Kevin and Matthew have good posts on redistricting, although like Brian, I’m a little unsure whether intra-party competition is always such a good thing (in Ireland, where we have a PR-STV system, the result is intense localism - politicians perceive their main duty as “bothering civil servants” to get favours for their constituents). There’s another problem though, that’s less often raised by smart centrist Democrats - the enormous institutional barriers that stand in the way of third parties. Ballot access rules in many states are deliberately and systematically skewed to make it difficult for third parties to gain a place on the ballot sheets. In its own way, this is every bit as anti-democratic as gerrymandering - not only does it make it more difficult for third parties to gain elected office, but it also makes the main parties less sensitive to voter dissatisfaction (voters don’t have other political alternatives that they can credibly threaten to vote for). Unlike redistricting, this is the result of a tacit oligopoly between the two main parties, and is thus, I suspect, even less susceptible to reform. This is not to say by any means that these official barriers are the only impediments to third party influence in the US, but they’re surely a significant part of the story.
Not only would I like to see left third parties better able to influence the Democrats, but I suspect it would be a good thing for American politics if there were a viable Libertarian party. Certainly, some of the financial and political excesses of the Bush administration might have been curtailed if there had been a credible likelihood of libertarian-leaning voters going elsewhere. Given all the above, I have mixed feelings when I read about Nader’s success in getting on the ballot in various states. I’m hugely unimpressed with him as a candidate, I don’t want him to attract votes, and I’m perfectly aware that the Republicans have probably engaged in as many dodgy manoeuvres to get him on the ballot as the Democrats have to try to get him off. Nonetheless, a small piece of me can’t help feeling happy whenever the courts adopt (as I think they should adopt) a broad and flexible standard as to who should and should not be able to get on the ballot.
I couldn’t agree more Henry. Matt’s original suggestion for ending gerrymandering is a shade too clever, as are some of those who’ve commented on his blog. Basically, it’s a good thing to be able to elect representatives who have some local/regional/communal connection to portions of the electorate; eliminating such boundaries in the name of increasing intra-party rivalries isn’t likely to improve the (already poor) level of representation much. Getting the electoral rulemaking power significantly out of the hands of those who win elections, as Brian and you both suggest, is crucial to ending the oligarchic restrictions which do so much to preventing serious competitive elections, and serious third parties, from emerging more regularly.
As for which third parties I like to see more influential, like you, I think it’d be a good thing if the Libertarians were a stronger electoral force. Not because I’d like to see anyone from that party elected, but because I can’t think of any movement better suited to breaking up the current ideological patchworks which pass for “liberalism” and “conservatism” in America. Serious libertarian candidates would, most obviously, draw into their fold fiscal Republican voters who couldn’t care less about the religious right and are primarily motivated by the call for tax-cutting; but they might also attract Democratic voters who really aren’t egalitarians and basically only pull that lever because they wanted to defend abortion rights. The way could then, perhaps, be opened to the formation of a genuinely populist party, where being socially “conservative” and economically “liberal” is the heart of the platform, rather than some dubious marginal element which candidates acknowledge only after having placated their base. (Of course, this assumes such a combination is an actual, popular possibility; according to Thomas Frank and his ilk it isn’t: social conservatives who could/should otherwise be supportive of egalitarian politices have, according to them, simply been sold a cultural bill of goods by nefarious economic elites. But Frank’s wrong.)
>>
in Ireland, where we have a PR-STV system, the result is intense localism - politicians perceive their main duty as “bothering civil servants” to get favours for their constituents
>>
Right…but in the Republic, we’ve added to STV the quirk of multi-seat constituencies with PR. We could keep PR-STV and change it in some way (e.g. party lists, or fewer total seats) that could end some of the clientelism while keeping the good part of STV.
It is on days like this that my true gut values are revealed to myself. This, and the preceding post about redistricting, to me approach a kind of blasphemy.
It is a poor workman that blames his tools. 225 years of experience should be enough to see that that the basic structure of the system is versatile enough to handle any policy difficulties, albeit slowly and incrementally, as intended.
Should the people and the Constitution come into conflict, change the people, not the Constitution. Adjust their attitudes, expectations. This is a very difficult and slow process, thank the Founders, but an infinitely safer process than changing the system on a whim. And is what politics is about.
And duck while I throw some Federalist Papers and Burke at you.
I’m no libertarian (in fact I’m highly critical of libertarianism, though not of civil-libertarianism.) But it has long been a mystery to me why the Libertarian Party, for all the self-professed libertarians on the net, does so poorly.
Bob, could your gut feel disturbed because this analysis does not sit well with the steady diet of “we are the best democracy in the world” you are used to being fed?
American democracy is in trouble. Technology has made gerrymandering much more efficent and the two parties see no reason to lose any of the power they have accumulated.
The “basic structure of the system” includes the option to amend. “Change the people” sounds almost fascist. Wake up, start campaigning for an amendment and stop pretending there haven’t already been 27.
By the way, you aren’t displaying your trackback URL’s in each post, and trackbacks don’t seem to be showing up. What’s wrong?
Not at all fascist, entirely democratic.
Might I just suggest that whatever problems America is experiencing (we have been in trouble before, and sometimes worse) are largely due to the moderates in each party excessively acceding to their wings?
That if we had more Jim Jeffords, and God help me, Zell Millers, the polarization might be alleviated?
That if for instance, the pro-life crowd and gay marriage crowd were told they can’t have their way instead of being promised success on the fictitious basis of the destruction of the opposition?
Ballot access is actually fairly simple in most states if you have a real grassroots base and some sort of fundraising apparatus. When Nader had the endorsement of the Greens nationally, he was on most ballots. When he lost that endorsement, he had to scrape up his own volunteers and fundraising, and has not had an easy time of it.
The better way to get real, viable alternative parties is through fusion. New York State has fusion, where a candidate can run as a Democrat and as a Liberal party endorsee. Because of that, New York has several parties whose endorsement swings close elections. Giuliani originally became mayor in large part because the Liberal Party endorsed him. Dyed in the wool Democrats couldn’t actually vote for a Republican, but how bad could a Liberal candidate be? Similarly, Pataki won the governor with the endorsement of the Conservatives.
The Working Families Party is a labor and community backed party that is growing in strength in the last few years. (Full disclosure, I work for one of the community groups that founded it).
The New Party (which evolved into the WFP later on in the states where fusion still existed) actually took a case to the supreme court to try to force all states to require fusion, and lost. Since then, there have been some moves to get a few states to change their rules to allow fusion.
So far, its the only viable method I’ve heard that would allow a real, long-term alternative party movement in the US. Otherwise you’re electing city councilpeople in the weird part of town or playing the spoiler in close elections, and you can’t build widespread influence that way, IMHO.
That if for instance, the pro-life crowd and gay marriage crowd were told they can’t have their way instead of being promised success on the fictitious basis of the destruction of the opposition?
The gay marriage crowd is being promised success?!
Care to point out a single high level Democrat that supports gay marriage?
The system might look broken, but, if we can just get people to behave in the ‘right’ way, we can approximate a healthy system.
Don’t question the founders or the amenders (save the 18th, what were they drinking?), and just try to ignore the feeling of sickness that the 98% re-election rate brings on.
Barney Frank? Bad example. How about National Health Care> The left is not very strong right now, and so not promising much, which is the kind of problem I am talking about. This is solved with organization, redefining and refining of mission, local recruitment, the kinds of things the left did several times in our history and the right has done successfully in the last generation.
Looked at the 27 amendments, and could find very few I would consider structurally significant.
And the post civil-war amendments really weren’t enforced for a
century.
American democracy and freedom does not come from a piece of paper, nor from the people. It comes from the relationship the people have to the piece of paper.
The reason third parties flounder in the U.S. is not ballot access rules. It is the prevelance of plurality-wins general elections, plus deliberately fragmented government (bicameral legislature, elected executive) that denies a small third party the hope of holding a strong balance of power. This structure effectively compels a duopoly of broad coalition-parties. Under this system, a third party with any success at all hurts the major party it has more in common with, and causes net damage to its cause. The fundamental rules could be changed — theoretically; but the “ins” of both parties are the winners under the current system and thus very conservative on this issue, so don’t hold your breath. Those causes will prosper whose advocates recognize these realities and play the game as it is played. Exhibit A: the anti-abortion movement.
The Libertarian Party’s viability problem is not ballot access; they’ve been on the ballot in at least 48 states every presidential election year since (IIRC) 1980. It may be that the amount of resources required to accomplish that feat has drained the party of campaign funds, volunteer time, etc. that it otherwise could have used to get more votes, but I doubt it.
The more important proximal problems with the party, I think, are sectarian squabbling and candidates oblivious to their image problems (from the famous blue man of Montana to the various tax resisters). These are in turn side effects of the fundamental problem: the Libertarian Party is an attempt to build a coherent, energetic political organization out of people who basically hate politics and want the political process out of their lives. There is a cognitive disconnect inherent in trying to get people to vote for you when the heart of your philosophy is that most of the issues you care about should not be subject to majority vote.
Another example: that a proportion of American blacks believe and are told they only be fairly represented by representatives of their own race. This is incredibly pernicious and destructive, has led to a mistaken structural adjustment, and likely the single most important factor in Republican controlling the house.
Bad politicians.
Bob, I presume you would have opposed the 17th on similar grounds?
“The state legislatures need to learn compromise and the people should demand less corruption”
Or did the 17th become sacred the moment it was ratified?
And a comment on Russell Arben Fox’s comment: for the reasons I list I very much doubt that the Libertarian Party will ever have the populism-facilitating effect he describes, but I agree that the constituency is there for it. The NYT had an article on Sunday describing just that constituency:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/19/politics/campaign/19state.html
Basically the same bunch that voted for William Jennings Bryan a hundred years ago; how little things change.
Of course, as a thoroughgoing laissez-faire hedonist who thinks H.L. Mencken was far too kind to Bryan and his followers, my reaction to this is at least as negative as Mr. Fox’s is positive. It’s bad enough, to paraphrase the Sage of Baltimore, that Kansans (and Missourians) now get to impose one or the other half— depending on the party in power— of their dunghill ideas upon their betters; if they ever get to push through the whole package liberty in this country will be well and truly dead.
Haven’t studied it, but to the extent I understand it, no I do not approve of the direct election of Senators. Or rather, don’t quite see why it was necessary.
I would guess there was more widespread participation in politics at a local level before the amendment than after.
Barney Frank?
Hah, thanks for that Bob. You’re regularly one of the most entettaining commenters around.
And the post civil-war amendments really weren’t enforced for a
century.
And that was a bad thing right?
Re the original topic:
I think hipster liberals like me and the folks at Crooked Timber would be sorely disappointed if third parties gained prominence. I suspect you expect a large “Liberal Dem”/Green type party to constantly drag the Dems to the left. This would most emphatically NOT happen. Ross Perot was like a gazillion times more successful than Ralph Nader.
The most viable third party would be a culturally reactionary, militarist, populist party (an army of Zell Millers). If such a party was willing to embrace blacks (who would be a natural constituent) it would be a force to be reckoned with. The Democrats would then become the cosmopolitan, bourgeois, urban bohemian party which could never take power on its own.
The Republicans would essentially revert to the Blue Blood, big money minority part of old. In the final reckoning, I suspect there’d be few actual libertarians.
I’m still confused. Is campaigning to repeal the 17th blasphemy or not?
“And the post civil-war amendments really weren’t enforced for a
century.
And that was a bad thing right?”
Well, yeah, I guess it was a bad thing, but it is mostly an empirical thing. To me it was a structural change that a super-majority of the people weren’t ready to pay the costs of full implementation. And so it was ignored.
The empirical truth it shows is that the constitution is just a piece of paper without the popular will. In America, we either do get the government we want, or the one we deserve.
“I’m still confused. Is campaigning to repeal the 17th blasphemy or not?”
Whatever. I am not sure it was a significant structural, as incorporation was.
Somehow if my Texas legislature were to appoint my two senators, I cannot imagine them being much worse or much better than Hutchinson or Cornyn. Like I said, I don’t know the history, but if it was supposed to eliminate corrupt and incompetent Senators, I don’t think it worked.
The general reason accepted by the United States Supreme Court in ballot access cases is that states can require some requirements of real support before putting someone on the ballot to avoid confusion and distraction. After the 2000 election, in which the distraction and problems caused by third parties wrecked the presidential election, I can’t agree more. The reason why the infamous “butterfly ballot” was needed was because instead of 2 or 4 candidates for president, there were about a dozen. In Jacksonsville, the presidential field went on for two pages, and a lot of people mistakenly voted the second page, spoiling their ballots. Why should the presidential election turn on a few crazies and egomaniacs who want to get themselves on the ballot when they are not viable candidates for the presidency? It makes no sense to me.
I draw the attention of all to The Center for Voting and Democracy, http://www.fairvote.org/
What ken d said. The winner takes all system practically eliminates any possibility of viable ‘third’ parties. Under the WTA system coalescing of smaller political parties has to take place before the elections.
The choice is to unite before the elections or to be left out completely. It’s quite hopeless.
Bob McManus:
Should the people and the Constitution come into conflict, change the people, not the Constitution. Adjust their attitudes, expectations.
This rather reminded me of Bertolt Brecht’s poem, “The Solution”:
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
The most viable third party would be a culturally reactionary, militarist, populist party (an army of Zell Millers). If such a party was willing to embrace blacks (who would be a natural constituent) it would be a force to be reckoned with. The Democrats would then become the cosmopolitan, bourgeois, urban bohemian party which could never take power on its own. The Republicans would essentially revert to the Blue Blood, big money minority part of old. In the final reckoning, I suspect there’d be few actual libertarians.
You may be right Williestyle. I certainly at least agree with you that the powers that be in the Republican party would quickly embrace the policy preferences of “the Blue Blood, big money” population, and eschew all most if not all social conservatism, if the rise of the Libertarians or some other third party gave them cause to do so. Thomas Frank was right about that much, at least—there are oligarchs who benefit from the existence of a Christian right fervor which they don’t agree with. The problem comes when Frank insists such fervor is a distraction, or even simply manufactured, which definitely isn’t the case. Zell Miller, as you correctly imply, has turned into a partisan, reactionary nutcase; the question is whether such nutcases really would characterize the bulk of any such populist party which might emerge following a realignment. Honestly, I don’t know. But I it’s pure secular elitism to rely on Mencken and others who never thought anything good (that is, any concern for social goods) could ever come out of the heartland. I’ll just have to respectfully disagree with Nicholas Weiniger; I don’t think a populist religious orientation always or even necessarily results in a Miller-like crusade against all things liberal, not to mention progressive.
Ballot access is actually fairly simple in most states if you have a real grassroots base and some sort of fundraising apparatus.
Gotta disagree with this. Having been involved with the New Party, and now with the Greens, I can tell you that ballot access laws are anything but simple. They are often arcane and confusing (hence all the challenges one always reads about). They vary enormously from state to state (and my state, Oklahoma, has pretty much the worst ones in the country). Candidates with lots of money can effectively buy their way onto the ballot in most states by paying signature collectors. But it’s often much more expensive to get a line for a party. And maintaining that line can be nearly impossible, so every two or four years the process needs to be repeated, wasting a huge amount of time and money.
It’s worth pointing out that ballot access drives have nothing to do with promoting a party or a candidate. Their very nature is to appeal to folks who might not vote for the candidate, but can be convinced that out of fairness s/he deserves to be on the ballot. Political messages are almost always muted in these efforts. They are the political equivalent of treading water.
What does this mean practically? At enormous cost and effort, parties with large financial resources (usually ones with some conservative appeal, like the Libertarians, or Reform in the 1990s) can buy their way onto most ballots in most election cycles. Independent presidential candidates, especially those of use to one of the two major parties, also often have the resources available to get on most ballots. Others are often shut out, except in the handful of states with relatively easy ballot access.
For more on ballot access and efforts to reform it, check out Ballot Access News.
The 17th Amendment did not simply impose popular election of senators out of a clear blue sky. By the tme the amendment was adopted, most states required a popular election, and bound the state legislatures to varying degrees to follow the result.
“This rather reminded me of Bertolt Brecht’s poem, “The Solution”
People making fun of me. Whine.
As an example, for someone who is pro-life, is the better option to pass a right-to-life amendment, or to try to change social attitudes toward abortion?
Is the gay rights movement wiser to use the courts to recognize gay marriage, or to devote their resources to making homosexuality more generally acceptable?
Hasn’t it always been more efficient in America to move the center of an existing party in a direction, than starting a new political party from scratch?
And the Liberatarian Party is funny, because there always seems to be one plank of its platform that is a deal-killer for any particular possible voting constituency. But a party that favors drug legalization while accepting gun regulation would not be libertarian.
The most viable third party would be a culturally reactionary, militarist, populist party (an army of Zell Millers). If such a party was willing to embrace blacks (who would be a natural constituent) it would be a force to be reckoned with.
I can definitely see that happening. It would have huge appeal to the scared mothers who will vote for anyone who will do something to keep our children safe. That something could be anything from war to redistribution, but it sure as hell wouldn’t be very libertarian.
The most viable third party would be a culturally reactionary, militarist, populist party (an army of Zell Millers). If such a party was willing to embrace blacks (who would be a natural constituent) it would be a force to be reckoned with.
I can definitely see that happening. It would have huge appeal to the scared mothers who will vote for anyone who will do something to keep our children safe. That something could be anything from war to redistribution, but it sure as hell wouldn’t be very libertarian.
Zell Miller, as you correctly imply, has turned into a partisan, reactionary nutcase; the question is whether such nutcases really would characterize the bulk of any such populist party which might emerge following a realignment. Honestly, I don’t know.
You might be right Russell. An argument could be made that once such a party rose to power, it would inevitably mellow as the persecution complex Frank talks about waned. Certainly, if evangelicals (for example) ever faced the prospect of rewriting the nation’s laws, many would balk at some of the excesses of Falwell et al.
However, the mellowing hypothesis is based on the presmise that a culturaly reactionary party would actually accomplish much of anything. I doubt this very much. The ugly truth is that Hollywood really does dictate the cultural evolution of America. Before its might, the legislature (and even conservaive judges) would be powerless.
If portional party-based representation were to be sprung on the House but not the Senate, we’d have a weird system, I think.
IMHO, the House would fracture into Social Democrats and Christian Democrats (representing most of what is now Democrat and Republican parties — culturally conservative, economically populist) plus Greens/UK-style Liberal Democrats (representing the left wing of the Democratic party) plus a socially tolerant, market-oriented classical liberal watered-down Libertarian party made up of the small-govt Republicans, true Libertarians who would hold their noses, and business-friendly DLC types. I think Germany has classical Liberal parties and I think they poll about level with Greens, vying for 3rd/4th place.
The Senate would have to remain the preserve of the two-party system, which would probably mean SocDems and ChrisDems.
If portional party-based representation were to be sprung on the House but not the Senate, we’d have a weird system, I think.
IMHO, the House would fracture into Social Democrats and Christian Democrats (representing most of what are now the Democratic and Republican parties — culturally conservative, economically populist) plus Greens/UK-style Liberal Democrats (representing the left wing of the Democratic party) plus a socially tolerant, market-oriented classical liberal watered-down Libertarian party made up of the small-govt Republicans, true Libertarians who would hold their noses, and business-friendly DLC types. I think Germany has classical Liberal parties and I think they poll about level with Greens, vying for 3rd/4th place.
The Senate would have to remain the preserve of the two-party system, which would probably mean SocDems and ChrisDems.
Apologies for the double-post.
The outcome you describe, Dubious, might well be a “weird system,” but as a voter, I’d be delighted to have genuine Christian socialist and/or social democrat options available come election time.
Same here.
I meant weird in the sense of novel rather than abnormal. I would welcome such a change too.
Extensively multi-party systems with fragmentation seem to lead to bad outcomes stability-wise. But the two-party system stifles ideological diversity.
Having a multi-party House, a 2 party Senate and a President elected for a full 4 year term (thus not no-confidenceable when a coalition starts infighting) by either winner-takes-all state Electoral College votes or proportional multi-party Electoral college system would seem like a good way to get some more ideological diversity without introducing a lot more instability.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review