Suchergebnisse

This article focuses on the impact of morality politics and issue framing on attitudes toward same-sex marriage. The comparative data come from California surveys by the Public Policy Institute of California and national surveys by the Pew Research Center and the National Opinion Research Center between 2005 and 2013. Issue framing has played a critical role in the debate on same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage appears driven by issue framing about morality politics, which, unlike other policy arenas characterized by high information costs and limited access, features conflict over fundamental values. Much of the debate has turned on a conflict between traditional morality and equality. The rise of competitive issue frames suggests that political conflict and public attitudes toward same-sex marriage should reflect, at least in part, the factors noted by Haider and Markel: ideology, party competitiveness, and partisanship. Support for same-sex marriage has increased in both the U.S. and California, although support is stronger in California by about five percent. Using logistic regression, the strongest direct explanatory factors were similar to those at the U.S. level: partisanship, ideology, Protestant religious affiliation, and whether the respondent classified him or herself as born again. A range of demographic, political, social, regional, and time factors has also had a significant effect on support. The relevant influence of the factors was virtually identical in both California and at the national level with the correlation between the changes in odds ratios for the two analyses reaching 0.97. Overall, increased support for same-sex marriage appears to be a permanent shift in the political landscape and reflects a shift in the dominant issue frame of the policy debate.

Nationwide lockdowns implemented by governments to confront the COVID-19 pandemic came at a high economic price. The article investigates citizens' evaluation of the trade-off between public health measures and their economic consequences. Using a vignette experiment conducted in June 2020 on 7,500 respondents in seven European countries the article tests whether perceived threats of the health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic affect citizens' preferences for strict or mild lockdown measures. Findings show that European citizens tend to prefer strict measures protecting public health despite their damage to the economy. Even individuals more concerned about the pandemic's economic impact do not prefer milder restrictions. Sociodemographic factors only indirectly affect public preferences, through perceived threats. Additionally, findings show that trust in experts and political orientations matter. These results resonate with previous research showing that public opinion in hard times is likely to be guided by risk perceptions and subjective attitudes.

"Ambivalence in Political Decision Making" published on by Oxford University Press.

Beliefs in conspiracy theories have attracted significant international media attention in recent years. This phenomenon has been studied in the US but while anecdotal evidence suggests it is also widespread among the Italian public, little evidence has been collected to assess it empirically. Using data from a 2016 survey, this pioneering study of the Italian case investigates the extent of diffusion of conspiracy theories among Italians and tests several hypotheses concerning individual determinants. The paper finds that conspiracism is indeed widely diffused in Italy. It is negatively associated with education and positively with religiosity, while no correlation is found with political trust. Beliefs in conspiracies are also related to rightwing orientation and support for the populist Five Star Movement.

El artículo se centra en investigar los perfiles de los editorialistas de la diarios de referencia en Francia, centrándose en sus roles y representaciones. La metodología se basa en una perspectiva diacrónica y cualitativa del análisis de las entrevistas en profundidad de una hora de duración realizadas a partir de una muestra de los editorialistas de los tres diarios de referencia en Francia: Libération, Le Figaro, Le Monde. Tres editorialistas de cada periódico han sido entrevistados. El enfoque privilegia una perspectiva sociológica y sociodiscursiva así como socioorganizativa de su perfil. Los resultados demuestran la importancia que juegan las predisposiciones sociales en la carrera profesional para alcanzar el puesto de editorialista. La "retorica profesional" se apoya en un discurso con representaciones míticas asentadas fundamentalmente en la función pedagógica y en menor medida en el rol democrático. ; The article analyzes the profiles of the editorialist from the newspapers of reference in France, focusing on their roles and representations. The methodology is based on a perspective diachronic and qualitative of the analysis of in depth interviews, one hour of duration, realized from a sample of the editorialist from three diaries of reference in France: Libération, Le Figaro, Le Monde. Three editorialist of every newspaper have been interviewed. The results demonstrate the importance that the social predispositions play in the professional career to reach the editorialist's position. The speech that they have is full of mythical representations main based in the pedagogic function and in minor measure in the democratic role.

International audience In 2009, following a legislative redistricting lead by the right-wing, 18.1% of the French cities have moved from one constituency to another. The aim of this note is to provide some methodological issues about this redistricting and some insights about its influence on the electoral results. The main result goes in the sense of a partisan manipulation: due to the redistricting, the left-wing lost 14 constituencies. Whereas it actually gained 333 constituencies in 2012, it would have gained 347 constituencies if the redistricting had remained unchanged between 2007 and 2012. However, the difference between these two proportions is not statistically significant. Consequently, even if it appears as if the left-wing lost out from the 2009 redistricting, we conclude that it did not have a significant effect on the extent of the left-wing's victory.

We develop a dynamic two-party political economy framework, in which parties seek to maximize vote share and face the trade-off between catering to their respective core constituencies on the one hand and ?middle of the road? voters with no partisan affiliation on the other hand. In contrast to ideology-driven individuals, ?middle of the road? voters care about the state of the economy in the sense that a policy reform is desirable for them when the fundamentals of the economy change. However, information is 'sticky? in the sense that the process of information diffusion about the state of the economy, which is determined by some exogenous stochastic process, is imperfect. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we show that an increase in ideological polarization may enhance social welfare by mitigating the friction in information flow.

The authors of this short essay -- who are also authors of a recent translation of Democracy in America -- focus primarily on Tocqueville's practical voice & on the frequency with which his work is quoted. They criticize partisan interpretations of democratic freedom on the grounds that the conservative view is limited to individual interests & beliefs, whereas the liberal view is based on human need, with both groups disregarding political ambition. The authors further dismiss political independents as nonthinking people. The essay proposes that the ultimate goal is to coordinate democracy with faith in the public reward of virtue, & that both conservatives & liberals can benefit from a study of Tocqueville's religious views. J. R. Callahan