No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This study has as its central focus an investigation into the existence and nature of the apprenticeship norm in the United States Senate. Over its history, the Senate has been frequently portrayed as a body guided by rather restrictive, informal rules of behavior for its members. The apprenticeship norm has been identified by some as the most important of these rules; contributing to the Senate's centralized and conservative policy orientation. More recently, however, it has been argued that the Senate has become a more decentralized and fragmented body within which the apprenticeship norm is no longer important. The present study offers for the first time an empirical test of the existence and nature of the apprenticeship norm for selected sessions of the Senate for the time period 1940-1976. The frequency of performance of various types of floor activity by members of the Senate were correlated and regressed with years of service in the Senate as well as with other background characteristics of Senators to test both for the existence of the apprenticeship norm as well as to identify its relevance relative to other potential explanations of Senate floor behavior. Several definitions of apprenticeship were advanced and tested.

No description available.

Only 25 women are currently serving in the United States Senate and there have only been 56 women to ever hold these positions in the history of the United States. The purpose of this research is to compare the identities and finances of campaigns in the 2016 Senatorial race, with respect to gender, to better understand possible reasons for the gender gap in this political institution. The data used in this study was primarily gathered from the Federal Election Commission. The information of the candidates includes party affiliation, types of candidates (incumbent, challenger, or open-seat), and financial contributions to the campaigns. The financial data examined was from the contributions of prominent Political Action Committees, donations from individuals, and party organizations. Concluding the research, results of the winning candidates were compiled with data from Ballotopedia to examine the successful campaigns. The results, in comparing men and women candidates, showed 17.7% of candidates were women and 82.3% were men. There was not a variation on the type of seat the candidates were competing for, whether an open-seat race or challenging race, besides a 6% difference in incumbent candidates between men and women, which could be explained by the lack of women currently serving. Gender did, however, have an effect on party affiliation with a majority of women identifying with the Democratic Party and the majority of men with the Republican Party. The ways in which men and women fund their campaigns differ, as well. The data shows that, unlike men, women derive most campaign funds from individual donors and rely on smaller contributions than do men. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee used the majority of their funds opposing Republican male candidates, a minority opposing Republican female candidates, and even spent some funds in support of Democratic women candidates. The National Republican Senate Committee directed their funds to oppose Democratic women the most and some funds to oppose Democratic men. Political Action Committees that are considered “women’s PACs,” such as Emily’s List, had a significant role in funding campaigns for women, with liberally ideological committees being more effective than their conservative counterparts. The winning candidates included 82.4% men and 17.6% women. A majority of women, with 83.33%, were Democrats and a majority of men, with 71.4%, were Republican. The ratio of winning candidates who were men to women correlates to the ratio of men and women that entered the race, strengthening previous research preformed by other scholars. This leads to the conclusion that the number of women in the Senate will rise if a higher percentage of women will run for office.

Abstract This thesis examines the raison d�etre of the Australian Senate, the upper house of the Australian bicameral parliament, established in 1901. It explores the literature that might have influenced its establishment and structure, and the attitudes, ideals, experience and expectations of the men (and they were all men) who initiated its existence and designed its structure during the Federation Conventions of the 1890s. It goes on to study whether similar western and British influenced institutions were seen as models by the designers of the Senate, followed by an examination of its architecture, d�cor, and procedures, to determine the major influences at work on these aspects of the institution. The study was undertaken in view of the paucity of studies of the history and role of the Senate in relation to its powerful influence on the Government of Australia. Its structure can allow a minority of Senators to subvert or obstruct key measures passed by the lower house and is a serious issue for Governments in considering legislation. Answers are sought to the questions of how and why it was conceived and created and what role it was expected to play. The study does not extend beyond 1901 when the Senate was established except to examine the Provisional Parliament House, opened in 1927, which realised the vision of the Convention delegates who determined that the Senate was the house we had to have. The research approach began with an exhaustive study of the Records of the Federal Conventions of the 1890s, where the Constitution of Australia was drawn up, along with contemporary writings and modern comment on such institutions. A study of the men who designed the Senate was carried out, augmented with field visits to the Australian State Parliaments. Research was also conducted into upper houses identified by the delegates to the Australian Federal Conventions, to consider their influence on the design of the Senate. The conclusion is that the Senate was deliberately structured to emulate the then existing British system as far as possible; it was to be an august house of review and a bastion against democracy, or at least a check on hasty legislation. The delegates showed no desire to extinguish ties with Great Britain and their vision of an upper house was modelled directly on the House of Lords. The vast majority of delegates had cut their teeth in colonial upper houses, which were themselves closely modelled on the Lords. To not establish a Senate would have been to turn their backs on themselves. The Senate then, is not a hybrid of Washington and Westminster: the influence of the United States was limited to the composition of the Senate and its name and mediated through the filter of its British heritage. The example of other legislatures was unimportant except where it solved problems previously experienced in the Colonial Councils and which might have otherwise occurred in the Senate. The Senate was the upper house we had to have; it was a decision that was taken before the delegates even met.

No description available.

Much of the political punditry in the United States discusses the notion that facing a primary election results in legislators voting in a more partisan fashion in the legislature. A common refrain of this analysis is that facing the primary election constituency (Fenno 1978) or even the threat of facing the primary election constituency causes the senator to vote with the ideological extremes of the party in following sessions of congress. The literature on congressional elections has examined this area of research as it applies to the U.S. House, but few studies fully examine the impact of primary elections on roll call voting in the Senate. This study examines Senate primary elections to see how facing a primary, specifically a competitive primary, influences how a senator votes in the legislature in the first term following the election. This study specifically asks if senators who face a competitive primary challenge and win reelection vote with their party more often in subsequent congresses than senators who do not face a competitive primary challenge. Using OLS regressions and a number of control variables shown in the literature to impact roll call voting patterns, I examine the percentage of the vote that a senator received in her primary election compared to her party unity score in the Senate after the election. While my models demonstrate that facing a competitive primary correlates with a senator having a higher party unity score than senators who do not face a competitive primary, in all of my models the coefficient on this variable is not statistically significant. However, serving in the majority party and being elected in certain election years did have a statistically significant impact on a senator's partisan voting behavior. When testing an interaction effect between facing a competitive primary and serving in the majority party after the election, I also did not find a significant relationship between the interaction and a senator's change in party unity score. These findings add to our understanding of congressional elections by exploring an under-studied aspect of elections in the United States, and future research that adapts and refines the methodology of this study could further develop these results. / Master of Arts / There is a common perception that facing a primary election makes it more likely that a member of congress votes with her party more often. The idea is that the primary voters want their representatives to be more radical, and therefore push incumbents to the extremes, resulting in more polarization in the legislature. While studies on elections to the House have shown mixed results when examining this question, few studies examine if these patterns exist in elections to the Senate. This study examines Senate primary elections to see how facing a primary influences how a senator votes in the legislature. However, because of limited data, this study examines competitive primaries, based on how much of the vote the senator receives in her election, rather than ideological primaries, based on the senator being challenged from the extremes of the party. This study specifically asks how facing a competitive primary influences a senator's partisan voting patterns in subsequent congresses after their election. In order to study this, I examine the percentage of the vote that a senator received in her primary election compared to her partisan voting patterns in the Senate after the election. I did not find that senators who face a competitive primary respond by voting in a more partisan fashion in the congressional sessions following the election. However, serving in the majority party and being elected in certain election years did have a significant impact on a senator's partisan voting behavior. When testing if the impact of facing a competitive primary was conditioned by serving in the majority party, I also did not find that serving in the majority party conditions the impact of facing a competitive primary on a senator's partisan voting patterns. While these findings did not support the notion that facing a competitive primary influences a senator's partisan voting behavior, future research could alter this study to further examine this question. Such additional research is necessary in order to more fully understand Senate elections.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has controlled intercollegiate sports for the past 150 years, but the passing of California Senate Bill 206 on September 30, 2019, placed that power at risk. The bill will allow student-athletes to receive compensation for their name, image and likeness in the state of California, and has influenced other states to bring forth legislation of their own. The NCAA announced on October 29, 2019, that it would change its policies and bylaws to allow student-athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness. This qualitative thematic analysis seeks to discover how the issue of student-athletes in the case of SB 206 was framed by the media before and after the bill was passed, and after the NCAA announced its policy change. From the analysis, three themes emerged to support student-athlete compensation, eight themes emerged in opposition, and 24 sub themes emerged for both sides. Anti-compensation framing strategies prevailed throughout news coverage before and after SB 206 passed, and after the NCAA changed its policy. Local and mainstream news outlets and sports and mainstream news outlets all presented the eight themes. / Master of Arts / The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has controlled college sports for the past 150 years, but the passing of California Senate Bill 206 on September 30, 2019, placed that power at risk. The bill will allow student-athletes to receive compensation for their name, image and likeness in the state of California, and has influenced other states to bring forth legislation of their own. On October 29, 2019 the NCAA announced that it would change its policies and bylaws to allow student-athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness. This thesis uses a qualitative thematic analysis, meaning that news articles are examined by the researcher to understand common themes that emerge about how the issue of student-athlete in the case of SB 206 was portrayed by the media before and after the bill was passed, and after the NCAA changed its policy. From the analysis, three themes were found to support student-athlete compensation, eight themes were found in opposition, and 24 sub themes were found for both sides. Anti-compensation framing strategies dominated news coverage before and after SB 206 passed, and after the NCAA changed its policy even though the public opinion supported student-athlete compensation.