Following each recent round of redistricting, scholars have tried to determine whether that round worked to one party's advantage and whether control of the redistricting process by members of one party led to gerrymandering. They have reached mixed conclusions. Here, we examine the partisan consequences of the post-1990 redistricting for the U.S. House of Representatives. We create two sets of projections of partisan support levels for the 1990 and 1992 districts based on district-level 1988 presidential election data. One set of projections assumes an incumbency advantage, and one set assumes the hypothetical situation of all open seats, i.e., no incumbency advantage. We ask whether either party benefited and whether gerrymandering occurred. When we take incumbency into account, we find that our projections show that the two parties came out just about even in redistricting, with an increase in the number of districts evenly split between them. However, when we assume all open seats, our projections show an increase of 21 Republican districts, a decrease of 3 Democratic districts, and a decrease of 17 evenly split districts. We conclude that the Republican party gained from redistricting and that incumbency and other short-term factors obscure changes in the underlying partisan support in districts. In a state-level analysis of redistricting outcomes, we find no evidence that parties succeeded in using control of state government to gain partisan advantage through redistricting.Conventional political wisdom holds that parties use redistricting to gain electoral advantage. After redistricting, political observers point out particular candidates affected by gerrymandering. The academic literature, however, does not consistently support the view that parties and incumbents can improve their positions through gerrymandering or the view that redistricting affects election outcomes (for exhaustive reviews, see Butler and Cain 1992; Gelman and King 1994). Some studies conclude that parties and incumbents are highly

What are the key issues facing information systems managers in the public sector? Most public IS managers surveyed show more concern for agency-wide management issues than for technical ones. They care about what information systems can do for their agencies. They want people in their agencies to understand the importance of managing information and information technology effectively.

Despite concern with turnover in the U.S. House of Representatives, few scholars have attempted to view turnover in historical perspective or in all its forms. Confusion over the basic facts has impeded attempts to explain and evaluate levels of turnover. We present a broad descriptive overview of turnover over the entire history of the U.S. House in terms of the levels of overall turnover, forms thereof, and patterns, particularly within party periods. The findings include that turnover has declined over the years but not in a continuous fashion and not evenly among the different forms, that general election defeat is not the primary form of turnover, that common methods of reporting turnover magnify the apparent importance of electorally based turnover, and that turnover varies systematically by party period. A research agenda is proposed for explanatory work on turnover including strategic retirement and the impact of partisan realignments on levels and forms of turnover.

This article lays out the argument that we may best cope with the unfolding of the future by learning from the past. Here, the past represented by Niccolo Machiavelli's world and thoughts are juxtaposed with the questions and issues raised by postmodern organization theorists. Machiavelli's thoughts contributed to the creation of the world that concerns postmodern theorists and us. Both Machiavelli and postmodern organization theorists address change and strategies for dealing with change, including looking to needs and emotions for working with individuals in change situations and the importance of widespread involvement in governance structures. Building a better future requires learning to deal with human social realities that have been and will be shaped by past philosophers. Consciousness of past philosophers should help in that endeavor.

No abstract