Course why electoral integrity matters pdf, exam information, and professional development opportunities for AP teachers and coordinators. Teaching AP for the First Time? AP students and teachers will get more resources, support, and feedback in 2019.

Deadline for submitting requests for testing accommodations for students with disabilities. Learn about our offerings and how to register for a workshop or Summer Institute. Learn about AP’s new course Computer Science Principles, which launched in over 2,500 schools last fall. Review the updates to the AP history courses and exams, taking effect in the 2017-18 school year. See what happens at the AP Reading and apply to be a Reader.

Teaching resources, exam questions, and useful information for every course and exam. Learn how to access AP score reports and data. Deepen your skills and elevate learning with these in-person and online programs. Learn how to build your AP program and expand your course offerings. Get help organizing your AP program and administering the AP Exams. We test the relative importance of a number of election dynamics simultaneously.

We analyze data from over 1,400 election experts for 121 elections held in 109 countries. We find the most important election dynamics are the fairness of election laws, media access, the conduct of election authorities, and the use of political violence. In recent years a growing literature focuses on how and why some election processes are viewed as having integrity while others lack it. The relative importance of election dynamics themselves and the process of their evaluation, however, remain unclear. What stages of the election process are most important when people evaluate elections? We argue that a better understanding of how election dynamics shape perceptions of election integrity is crucial because theoretically this process is at the heart of democratic representation and because from a policymaking standpoint these dynamics vary more over time than individual and state-level factors. This paper explains why certain parts of the election cycle are critical to determining how an election is judged—especially the fairness of election laws and media access, the conduct of election authorities, and the use of political violence.

Empirical results using new data on 121 elections held in 109 countries during 2013, 2014, and the first half of 2015 are supportive of our argument. Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution. We would like to thank Jørgen Elklit, Maria Cayetana Martinez, the editors, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions and comments. Previous versions of this article were presented at the 2014 meeting of the Australian Society for Quantitative Political Science, the 2015 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association Conference and at the 2015 Hanns Seidel Foundation Conference on Electoral Integrity.

All remaining errors are our own. This article explores the relationship between the party system, electoral formulas and corruption. Previous research has focused on the various incentives for political actors to monitor, or engage in corruption based on variations in the electoral formula. In this analysis, I test directly the relationship between party systems and corruption and in addition, add a degree of nuance to the established line of thinking within this literature. I test this hypothesis on 70 democratic and semi-democratic countries from 1987 to 2005 and find strong empirical support for the claim that multipartism in SMD countries is associated with higher levels of corruption, while the party system’s relationship with corruption plays no role in PR countries.

I model the effects of party systems on corruption conditioned by a country’s electoral system. I empirically test my hypothesis that multipartism leads to greater corruption in SMD countries yet not in PR countries. SMD states with multi-party systems are found to have greater corruption on average than two-party SMD countries. The party system plays no significant role in determining corruption levels in PR countries. The impact of party systems on corruption is thus conditioned significantly by a country’s electoral rules. Silver weighted “each poll based on the pollster’s historical track record, sample size, and recentness of the poll”. Best Political Blog” in 2012 and 2013.

The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. Obama won 847 delegates and Clinton 834. Democratic vote so far, applied to the demographics of the Ohio electorate, suggests that Obama has a better chance than is generally realized in Ohio”. Democratic party primaries on May 6, 2008. He posted predictions for the upcoming primaries based not on polling data, but on a statistical model driven mostly by demographic and past vote data. Most of the public polls pointed to a close race in North Carolina. But a funny thing happened.

The model got it right”. I think it is interesting and, in a lot of ways, I’m not surprised that his predictions came closer to the result than the pollsters did”, said Brian F. As the primary season was coming to an end, Silver began to build a model for the general election race. This model, too, relied in part on demographic information but mainly involved a complex method of aggregating polling results. 5 million visitors per week, while averaging approximately 400,000 per weekday.