检查白色的较小影响

IF 0.8 Q2 LAW Journal of Law and Courts Pub Date : 2019-03-01 DOI:10.1086/701129
Garrett N. Vande Kamp
{"title":"检查白色的较小影响","authors":"Garrett N. Vande Kamp","doi":"10.1086/701129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Analysis of Republican Party of Minnesota v. White by political scientists shows that White had no appreciable effect on the conduct or outcome of judicial elections, including a comprehensive study of White by Chris W. Bonneau, Melinda Gann Hall, and Matthew J. Streb. Yet there is reason to believe that White may have had a more narrow impact than Bonneau, Hall, and Streb originally allowed. An extension of their original analysis is conducted, with results showing that their findings are largely robust to more tailored model specifications. Exceptions include findings on ballot roll-off, but contradictory results further support the notion that White truly had no effect.","PeriodicalId":44478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Courts","volume":"7 1","pages":"149 - 157"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/701129","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Checking for a Narrower Impact of White\",\"authors\":\"Garrett N. Vande Kamp\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/701129\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Analysis of Republican Party of Minnesota v. White by political scientists shows that White had no appreciable effect on the conduct or outcome of judicial elections, including a comprehensive study of White by Chris W. Bonneau, Melinda Gann Hall, and Matthew J. Streb. Yet there is reason to believe that White may have had a more narrow impact than Bonneau, Hall, and Streb originally allowed. An extension of their original analysis is conducted, with results showing that their findings are largely robust to more tailored model specifications. Exceptions include findings on ballot roll-off, but contradictory results further support the notion that White truly had no effect.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44478,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law and Courts\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"149 - 157\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/701129\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law and Courts\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/701129\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and Courts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/701129","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

政治学家对明尼苏达州共和党诉怀特案的分析表明,怀特对司法选举的行为或结果没有明显的影响,其中包括克里斯·w·邦诺、梅林达·甘恩·霍尔和马修·j·斯特雷布对怀特的全面研究。然而,我们有理由相信,怀特的影响可能比邦诺、霍尔和斯特雷布最初认为的要小。他们进行了原始分析的扩展,结果表明他们的发现在很大程度上适用于更定制的模型规范。例外情况包括对投票的调查结果,但相互矛盾的结果进一步支持了怀特确实没有影响的观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Checking for a Narrower Impact of White
Analysis of Republican Party of Minnesota v. White by political scientists shows that White had no appreciable effect on the conduct or outcome of judicial elections, including a comprehensive study of White by Chris W. Bonneau, Melinda Gann Hall, and Matthew J. Streb. Yet there is reason to believe that White may have had a more narrow impact than Bonneau, Hall, and Streb originally allowed. An extension of their original analysis is conducted, with results showing that their findings are largely robust to more tailored model specifications. Exceptions include findings on ballot roll-off, but contradictory results further support the notion that White truly had no effect.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
Quality in Measurement Matters: Adjusted American Bar Association Ratings and Circuit Court Confirmation Hearing Word Choice Lower Court Influence on High Courts: Evidence from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Political Competition and Judicial Independence: How Courts Fill the Void When Legislatures Are Ineffective The Impact of Oral Argument Attendance Is the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Vulnerable to Intense Appointment Politics? Democrats’ Changed Views Around Justice Ginsburg’s Death – CORRIGENDUM
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1