We read with interest David C. Earnest's recent (July 2006) PS article about the pedagogical challenges surrounding the statistical computation of pseudo-random numbers (PRNGs). We write to clarify some issues regarding the testing and setting of PRNG seeds, and to direct readers' attention to a set of resources for configuring computationally accurate simulations and statistical analyses.

We are gratified that Prof. Bennett has now read the full Task Forceon Inequality and American Democracy report that he critiqued in theJanuary 2006 issue of PS, but we find his responsepuzzling. He characterizes our report as “illustrative of manypolitical scientists' left-wing tilt” and buttresses his assertion,not by analyzing the report itself, but by referring to studies ofthe political leanings of college faculty. Clearly, the test of ourheavily annotated work—the bottom line of which is that “there areno easy conclusions when it comes to changing inequality ofpolitical voice” (APSA Task Force 2004, 35)—is whether we have beenfaithful to the relevant scholarly research. Since Bennett providesno evidence to the contrary, we leave it to the reader to decide whois driven by ideological, rather than scholarly, concern.

I read Anil G. Jacob's piece in the January 2006 issue ofPS (“Asian American Political Participation:Research Challenges for an Emerging Minority,” 103–106) with amixture of admiration and consternation. He has my admiration forgetting published as a graduate student, and that too inPS—a feat that I'm sure will stand him goodmeasure when he is on the job market. However, he has myconsternation because he makes slight of a field that has,especially in the last five years, produced a good deal ofscholarship on a myriad of questions relating to Asian-Americanpolitical behavior.

Dissertations into books? and Editors' correction.

By far the most significant form of gerrymandering is partisangerrymandering. It is painfully ubiquitous and yet can be covert,hidden in plain view. More importantly the advent of the computerand the growing polarization of the electorate have enhanced itsimportance. Already the House of Representatives has becomevirtually safe for most incumbents and in recent electionsexperienced less turnover than the Senate, which has far fewermembers and only one-third of its members up for reelection.

Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham resigns after pleading guilty to bribery. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is indicted and forced to relinquish his leadership position, and later resigns from Congress. House Democrat William Jefferson is stripped of his position on the Ways and Means Committee after an FBI raid of his congressional office and amid reports that he hid $90,000 in alleged bribes in a freezer at his home. Stories of wrongdoing in government surface almost daily as members of Congress come under a microscope for close ties to lobbyists. As the 2006 congressional elections approach, Democrats have made corruption a central theme in their campaigns, arguing that a series of scandals adds up to a full-blown culture of corruption. In response, Republicans have rejected this characterization and attempted to point the finger back at Democrats, suggesting that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.We thank Rosie Clawson and Bert Rockman for helpful comments.

Professor Schlozman feels that unless one also assesses three longmemos that accompanied the report by the APSA's Task Force onInequality and American Democracy, one should refrain fromcommenting. She accuses me in my response to the Task Force reports(Bennett 2006) of “not bother[ing] toread the full materials on which … [I comment]” (Schlozman 2006, 55). Schlozman indicates she'd be“interested in … [my] reactions to the whole report instead of anabbreviated version” (55). Since she asks, here goes.

James Madison contributed much to political science and to the artand science of governing democratic regimes. A major contributionwas his recognition of the multiple threats facing the newlyestablished Confederation (see, e.g., Dougherty 2001). Madison waswilling to invest heavily in converting these threats into newopportunities. In his “Preface to Debates in the Convention” ([1984]1840, 19), Madison reflected on the causes for alarm.James Madison Award lecture presented at theAmerican Political Science Association (APSA) Annual Meeting,Washington, D.C., September 1, 2005. The author is appreciativeof support from the Ford Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation,and the National Science Foundation and useful comments by BillBlomquist, Eric Coleman, Sue Crawford, Joshua P. Hill, MarcoJanssen, Robert Keohane, Mike McGinnis, Lesa B. Morrison, AmyPoteete, Mike Schoon, David Schwab, and Kenneth Shepsle on aninitial draft of this paper. As always, I deeply appreciatePatty Lezotte's careful editing.

It was my good fortune to have known John Gaus and to have attended alecture course and participated in a seminar that he offered in1949. His Alabama lectures entitled Reflections on PublicAdministration, published in 1947, included such titlesas “The Ecology of Government” and “Politics and Administration.”His concluding chapter, written after the initial presentations, wasentitled “A Theory of the Process of Government.” Gaus was broadlyengaged in reflections about the place of public administration insystems of governance and the constitution of order in humansocieties.The author isappreciative of detailed comments by Paul Aligica, BarbaraAllen, Krister Andersson, Robert Bish, Sheldon Gellar, StephanKuhnert, Michael McGinnis, Elinor Ostrom, Andrew Revelle,Filippo Sabetti, Amos Sawyer, Sujai Shivakumar, MarkSproule-Jones, and Lihua Yang.

While not the worst of political pathologies, corruption is the one most likely to be found thriving in electoral democracies. Not as dangerous as war, nor as urgent as terrorism, some have even argued that the little bit of corruption that comes with democracies makes them work better—by lowering transaction costs, reducing the inefficiencies of cumbersome rules, and generally making things happen (Anechiarico and Jacobs 1996; see also Leys 1965; Huntington 1968).This article draws on Warren (2004).

In recent years, a growing chorus of voices in the political sciencediscipline has become concerned with the balance among alternativemethodological approaches in empirical research and publications.Accordingly, these scholars have issued a call to further developand refine rigorous methods for qualitative studies, in contrast tostudies that rely on quantitative methods and formal modeling(Bennett, Barth, and Rutherford 2003;Yanow 2003; George and Bennett 2005). My own interest and reason forconducting the following survey is rooted in the observation, evenfrustration, that the literature on qualitative research methodslargely focuses on democratic and not on authoritarian regimes orthe Middle East in particular. Research in the Middle East isclearly essential and has received increased attention since theterrorist attacks of 9-11, but given how critical this work is andwill continue to be in coming years, what are the challenges? Doqualitative methodological tools need to be adapted for research inthe Middle East? And, if so, how?Theauthor would like to thank Anna Szczurk for her help indesigning the survey and the contributors to the symposium andMelissa Gabler for their help in the research and writing of thearticle. The author also is grateful to the survey respondentsfor the time and effort they devoted to answering thequestions.

When I was looking for a quotation to garnish the introduction to mydoctoral dissertation on Senate committees, I turned, like hundredsof graduate students before and since, to Woodrow Wilson'sCongressional Government. “Congress in sessionis Congress on public exhibition,” he wrote (1885) and I quoted(1972), “whilst Congress in its committee-rooms is Congress atwork.” But the book deserves better than simply to be mined forquotations. As Wilson's doctoral dissertation, it offers insightsinto his developing political thought. It illumines the operationsof the national government during what was indeed a period ofcongressional and standing-committee ascendancy, although Wilson'saccount was neither objective nor totally reliable. And it promptsreflection on certain recurring dilemmas in the practice of Americandemocracy.This essay is adaptedfrom a presentation at the Woodrow Wilson International Centerfor Scholars, November 14, 2005.

The European Union is going about its regular business. It is puttingforth proposals to keep the Doha Round alive, continuing tonegotiate a major trade agreement with Mercosur in South America,keeping peace-keeping troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina, spendingdevelopment aid in numerous poor countries, financially supportingthe Palestine Authority while giving Israel preferential access tothe EU market, investigating Microsoft's business practices, andbattling over the reach and scope of an ambitious new legislativeattempt to regulate the chemical industry. The EU Greenhouse TradingScheme, the largest greenhouse emissions trading scheme in theworld, is up and running. The European Central Bank is makingmonetary policy decisions while the euro makes up almost 20% ofcentral banks' foreign currency holdings. The European MedicinesAgency (EMEA) has called for suspending the sale of the children'svaccine Hexavac. The European Court of Justice, for its part, hasrecently declared illegal a high profile Italian law designed toprevent foreign takeover of Italian energy companies. And thecommissioner for Health and Consumer Protection is playing a leadingrole in the EU's response to the threat of a pandemic of avian birdflu.

“Don't Vote—It Only Encourages Them!”

The words appeared on a chalkboard outside a London pub the day after Margaret Thatcher called the 1987 general election, but they might just as well be the motto of half or more of the American electorate in 2006 as well. Deep into a midterm election campaign in a time of war and economic worries—a campaign that could change control of one or, conceivably, both houses of Congress, and that will set the stage for the next presidential election—disenchanted voters far outnumber political enthusiasts. Between 60–70% of poll respondents say the country is “on the wrong track,” and roughly the same percentages say they are “dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States.” “Wrong track” responses are more common among non-registered voting-age respondents than in the population as a whole. Neither party in Congress enjoys a net positive assessment by the public. The Pew Research Center regularly asks, “Regardless of how you feel about your own representative, would you like to see most members of Congress reelected in the next congressional election, or not?” In June of this year 29% answered “yes” and 57% “no”—a major change from October of 2000 when 40% said “yes” and 34% responded “no.” Despite these levels of apparent alienation, and the sizeable stakes in play this year, there are few signs that voter turnout in 2006 will rise above the dismal levels traditionally associated with midterm federal elections.

There was and continues to be nothing easy about being poor in theBig Easy, or anywhere else in America for that matter. The callousor incompetent handling of the evacuation of the poor from NewOrleans smacked of Marie Antoinette's concern for the hungry ofParis, and underscored both the existence and consequence of incomeinequality in America.

Field research on politics in the Middle East poses far less problemsfor Western female researchers than many Westerners assume. Thequestions most commonly asked of me by colleagues include whetheranyone will speak to an American woman (yes), and whether I need towear a veil (no, but see below). Female researchers do face manychallenges, but most have less to do with gender than with examiningsensitive political issues in highly repressive environments. Ofthose that do concern gender, many vary by degree rather than typefrom the issues faced by female scholars conducting field researchelsewhere. I draw heavily on my own overwhelmingly positiveexperiences with ethnographic research in Jordan and Yemen—totalingmore than four years over the past decade, including nearly a yearof research conducted post-September 11—and those of many friends inoutlining the following issues facing Western female politicalscientists conducting field research in the Middle East.I would like to thank Laryssa Chomiak,Janine Astrid Clark, Sam Fayyaz, and Lisa Wedeen for theirthoughtful comments on earlier versions of thisarticle.

The last symposium on Canada in PS was published in 1993, but little seems to have changed in the attitude of American political scientists toward this nation. To quote from the previous symposium introduction:

Because it is a slice of one's life as well as a method for gatheringdata and insights, and because it entails socio-cultural immersionand interpersonal trust, field research confronts politicalscientists with a special set of normative issues not encountered inlibraries, laboratories, or home countries. This essay weighs fourplausible yet fallible positions on the ethics of fieldworkoverseas, with particular reference to American political scienceresearch in the Arabic-speaking world in the 21stcentury. I am raising questions I cannot really answer:specifically, amidst American military engagement and a good deal ofspying by governments all around, can we, or ought we, practicescholarly detachment, reciprocity, activism, or, perhaps,espionage?

A large body of research has documented comparative levels ofinequality among nations and also the substantial change ininequality across and within nations. Political scientists,sociologists, and economists have used these databases to make anumber of claims about changes in inequality and theirinterrelations with economic and political life, patterns ofredistribution, social institutions, and social and individualwellbeing more generally.

The Dutch have been counted among the staunchest supporters ofEuropean integration ever since the parliamentary ratification ofthe European Community for Coal and Steel in late 1951. The majorpolitical parties—the Christian Democrats (CDA) and its forerunners,the Labor Party (PvdA), and the liberal parties VVD andD66—supported all important European treaties of the past decades.Only the smaller orthodox-Calvinist parties, some smaller left-wingparties, and, more recently, the List Pim Fortuyn (LPF) have opposedthese treaties in parliament. This overwhelmingly large support inthe Second Chamber of the Dutch parliament included the Treaty ofRome of 2004—the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. Onehundred twenty-eight out of 150 members of parliament favored theratification of the European Constitution. This article draws on several chapters in Aarts and van der Kolk 2005.