The longest continuous majority in the history of the U.S. House of Representatives came to a dramatic close with the 1994 midterm elections. The Democratic Party had controlled the House for forty years—two and a half times as long as any previous majority. In Cheap Seats, James E. Campbell considers the reasons why the Democrats dominated House elections for four decades and why they ultimately lost that control.

Examining the structural advantages that helped congressional Democrats, Campbell finds that their unprecedented success in the House was due in no small measure to a favorable election system, an advantage in the way in which votes are translated into House seats. His straightforward analysis indicates that Democrats consistently win most of the very-low-turnout districts, or “cheap seats.” In fact, because of the party's continued hold on such districts, the new Democratic minority is considerably larger than it would otherwise have been.

Cheap Seats is a thorough and innovative investigation into the electoral system's impact on partisan politics and representation in Congress. Campbell presents an impressive array of evidence, including both quantitative analysis of election returns from 1936 to 1994 and in-depth studies of several cheap-seat districts. He also explores the important theoretical issues of representation that cheap seats raise and offers several proposals to reform the system. This well-written and provocative volume is accessible to anyone interested in American politics, in addition to scholars especially interested in the areas of Congress, elections, electoral systems, and political parties.

Ever since the Warren Commission concluded that a lone gunman assassinated President John F. Kennedy, people who doubt that finding have been widely dismissed as conspiracy theorists, despite credible evidence that right-wing elements in the CIA, FBI, and Secret Service—and possibly even senior government officials—were also involved. Why has suspicion of criminal wrongdoing at the highest levels of government been rejected out-of-hand as paranoid thinking akin to superstition?

Conspiracy Theory in America investigates how the Founders’ hard-nosed realism about the likelihood of elite political misconduct—articulated in the Declaration of Independence—has been replaced by today’s blanket condemnation of conspiracy beliefs as ludicrous by definition. Lance deHaven-Smith reveals that the term “conspiracy theory” entered the American lexicon of political speech to deflect criticism of the Warren Commission and traces it back to a CIA propaganda campaign to discredit doubters of the commission’s report. He asks tough questions and connects the dots among five decades’ worth of suspicious events, including the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy, the attempted assassinations of George Wallace and Ronald Reagan, the crimes of Watergate, the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages deal, the disputed presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, the major defense failure of 9/11, and the subsequent anthrax letter attacks.

Sure to spark intense debate about the truthfulness and trustworthiness of our government, Conspiracy Theory in America offers a powerful reminder that a suspicious, even radically suspicious, attitude toward government is crucial to maintaining our democracy.

How a broken criminal justice system has fueled the crisis of American democracy, and how we can address both problems together.

American criminal justice is in crisis. Prisons are swollen, confidence in police has plummeted, and race- and class-based biases distort every aspect of the system. American democracy is in crisis, too, as the chasm of loathing and incomprehension that divides political factions grows ever wider and deeper. Legal scholar and former prosecutor David A. Sklansky argues that these crises are deeply intertwined. And if the failures of American criminal justice are near the heart of our political divides, then reforming the system is essential for repairing our democracy.

Criminal Justice in Divided America shows how police, courts, and prisons helped to break American democracy and how better approaches to public safety and criminal accountability can help to repair it. Engaging critically with concerns from both the left and the right, Sklansky lays out a clear and deeply researched agenda for reforming police departments, prosecutors’ offices, criminal trials, and punishment. Sklansky seeks pragmatic solutions that take account of political realities: the lofty ideal of empowering “the people” or “the community” can mean little when members of the public or the community disagree. While efforts to “defund” the police have exacerbated political conflicts without addressing the underlying problem of how and when force should be used to protect public safety, reforms aimed at improving police accountability, restraining prosecutorial power, and expanding the role of juries can bring together warring parties who share a concern for justice.

Ultimately, Sklansky argues, reform must be rooted in a strong commitment to pluralism—bridging political divides rather than worsening them, strengthening democracy, and securing the broad support that enables durable change.