Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACTPolitical science instructors increasingly use interactive pedagogies that emphasize active learning over traditional lecture formats. I contribute to this effort by developing a data-based teaching method that relies on student-generated data to illustrate course concepts and to serve as a foundation for a variety of activities in political science classrooms. This article summarizes the technique based on my experience in an introductory course in American government. However, given that this method is not intrinsically limited to any topic or area, I also provide examples of how the basic framework may be applied to other subfields in political science. I conclude by calling for the creation of a network of teacher–scholars interested in developing, sharing, and refining best practices related to data-based teaching.

Research assessing how voters evaluate political candidates often focuses on the effects of particular attributes (e.g., race, gender, partisanship). I submit that voters' perceptions of candidates may depend not only on candidates' own traits and features, but those of other candidates running against them. Drawing on literature on reference dependence, I argue that the same candidate may be perceived in significantly different ways depending on whether or not voters evaluate the candidate as a single entity or as one option in a multicandidate field. An original survey experiment reveals that under certain circumstances, Republicans and Democrats both adjust their evaluations of party candidates as a function of the presence of other candidates. I conclude with a discussion of this project's implications for a larger body of work looking at reference dependence in American elections.

Ballot fusion is an electoral device used in some states that permits multiple parties to endorse the same candidate for public office. The practice is at the center of a fierce policy debate concerning the legality and efficacy of ballot design: critics say fusion allows minor parties to hijack mainstream parties and complicates the voting process; advocates say fusion reduces the potential for wasted votes and increases democratic efficacy in the electorate. Participants in this policy debate all cite the welfare of the voting public in defending their views, yet claims on both sides are based on assumptions that may or may not stand up to empirical scrutiny. In this article, we fill a void in the literature by exploring whether, and to what extent, fusion voting impacts voters' perceptions, decisions, and overall voting experience. We develop a survey experiment in which individuals make electoral choices under a series of ballot designs, enabling us to evaluate counterfactuals concerning ballot fusion for the first time: how do individuals evaluating a ballot with fusion behave relative to voters who evaluate the same ballot without it? The results have important implications for electoral policy makers: ballot fusion has little impact on feelings of democratic efficacy and voting behavior, though it can compel some individuals to update their perceptions about political parties under certain circumstances.

AbstractObjectiveSome primary voters cast their ballot for a candidate they do not most prefer in hopes that doing so will increase their party's chances of winning the general election. However, the emergence of party "outsider" candidates challenges prevailing assumptions about the persuasive pull of electability arguments on voter decision making. In this project, we analyze whether and when supporters of "outsider" candidates resolve strategic dilemmas relative to supporters of "insider" candidates.MethodsWe administer survey experiments to Republicans and Democrats immediately before the 2016 and 2020 primaries, respectively.ResultsAlthough voters in both parties are willing to vote strategically, there are critical differences when it comes to the loyalty primary voters feel to outsider primary candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.ConclusionStrategic voting decisions are not based merely on electability, particularly in the case of "outsider" candidates. Scholars should integrate additional factors into future work on voter behavior in primaries.

Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform is a popular tool for scholars seeking a reasonably representative population to recruit subjects for academic research that is cheaper than contract work via survey research firms. Numerous scholarly inquiries affirm that the MTurk pool is at least as representative as college student samples; however, questions about the validity of MTurk data persist. Amazon classifies all MTurk Workers into two types: (1) "regular" Workers, and (2) more qualified (and expensive) "master" Workers. In this paper, we evaluate how choice in Worker type impacts the nature of research samples in terms of characteristics/features and performance. Our results identify few meaningful differences between master and regular Workers. However, we do find that master Workers are more likely to be female, older, and Republican, than regular Workers. Additionally, master Workers have far more experience, having spent twice as much time working on MTurk and having completed over seven times the number of assignments. Based on these findings, we recommend that researchers ask for Worker status and number of assignments completed to control for effects related to experience. However, the results imply that budget-conscious scholars will not compromise project integrity by using the wider pool of regular Workers in academic studies.

This paper considers the implications of the straight-party voting option (STVO) on participation in judicial elections. Voters using straight-party options (by definition) do not vote for candidates in nonpartisan elections. Consequently, ballot roll-off in these elections is more likely to occur when people are given the chance to vote the party ticket and complete the voting process quickly. This is the case because nonpartisan judicial elections are considerably less salient than statewide and federal partisan elections. This article separates out the effects of the institutional structure of the election on political participation with the effects of ballot design. We find that in nonpartisan elections, the straight-party option decreases voter participation since voters who utilize the straight-ticket option may erroneously believe that they have voted for these nonpartisan offices, or simply ignore them. However, in nonpartisan elections without straight-ticket voting, participation is increased compared to nonpartisan elections with straight-ticket voting. Additionally, both forms of nonpartisan elections have less participation than partisan elections, all of which have the straight-ticket option. Thus, voter participation is affected not only by the type of election, but the type of voting rules in the election. [Copyright Elsevier Ltd.]

At least partially in response to Donald Trump's 2016 presidential election (Jordan and Balz 2018), 2018 witnessed a record number of women running for and winning legislative elections across the country. This candidacy surge affords a unique opportunity to evaluate why individuals choose to run for office. Extant literature identifies both individual- and institutional-level determinants of candidate entry, yet little attention has been given to a critical institutional feature that can encourage or discourage women to put their names forward: primary type. This article develops a model of candidate emergence positing that different primary systems—by virtue of including and excluding the participation of various subpopulations of a state's electorate—will be more or less attractive to potential female candidates relative to potential male candidates. We uncover evidence consistent with our theory: women appear less interested in running in certain types of primaries (e.g., semi-closed) but find other systems more appealing (e.g., nonpartisan). The results also indicate that after considering primary type, women tend to outperform men in the subsequent general election across the board. This study provides encouraging evidence that closing the representation gap is an increasingly achievable goal but that the rules of the electoral game continue to determine who is playing.

"The Handbook provides an enjoyable and reflective read about the journeys of colleagues who have taught research and writing. You will be inspired by their wisdom and creativity. Undoubtedly, your own course design and how you approach learning will be impacted." --Janet Box-Steffensmeier, APSA President (2020-21), Distinguished University Professor, The Ohio State University, USA "In this Handbook, instructors will find a diverse and inspiring resource for teaching any course that has a research component. The breadth of personal knowledge in the chapters provide insights into the pedagogical thought process from a variety of perspectives, sparking both ideas for innovative assignments and rethinking of course goals." --Rebecca Glazier, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, USA "How do we thwart the authoritarians? One way is to teach our students to distinguish fact from fiction, quality research from social media rabbit holes. Mallinson, Marin Hellwege, and Loepp, along with their wide-ranging team of scholars, have written a book that should be on the desk of every political science teacher." --Mark Carl Rom, Associate Professor of Government and Public Policy, Georgetown University, USA This Handbook addresses why political science programs teach the research process and how instructors come to teach these courses and develop their pedagogy. Contributors offer diverse perspectives on pedagogy, student audience, and the role of research in their curricula. Across four sections—information literacy, research design, research methods, and research writing—authors share personal reflections that showcase the evolution of their pedagogy and best practices. This text focuses less on the technical substance of the research process and more on the experiences that have guided instructors' philosophies and practices related to teaching it. Daniel J. Mallinson is an Assistant Professor of Public Policy and Administration at Penn State Harrisburg. Julia Marin Hellwege is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of South Dakota. Eric D. Loepp is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater.