If Immigrants Could Vote in the UK: A Thought Experiment with Data from the 2015 General Election

The distribution of voting rights in the UK is an artefact of history rather than a product of clear legal or philosophical principles. Consequently, some resident aliens (i.e. immigrants) have the right to vote in all UK elections; others can vote in local elections but are excluded from national elections; still others are excluded from all elections. In England and Wales alone, roughly 2.3 million immigrants are excluded from voting in national elections. This exclusion is inconsistent with the founding principle of democracy and distorts political discourse. What if all immigrants could vote in national elections? We estimate that up to ninety‐five parliamentary seats could have been won by a different party in the 2015 general election. More substantially, enfranchising all immigrants would require re‐drawing UK constituency boundaries. The new electoral map would increase the relative power of urban constituencies and would incentivise some political entrepreneurs and parties to temper anti‐immigration rhetoric.     

Transboundary river basin agreements in the Mekong and Zambezi basins: Enhancing environmental security or securitizing the environment?

Multilateral agreements are emerging as important mechanisms for structuring cooperation in politically and ecologically complex transboundary river basins around the world. While such agreements are offered and legitimized as a means to advance ecological and human security, they instead often promote state-centric environmental securitization. As a result, seemingly progressive agreements grounded in international law are likely to precipitate and mask environmental degradation until it becomes serious or even irreversible, creating both ecological and human security crises at a variety of scales. Case studies of wetland ecosystems in both the Zambezi and Mekong basins reveal the material and discursive linkages between international agreements and security. By drawing on critical approaches that acknowledge both the socially constructed and the multi-dimensional nature of sovereignty, this paper exposes significant institutional barriers to ecologically sustainable transboundary cooperation in the two basins.

Adaptive Programming Improves Outcomes in Drug Court: An Experimental Trial

Prior studies in Drug Courts reported improved outcomes when participants were matched to schedules of judicial status hearings based on their criminological risk level. The current experiment determined whether incremental efficacy could be gained by periodically adjusting the schedule of status hearings and clinical case-management sessions in response to participants' ensuing performance in the program. The adjustments were made pursuant to a priori criteria specified in an adaptive algorithm. Results confirmed that participants in the full adaptive condition (n = 62) were more than twice as likely as those assigned to baseline-matching only (n = 63) to be drug-abstinent during the first 18 weeks of the program; however, graduation rates and the average time to case resolution were not significantly different. The positive effects of the adaptive program appear to have stemmed from holding noncompliant participants more accountable for meeting their attendance obligations in the program. Directions for future research and practice implications are discussed.