In an informative account of different electoral systems and their effects on representation Joseph F. Zimmerman (1994, 674) recommended the single transferable vote (STV) system on the grounds that it “provides […] broad representation with great accuracy.” Along with local jurisdictions in the United States the article mentions Ireland and Australia as countries that use STV, but fails to include Malta. This seemingly innocuous omission is not inconsequential; Malta squarely contradicts Zimmerman's conclusion that STV facilitates the “direct representation” of women.

Unfortunately, Wilma Rule did not remedy the neglect of Malta in her comparative overview of women in parliaments, which appeared in the same feature on “Election Systems and Representative Democracy” (1994, 690). Inclusion in the cross-national comparison would have revealed that this small island nation carries a dubious distinction: the lowest percentage of women in its unicameral parliament. As a result of the last elections, held in 1992, there is currently only one female MP. Nor did Prime Minister Fenech Adami's cabinet include a single woman, even though the number of ministries was expanded from 10 to 13 (Fenech 1992b, 1993). In the preceding parliamentary term, 3% of the seats (2 of 69) were occupied by women.

It may be argued that in social scientific inquiry and theory-building a single case does not warrant the rejection of a generalization that is otherwise sound.

Gary King and the Methodology Organized Section of APSA have certainly done the profession an important service by point out some of the deficiencies of our current practices on archiving data sets. For 40 years now, political scientists have grumbled about the lack of availability of major data sets (with the McClosky (1960) data being perhaps the most prominent example), so it is high time that the profession as a whole adopts some guidelines and standards. King's article in this journal is an important way to start the discussion.

From one standpoint, it is quite easy to concur with Gary King's exhortations on behalf of researchers making their data sets publicly available. His plea is, after all, consistent with a basic canon of scientific work, namely, that results be capable of replication. Our disagreements with the position taken by King have to do both with practicalities and with an excessively narrow focus on what it means to reassess a given set of findings—issues that we think Paul Herrnson addresses quite tellingly in his statement.

over replication is comparable in many respects to controversy among policy analysts about the ends and means of regulation. Proponents of replication seek to provide the collective good of free-flowing information and to sanction the negative externality of sloppy scholarship. Similarly, opponents of replication claim property rights in the data and variables they have created through hard work and ingenuity. As with disputes over regulatory policy, the fundamental sticking point is whether the benefits of mandatory replication to the community of political scientists outweigh the costs of compliance to individuals.

In “Replication, Replication,” Gary King convincingly argues that publications by political scientists should adhere to what he calls a replication standard. Although King's article explicitly embraces qualitative as well as quantitative research, the policy statement that he suggests editors and reviewers of books and journals endorse exclusively imposes standards on studies based on quantitative research. Qualitative work is treated in a simple sentence and one that enforces no standards: “Authors of works relying upon qualitative data are encouraged (but not required) to submit a comparable footnote that would facilitate replication where feasible.”

Policies designed to solve environmental problems are unlikely to succeed unless they have broad public support, but the motives for mass support are poorly understood. The problem is global in scope, but most of the relevant public opinion research done so far has been carried out in advanced industrial societies, usually Western democracies. Moreover, much of this research is limited to the tip of the iceberg, focusing on what people think about environmental problems without probing into why they think it or how deeply they are committed.

The analysis of mass attitudes toward environmental problems in this article uses evidence from representative national surveys of countries representing the entire developmental spectrum, from rich to poor nations, including not only Western democracies but authoritarian regimes and recently emerging democracies from the former communist bloc. The data come from the 1990–93 World Values survey, carried out in 43 countries containing 70% of the world's population. Our goal is to determine why given publics are—or are not—sufficiently concerned about environmental problems that they are willing to make financial sacrifices and undertake other actions in order to help protect the environment.

The Social Science Quarterly (SSQ) is the major interdisciplinary journal in the social sciences, typically receiving more than 400 manuscripts per year. We publish about 10% of these, so we are in the same ball park as the major disciplinary journals in sociology and political science. More than, perhaps, even the American Journal of Political Science (AJPS), we publish empirical studies. Economic sociology, environmental studies, political behavior, ethnic studies, gender studies, urban affairs, and several other areas are among our specialties.

Do psychiatrists still use word-association techniques with their patients? I sometimes do word association with my students, usually on the first day of my introductory American government classes at Rhodes College. The first word I say is “politics,” and here is what they come back with: corrupt, dirty, games-playing, ego trip, a waste. (The nicest thing I heard the last time I did this was “boring”.) Here is what they say in response to “politician”: selfish, ambitious, mediocre, unprincipled.

The teacher in me wants to despair when students associate words like these with politics. I know, as did Aristotle, that politics is a vital and sometimes noble human activity. I know that politics was at the heart of our birth as a nation. (As John Roche [1961] has pointed out, the founding fathers may be described in many ways, but no description is accurate that leaves out the word “politician.”) I know that politics was the vehicle that integrated generations of our immigrant ancestors into the mainstream of American society—the job on the city road crew that my German grandfather got from the Frank Hague machine in Jersey City is the reason that my father and then I were later able to build careers of our own in the private sector. And I know that it is politics that secures the basic freedoms that allow my students to say critical things about politics.