Jana Riess, eds. Mormonism and American Politics. New York: Columbia University Press. Frei, Matthew D., J. Quin Monson, Leah Murray, and Kelly D. Patterson. 2012. “Tea for Only Two: The Ousting of Utah Senator Robert Bennett.” In William J. Miller and Jeremy D. Walling, eds. Tea Party Effects on 2010 U.S. Senate Elections: Stuck in the Middle to Lose. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Monson, J. Quin, Kelly D. Patterson, and Jeremy C. Pope. 2011. “The Campaign Context for Partisanship Stability.” In John Green and Daniel J. Coffey, eds. The State of the Parties, 6th edition. Lanham, MD, Rowman and Littlefield. Hall, Thad E., J. Quin Monson, and Kelly D. Patterson. 2008. “Poll Workers’ Job Satisfaction and Confidence.” 2008. In Bruce E. Cain, Todd Donovan, and Caroline J. Tolbert, eds. Democracy in the States: Experiments in Election Reform. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Monson, J. Quin and Kara L. Norman. 2007. “Religious and Secular Interests in the Resolution of the Salt Lake City Main Street Plaza Controversy.” In Paul Djupe and Laura Olson, eds. Religion and Community Conflict, Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. Campbell, David E. and J. Quin Monson. 2007. “Dry Kindling: A Political Profile of American Mormons.” In J. Matthew Wilson, ed. From Pews to Polling Places: Faith and Politics in the American Religious Mosaic. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 4 Monson, J. Quin and J. Baxter Oliphant. 2007. “Microtargeting and the Instrumental Mobilization of Religious Conservatives.” In David E. Campbell, ed. A Matter of Faith: Religion in the 2004 Presidential Election. Brookings Institution Press. Campbell, David E. and J. Quin Monson. 2007. “The Case of Bush’s Reelection: Did Gay Marriage Do It?” In David E. Campbell, ed. A Matter of Faith: Religion in the 2004 Presidential Election. Brookings Institution Press. Magleby, David B., J. Quin Monson, and Kelly D. Patterson. 2007. “Rally ’Round the Flag: When Interest Groups Invite Themselves to the Party.” In John Green and Daniel J.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Utah Taxpayer
    The Volume Utah Taxpayer 34 JuJulyly 2009 2009 Number 7 Page 1 The Utah Taxpayer A Publication of the Utah Taxpayers Association 1578 West 1700 South♦Suite 201♦Salt Lake City, Utah 84104♦(801) 972-8814 July 2009 Articles 2009 Federal, State, and Local Tax Burden on 2009 Federal, State, and a Median-income Utah Family Local Taxes on a Mediam income Utah Family A median-income Utah household consisting of two parents and three children pays 24.2% of its income in direct federal, state, and local taxes, according to an analysis by the Utah Taxpayers Asso- My Corner – Iranian style ciation. A median-income Utah family with two parents and three children earns $63,074 in wages elections in Utah? and salary. Additionally, the family earned $5,474 in the form of employer-paid payroll taxes for a total income of $68,548. Highlights from the Taxes Now Conference The following chart illustrates the tax impact. These taxes do not include the taxes that businesses pay and pass The costs taxpayers pay on to their customers in because of UTOPIA Percent of Percent of the form of 2009 Taxes Amount Taxes Income RDAs: Corporate welfare higher prices, disguised as “economic to employees Social Security $7,821 47.1% 11.4% development” in the form of Sales tax 2,106 12.7% 3.1% reduced State income tax 1,967 11.9% 2.9% compensation, Medicare 1,829 11.0% 2.7% and to Property tax 1,347 8.1% 2.0% shareholders in Automobile taxes 922 5.6% 1.3% the form of Employment taxes 649 3.9% 0.9% reduced divi- dends and Excise taxes 306 1.8% 0.4% stock prices.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Vote-By-Mail Cause Voters to Gather Information About Politics?∗
    Does Vote-by-Mail Cause Voters to Gather Information About Politics?∗ James Szewczyk Department of Political Science Emory University [email protected] June 28, 2019 Abstract In this paper, I examine the effects of vote-by-mail on voter behavior and voter knowledge. I argue that vote-by-mail electoral systems result in a more informed electorate, because voters have additional time with their ballot and access to resources to conduct research about races on the ballot that they know nothing about. I present the results of two empirical studies that support this prediction. First, I find that all-mail elections in Utah cause a 6.368 percentage point decrease in straight ticket voting. This is con- sistent with the logic that voters spend more time with their ballots when voting by mail relative to when they are voting at a polling place. Second, I estimate the effects of vote-by-mail on voter knowledge using an original repeated cross-sectional survey that was fielded during the 2018 general election in California. The research design exploits the implementation of the California Voters Choice Act (VCA), which resulted in five counties in the state switching to an election system in which all voters in the counties are sent a mail-in ballot. I find that the VCA causes an increase in voter knowledge and an increase in time that voters spend gathering information about the election. However, the reform does not affect the prevalence of political discussion or levels of knowledge about the party identification and ideology of candidates. ∗I thank the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and the Madison Initiative of the William Flora Hewlett Foundation for generously funding this research.
    [Show full text]
  • The School of the Prophets: Its Development and Influence in Utah Territory
    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations 1970 The School of the Prophets: Its Development and Influence in Utah Territory John R. Patrick Brigham Young University - Provo Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd Part of the History Commons, Mormon Studies Commons, and the Sociology Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Patrick, John R., "The School of the Prophets: Its Development and Influence in Utah erritT ory" (1970). Theses and Dissertations. 5019. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/5019 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. D 1661 THE SCHOOL OF THE PROPHETS ITS development AND INFLUENCE IN UTAH TERRITORY A thesis L L presented to the department of history brigham young university in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree master of arts by john R patrick june 1970 acknowledgments it is with deep appreciation and gratitude that I1 extend these ac- knowledgmentsknowledgments at this time to those who have been instrumental in helping complete this study first I1 wish to thank drs eugene E campbell and thomas G alexander members of the brigham young university history department and members of my committee for their time and effort expended in helping obtain permission to work on this topic for their reading and critical
    [Show full text]
  • A Contemporary Study to Determine the Perceived Influence of the Mormon Church on Utah Politics
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 5-1973 Mormon Myth or Monopoly: A Contemporary Study to Determine the Perceived Influence of the Mormon Church on Utah Politics Douglas S. Foxley Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Foxley, Douglas S., "Mormon Myth or Monopoly: A Contemporary Study to Determine the Perceived Influence of the Mormon Church on Utah Politics" (1973). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 7651. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/7651 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MORMON MYTH OR MONOPOLY:A CONTEMPORARY STUDY TO DETERMINE THE PERCEIVED INFLUENCE OF THE MORMONCHURCH ON UTAH POLlTlCS by Douglas S. Foxley A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Political Science Utah State University Logan, Utah 1973 ii To My Parents, G. Melvin and Beth S. Foxley iii \CKNOWLEDGEMENTS In preparing this thesis, I am most grateful to my parents for their encouragement and support which has enabled me to complete this work. I especially appreciate Dr. Dan E. Jones, for his willingness to give of his time and talents in aiding me throughout this study. Also, I thank all of the members of the Department of Political Science for the help which they have given me through the years; and to the Bureau of Government and Opinion Research and its most competent secretary, Ellen Gertsch, I say thank ~ so much.
    [Show full text]
  • Read the 2020 Utah Statewide Voter Information Pamphlet
    GENERAL ELECTION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2020 POLLS ARE OPEN FROM 7:00 A.M. TO 8:00 P.M. ON ELECTION DAY BALLOTS BEGIN BEING MAILED OCTOBER 13 UTAH’S OFFICIAL VOTER INFORMATION PAMPHLET Note: This electronic version of the voter information pamphlet contains general voting information for all Utah voters. To view voting information that is specific to you, visit vote.utah.gov, enter your address, and click on “Sample Ballot, Profiles, Issues.” For audio and braille versions of the voter information pamphlet, please visit blindlibrary.utah.gov. VOTE.UTAH.GOV A message from the Elections Office Utah Voter, Welcome to Utah’s 2020 General Election Voter Information Pamphlet. We designed this pamphlet to provide voters accross our state with important information that will help them navigate the upcoming election. Each of our elections is unique, and this one is no different. Voters across the state will embark on making decisions that will guide the government that they have for years to come. Throughout this pamphlet you will find information on the candidates that will represent you federally, in statewide office, in the state senate and state house, and on the state board of education. You will be able to read about the seven Constitutional Amendments that will appear on your ballot as well as judicial retention elections. In this pamphlet you will also find information aimed at helping you with the voting process like voter registration, voting methods, and communicating with your county clerk’s office. If you have questions about this information or the voting process, there is contact information for your local elections officials on page 129.
    [Show full text]
  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. :1\Iarcn 13
    1836 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. :1\IARcn 13, Mr. HARRIS. By no means is the Senate ready for that question, The SPEAKER. The objection ismadetoolate. Someothergen­ I am sure, at this time. tlemen have like resolutions to present. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee moves Mr. TOWNSHEND, of Illinois. Let them all come in under the that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. regular call of States. Mr. SHERMAN. Before the question is put, if there is no special The concurrent resolution presented by Mr. LORD is as follows : occasion to go into executive session, I suggest that we take up the Concurrent resolution. Ca:lendar under the Anthony rule. Whereas the system of polgam.y existin~ in certain sections of our country Mr. MORRILL. Why not allow the Senator from Florida to go on is degrading to the individuals and demoralizing to the communities adopting it, with his speech 'f and is both repugnant to the Christian sentimenta of the age and is a national disgrace: Therefore, Mr. BAYARD. He does not desire to speak now. Resolved, (the senate concurring,) That our Senators and Representatives in Mr. SHERMAN. Why not go on with the Calendar under the Congress be respectfully requested to use nJ1. reasonable and honorable means to Anthony rnle f ~!~b.U:es~~~~:i~~!£fation which shall promptly and effectually extirpa.~ Mr. HARRIS. When we have got through with the executive busi­ Resolved, That the governor be requested to forward copies of these resolutions ness, if it is desirable that the Senate shall sit longer, we can take to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Political Trends Panel March 2020
    UTAH POLITICAL TRENDS PANEL MARCH 2020 TOPLINE REPORT METHODOLOGY DETAILS n=1,331 likely Utah 2020 General Election voters Online interviews fielded March 21-30, 2020 Margin of error +- 2.7 In January of 2020, 115,126 likely Utah voters were sampled from the state’s file of registered voters and invited to join in the Utah Political Trends Panel–a representative, statewide panel of Utah voters (see sampling details below). Utah voters who opted-in to join this panel were contacted again in March, 2020 and invited to participate in the next wave of the Utah Political Trends Panel. 1,331 of our 2,296 panelists responded by participating in this survey, resulting in an overall response rate of 1% of the original sample (AAPOR RR#2) and an eligible response rate of 58% of panelists (AAPOR Contact Rate #3). Survey invitations were sent via email and interviews were completed online. Before drawing the sample, a model of 2020 general election turnout was estimated using age, party registration status, length of registration, permanent absentee status, and past election turnout (one recent general election is used as the “dependent variable,” in this case the 2016 general election). This model produces a sampling pool of registered voters that can be randomly sampled based on their likelihood of voting. A Probability Proportionate to Size (PPS) sample was drawn using this predicted turnout estimate such that voters with a higher probability of voting have a higher probability of being selected in the sample. Thus, the final sample accurately approximates a population of general election voters.
    [Show full text]
  • Election Brief
    Election Brief October 2018 Dear Utah Voter, The 2018 elections in Utah pose important questions to voters about health care, motor fuel taxes, representation, and the future of our state. Additional considerations will be on voters’ minds as they decide on a new U.S. senator, members of congress, state legislators, and local government officials. To help inform these decisions, the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute and Hinckley Institute of Politics produced this election brief and will host debate watch parties and forums throughout the Fall. This INFORMED DECISIONS 2018 Election Brief helps voters navigate this important election year with analysis of critical issues impacting our state. To help inform voters, the brief includes a summary of Utah’s demographics and economy as well as findings from several roundtable/focus group discussions. We are excited to combine the energies and talent of both the Hinckley Institute and Gardner Policy Institute to engage the public, analyze issues, and ultimately, help the public make informed decisions. Sincerely, Natalie Gochnour Jason P. Perry Associate Dean, David Eccles School of Business Vice President of Government Relations Director, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Director, Hinckley Institute of Politics Table of Contents 2 3 4 6 8 10 We Are Utah Utah’s Issue Brief Issue Brief Issue Brief Policy Expert Economic Medicaid Education Housing Prices Roundtables Headwinds Expansion: Funding: Ballot and the Threat and Voter and Tailwinds Proposition 3 Question 1 to Affordability Focus Group Description and Methodology Informed Decisions 2018 1 We are Utah Utah surpassed three million residents in 2015 and population growth was maintained between 2016 and 2017, continues to be among the most rapidly growing states.
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Political Trends Panel May 2020
    UTAH POLITICAL TRENDS PANEL MAY 2020 TOPLINE REPORT METHODOLOGY DETAILS n=1,099 likely Utah 2020 General Election voters Online interviews fielded May 9-15, 2020 Margin of error +- 3.0 In January of 2020, 115,126 likely Utah voters were sampled from the state’s file of registered voters and invited to join in the Utah Political Trends Panel–a representative, statewide panel of Utah voters (see sampling details below). Utah voters who opted-in to join this panel were contacted again in March, 2020 and invited to participate in the next wave of the Utah Political Trends Panel. 1,099 of our 2,296 panelists responded by participating in this survey, resulting in an overall response rate of 1% of the original sample (AAPOR RR#2) and an eligible response rate of 48% of panelists (AAPOR Contact Rate #3). Survey invitations were sent via email and interviews were completed online. Before drawing the sample, a model of 2020 general election turnout was estimated using age, party registration status, length of registration, permanent absentee status, and past election turnout (one recent general election is used as the “dependent variable,” in this case the 2016 general election). This model produces a sampling pool of registered voters that can be randomly sampled based on their likelihood of voting. A Probability Proportionate to Size (PPS) sample was drawn using this predicted turnout estimate such that voters with a higher probability of voting have a higher probability of being selected in the sample. Thus, the final sample accurately approximates a population of general election voters.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematical Analysis of Redistricting in Utah Arxiv:2107.05515V1 [Cs.CY
    Mathematical Analysis of Redistricting in Utah Annika King1, Jacob Murri1, Jake Callahan1, Adrienne Russell1, and Tyler J. Jarvis1 1Department of Mathematics, Brigham Young University July 13, 2021 Abstract We investigate the claim that the Utah congressional districts enacted in 2011 represent an unfair Republican gerrymander, and we evaluate the most common measures of partisan fairness and gerrymandering in the context of Utah's congressional districts. We do this by generating large ensembles of alternative redistricting plans using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. We also propose a new metric of partisan fairness in Utah, namely, the Republican vote share in the least-Republican district. This metric only makes sense in settings with at most one competitive district, but it is very effective for quantifying gerrymandering and for evaluating other metrics used in such settings. Keywords: Markov chain Monte Carlo, redistricting, Utah, ensemble methods, gerrymander, partisan symmetry arXiv:2107.05515v1 [cs.CY] 12 Jul 2021 1 1 Introduction It has been claimed that the U.S. congressional districts in Utah, enacted in October 2011, constitute an unfair Republican gerrymander (Davidson, 2011; Magleby, 2018; Better Utah, 2020). Moreover, DeFord et al. (2020) recently observed that some of the commonly used measures of partisan symmetry suffer from what they call the Utah paradox: these metrics flag redistricting plans in Utah with more Democratic representation as egregious pro-Republican gerrymanders and flag plans with no Democratic representation as pro- Democratic gerrymanders. In this paper we investigate the claim that the 2011 Utah congressional districts represent an unfair Republican gerrymander, and we examine the most common measures of partisan symmetry and gerrymandering in the context of Utah's congressional districts.
    [Show full text]
  • Religion and Third Parties: the 2016 Presidential Election in Utah
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Plan B and other Reports Graduate Studies 5-2019 Religion and Third Parties: The 2016 Presidential Election in Utah Nathan Lee Osborne Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/gradreports Part of the American Politics Commons Recommended Citation Osborne, Nathan Lee, "Religion and Third Parties: The 2016 Presidential Election in Utah" (2019). All Graduate Plan B and other Reports. 1372. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/gradreports/1372 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Plan B and other Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 RELIGION AND THIRD PARTIES: THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN UTAH by Nathan Lee Osborne A thesis proposal submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in Political Science Approved: _________________________ _________________________ Damon Cann Josh Ryan Major Professor Committee Member _________________________ Randy Simmons Committee Member UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2019 2 Introduction Despite no mention of political parties in the Constitution, political parties have played a major role in United States elections, from almost the beginning1 (Jefferson 1898). These parties act as vehicles to help citizens understand and participate in the political process as well as express and form political preferences (Koch 2003; Downs 1957). In some instances, the Constitution is very explicit on the practical considerations related to running the government. For many other matters, “the founders left a lot of room in terms of how the actual plumbing would work” (Dubner 2018).
    [Show full text]
  • Items, Correspondence, And/Or Future Agenda Items There Was None
    Minutes of the Millcreek City Council August 24, 2020 5:45 p.m. Work Meeting 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting The City Council of Millcreek, Utah, met in a public work meeting and regular meeting on August 24, 2020 at City Hall, located at 3330 S. 1300 E., Millcreek, UT 84106. The meeting was conducted electronically per Millcreek State of Local Emergency Directive No. 2 of 2020 and live streamed via the City’s website with an option for online public comment. PRESENT: Council Members City Staff Jeff Silvestrini, Mayor John Brems, City Attorney Silvia Catten, District 1 Elyse Sullivan, City Recorder Dwight Marchant, District 2 Kurt Hansen, Legislative Policy Director Cheri Jackson, District 3 Laurie Johnson, HR-Finance Director Bev Uipi, District 4 Francis Lilly, Planning and Zoning Director Mike Winder, Economic Development Director John Miller, City Engineer Jared Bowling, IT/Facilities Manager Attendees: Janice Kimball (electronic), Audry Wood (electronic), Kory Holdaway, Brian Pickett, Halle Pickett, Josie Pickett, K. Kumar Shah, Thom DeSirant, Elaine Janeway, Susan Ferrin, Linda V., Bahati Kaberuka, Sophia Taylor-Swanson, Coral Borack, Josie Pickett, Doug Owens, Officer Adam Page, Chief Steve DeBry, and Chief Duane Woolsey. WORK MEETING – 5:45 p.m. TIME COMMENCED: 5:49 p.m. Mayor Silvestrini called the work meeting to order. 1. Housing Connect Presentation; Janice Kimball, Chief Executive Officer for Housing Connect Janice Kimball said Housing Connect was the Housing Authority for Salt Lake County and also a resource for municipalities in the County to reach affordable housing goals. Their mission is to connect people and communities to quality affordable housing opportunities while promoting self-sufficiency and neighborhood revitalization.
    [Show full text]