1

Search Process Paper, LIS 620

April 5, 2008

Lynne Bolick Reed

Finding Scholarly Resources: A Search Process Paper

This paper is written to document the search process that was used to find twenty-five scholarly resources on the topic of the United StatesElectoral College. I had used the topic of United States presidential elections for all of my reference projects in LIS 620 and this is not a subject on which I consider myself to be an expert. Rather, it was chosen to prepare for an increase in reference questions that are expected for the fall of 2008 due to theupcoming presidential electionsat the library where I am employed, the Catawba County Library System. Unfortunately, this project and paper on scholarly resources will not apply to a real-world application since my public library does not serve the scholarly audience. However, I offer this background information to provide the context for this paper and to emphasize my previous inexperience with political science topics. The fact that I am not a subject expert affected my searching, as will be highlighted later in this paper.

I began my search by starting at the UNC-Charlotte Atkins library and signed in to use the library resources with my student account. I chose the Atkins library over the Jackson library at UNC-G because I know that Charlotte offers a number of advanced degrees in the political science discipline and I was unfamiliar with Greensboro’s degree offerings in this field. Therefore, I assumed that Atkins library would hold scholarly resources for research. I began exploring the databases for scholarly journals, chose a link to electronic scholarly journals, and found some likely candidates: JSTOR, Vital Statistics on American Politics, Web of Science, Blackwell Synergy, SAGE Journals Online, Ingenta, and PAIS International. But I was really unsure of how to begin and noticed that there was a link on this page to ask a librarian. Assuming that this would connect me to a librarian at UNC-Charlotte, I clicked the link and was taken to the NCKnows entry portal. I have never used this service and thought that it might be a good way to find out more about scholarly political science research, so I signed in and asked for help with the following introduction:

Chat Transcript: I am a UNC-G MLIS student taking classes in a distance program at UNC-C. My assignment is to compile a bibliography using scholarly resources on the topic of United States presidential elections. The articles must be from peer-reviewed, scholarly journals and the audience is a higher-level academic population. We are not to use Academic Premier, etc. but more scholarly, subject specialty databases. Since I am not very familiar with the topic, I am having trouble deciding which databases to use either through UNC-C Atkins or UNC-G Jackson, since I have access to both. Can you steer me in the direction of which databases would be considered scholarly in the field of United States politics and elections? Thank you very much.

I was connected to a very busy librarian who asked if I could hold as she was assisting several people at once. I did not have to hold long as she came back shortly and said that she was transferring me to an open librarian.

The chat session simply deteriorated from there. The next librarian (from a college in Illinois) began a long conversation with me about what was considered scholarly. The transcript that I later receive via email is partially reprinted below.

Librarian: What is considered scholarly depends on you and your familiarity; a peer review will give you "scholarly" journals but ultimately tou [you] are the judge.

Lynne: Do you know if there are any specialized databases for this discipline?

Librarian: i think you should contact a UNC librarian - but i could clear up the idea of peer review and scholarly if you want.

I did not want to continue the session, so I told him that I would contact Atkins library. This was not a pleasant experience and I hope that the reference librarians at our county library do not conduct their reference interviews in this manner.

A bit frustrated at this point (due more to the experience than the assignment), I decided that I had the expertise to complete this project on my own and chose to use the Jackson Library resources because I have used them in the past most frequently. After logging in, I selected the political science subject databases and browsed the “Articles” link. I found several databases that I thought might provide the appropriate material and I started with the JSTOR resource. From earlier experience in other classes, I knew that this was a database of scholarly material. I used the “basic” search and inserted “united states presidential elections.” The only limit that I imposed was by the discipline of “political science” and the search resulted in 10,505 hits. Because the hits were sorted by relevance, I looked closely at the first few to see if any were totally on topic and did not really find any. At this point, I decided an advanced search might be more productive and looked for a thesaurus or subject list to improve my search string. Since neither tool was available, I decided to use the two minute tutorial. Although the tutorial was good, it really did not improve my ability to find more relevant articles, so I proceeded on to the advanced search. Here, I specified “United States” as a phrase to be searched in the text (since there was not a subject search) and coupled that with another text phrase search of “presidential elections” plus another limit of the “political science” discipline. The resulting list was 10,527 hits of articles that were basically the same as my first “basic” search. Searching within these hits, I narrowed my topic to “history” and found 284 articles that were still not really on target.

At this point, it occurred to me that I needed to narrow my topic for the purposes of this project. I did so by selecting the topic: the history and controversy surrounding the United States Electoral College system. Further searching in this database still brought thousands of hits and the added frustration that there were no subject headings attached to the articles for me to trace the headings to find additional relevant articles. After several more tries, I found one article and proceeded to try another database.

This time, I selected the PAIS International database and was pleased to find that there is a thesaurus in this resource. I looked for relevant search terms in the thesaurus and decided on “Electoral College (United States).” Searching this subject yielded forty hits, including twenty-seven journals and five peer-reviewed journals. All five of the peer-reviewed articles were right on topic and were selected for this bibliography.

Back at the UNC-Greensboro library page, I chose the CIAO: Columbia International Affairs Online database and searched for journal articles. The initial search on “United States Electoral College” brought up 10,069 articles. In order to find fewer hits, I used the advanced search feature and searched by the phrases “United States” and “Electoral College.” A further limitation of the United States as the region brought the relevant hits to nine. After selecting the most relevant article, I used the “find similar” link and collected three more useful articles.

The final database that I used was the “Worldwide Political Science Abstracts” resource available through the Jackson Library. I was thrilled to find a thesaurus here and used this tool to find the appropriate search terminologyfor this database. Using “Electoral College (United States)” yielded fifty-two articles of which seventeen were selected for possible use in the bibliography.

Most of my reference experience involves using the resources of the public library, with the exception of personal research that I have done at the graduate level. This project forced me to search more selectively, using a different set of resources with which I was not familiar. However, expanding one’s repertoire of resources only improves the reference librarian’s skills as we are constantly building our knowledge of information tools and search techniques. Over time, our skills improve with experience and enable us to be more effective and efficient public servants.

References

Adkins, R.E.Kirwan, K.A. (2002, Fall). What role does the "federalism bonus" play in presidential selection?Publius, 32(4), 71-90. Retrieved April 5, 2008 from the CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts database.

Alexander, R., Brown, D., & Kaseman, J. (2004). Pinning a face on the Electoral College: A survey of the class of 2000. PS: Political Science & Politics, 37(4), 833-838. Retrieved April 5, 2008 from the CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts database.

Ardoin, P.J. Parsons, B.M.(2007). Partisan bias in the Electoral College: Cheap states and wasted votes. Politics and Policy, 35(2), 342-364. Retrieved April 5, 2008 from the CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts database.

Barnett, A. (1990, Winter). Selecting the nation's CEO: A risk assessment of the electoral college. Journal of Managerial Issues, 2(4), 357-370. Retrieved April 5, 2008 from the PAIS International database.

Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G.J. & Holbert, R.L. (2004, Spring). Presidential campaigns and democracy. Mass Communication & Society, 7(2), 177-190. Retrieved April 5, 2008 from the CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts database.

Berthoud, J. E. (1997). The electoral lock thesis: The weighting bias component.PS: Political Science & Politics, 30(2), 189-193. RetrievedApril 5, 2008from the PAIS International database.

Best, J.A. (2004, Spring). Presidential selection: Complex problems and simple solutions. Political Science Quarterly, 119(1), 39-59. Retrieved April 5, 2008from the CIAO: (Columbia International Affairs Online) database.

Cain, C., Basciano, P.M. & Cain, E. (2007). The Electoral College: Diversification and the election process. Constitutional Political Economy, 18(1), 21-34. Retrieved April 5, 2008 from the CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts database.

Crockett, D.A. (2003). Dodging the bullet: Election mechanics and the problem of the twenty-third amendment. PS: Political Science & Politics, 36(3), 423-426. Retrieved April 5, 2008from the PAIS International database.

Glenn, G. (2003, Winter). The Electoral College and the development of American democracy. Perspectives on Political Science, 32(1), 4-8. Retrieved April 5, 2008 from the CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts database.

Grofman, B. &Feld, S.L.(2005). Thinking about the political impacts of the Electoral College. Public Choice, 123(1-2), 1-18. Retrieved April 5, 2008 from the CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts database.

Hulsey, J. (2005). Overview of current electoral law developments in the United States. Osterreichische Zeitschrift fur Politikwissenschaft,34(1),61-72. Retrieved April 5, 2008 from the CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts database.

Issacharoff, S. (2005, Spring). Law, rules, and presidential selection. Political Science Quarterly, 120(1), 113-129. Retrieved April 5, 2008from the CIAO: (Columbia International Affairs Online) database.

Johnson, B.K. (2005, Spring). Identities of competitive states in U.S. presidential elections: Electoral College bias or candidate-centered politics?Publius, 35(2),337-355. Retrieved April 5, 2008 from the CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts database.

Josephson, W. & Ross, B.J. (1996). Repairing the Electoral College. Journal of Legislation, 22(2), 145-193. Retrieved April 5, 2008 from the CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts database.

Keyssar, A. (2003, Summer). Shoring up the right to vote for president: A modest proposal. Political Science Quarterly, 118(2), 181-203. Retrieved April 5, 2008from the CIAO: (Columbia International Affairs Online) database.

Longley, L.D. & Dana, Jr., J.D. (1992, Autumn). The biases of the Electoral College in the 1990s. Polity, 25(1), 123-145. Retrieved April 5, 2008from the JSTOR database.

Nagel, J.H. (2007). The Burr dilemma in approval voting.The Journal of Politics, 69(1), 43-58. Retrieved April 5, 2008 from the CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts database.

Panagopoulos, C. (2004, Winter). The polls -- trends: Electoral reform. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(4),623-640. Retrieved April 5, 2008 from the CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts database.

Rakove, J.N. (2004, Spring). Presidential selection: Electoral fallacies. Political Science Quarterly, 119(1), 21-37. Retrieved April 5, 2008from the CIAO: (Columbia International Affairs Online) database.

Ross, B.J. & Josephson, W. The Electoral College and the popular vote. Journal of Law and Politics, 12(4), 665-747. Retrieved April 5, 2008 from the CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts database.

Schmidt, P.R. (2002). The Electoral College and conflict in American history and politics. Sociological Practice, 4(3), 195-208. Retrieved April 5, 2008 from the CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts database.

Shaw, D.R. (1999). The methods behind the madness: Presidential Electoral College

strategies, 1988-1996. Journal of Politics, 61(4),893-913. Retrieved April 5, 2008 from the CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts database.

Shugart, M.S. (2004). Elections: The American process of selecting a president: Acomparative perspective. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 34(3),632-655. Retrieved April 5, 2008 from the CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts database.

Turner, R.C. (2005). The contemporary presidency: Do Nebraska and Mainehave the right idea?: The political and partisan implications of the district system. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 35(1), 116-137. Retrieved April 5, 2008 from the CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts database.

Uslaner, E.M. (1980, Summer). The electoral college's alma mater should be a swan song. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 10, 483-487. Retrieved April 5, 2008from the PAIS International database.

Title: The Electoral College and the Development of American Democracy. By: Glenn, Gary, Perspectives on Political Science, 10457097, Winter2003, Vol. 32, Issue 1

Database: MasterFILE Premier

The Electoral College and the Development of American Democracy

Contents

  1. WHAT IS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE?
  2. THE CANDIDATE WHO GETS THE MOST POPULAR VOTES MIGHT NOT BECOME PRESIDENT
  3. WHY THE CONSTITUTION GAVE US A FEDERAL SYSTEM FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT
  4. HAS THE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY MADE OBSOLETE THE FOUNDERS' ELECTORAL COLLEGE?
  5. HOW THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE STRENGTHENS POPULAR ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT
  6. CONCLUSION
  7. NOTES

Section: Contemporary Perspectives

The contemporary idea that the electoral college is undemocratic is fostered (1) by the understanding that "democratic" is what (or who) most voters want, in contrast to the Founders' view that "democratic" combines as much as possible popular consent with "justice and the common good," and (2) by the idea that "one person one vote" for president within each state is undemocratic because democracy requires "one vote, one value" nationally. Both developments discredit the electoral college's "federal" means of electing the president and work toward replacing it with a "national" means, that is, "direct popular election." Because direct election would abolish the states as presidential electoral districts, it was and is advocated by those in favor of strengthening the national and weakening the federal character of our political system.

WHAT IS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE?

Strictly speaking, "the electoral college" is the name given to the U.S. Constitution's provisions for electing the president through fifty-one simultaneous state elections, rather than through one nationally consolidated election.( n1) The Constitution leaves to each state legislature such questions as how to choose the electors and whether to give all their electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state. Hence, changing how states apportion their electoral votes would leave the electoral college intact, as long as the president is elected by state, rather than by a consolidated, national popular vote.

The words "electoral college" are not in the Constitution. Nor have I found them in the debates in the Constitutional Convention. They are a later development, and that is important for this reason: Both originally and today, the Constitution provides that "the electoral college" does not meet as one body but as fifty-one. Thus in 1800, Charles Pinckney, a prominent member of the Convention, described the Constitution's system of electors meeting in their respective state capitals as "different Electoral Colleges."( n2) The plural accurately reflects the Constitutional fact that the system is not one college but many. In contrast, the term "the electoral college" silently consolidates these many into one, thus misleadingly suggesting that a federal process (one in which the president is popularly elected state by state) is actually a national process (in which the president is elected by a consolidated, national popular election and in which state boundaries are abolished for purposes of that election).

In this essay, I argue instead that the electoral college was originally, and remains, more democratic than any practical alternative. In particular, it is more democratic than "direct popular election."(n3)

THE CANDIDATE WHO GETS THE MOST POPULAR VOTES MIGHT NOT BECOME PRESIDENT

A common objection holds that the electoral college enables a candidate to receive "more votes" and yet lose the election, as in "Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral college vote." But this is not quite a fact. Rather, it is a preference that appears to be a fact. It is not false, but it is debatable. Actually it is three preferences, each suppressed rather than defended. Only if the preferences are true is the statement factual.

That a candidate can get more popular votes and yet lose the electoral college vote is not a fact because it is not a fact what "more" is. The objection assumes that "more" popular votes means "more" votes counted as a national total. Count up every vote cast in the country and whoever receives the most has "more." That is not an unreasonable definition of "more." It is what "more" means in most elections. But it is factually not what "more" means in the presidential election. In this election, and only in the presidential election, the Constitutional system does not throw all the popular votes into one national pot and then count them. Rather we count them by fifty-one, separate election districts. And the candidate who gets more popular votes when the popular votes are counted by states (federally) wins. Always. No exceptions.

But is it not a fact that Gore had 500,000 more popular votes than Bush? No, that is a preference because it presupposes that "more" means "counted as a national rather than as a federal total." Because the Constitution requires popular election of the president in each of the states, it is a fact that Gore received more votes than Bush only if one thinks that the Constitution's federal method of counting should be replaced by the national method of counting. And "should" is the language of opinion and preference, not fact. Counting the popular vote federally, George W. Bush had "more" popular votes than Gore.