To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Chapter 4 explores which voters – general election voters, primary voters, or campaign donors – legislators fear will punish them for compromise. In-person surveys of state legislators confirm that legislators mostly fear punishment from primary voters. Legislators believe that primary voters would prefer that legislators vote to kill compromise bills, worry that these primary voters would punish them if they supported such legislation, and act in response to this concern. Beyond the patterns in surveys of state legislators, congressional roll call votes from 2011 to 2015 show that greater Tea Party support in a district predicted an increased likelihood that Republican House members voted against compromise bills. Together, these results highlight how legislators’ concerns about how primary voters respond to compromise can dissuade legislators from compromising.
Chapter 5 tests whether legislators are accurate in their belief that primary voters are likely to punish them for compromising. Results from a survey experiment suggest that most voters, even most primary voters, reward legislators for making compromises. However, co-partisan primary voters who oppose compromise on a specific issue are willing to punish legislators who vote for the compromise. Although legislators may benefit electorally from supporting compromise, especially in the general election, they have reason to be cautious on compromise bills to avoid voter backlash from subsets of the politically active primary electorate. Just because the subset of voters who punish legislators for compromising is small does not mean it cannot be consequential – a small subset can mobilize a strong challenger, paint a legislators’ behavior as problematic in the eyes of less informed voters, or vote on the basis of a single important vote. Moreover, across many compromise votes a legislator may face, the small groups of voters who oppose each compromise might, when added together, represent a decisive portion of the primary electorate.
Why do legislators sometimes reject compromises that seem within reach and are closer to their preferred policy? Chapter 3 tests various explanations for legislators’ rejection of compromise and presents evidence that the belief that voters are very likely to punish state legislators for compromising reduces legislators’ likelihood of voting for a given compromise proposal by 21 percent. We find a similar effect among local elected officials. This demonstrates the importance of legislators’ views of their constituents and the role that fear of voter punishment plays in the rejection of compromises.
Chapter 7 discusses how to balance representation and accountability with processes that might better insulate legislators from their electoral fear as they seek to negotiate compromises. Ensuring that the public is knowledgeable about elected officials’ decisions is an important facet of democratic accountability. Yet the watchful eye of primary voters may also deter legislators from considering reasonable compromises. Chapter 7 discusses how to balance these two considerations and discusses whether communication with constituents can facilitate compromise. Our findings, as well as the comments from state legislators at the 2017 NCSL Summit, emphasize the importance of communication between legislators and their constituents – explaining the legislative process, justifying choices, and developing a home style that cultivates trust. With greater communication and building of trust, legislators may have leeway to insulate portions of the legislative process from public scrutiny, helping them reach compromises and overcome gridlock to solve pressing problems.
Chapter 6 explores reforms that might improve the likelihood of achieving compromise solutions. It tests two different approaches to negotiation with in-person survey experiments at the National Conference of State Legislatures annual Legislative Summits in 2016 and 2017. In one of those experiments, legislators indicate that they are more likely to achieve compromise by negotiating in private (even as they express some trepidation about meeting in private). This suggests that private negotiations might make compromise easier to achieve.
Do a large fraction of legislators reject compromises, even when the compromise moves policy toward their preferred outcome? This chapter uses surveys of state legislators and elected city officials to assess what fraction of officials reject half-loaf compromises that give them some, but not all of what they seek on policy. Nearly a quarter of state legislators say they would reject a proposal that moves the gas tax toward their preferred outcome. Legislators’ rejection of half-loaf compromises exacerbates the difficulties of solving problems in a political environment polarized along ideological lines.
This chapter illustrates how legislators sometimes reject compromise proposals with an example of legislation on public lands management in Utah. Despite broad support for the bill, which was viewed as a compromise solution to increase protection for the San Rafael Swell area, it had detractors who felt it did not go far enough. The failure of the San Rafael Swell National Conservation Area legislation shows that legislators sometimes reject half-loaf compromises in pursuit of getting everything they want. This book takes a problem-oriented approach by examining why legislators reject half-loaf compromises and what can be done about it. This chapter summarizes the varied methods we used to understand the rejection of compromise, our findings that legislators fear punishment for compromise from subsets of the primary election who oppose particular compromises, and our contributions to solving this problem
Legislative solutions to pressing problems like balancing the budget, climate change, and poverty usually require compromise. Yet national, state, and local legislators often reject compromise proposals that would move policy in their preferred direction. Why do legislators reject such agreements? This engaging and relevant investigation into how politicians think reveals that legislators refuse compromise - and exacerbate gridlock - because they fear punishment from voters in primary elections. Prioritizing these electoral interests can lead lawmakers to act in ways that hurt their policy interests and also overlook the broader electorate's preferences by representing only a subset of voters with rigid positions. With their solution-oriented approach, Anderson, Butler, and Harbridge-Yong demonstrate that improving the likelihood of legislative compromise may require moving negotiations outside of the public spotlight. Highlighting key electoral motives underlying polarization, this book is an excellent resource for scholars and students studying Congress, American politics, public policy, and political behavior.
Late Holocene sediment deposits in Pine Island Bay, West Antarctica, are hypothesized to be linked to intensive meltwater drainage during the retreat of the paleo-Pine Island Ice Stream after the Last Glacial Maximum. The uppermost sediment units show an abrupt transition from ice-proximal debris to a draped silt during the late Holocene, which is interpreted to coincide with rapid deglaciation. The small scale and fine sorting of the upper unit could be attributed to origins in subglacial meltwater; however the thickness and deposition rate for this unit imply punctuated- rather than continuous-deposition. This, combined with the deposit's location seaward of large, bedrock basins, has led to the interpretation of this unit as the result of subglacial lake outbursts in these basins. However, the fine-scale sorting of the silt unit is problematic for this energetic interpretation, which should mobilize and deposit a wider range of sediment sizes. To resolve this discrepancy, we present an alternative mechanism in which the silt was sorted by a distributed subglacial water system, stored in bedrock basins far inland of the grounding line, and subsequently eroded at higher flow speeds during retreat. We demonstrate that this mechanism is physically plausible given the subglacial conditions during the late Holocene. We hypothesize that similar silt units observed elsewhere in Antarctica downstream of bedrock basins could be the result of the same mechanism.
Introduced species can have strong ecological, social and economic effects on their non-native environment. Introductions of megafaunal species are rare and may contribute to rewilding efforts, but they may also have pronounced socio-ecological effects because of their scale of influence. A recent introduction of the hippopotamus Hippopotamus amphibius into Colombia is a novel introduction of a megaherbivore onto a new continent, and raises questions about the future dynamics of the socio-ecological system into which it has been introduced. Here we synthesize current knowledge about the Colombian hippopotamus population, review the literature on the species to predict potential ecological and socio-economic effects of this introduction, and make recommendations for future study. Hippopotamuses can have high population growth rates (7–11%) and, on the current trajectory, we predict there could be 400–800 individuals in Colombia by 2050. The hippopotamus is an ecosystem engineer that can have profound effects on terrestrial and aquatic environments and could therefore affect the native biodiversity of the Magdalena River basin. Hippopotamuses are also aggressive and may pose a threat to the many inhabitants of the region who rely upon the Magdalena River for their livelihoods, although the species could provide economic benefits through tourism. Further research is needed to quantify the current and future size and distribution of this hippopotamus population and to predict the likely ecological, social and economic effects. This knowledge must be balanced with consideration of social and cultural concerns to develop appropriate management strategies for this novel introduction.
The Murchison Widefield Array (MWA) is an open access telescope dedicated to studying the low-frequency (80–300 MHz) southern sky. Since beginning operations in mid-2013, the MWA has opened a new observational window in the southern hemisphere enabling many science areas. The driving science objectives of the original design were to observe 21 cm radiation from the Epoch of Reionisation (EoR), explore the radio time domain, perform Galactic and extragalactic surveys, and monitor solar, heliospheric, and ionospheric phenomena. All together
programs recorded 20 000 h producing 146 papers to date. In 2016, the telescope underwent a major upgrade resulting in alternating compact and extended configurations. Other upgrades, including digital back-ends and a rapid-response triggering system, have been developed since the original array was commissioned. In this paper, we review the major results from the prior operation of the MWA and then discuss the new science paths enabled by the improved capabilities. We group these science opportunities by the four original science themes but also include ideas for directions outside these categories.
Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS) is the remote elemental analysis technique used by the ChemCam instrument on the Curiosity rover. LIBS involves remotely ablating material from rocks and soils with a focused high-energy laser, which generates an optically excited plasma from which the elements in the rock or soil sample are quantitatively determined. The LIBS technique offers many advantages for remote chemical analysis. LIBS provides very rapid analyses without the need for any sample preparation. LIBS is capable of detecting all elements present above the detection limits independent of the atomic mass. LIBS quantitative analysis continues to evolve and produce accurate compositions with decreasing uncertainties. Furthermore, the matrix effects that tend to complicate most elemental analysis techniques like LIBS are increasingly exploited to extract more sample details. The focus of this chapter is to describe the current state of LIBS chemical analysis for remote planetary science.