Built on quicksand? a decade of procedural spatial models on eu legislative decision-making

2005 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 592-606 ◽  
Author(s):  
Björn Hörl ◽  
Andreas Warntjen ◽  
Arndt Wonka1
1982 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. 7-8
Author(s):  
Richard DeGraw ◽  
Bette F. DeGraw

The Legislative Decision Making Process is an educational role play for graduate or undergraduate students concerning the political and pressure relationships involved in the political decision-making process. The role play reviews the implications of the decision-making processes upon the provision of services by governmental agencies.The role play engages from twenty to sixty students in a simulated budget-making and lobbying experience and utilizes this experience to teach students:1.The values and pressures considered by bureaucracies and the Legislature in decision-making;2.The relationships which exist between clients, community groups, administrators and politicians;3.The various techniques of Community Organization for lobbying and Legislative influence.The role play consists of various groups of students in roles which include legislators, administrators of three major state departments, two minor state departments, parent groups, Concerned Citizen groups, American Indians disabled individuals and ex-clients.


This chapter describes the ideological forms and beliefs that are considered either evangelical or liberal. The differences between these two types of faith worldviews influence legislative decision making and inform culture. To the extent that gay issues represent a cultural divide between religious traditionalism and progressivism policy outcomes are impacted by these differences.


2021 ◽  
pp. 83-108
Author(s):  
Neilan S. Chaturvedi

Chapter 4 examines the logic used by moderates in determining how to vote on legislation. Using interview data from six retired senators, Chapter 4 examines the pressures they face, both within the chamber with party leadership and outside the chamber with constituents and interest groups. While conventional wisdom would dictate that moderates vote only for legislation that they find palatable, and vote against all else, using data collected by Project Vote Smart capturing the issue positions of many senators, we see that all too often this is not the case—centrists get “railroaded” by leaders and vote with the majority, even when the legislation goes against their stated position. Using voting decisions on key votes and publicly stated positions by senators, the chapter then creates a logic model that illustrates how moderates decide how to vote on legislation.


2005 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 396-420 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Tsebelis ◽  
Eduardo Alemán

Ten Latin American presidents have a power that has not received the study that it deserves: the ability to make positive suggestions to vetoed bills. These “amendatory observations” return to Congress for afinalround of voting. Sometimes the presidential version of the bill becomes the default alternative automatically and may require qualified majorities to be overturned. The authors analyze veto procedures in eighteen Latin American countries and argue that amendatory veto power significantly increases presidential weight in legislative decision making.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document