Eight new members of the APSA Council have been elected in APSA's fourth contested election in recent years. The new Council members are: Lisa Baldez, Dartmouth College; Susan R. Burgess, Ohio University; Dennis Chong, Northwestern University; Michael W. Doyle, Columbia University; Kerry L. Haynie, Duke University; Arthur Lupia, University of Michigan; Anna Sampaio, University of Colorado, Denver; and Melissa S. Williams, University of Toronto. André Blais, Université de Montréal, was not elected. Under APSA election rules, the APSA Nominating Committee proposes one name per open seat and additional nominations, sponsored by at least 10 members, may be made from the membership. This year, Susan Burgess, Ohio University, was nominated from the membership and was elected. The election was conducted by electronic ballot, with a 31% turnout—similar to other recent APSA elections. Detailed results can be found at http://apsanet.org/section_710.cfm.

How should educators teach students to make better theoretical arguments, that is, an argument that is logical and fruitful? Logical thinking is about making valid deductions from a set of premises and avoiding fallacies. Fruitful thinking involves making an argument that fits reality. Theoretical thinking, then, emphasizes building a sound argument with relevant and interesting empirical implications. In this way, theoretical thinking complements the more common educational mantra of teaching students to think critically, which tends to focus on the detection of fallacies or other flaws in an argument. Emphasizing detection instead of construction, however, limits the development of analytical and independent thinking. To better teach the range of thinking skills most educators want their students to acquire calls for a focus on the understanding and construction of theoretical arguments, and this calls for greater emphasis on learning at least a basic system of logic.I thank Eric Hoffmann, Bob Jackson, Will Moore, Jeff Staton, and the reviewers for many helpful comments on earlier drafts. All remaining errors are my responsibility.

Academic journals play a key role in the dissemination of scholarly knowledge in the social sciences. Hence, publication in journals is critical evidence of scholarly performance for both individuals and the departments that they populate. While in the best of worlds each scholar's performance would be evaluated based on a close reading of his/her published journal articles, in the actual practices of hiring, tenure and promotion review, and departmental evaluations this ideal is often honored only in the breach. Instead, evaluators commonly base their judgments of the importance and quality of published articles, at least in part, on the journals in which they appear. The higher the status accorded a journal, the greater the weight attached to publications appearing in it.

Editorial cartoons do not just mirror politics, but are also themselves a part of politics. They are more than single-panel graphical commentaries on daily policies, for they construct their own claims on truth. The cartoonist can use the polysemic nature of visual signs and present a distinct framing perspective. Editorial cartoonists with certain ideological stances can become an actor in “the struggle for cultural supremacy,” in Tarrow's (1998) term. This struggle refers to efforts by the state, media, and social movements to influence the interpretative processes by which individuals negotiate the meaning of events. This paper analyzes the editorial cartoons in Turkish daily newspapers in terms of their competing framings of contemporary Turkey's secularist-Islamist division. Secularism and Islamism refer here to political projects that seek to transform and reinstitute a sociopolitical order on the basis of some constitutive norms (Çınar 2005, 8–9).

Organized section update.

Jonathan Shapiro, better known as Zapiro, is South Africa's most influential and widely published political cartoonist. His work is featured in several national daily and weekly newspapers. His cartoons have also appeared in international publications and he or his work has been featured in everything from highbrow newspapers to the front page of real estate advertisement magazines. A member of the anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s, he exhibits a bias toward a progressive, Left-liberal conception of what political life ought to be that sits uncomfortably with the increasingly Africanist tonality pulsating through the veins of South African political life. His work touches upon the history of oppression, the reactions of those in and now out of power, and, in more recent years, on the issues that arise from the “underbelly” of the liberation movement. He has brutally caricatured the foibles of liberation movements leaders, be it their AIDS denial, individuals' cases of corruption, or the hypocrisy of ethnic or racial mobilization in the context of the new, non-racial dispensation. His particular wrath is reserved for African National Congress (ANC) figures who have, in his view, defiled the principles of the liberation movement. In the last two years, Zapiro has busied himself with a series of cartoons about the trials and tribulations of the former deputy president and leader of the ANC, Jacob Zuma.

Acentral problem in the development of political science has long been how to emulate the objectivity and rigor of natural science while simultaneously retaining relevance for conducting public affairs. For some observers, however, the very notion of a natural-scientific orientation to the study of politics is antithetical to its relevance to practical politics. Woodrow Wilson (1911, 10) struck at the heart of the matter when he proclaimed that “I do not like the term political science” in his 1910 APSA Presidential Address. “Human relationships … are not in any proper sense the subject matter of science. They are the stuff of insight and sympathy and spiritual comprehension” (10–1; see also Ubertaccio and Cook 2006).This research received financial support from the Institution for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University and the department of political science at the University of Florida. For helpful suggestions, I am grateful to Michael Bloom, John Mark Hansen, Daniel Meyer, and Stephen Yoder.

A major public university is located in or very near over half of American state capitals, and political science departments at these universities advertise the special advantages that such a location brings to their students. For example, the political science department of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln advertises its internship programs: “As Lincoln is the seat of state government, students have an opportunity to observe government in action. Political Science has a vibrant internship program where students may intern with the state legislature, the governor's office, and other agencies of state government. Internships are also available with local interest groups, non-profit agencies, corporations, and political parties” (University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2005). Such opportunities for students are meaningful, however, only if they have some significant effect on student learning or engagement. It is reasonable that colleges and universities would emphasize the advantages that their location in a state capital might offer; colleges use both their campus and their local community to appeal to students (Choy and Ottinger 1998). Yet there is scant research to confirm any of the effects that colleges advertise.An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2005 meeting of the American Political Science Association. The authors thank Lindsey Lupo, Charles Turner, and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions.

In recent years, increased attention has focused on how doctoral programs prepare graduate students to become faculty members at colleges and universities. One reflection of this interest is the development of such training programs as Preparing Future Faculty (PFF), which the Association of American Colleges and Universities and the Council of Graduate Schools founded in 1993. With financial support from the Pew Charitable Trusts, the National Science Foundation, and the Atlantic Philanthropies, and with the participation of several professional associations, including the American Political Science Association, PFF has grown to include nearly 300 colleges and universities nationwide. In the recent past, 21 doctoral departments, including four from political science, have received funding for PFF. In addition to formal PFF programs, the literature on graduate education suggests that many doctoral departments have established their own training routines to assist graduate students as they prepare to teach and/or to assume faculty responsibilities.

This article draws upon my experience using film and literature to teach political science majors and non-majors about war. It assesses the value of using films and literature to teach about war, offers organizing themes and approaches to the material, and discusses ways to help students develop their capacities to analyze the politics of war and of cultural products concerning war.The author thanks Joseph Yenerall for suggesting this article, and Judith Sanders, Lawrence Lieberfeld, and the reviewers of PS for help in its preparation.

Inglehart based the theory of values change on the concepts of scarcity. He argues that people “place the greatest value on those things that are in relatively short supply” (1981, 881). ‘Materialist’ concerns about economic and physical security are desired by the public in times of depression or warfare. Emphasis on ‘Post-materialist values’ such as freedom, self-expression, and quality of life increases as demands for clean drinking water, food, and shelter are met (Abramson and Inglehart 1995). In this regard, values represented beliefs that are derived from human needs gratification (Inglehart 1971).

Larry D. Terry died in Atlanta, Georgia on June 17, 2006, of respiratory arrest due to an allergic reaction. At the time of his death, he was vice-president for business and professor of public administration at the University of Texas, Dallas (UTD). He was 52 years old.

Did voters in Durham, North Carolina divide along racial lines in the high-profile May 2, 2006, primary election for Durham district attorney? The results of an analysis of the primary vote by race suggest there were not major racial divisions: winner Mike Nifong received about the same percentage of support from African-American voters as from voters who are not African American. However, it seems likely, and I argue here, that Nifong used the high-profile prosecution of the Duke lacrosse rape case to win over some African-American and White voters in what otherwise might have been a low-key, low-information local election. This case and its allegations are sordid and appalling, and have garnered substantial national media attention. I contend that Nifong aggressively pursued prosecution as a way of representing what he perceived was his constituents' interests in justice for the alleged victim (though some have subsequently questioned his prosecution of the case); this aggressive prosecution's public nature likely had electoral ramifications. Further, supporting recent work on race and electoral politics, I show that traditional racial cues were critically important in other concurrently held Durham elections, though not in Nifong's race for district attorney. Nifong, a White candidate, defeated another White candidate and an African-American candidate in a county that is 51% White and 40% African-American (based on those identifying as only one race in the 2000 census).

This article explores the relationship between the method of process tracing and the data collection technique of elite interviewing. The process tracing method has become an increasingly used and cited tool in qualitative research, a trend that has recently accelerated with the publication of Alexander George and Andrew Bennett's text (2005), Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. That book outlines and explores the process tracing method in detail, highlighting its advantages for exploring causal processes and analyzing complex decision-making. Yet while the book presents a rigorous and compelling account of the process tracing method and its critical importance to case study research, the value of the method itself remains contested in some quarters, and there are aspects of George and Bennett's treatment of it that require further exploration.

The fourth annual APSA Conference on Teaching and Learning in Political Science was held in Charlotte, North Carolina from February 9–11, 2007.

Through this special annual meeting APSA continues to promote greater understanding of cutting-edge approaches, techniques, and methodologies that can be applied in the political science classroom. This conference provides a forum where scholars and educators share effective and innovative teaching and learning models and discuss broad themes and values affecting political science education.

The Conference addressed crucial questions in higher education, such as enhancing student engagement via civic education, service learning, and assessing learning outcomes; integrating international models and into teaching and learning methods; and strengthening efforts by learned societies such as APSA to support good teaching. In addition, the Conference reflected APSA's objective of reaching out beyond traditional approaches to higher education, and includes college/university faculty, high school teachers, librarians, publishers, as well as international participants. For a full list of participants and more information on the 2007 Conference, visit www.apsanet.org/section_236.cfm. For information on the 2008 Conference, contact teaching@apsanet.org.

Deepa Khosla, a young and vital student of international responses to armed conflict in the Third World, died on November 21, 2005, shortly after beginning a tenure-track position at Memorial University of Newfoundland in St. Johns. The immediate cause of her death was a brain aneurysm.

On Saturday, September 2, 2006, I staffed an event by my member at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association in Philadelphia. So what, you say? Congressional Fellows are supposed to staff events, right? Yes, but three years after my fellowship ended? To be sure, I have continued to be part of the Congressional Fellowship Program (CFP) in the last few years by continuing to work with staffers who were my colleagues in Congress, giving talks to interested groups about my experiences such as the recent presentation I gave on “How a Bill Really Becomes a Law” at the Dirksen Congressional Center, attending CFP events at conferences and in D.C., and generally keeping in touch with the director of the program, Jeff Biggs, and other fellows. Despite all of this, I never imagined I would end up staffing another event after I left Capitol Hill.

The call to the White House came out of the blue. It was a nondescript email captioned “An invitation”; the sender's address was: nsc.eop.gov. Having worked Pennsylvania Avenue for 35 years, I knew the initials meant National Security Council, Executive Office of the President.This article first appeared in slightly modified form in the London publication Times Higher Education Supplement on June 29, 2007, under the title “Mr Bush, this is the way I see it.”

Any examination of newspaper editorials and reform group positions will indicate that the most commonly perceived problem with U.S. elections at the moment is that they are rarely competitive. This absence of competition has prompted recent proposals in several states, most prominently in California and Ohio, to reform the redistricting process to increase the frequency of competitive elections. These propositions failed, but that is unlikely the end of such attempts. The reason for these proposals is obvious. Political education in the U.S. indoctrinates us at a young age to believe that competition is good. In economics, market competition provides social benefits, and, by analogy, political competition must provide similar benefits. This argument is frequently made explicitly, such as by Schumpeter (1942), and it has its roots as far back as the often-assigned Federalist Papers #10 and #51. Of course, the economic definition of competition has little to do with the political definition of a competitive election. Broadly speaking, there are two economic definitions of competition: (1) competitive behavior, which generally means innovation, and (2) competitive market structures, which means many buyers, many sellers, and perfect information. In contrast, a competitive election generally means one in which the candidates' vote shares are roughly equal, or similarly, one in which each candidate has a roughly 50% chance of winning. The only obvious relationship between these definitions is that we might equate vote shares with market shares, but the benefits of a competitive market accrue regardless of whether sellers have equal market shares—they simply must charge the same price for the same goods, as determined by the intersection of the supply and demand curves. In fact, in a competitive market, each firm should have such a small market share that no firm is a price-giver, and the idea of an election for a single-member district in which there are so many candidates that no candidate has a significant vote share seems untenable. Alternatively, we might draw an analogy between pressure on sellers to charge the same price for the same good and pressure on candidates toward policy convergence, but the idea of all candidates offering the same bundle of policies makes many people uncomfortable as well. So, the analogy between the efficiency of a competitive market and the benefits of a competitive election falls apart. Of course, Schumpeter's (1942) argument was that political leaders should compete for votes by innovating with respect to policy based on the first definition of competition, but again, that means that the economic analogy has little to say about whether elections should be uncertain and decided by narrow margins. The fact that we happen to use the same word for different circumstances does not logically allow us to say the following: because competition is good in the marketplace, close elections are good. Free market economics cannot be used to defend the drawing of competitive districts without straining the analogy beyond its limits, regardless of how intuitively appealing the analogy is.

People in Political Science.