Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:25:47.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who Likes Political Science?: Determinants of Senators' Votes on the Coburn Amendment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2010

Joseph E. Uscinski  and
Casey A. Klofstad
Joseph E. Uscinski
Affiliation:
University of Miami
Casey A. Klofstad
Affiliation:
University of Miami
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In October 2009, political scientists learned of a Senate amendment sponsored by Tom Coburn (R-OK) that would eliminate political science funding from the National Science Foundation budget. The American Political Science Association condemned the proposed amendment, and concerned political scientists contacted their senators to urge the amendment's defeat. On November 5, 2009, the amendment was defeated 36-62 after little debate. This article examines the vote on the Coburn Amendment to understand the role that senators' personal, constituency, and institutional characteristics played in their votes. Logit analysis reveals that even after controlling for party, several factors significantly predict the vote, including the number of top-tier political science Ph.D. programs in the senator's state and whether the senator graduated with a bachelor's degree in political science.

Type
Features
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , October 2010 , pp. 701 - 706
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Political Science Association. 2009. “2008 National Science Foundation Political Science Program Awards.” PS: Political Science and Politics 42 (1): 204–05.Google Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen, and Koger, Gregory. 2008. “Effort, Intensity and Position Taking: Reconsidering Obstruction in the Pre-Cloture Senate.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 20 (1): 67–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brintnall, Michael. 2009. “Memorandum: Amendment to Cut Political Science Funding from NSF.” American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Burden, Barry. 2007. Personal Roots of Representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardiff, Christopher, and Klein, Daniel B.. 2005. “Faculty Partisan Affiliations in All Disciplines: A Voter-Registration.” Critical Review 17 (3/4): 237–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, Richard. 1973. Congressmen in Committees. Boston, MA: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Groseclose, Tim. 1994. “Testing Committee Composition Hypotheses for the U.S. Congress.” Journal of Politics 56 (2): 440–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, Marc J. 2001. “Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization.” American Political Science Review 95 (3): 619–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, John E., and King, David C.. 1989. “Public Goods, Private Interests, and Representation.” American Political Science Review 83: 1143–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Tomz, Michael, and Wittenberg, Jason. 2000. “Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (2): 347–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals.” Polity 6: 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57: 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1984. “The Polarization of American Politics.” Journal of Politics 46 (4): 1061–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2007. Ideology and Congress. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
Rocca, Michael, and Sanchez, Gabriel R.. 2008. “The Effect of Race and Ethnicity on Bill Sponsorship in Congress.” American Politics Research 36 (1): 130–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rocca, Michael, Sanchez, Gabriel R., and Uscinski, Joseph E.. 2008. “Descriptive Attributes of Latino Representatives.” Social Science Quarterly 89 (2): 392–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shulman, Stuart W. 2009. “The Case Against Mass E-mails: Perverse Incentives and Low Quality Public Participation in U.S. Federal Rulemaking.” Policy & Internet 1 (1): 23–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, James M., and Groseclose, Tim. 2000. “Estimating Party Influence in Congressional Roll-Call Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (2): 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swers, Michele L. 1998. “Are Women More Likely to Vote for Women's Issue Bills than Their Male Colleagues?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 23: 435–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swers, Michele L. 2001. “Understanding the Policy Impact of Electing Women: Evidence from Research on Congress and State Legislatures.” PS: Political Science and Politics 34: 217–20.Google Scholar
Swers, Michele L. 2002. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uscinski, Joseph, Rocca, Michael S., Sanchez, Gabriel R., and Brenden, Marina. 2009. “Congress and Foreign Policy: Congressional Action on the Darfur Genocide.” PS: Political Science & Politics 42 (3): 489–96.Google Scholar