<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org">
<title>Public Opinion Quarterly - current issue</title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org</link>
<description>Public Opinion Quarterly - RSS feed of current issue</description>
<prism:eIssn>1537-5331</prism:eIssn>
<prism:coverDisplayDate>Summer 2008</prism:coverDisplayDate>
<prism:publicationName>Public Opinion Quarterly</prism:publicationName>
<prism:issn>0033-362X</prism:issn>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/167?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/190?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/216?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/241?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/260?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/291?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/311?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/331?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/345?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/364?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/389?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/392?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/394?rss=1" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
</channel>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/167?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Impact of Nonresponse Rates on Nonresponse Bias: A Meta-Analysis]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/167?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Fifty-nine methodological studies were designed to estimate the magnitude of nonresponse bias in statistics of interest. These studies use a variety of designs: sampling frames with rich variables, data from administrative records matched to sample case, use of screening-interview data to describe nonrespondents to main interviews, followup of nonrespondents to initial phases of field effort, and measures of behavior intentions to respond to a survey. This permits exploration of which circumstances produce a relationship between nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias and which, do not. The predictors are design features of the surveys, characteristics of the sample, and attributes of the survey statistics computed in the surveys.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Groves, R. M., Peytcheva, E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-02</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfn011</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Impact of Nonresponse Rates on Nonresponse Bias: A Meta-Analysis]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>72</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>189</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>167</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/190?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Are Political Markets Really Superior to Polls as Election Predictors?]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/190?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Election markets have been praised for their ability to forecast election outcomes, and to forecast better than trial-heat polls. This paper challenges that optimistic assessment of election markets, based on an analysis of Iowa Electronic Market (IEM) data from presidential elections between 1988 and 2004. We argue that it is inappropriate to naively compare market forecasts of an election outcome with exact poll results on the day prices are recorded, that is, market prices reflect forecasts of what will happen on Election Day whereas trial-heat polls register preferences on the day of the poll. We then show that when poll leads are properly discounted, poll-based forecasts outperform vote-share market prices. Moreover, we show that win projections based on the polls dominate prices from winner-take-all markets. Traders in these markets generally see more uncertainty ahead in the campaign than the polling numbers warrant&mdash;in effect, they overestimate the role of election campaigns. Reasons for the performance of the IEM election markets are considered in concluding sections.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Erikson, R. S., Wlezien, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-02</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfn010</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Are Political Markets Really Superior to Polls as Election Predictors?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>72</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>215</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>190</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/216?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Estimating Causal Effects of Ballot Order from a Randomized Natural Experiment: The California Alphabet Lottery, 1978-2002]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/216?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Randomized natural experiments provide social scientists with rare opportunities to draw credible causal inferences in real-world settings. We capitalize on such a unique experiment to examine how the name order of candidates on ballots affects election outcomes. Since 1975, California has randomized the ballot order for statewide offices with a complex alphabet lottery. Adapting statistical techniques to this lottery and addressing methodological problems of conventional approaches, our analysis of statewide elections from 1978 to 2002 reveals that, in general elections, ballot order significantly impacts only minor party candidates, with no detectable effects on major party candidates. These results contradict previous research, finding large effects in general elections for major party candidates. In primaries, however, we show that being listed first benefits everyone. Major party candidates generally gain one to three percentage points, while minor party candidates may double their vote shares. In all elections, the largest effects are for nonpartisan races, where candidates in first position gain three percentage points.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ho, D. E., Imai, K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-02</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfn018</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Estimating Causal Effects of Ballot Order from a Randomized Natural Experiment: The California Alphabet Lottery, 1978-2002]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>72</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>240</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>216</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/241?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Validating Health Insurance Coverage Survey Estimates: A Comparison of Self-Reported Coverage and Administrative Data Records]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/241?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>We administered a health insurance coverage survey module to a sample of 4,575 adult Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota (BCBS) members to examine if people who have health insurance coverage self-report that they are uninsured. We were also interested in whether respondents correctly classify themselves as having commercial, Medicare, MinnesotaCare, and/or Medicaid coverage (the four sample strata). The BCBS of Minnesota sample is drawn from both public and commercial health insurance coverage strata that are important to policy research involving survey data. Our findings support the validity of our health insurance module for determining whether someone who has health insurance is correctly coded as having health insurance coverage, as only 0.4 percent of the BCBS members answered the survey as though they were uninsured. However, we find problems for researchers interested in using survey responses to specific types of public coverage. For example, 21 percent of the Medicaid self-reported coverage came from known enrollees and only 67 percent of the MinnesotaCare self-reported count came from known enrollees. We conclude with a discussion of the study's implications for understanding the Medicaid "undercount" and the validity of self-reported health insurance coverage.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Davern, M., Call, K. T., Ziegenfuss, J., Davidson, G., Beebe, T. J., Blewett, L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-02</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfn013</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Validating Health Insurance Coverage Survey Estimates: A Comparison of Self-Reported Coverage and Administrative Data Records]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>72</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>259</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>241</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/260?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Adolescents' Inconsistency in Self-Reported Smoking: A Comparison of Reports in School and in Household Settings]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/260?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Extent and sources of inconsistency in self-reported cigarette smoking between self-administered school surveys and household interviews was examined in two longitudinal multiethnic adolescent samples, the urban Transition to Nicotine Dependence in Adolescence (TND) (<I>N</I> = 832) and the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (<I>Add Health</I>) (<I>N</I> = 4,414). Inconsistency was defined as a positive report of smoking in school followed by a negative report in the household. Smoking questions were ascertained with paper-and-pencil instruments (PAPI-SAQ) in school in both studies, and computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) in TND but audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) in <I>Add Health</I> in the household. In TND, 23.5 percent of youths who reported smoking lifetime and 20.4 percent of those who reported smoking the last 12 months in the school survey reported in the household never having smoked; in <I>Add Health</I>, the latter was 8.6 percent. Logistic regressions identified five common correlates of inconsistency across the two studies: younger age, ethnic minority status, lesser involvement in deviant activities, having nonsmoking parents and friends. In TND, interviewing of youth and parent by the same interviewer increased inconsistent reporting. Matching the definition of inconsistent reporting and the age, gender and race/ethnic distributions of TND on an urban <I>Add Health</I> subsample reduced the predicted rate of inconsistency in TND. The estimated bias attributable to CAPI compared with ACASI methodology did not reach significance in the aggregated matched samples suggesting that irrespective of administration mode, household interviews decrease reporting of smoking, especially among younger, minority and more conventional youths embedded in a social network of nonsmokers.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Griesler, P. C., Kandel, D. B., Schaffran, C., Hu, M.-C., Davies, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-02</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfn016</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Adolescents' Inconsistency in Self-Reported Smoking: A Comparison of Reports in School and in Household Settings]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>72</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>290</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>260</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/291?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Beliefs About the Origins of Homosexuality and Support For Gay Rights: An Empirical Test of Attribution Theory]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/291?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>In this study, we employ Weiner's attribution theory of controllability to examine beliefs about the origins of homosexuality. If the cause of homosexuality is perceived as controllable (learned, environmental, or an individual choice), negative affect toward homosexuals and reduced support for policies relevant to the group can be expected. If the cause is perceived as uncontrollable (biological or genetic in origin), positive affect and increased support for polices is anticipated. Our analyses of data from two unique surveys of national adults corroborate these hypotheses, showing that positive feelings toward gays, support for gay civil rights, civil unions, and same-sex marriage are strongly determined by a genetic attribution for homosexuality. Attributions are in fact the strongest predictor of support. We distinguish our analysis from previous research by examining the important role of religion, ideology, and experience, in shaping attributions.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Haider-Markel, D. P., Joslyn, M. R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-02</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfn015</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Beliefs About the Origins of Homosexuality and Support For Gay Rights: An Empirical Test of Attribution Theory]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>72</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>310</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>291</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/311?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Cohort Differences in Tolerance of Homosexuality: Attitudinal Change in Canada and the United States, 1981-2000]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/311?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Using data from the World Values Surveys, we explore trends in tolerance of homosexuality in Canada and the United States from 1981 to 2000. Particular attention is given to the effects of birth cohort. Consistent with previous research, we find that younger cohorts are typically the most tolerant of homosexuality. We also find that Canadians are more liberal than Americans. Most interesting, however, is the remarkable degree of change over time within cohorts, especially in Canada. These findings suggest that attitudes toward homosexuality during this period were an exception to the age-stability hypothesis, which claims that opinions on controversial social issues are formed by early adulthood, and change little with age. We speculate that differing political climate across country and time is responsible for the significant differences in public opinion.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andersen, R., Fetner, T.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-02</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfn017</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Cohort Differences in Tolerance of Homosexuality: Attitudinal Change in Canada and the United States, 1981-2000]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>72</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>330</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>311</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/331?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Influence of Presumed Media Influence in Politics: Do Politicians' Perceptions of Media Power Matter?]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/331?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Much of what politicians do, we maintain in this paper, is driven by their belief in the power of media, which motivates their desire to be featured in news coverage. Our argument rests upon recent advances in communication theory, stressing "the influence on presumed media influence" (Gunther, Albert C., and J. Douglas Storey. 2003. "The Influence of Presumed Influence." <I>Journal of Communication</I> 35(2):199&ndash;215) and contributes to our understanding of the mediatization of politics. Combined data from a survey of Israeli members of Knesset (MKs; <I>n</I> = 56), parliamentary reporters&rsquo; (<I>n</I> = 20) rankings of MKs&rsquo; media motivations, Knesset records of MKs' political activity, and data on the frequency of MKs&rsquo; news appearances were used to test this argument. Structural equation modeling revealed that politicians&rsquo; belief in the power of media increases their motivation and effort to appear in media coverage, which in turn is related both to greater media prominence and to more parliamentary activity. These results are discussed in light of their implications for both our understanding of political actors and the role of journalists.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cohen, J., Tsfati, Y., Sheafer, T.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-02</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfn014</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Influence of Presumed Media Influence in Politics: Do Politicians' Perceptions of Media Power Matter?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>72</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>344</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>331</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Research Note</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/345?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Polls--Review: Methodological Review of "Mortality After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq: A Cross-Sectional Cluster Sample Survey"]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/345?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Burnham et al. (2006, <I>Lancet</I> 368:1421&ndash;28) described a household survey of Iraq that attempted to estimate the number of excess casualties since the invasion of that country in 2003. This review examines many of the key factors that could affect the accuracy of this estimate.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Marker, D. A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-02</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfn009</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Polls--Review: Methodological Review of "Mortality After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq: A Cross-Sectional Cluster Sample Survey"]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>72</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>363</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>345</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>The Polls</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/364?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Polls--Trends: Public Opinion on Energy Policy: 1974-2006]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/364?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>In recent years, energy policy has become an increasingly salient political issue in the United States. Rising gas prices, coupled with regional energy shortages and a growing recognition of the connection between U.S. energy supplies and national security, have led to calls for legislative action. Part of developing a national energy policy lies in understanding public opinion about existing energy sources, public support for various energy strategies, and what the public might be willing to do in order to conserve energy and reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil. In this review, we report trends in public opinion from 1974 through 2006 on traditional energy sources, alternative energy sources, and citizens&rsquo; priorities on energy alternatives. The polls show that concern about the U.S. energy situation is as high now as it was during the nation's energy crises of the 1970s. While attitudes about traditional sources of energy are strongly influenced by current economic conditions, citizens are increasingly receptive to alternative sources of energy (e.g., nuclear energy). Citizens also support policy changes that involve the government encouraging conservation through energy efficient appliances, vehicles, and homes and offices. The public voices a growing frustration with President Bush&rsquo;s, and the Congress&rsquo;s, handling of the nation's energy problems, and they express a desire for leadership in finding long-term solutions to the nation's energy dilemmas.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bolsen, T., Cook, F. L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-02</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfn019</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Polls--Trends: Public Opinion on Energy Policy: 1974-2006]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>72</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>388</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>364</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>The Polls</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/389?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Lawrence D. Bobo and Mia Tuan. Prejudice in Politics: Group Position, Public Opinion, and the Wisconsin Treaty Rights Dispute]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/389?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Miller, P. V.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-02</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfn021</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Lawrence D. Bobo and Mia Tuan. Prejudice in Politics: Group Position, Public Opinion, and the Wisconsin Treaty Rights Dispute]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>72</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>391</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>389</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Book Reviews</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/392?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Christopher J. Grill. The Public Side of Representation: A Study of Citizens' Views about Representatives and the Representative Process]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/392?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dyck, J. J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-02</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfn012</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Christopher J. Grill. The Public Side of Representation: A Study of Citizens' Views about Representatives and the Representative Process]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>72</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>394</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>392</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Book Reviews</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/394?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Mark Baldassare and Cheryl Katz. The Coming of Age of Direct Democracy: California's Recall and Beyond]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/2/394?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tolbert, C. J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-02</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfn020</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Mark Baldassare and Cheryl Katz. The Coming of Age of Direct Democracy: California's Recall and Beyond]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>72</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>397</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>394</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Book Reviews</prism:section>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>