Since I have been unable to find a formula which might justify simply publishing the welter of mixed responses I have received, I thought I might at least provide those who responded to my inquiry (84.2%) with a basis for assessing our common enterprise.

The profession would appear to be inordinately healthy. There is certainly an abundance of self-restraint, decorum, ingenuity, and determination not to be taken in by mischievous gimmicks. Nelson Polsby was not alone in seeing that the survey was rigged to fail since it would publicize work which, as he put it, ought to enjoy a little benign neglect. A preponderant majority of respondents managed to be evasive by a display of wit and cunning which surely excused the fact that they had resolved to hurt no one. Those who were not masterfully evasive met the issue head-on. In what has suddenly become an especially engaging note, Clinton Rossiter wrote a week before his death:

I would like to oblige, but the overpowering fact is that I would hurt the feelings of a very good friend were I to single out the article or book published during the last quarter century that seems to me to “have received too much attention.” I have been a witness to and target of just a little too much nastiness in our profession in the past couple of years, and I hope you will excuse me from adding, however tactfully, to the sum total of nastiness that seems to pervade this world.

The profile of Femina Studens rei Publicae which has developed from the gross statistics and the 1969 survey of departments of political science shows that the professional woman in academia is primarily in the lower ranks, often not even on the first step of the promotion “ladder” and is teaching undergraduates. Although her habitat is the small college, there are signs that she may be emerging from it to the faculties of the city and state university. Recently she has been receiving Ph.D.'s at a greater rate of growth than that for men, but she still remains a small minority. In considering the following ratios related to her publications, other evidences of scholarship, and the recognition accorded to her in the profession, it is important to stress that the woman political scientist who is teaching constitutes five percent of the membership in the A.P.S.A. and according to the 1969 survey, 8.4 percent of all faculty in political science in colleges and universities.

This is a study of participation in six annual meetings (1964–1969) of the American Political Science Association. Participation was defined to include not only membership on panels but also membership on the Program Committee (i.e., program chairman and chairman of the panel categories-here called subject area chairman). Data on participation were gathered from the programs of the meetings and background data on participation were obtained from the APSA Biographical Directory (Fifth Edition, 1968 and Fourth Edition, 1961) and from other sources.

The study is divided into three parts: multiple participants and two sub-groups thereof, “rule violators” and the leadership group. Multiple participants (MPs) are those who participated in APSA annual meetings two or more times during the period 1964–1969. “Rule violators” (RVs) are those who, contrary to what is stated to be APSA general policy, participated more than one time in any single year. The leadership group includes members of the program committee.

The novel scheme for proportional representation developed by Professor Steven J. Brams (PS, Summer, 1970, pp. 321–335) has at least two major advantages in comparison with most electoral plans:

1 The plan permits the voter to give effect to the intensity of his support for individual candidates. Each voter has at his disposal a number of votes equal to the number of offices to be filled, but, assuming that fractions are not allowed, the voter has as many alternative means for distributing his votes as there are mathematical combinations for the set of numbers represented by the number of votes to be cast. For example, let us assume that six seats on the APSA board are to be filled. The voter may cast his six votes, one for each of six candidates, or he may cast six votes for a single candidate, or he may distribute his votes equally or unequally among several candidates.

2 Professor Brams presents a mathematical analysis to demonstrate that the plan under specified conditions facilitates representation of differing interests, including minority interests, in rough proportion to their numerical strengths, provided the interests are effectively organized, have accurate information as to the voting strengths of the competing interests, and are able to make and implement maximizing choices regarding the voting decisions. As in gaming, the aim of such organized effort is to maximize the chances of the opposition electing only a minimum number of its chosen candidates. For example, if three candidates are to be elected, a minority group able to poll a united vote of 26 per cent is able to muster 3 x 26 = 78 votes. If the other 74 per cent of the votes are united in organized opposition, they may divide their 3 x 74 = 222 votes in the following alternative arrangements:

a) 222 votes for one candidate.

b) 111 votes for each of two candidates.

c) 74 votes for each of three candidates.

It is evident that the minority, if able to concentrate its effort behind a single candidate (3 x 26 = 78 votes), will elect its candidate in spite of any strategy which the majority interest may choose.