Appreciate the editors at the Forum (and the reviewers) for seeing the value in a paper that's slightly out of step with the norms in the discipline (and, truth be told, slightly out of the norm for me). /
I also make a call for more of what I call "place-based political science." Yes, politics is increasingly nationalized, but there's a great deal to to be learned by examining the experience of specific people & places. Journalists know this. Sometimes academics need to be reminded.
The story of the 11th tells us a great deal about the ⬆️ in the urban/rural divide, the ⬆️ alignment of partisanship & ideology, redistricting, the role of run-offs & how national political tides increasingly alter representation. In other words, the story of southern politics.
In brief, the paper wrestles w/ how a district that was once known as "the turnstile" because it went back & forth from R to D so often turned into a R stronghold that gave birth to Mark Meadows & Madison Cawthorn. (Clip from Rasky, NY Times, 1988)
I’ve only done it once. My logic: the reviews were for a different paper. Editor’s response: fair but the reviews for your paper were bad, too. 🤷♂️
It was a small part of a crazy-long bill that passed on a party line vote My guess (only a guess)is that the vast majority of legislators who voted for it did so b/c of the other provisions & didn't know about this part Orig. author probably thought it would prevent votes being "leaked" too early🤷♂️
You are free to love this policy or hate it, but make sure to attribute the blame or credit where it belongs. There is no conspiracy here. This is an example of an administrative agency following a law passed by the legislative branch--exactly the way it's supposed to work. (4/4)