Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T04:47:58.885Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Presidential Nominating Conventions and Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2020

Morris J . Levitt  and
Ronald James
Morris J . Levitt
Affiliation:
Howard University
Ronald James
Affiliation:
Howard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Teaching through simulation is one of the most innovative and interesting methods available. Many educators, however, are reluctant to utilize this technique. Some of the reasons for this are understandable. Setting up a simulation is somewhat time consuming and involves more than the usual amount of paperwork. Secondly, the educator may be unfamiliar with organizing a flexible, people- integrating simulation. Third, grading criteria may be a bit more difficult to develop. In spite of these facts, the strengths of using simulation far outweigh the difficulties, and it is the intention of this article to help overcome such problems.

Although setting up a simulation is time consuming, once accomplished, the teacher's job becomes easier because the students will begin to “learn by doing”.

Type
Simulation
Information
News for Teachers of Political Science , Volume 43 , Fall 1984 , pp. 13 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Selected Bibliography

NOTE: The literature on voting behavior and presidential campaigns is extensive. We are, therefore, limiting our biography to offer a sample of articles and books that might prove especially helpful for the focus of this simulation.Google Scholar
Adams, William C.Television Coverage of the 1980 Presidential Campaign Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex, 1982.Google Scholar
Alexander, Herbert E.Financing Politics, 2nd edition. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1980.Google Scholar
Cavala, William. “Changing the Rules Changes the Game: Party Reform and the 1972 California Delegation to the Democratic National Convention,” American Political Science Review, 68 (1974), 27-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, Paul T. “Party Platform as National Plans,” Public Administration Review, 31 (1971), 303-15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldbaum, Eleanor G., Buckley, John J, III, and Levitt., Morris J “Students and Simulation,“ Simulation and Games, 7 (1976), 153-176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, John. S. et al. “Herbert McCloskey and Friends Revisited, 1980 Democratic and Republican Party Elites compared to the Mass Public,” American Politics Quarterly, 10 (1982), 165-78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkpatrick, Jeane.The New Presidential Elite: Men and Women in National Politics. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1976.Google Scholar
Levitt, Morris J., Hook, Patricia A, and Feldbaum., Eleanor G “Simulation is Stimulation in an Introductory Course.” Social Studies, 67 (1976), 259-65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, Herbert T., Hoffman, Paul J and O'Hara, Rosemary, “Issue Conflict and Consensus Among Party Leaders and Followers,“ American Political Science Review, 54(1980), 406-27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, Eugene B. Jr. “Rationality and Uncertainty at National Nominating Conventions,” Journal of Politics, 35 (1973), 458-78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakamora, Robert T. “Beyond Purism and Professionalism: Styles of Convention Delegate Followership,” American Journal of Political Science, 24 (1980), 207-32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W. and Wildavsky., AaronPresidential Elections, 6th ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1984.Google Scholar
Pomper, Gerald. “New Rules and New Games in Presidential Nominations,” Journal of Politics. 41 (1979), 784–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roback, Thomas. “Amateurs and Professionals: Delegates to the 1972 Republican National Convention,” Journal of Politics, 37 (1975)436-68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soule, John W. and Clarke., James W. “Issue Conflict and Consensus: A Comparative Study of Democratic and Republican Delegates to the 1968 National Conventions,” Journal of Politics. 33 (1971), 77-85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, Richard A.The Presidential Contest. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1984.Google Scholar
Wayne, Stephen.The Road to the White House, 2nd Edition, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1984.Google Scholar
White, Theodore H.America in Search of Itself: The Making of the President, 1956-1980. New York: Harper and Row. 1982.Google Scholar