Petition: Michael Hanchard

Gregory Kasza, Indiana University-Bloomington (election agent) Gerald Berk, University of Oregon Terri Bimes, Harvard University Michael Bosia, Northwestern University Louis Cantori, University of Maryland-Baltimore Joseph Carens, University of Toronto Daniel Carpenter, Harvard University Terrence Casey, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Luis Clemente, State University of New York at Albany Aurelian Craiutu, Indiana University Michael Desch, Texas A&M University Larry Diamond, Stanford University Thomas Engeman, Loyola University-Chicago Robert Faulkner, Boston College Leonard Feldman, University of Oregon George Gonzalez, University of Miami Mark Graber, University of Maryland Christine Harrington, New York University Jennifer Hochschild, Harvard University Bonnie Honig, Northwestern University Marc Howard, Georgetown University Patrick Jackson, American University James Johnson, University of Rochester Gary Klass, Illinois State University

Angela Ledford, College of Saint Rose Keir Lieber, University of Notre Dame Michael Loriaux, Northwestern University Susan McWilliams, Princeton University R. Melnick, Boston College Michael Mitchell, Arizona State University Melissa Nobles, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Anne Norton, University of Pennsylvania Ido Oren, University of Florida Clifford Orwin, University of Toronto David Pion-Berlin, University of California John Rapp, Beloit College Raymond Rocco, University of California-Los Angeles Lloyd Rudolph, University of Chicago Andrew Sabl, University of California-Los Angeles Mark Sawyer, University of California-Los Angeles Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, University of Utah Rogers Smith, University of Pennsylvania Nathan Tarcov, University of Chicago Jeffrey Tulis, University of Texas-Austin Laura Woliver, University of South Carolina Meredith Woo-Cumings, University of Michigan Cyrus Zirakzadeh, University of Connecticut

STATEMENT OF ELECTION AGENT

Perestroika seeks to re-legitimize qualitative research in all aspects of our profession: in graduate education, in the association journals, in hiring and promotion decisions, and in the governance of APSA. Competitive elections are an important means to this end.

In recent decades, quantitative methods and pseudo-mathematical forms of deductive theory have come to dominate political science. Remarkably, despite the immense significance of this shift, it has occurred without a full public debate. Open discussion is necessary for progress in any intellectual endeavor, but there has never been an APSA convention or an issue of the APSR devoted to the question: what should be the role of mathematics in the study of politics? In all its many activities, our professional association has not provided us with an effective forum to discuss what we do for a living. From a Perestroikan perspective, APSA has fiddled while Rome burned.

We challenge the official slate for the APSA Council not to protest the particular choices of the nominating committee this year, but to challenge the system of appointments itself. Many qualitative scholars have served in APSA office over the years, but appointment to APSA's governing posts has long been an empty, honorific exercise. Alone among major academic associations, APSA's nominating committee selects one candidate for each position, denying the members any voice in determining who will lead them. Until Peregrine Schwartz-Shea courageously challenged the official slate last year, there had not been a genuine election in APSA for a quarter century.

In the absence of competitive elections, there have been no electoral campaigns in which to debate key issues. Those appointed to office have not come inspired by a mission to improve the profession. Indeed, such sentiments have had nothing to do with their selection. In this year's business meeting, the chair of the nominating committee listed a multitude of factors the committee had considered in making its picks, yet there was no mention of a candidate's views of the profession or thoughts about what the association should be doing. In this time of change in political science, these are things we ought to be discussing.

The nomination of Michael Hanchard for Council gives every APSA member the opportunity to turn this election into a meaningful, democratic exercise. Mike has an outstanding record of scholarly publication and extensive administrative experience, and he will make an excellent spokesperson for qualitative methods in empirical research. Those of us who would restore qualitative research to respectability must work together or we will not achieve our goal. Please join me in voting for Michael Hanchard for the APSA Council. A vote for Mike is a vote for methodological pluralism and democracy in our profession.