This book describes what the authors identify as an emerging political crisis in U.S. politics: the possible winning of the presidency by a candidate with far fewer votes than his or her opponent. David W. Abbott and James P. Levine stress both the irrationality and peculiar nature of the current electoral system, emphasizing recent and current political developments. On the basis of their computer analysis of past elections and modern political realities, the authors predict that within twenty years it is very likely that the United States will produce a wrong winner. In explaining how this phenomenon could occur, Abbott and Levine introduce the concept of the wasted vote; winning lopsided majorities in states is worth no more than winning states by one vote, due to the antiquated winner-take-all principle.

The book gives a brief historical overview of the electoral college and the structure of the existing electoral system. In addition to a detailed discussion of the wrong winner problem, the authors also explain that if no candidate gets a majority of votes in the electoral college because of the presence of a third party candidate, the House of Representatives must choose the president under an odd set of ground rules. This creates the potential for all kinds of nefarious political shenanigans. The authors conclude that the only satisfactory solution to the electoral systeM's shortcomings is the total abolition of the electoral college and a shift to direct election of the president by the people. "Wrong Winner" will be an excellent supplementary text in American Government, Parties, Voting, and Public Choice courses. It will also be of interest to political professionals, journalists, and political scientists.

Trial by jury is one of the most important aspects of the U.S. legal system. A reflective look at how juries actually function brings out a number of ethical questions surrounding juror conduct and jury dynamics: Do citizens have a duty to serve as jurors? Might they seek exemptions? Is it acceptable for jurors to engage in after-hours research? Might a juror legitimately seek to "nullify" the outcome to express disapproval of the law? Under what conditions might jurors make a valid choice to hold out against or capitulate to their fellow jurors? Is it acceptable to form alliances? After trial, are there problems with entering into publishing contracts? Unfortunately, questions such as these have received scant attention from scholars. This book revives attention to these and other issues of jury ethics by collecting new and insightful essays along with responses from leading scholars in the field of jury studies. Is it acceptable for jurors to engage in after-hours research? Might a juror legitimately seek to "nullify" the outcome to express disapproval of the law? After trial, are there problems with entering into publishing contracts? Unfortunately, questions such as these have received scant attention from scholars. This book revives attention to these and other issues of jury ethics by collecting new and insightful essays along with responses from leading scholars in the field of jury studies. Contributors: Jeffrey Abramson, B. Michael Dann, Shari Seidman Diamond, Norman J. Finkel, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, Julie E. Howe, Nancy J. King, John Kleinig, James P. Levine, Candace McCoy, G. Thomas Munsterman, Maureen O'Connor, Steven Penrod, Alan W. Scheflin, Neil Vidmar

Trial by jury is one of the most important aspects of the U.S. legal system. A reflective look at how juries actually function brings out a number of ethical questions surrounding juror conduct and jury dynamics: Do citizens have a duty to serve as jurors? Might they seek exemptions? Is it acceptable for jurors to engage in after-hours research? Might a juror legitimately seek to "nullify" the outcome to express disapproval of the law? Under what conditions might jurors make a valid choice to hold out against or capitulate to their fellow jurors? Is it acceptable to form alliances? After trial, are there problems with entering into publishing contracts? Unfortunately, questions such as these have received scant attention from scholars. This book revives attention to these and other issues of jury ethics by collecting new and insightful essays along with responses from leading scholars in the field of jury studies. Is it acceptable for jurors to engage in after-hours research? Might a juror legitimately seek to "nullify" the outcome to express disapproval of the law? After trial, are there problems with entering into publishing contracts? Unfortunately, questions such as these have received scant attention from scholars. This book revives attention to these and other issues of jury ethics by collecting new and insightful essays along with responses from leading scholars in the field of jury studies. Contributors: Jeffrey Abramson, B. Michael Dann, Shari Seidman Diamond, Norman J. Finkel, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, Julie E. Howe, Nancy J. King, John Kleinig, James P. Levine, Candace McCoy, G. Thomas Munsterman, Maureen O'Connor, Steven Penrod, Alan W. Scheflin, Neil Vidmar

In recent years, justice-related and human rights issues have figured more and more prominently on the international political agenda. This expansion of the justice space is a product of a growing demand for accountability in world politics. Whether the issue is addressing heinous crimes such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in situations of armed conflict, confronting the inability or reluctance of governments to protect their own populations, or responding to the challenges posed by transnational terrorism; the international community has witnessed the proliferation of institutions and mechanisms, as well as the dynamic interplay between domestic and international processes, in the pursuit of justice-sensitive outcomes. International and hybrid tribunals, UN-led and domestic counter-terrorist initiatives, and the use of force for human protection purposes have demarcated the space within which ethical, political, and legal debates have unfolded in the quest for a more humane world order. The contributors of International Criminal Justice: Theoretical and Legal Perspectives address some of the most important issues and debates involved in this quest, and assess the merits of contending approaches to the promotion of international justice norms. This volume will contribute to the ongoing debate on the challenges, as well as opportunities, facing the justice agenda in its effort to shape developments in an increasingly interdependent world.

In recent years, justice-related and human rights issues have figured more and more prominently on the international political agenda. This expansion of the justice space is a product of a growing demand for accountability in world politics. Whether the issue is addressing heinous crimes such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in situations of armed conflict, confronting the inability or reluctance of governments to protect their own populations, or responding to the challenges posed by transnational terrorism; the international community has witnessed the proliferation of institutions and mechanisms, as well as the dynamic interplay between domestic and international processes, in the pursuit of justice-sensitive outcomes. International and hybrid tribunals, UN-led and domestic counter-terrorist initiatives, and the use of force for human protection purposes have demarcated the space within which ethical, political, and legal debates have unfolded in the quest for a more humane world order.

The contributors of International Criminal Justice: Theoretical and Legal Perspectives address some of the most important issues and debates involved in this quest, and assess the merits of contending approaches to the promotion of international justice norms. This volume will contribute to the ongoing debate on the challenges, as well as opportunities, facing the justice agenda in its effort to shape developments in an increasingly interdependent world.

This book describes what the authors identify as an emerging political crisis in U.S. politics: the possible winning of the presidency by a candidate with far fewer votes than his or her opponent. David W. Abbott and James P. Levine stress both the irrationality and peculiar nature of the current electoral system, emphasizing recent and current political developments. On the basis of their computer analysis of past elections and modern political realities, the authors predict that within twenty years it is very likely that the United States will produce a "wrong winner." In explaining how this phenomenon could occur, Abbott and Levine introduce the concept of the "wasted vote; " the fact that winning lopsided majorities in states is worth no more than winning states by one vote, due to the antiquated winner-take-all principle. The opening chapter gives a brief historical overview of the electoral college and the structure of the existing electoral system. The method of selection of state electors is then scrutinized, along with the set of procedures that the electors work with until the formal announcement of the electoral votes. The authors also note that, under an odd set of ground rules, if no candidate gets a majority of votes in the college, the House of Representatives must choose the president. Whenever there is a third party candidate, there is a danger of a stalemate in Congress, creating the potential for "all kinds of nefarious political shenanigans." The authors conclude that the only satisfactory solution to the electoral system's shortcomings is the total abrogation of the electoral college and a shift to direct election of the president by the people. Wrong Winner will bean excellent supplementary text in Public Choice, Campaign and Elections, and American Government courses, as well as of interest to political professionals and political scientists.