The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (joined so far by ten states and DC) would replace the current presidential-election system, based on the electoral college and the winner-take-all rule, with nationwide plurality rule, and it would do so by changes in state law, not a Constitutional amendment. The mischief that would create (especially procedural instability, noncompliant electors, nation-wide recounts, vote manipulation, and narrowed support), the compact’s questionable Constitutionality, the weakness of its defense, and the availability of less calamitous alternatives are reasons enough to reject it.

This paper answers 24 criticisms of the National Popular Vote interstate compact in Darin DeWitt and Thomas Schwartz’s paper entitled “A Calamitous Compact” (found elsewhere in this issue).

More students are beginning their college careers at community colleges before completing degrees at four-year institutions. As enrollments swell at these two-year institutions, issues surrounding transfer and articulation agreements are increasingly important, and two- and four-year institutions must work together on the recruitment, retention, and transition of political science majors. Central to this collaboration is the curriculum. Building on conclusions from the 2011 Leadership Collaborative Core Curriculum and General Education track regarding a common curriculum in the discipline, this article examines the political science curriculum using data from 47 two-year colleges with separate political science departments. We examined similarities and differences among these programs and found sufficient commonality in curriculum to allow students to transfer credits to four-year institutions. The article also offers community colleges an indication of common curricular features and informs the wider profession about community college curriculum design.

Three of our arguments drew no objection from Dr. Koza. One is that plurality rule—the heart of his proposed reform—can be anti-majoritarian. In our three-candidate example, Libby was the plurality favorite but Maude beat each of her rivals, Libby included, by a majority. A plurality can be a majority, of course, but the Electoral College has never reversed a popular majority.

The presence of women candidates in both major parties’ presidential primaries, including a likely woman Democratic nominee, has increased the attention paid to gender dynamics in the 2016 US presidential election. However, the presumption that previous presidential elections—without female prominent contenders—were gender neutral is false: gender dynamics have been at play in all US presidential elections to date. The nation’s top executive office is arguably the most masculine in American politics. Duerst-Lahti (1997) describes the presidency as a gendered space in which masculine norms and images are reified as the ideal, adding, “the masculinist assumption-made-normal is strong and is made even stronger when it goes unnoticed for its gendered aspects” (22). Presidents and presidential contenders, whether male or female, are expected to meet the masculine expectations of the office through words and actions, and those around them—family, spouses, and advisors—often play a role in shaping the degree to which they are successful. In navigating American politics, candidates also face gendered treatment by opponents, voters, and media, reminding us that presidential politics is far from gender neutral. These gender dynamics have been detailed by scholars, particularly in analyses of the presidential candidacies of women (Beail and Longworth 2013; Carlin and Winfrey 2009; Carroll and Dittmar 2009; Dittmar and Carroll 2013; Duerst-Lahti 2013; Falk 2010; Han and Heldman 2007; Heldman, Carroll, and Olson 2005; Lawrence and Rose 2009; McClain, Carter, and Brady 2005). However, the depth and nuance in scholarly analyses are rarely evident in popular dialogue about the ways in which gender shapes presidential elections.