Do legislators' votes reflect constituency preference? A simple way to evaluate the Senate

U.S. senators frequently vote against the preference of their constituency, assuming that such a preference exists. Both of a state's senators represent the same constituency. Whenever they split their votes, one or the other is necessarily going against the constituency preference. For the sample of defense-related votes analyzed above, misrepresentation — either observable vote splitting or unobservable vote matches that go against the constituency preference — occurred at least 37 percent of the time, at least 46 percent on one vote. Although party differences accounted for more than two-thirds of the vote splitting, a substantial number of splits remained. Besides, a party difference for a state's senatorial pair is itself problematical.The method employed here can be applied easily to any data whatever on senatorial voting. Its application will show that, quite often, many senators depart from constituency preference. This finding refutes the hypothesis, popular in certain circles, that ours is a more or less perfect political market with little or no scope for ideologically driven voting by legislators.     

A precise method for evaluating election schemes

A previously published paper evaluated election schemes under a wide variety of election circumstances. This paper improves upon the previous work by refining the measures used to rate the election schemes and increasing the statistical significance of those ratings. With these modifications, we can now draw some new conclusions:

1. In general circumstances, the Borda System outperforms the Copeland System which outperforms Approval which outperforms Majority Rule.
2. The Maximin Rule — strongly supported by Rawls's — turns out to be a reasonable election rule if the number of election alternatives is large relative to the number of voters.
3. With two exceptions, all our election systems performed quite well given a society with highly correlated utilities.
4. Given a polarized society, a serial dictatorship was better than every other election system except Borda.

Perhaps even more importantly, we now have the possibility of conducting some cost/benefit analyses of different proposals for electoral changes.     

Multiple deaths from argon contamination of hospital oxygen supply

During the course of routine hospital surgical procedures, three patients lapsed into hypoxic cyanosis. Two expired immediately, another after four days of coma. Investigation of the hospital's central liquid oxygen tank revealed that it had been refilled recently and was labelled both "oxygen" and "argon." Mass spectrometric analysis of gas sampled from the questioned tank revealed a predominance of argon. A discussion of the sampling technique, method of analysis, role of the criminalist, and causes of this accident is presented.     

Therapists' obligations to report their patients' criminal acts

The law governing the obligation of therapists to report their patients' previous criminal acts was reviewed. Most often, discussions of this subject fall under the general category of "misprison of a felony," that is, the presumed general obligation of all citizens to report felonies that come to their attention. Review of federal law revealed that the courts have consistently interpreted the federal misprision statute as requiring active concealment of a crime, not a mere failure to report, in order to convict for the offense. State law is more diverse. Only one state has a general misprison statute labeled as such, and several states have recently repealed such statutes. The strong trend in states without statutes is to reject misprison as a common law crime, because of its incompatibility with modern notions of justice. Most states, however, have limited reporting statutes, such as for child abuse or gunshot wounds, that impose similar obligations. Therapists' reporting of past crimes may be affected by clinical and ethical concerns, as well as by obligations to protect future victims. In almost all jurisdictions, however, the fear of prosecution for failure to report a past crime should not be a factor in deciding on a course of action.