Theory and Society

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 351–391 | Cite as

Contest time: time, territory, and representation in the postmodern electoral crisis

  • Andrew J. Perrin
  • Robin E. Wagner-Pacifici
  • Lindsay Hirschfeld
  • Susan Wilker
Article

Abstract

Prior generations’ electoral crises (e.g., gerrymandering) have dealt mainly with political maneuverings around geographical shifts. We analyze four recent (1998–2003) American electoral crises: the Clinton impeachment controversy, the 2000 Florida presidential election, the Texas legislators’ flight to Oklahoma and New Mexico, and the California gubernatorial recall. We show that in each case temporal manipulation was at least as important as geographical. We highlight emergent electoral practices surrounding the manipulation of time, which we dub “temporal gerrymandering.” We suggest a theory of postmodern electoral crises, in which the rules of time and space are simultaneously in flux. These crises expose concerns with early American democratic theory, which was based on an understanding of “the people” as geographically and temporally unidimensional. Representative systems, therefore, were designed largely without reference to geographic and temporal complexity.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agamben, G. (1999). The messiah and the sovereign: The problem of law in Walter Benjamin. In D. Heller-Roazen (Ed., trans., and introd.), Potentialities: Collected essays in philosophy (pp. 160–174). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez, R. M., Goodrich, M., Hall, T. E., Kiewiet, D. R., & Sled, S. M. (2004). The complexity of the California recall election. PS: Political Science and Politics, XXXVII, 23–26.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, B. R. (1991). Imagined communities, 2nd ed. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  4. Bai, M. (2005). The Framing Wars. The New York Times Magazine.Google Scholar
  5. Berinsky, A. J., Burns, N., & Traugott, M. W. (2001). Who votes by mail? A dynamic model of the individual level consequences of voting-by-mail systems. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 178–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biernacki, R. (1995). The fabrication of Labor: Germany and Britain, 1640–1914. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brady, H. E. (2004). Postponing the California recall to protect voting rights. PS: Political Science and Politics, XXXVII, 27–32.Google Scholar
  8. Brady, H. E., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (1999). Prospecting for participants: Rational expectations and he recruitment of political activists. American Political Science Review, 93, 153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chanley, V. A., Rudolph, T. J., & Rahn, W. M. (2000). The origins and consequences of public trust in government: A time series analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. CNN (2005). Hurricane Katrina Bears Down on Gulf Coast. News broadcast. Retrieved from http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/28/snn.02.html.
  11. Dayan, D., & Katz, E. (1992). Media events: The live broadcasting of history. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. de Tocqueville, A. (1969). Democracy in America. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  13. DeBow, K., & Syer, J. C. (1997). Power and politics in California, 5th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  14. Eliasoph, N. (1997). Close to home: The work of avoiding politics. Theory and Society, 26, 605–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eliasoph, N. (1998). Avoiding politics: How Americans produce apathy in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103, 962–1023.Google Scholar
  17. Engels, F. (1978). On Authority. In R. Tucker (Ed), The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd ed (pp. 730–733). New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  18. Erikson, R. S., MacKuen, M. B., & Stimson, J. A. (2002). The macro polity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Forest, B. (2004). Information sovereignty and GIS: The evolution of ‘communities of interest’ in political redistricting. Political Geography 22.Google Scholar
  20. Gerston, L. N., & Christensen, T. (2004). Recall! California’s political earthquake. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  21. Gibson, D. R. (2000). Seizing the moment: The problem of conversational agency. Sociological Theory, 18, 368–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gibson, D. R. (2006). Opportunistic interruptions: Interactional vulnerabilities deriving from linearization. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 316–337.Google Scholar
  23. Gimpel, J. G., Dyck, J. J., Gaines, B. J., & Shaw, D. R. (2004). Local Political Contexts and the Use of Alternative and Traditional Vote Methods. Presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., September, 2004.Google Scholar
  24. Guinier, L. (1994). The tyranny of the majority: Fundamental fairness in representative democracy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hall, J. R. (1980). The time of history and the history of times. History and Theory, 19, 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hochschild, A. R. (1997). The time bind: When work becomes home and home becomes work. New York: Metropolitan Books.Google Scholar
  27. Jacobs, R. N. (2000). Race, media, and the crisis of civil society: From Watts to Rodney King. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Juster, N. (1961). The phantom tollbooth. New York: Dell Yearling.Google Scholar
  29. Kantorowicz, E. H. (1957). The king’s two bodies; a study in mediaeval political theology. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Karp, J. A., & Banducci, S. A. (2000). Going postal: How all-mail elections influence turnout. Political Behavior, 22, 223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kousser, T. (2004). Retrospective Voting in California’s Recall. Presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., September, 2004.Google Scholar
  32. Loveman, M. (2005). The modern state and the primitive accumulation of symbolic power. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 1651–1683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Margolick, D., Peretz, E., & Schnayerson, M. (2004). The Path to Florida. Vanity Fair p. 310.Google Scholar
  34. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1978). Manifesto of the Communist Party. In R. Tucker (Ed.), The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd ed. (pp.469–500). New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  35. Milligan, S. (2000). Campaign 2000/Electoral College; Several Tight Races May Make for Strange Election Day Fallout. Boston Globe.Google Scholar
  36. Monmonier, M. (2001). Bushmanders & Bullwinkles: How politicians manipulate electronic maps and census data to win elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. MoveOn (2004). MoveOn.org Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.moveon.org/about.
  38. Office of the Independent Counsel (1998). Referral to the United States House of Representatives pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, 595(c). Washington: Office of the Independent Counsel. Avail.: http://icreport.loc.gov/icreport/2toc.htm.
  39. O’Malley, M. (1990). Keeping watch: A history of American time. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  40. Perrin, A. J. (2006). Citizen speak: The democratic imagination in American life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  41. Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  42. Polletta, F. (2002). Freedom is an endless meeting: Democracy in American social movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Posner, R. A. (2001). Breaking the deadlock: The 2000 election, the constitution, and the courts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  45. Rehnquist, W. H. (2004). Centennial crisis: The disputed election of 1876. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  46. Riesman, D., Glazer, N., & Denney, R. (1950). The lonely crowd: A study of the changing American character. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Sarfatti-Larson, M., & Wagner-Pacifici, R. (2001). The dubious place of virtue: Reflections on the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton and the death of the political event in America. Theory and Society, 30.Google Scholar
  48. Schecter, D. L. (2004). Right of Removal: Recall Politics in the Modern Era. Presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., September, 2004.Google Scholar
  49. Scheppele, K. L. (2001). When the law doesn’t count: The 2000 election and the failure of the rule of law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 149, 1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Scheuerman, W. E. (2001). Liberal democracy and the empire of speed. Polity, XXXIV.Google Scholar
  51. Scheuerman, W. E. (2004). Liberal democracy and the social acceleration of time. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Schor, J. (1991). The overworked American: The unexpected decline of leisure. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  53. Schudson, M. (1992). Watergate in American memory: How we remember, forget, and reconstruct the past. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  54. Schudson, M. (1998). The good citizen: A history of American civic life. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  55. Silverstein, M. (2003). Talking politics: The substance of style from Abe to “W”. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.Google Scholar
  56. Starr, P. (2004). The creation of the media: Political origins of modern communications. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  57. Stinchcombe, A. L. (2001). When formality works: Authority and abstraction in law and organizations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  58. Thompson, D. F. (2005). Democracy in time: Popular sovereignty and temporal representation. Constellations, 12, 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thompson, J. (2000). Political scandal: Power and visibility in the media age. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  60. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Wagner-Pacifici, R. (1994). Discourse & destruction: The city of Philadelphia vs MOVE. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  62. Wagner-Pacifici, R. (2000). Theorizing the standoff: Contingency in action. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Wagner-Pacifici, R. (2005). The art of surrender: Decomposing sovereignty at conflict’s end. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  64. Wagner-Pacifici, R. E. (1986). The Moro morality play: Terrorism as social drama. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  65. Weber, M. (1946). Politics as a vocation. In H. H. Gerth & C. Wright Mills (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 77-128). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Weber, M. (1978). In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.), Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology, vol. 2. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  67. Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who votes? New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Wolin, S. W. (2001). Tocqueville between two worlds: The making of a political and theoretical life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Zerubavel, E. (1981). Hidden rhythms: Schedules and calendars in social life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  70. Zerubavel, E. (2003). Time maps: Collective memory and the social shape of the past. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew J. Perrin
    • 1
  • Robin E. Wagner-Pacifici
    • 2
  • Lindsay Hirschfeld
    • 1
  • Susan Wilker
    • 3
  1. 1.Sociology Department - CB#3210University of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Swarthmore CollegeSwarthmoreUSA
  3. 3.School of Law, University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations