scholarly journals Do people want smarter ballots?

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 205316802110626
Author(s):  
André Blais ◽  
Carolina Plescia ◽  
Semra Sevi
Keyword(s):  
Status Quo ◽  
Status Quo Bias ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Voting Rules ◽  
Point Score ◽  
The Real ◽  
Survey Experiments ◽  
Levels Of Support ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Voting Method

We ascertain whether citizens want to have smart ballots, that is, whether they appreciate having the possibility to express some support for more than one option (expression across options) and to indicate different levels of support for these options (expression within options). We conducted two independent yet complementary survey experiments at the time of the Super Tuesday Democratic primaries to examine which voting method citizens prefer, one with the real candidates in the states holding Democratic primaries and one with fictitious candidates in the whole country. In both surveys, respondents were asked to vote using four different voting rules: single, approval, rank, and point (score). After they cast their vote, respondents were asked how satisfied they were using each voting method. The findings are consistent in both studies: the single vote is the most preferred voting method. We show that this is a reflection of a status quo bias, as citizens’ views are strongly correlated with age.

Prospect Theory, Loss Aversion, and Political Behavior

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Passarelli ◽  
Alessandro Del Ponte
Keyword(s):  
Prospect Theory ◽  
Expected Utility ◽  
Loss Aversion ◽  
Reference Point ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Status Quo Bias ◽  
Reflection Effect ◽  
Voting Rules ◽  
Current State ◽  
The Status

Prospect theory introduces several anomalies in the behavior of rational agents, including loss aversion, the reflection effect, probability weighting, and the certainty effect. Loss aversion occurs relative to the current state of the world, called reference point. Being loss averse causes people to prefer the current state of affairs above and beyond the expected utility that comes from a risky political change, engendering a status quo bias. Yet, bias is asymmetric due to the reflection effect: people are too tepid toward advantageous platforms or candidates, whereas they are not critical enough of detrimental policies or bad politicians. Both rich and poor citizens take similar stances on nonpartisan issues (such as national defense): this happens because they evaluate uncertain policy changes relative to a reference point. Citizens welcome radical political platforms with greater enthusiasm than incremental proposals. Generally, under prospect theory societal conflict is smoother than under expected utility theory. Older societies are more prone to preserving the status quo than younger ones. These properties also affect the choice of voting rules. Loss aversion induces people to prefer more prudent voting rules and preserve the status quo. Hence, agents favor higher majority thresholds or even unanimity over simple majority in constitutional choice. The status quo bias supports the persistence of policy cycles, with prolonged drifts in one direction before a trend reversal. In sum, loss aversion and other anomalies pinpointed by prospect theory offer insightful predictions with which to study political phenomena.

Ballot Initiatives and Status Quo Bias

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua J. Dyck ◽  
Shanna Pearson-Merkowitz
Keyword(s):  
Status Quo ◽  
Early Research ◽  
Negativity Bias ◽  
Status Quo Bias ◽  
Ballot Initiatives ◽  
Ballot Initiative ◽  
Starting Position ◽  
Survey Experiments ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Ballot Measure

Is there an opposition bias in ballot initiative campaigns? While some early research suggested that the “no” side was advantaged in ballot initiative campaigns, recent work has demonstrated that both opposition and support spending in ballot measure campaigns are effective. We offer a new way to conceptualize status quo orientation in ballot measure elections. Specifically, we argue that opposition arguments are more effective than support arguments because of the well-known framing negativity bias and not because the starting position for uninformed voters is to default to no. We present the results of two survey experiments to test the impact of support and opposition arguments in ballot initiative campaigns. We find consistent evidence that opposition arguments are effective in generating more “no” votes and that support arguments are ineffective in generating more “yes” votes.

TEACH-POT: Provide Opportunities in Teaching

2020 ◽  
pp. 79-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Giulia Ballatore ◽  
Ettore Felisatti ◽  
Laura Montanaro ◽  
Anita Tabacco
Keyword(s):  
Academic Community ◽  
Real Effect ◽  
The Real ◽  
Main Components ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Training Opportunities ◽  
Different Levels

This paper is aimed to describe and critically analyze the so-called "TEACHPOT" experience (POT: Provide Opportunities in Teaching) performed during the last few years at Politecnico di Torino. Due to career criteria, the effort and the time lecturers spend in teaching have currently undergone a significant reduction in quantity. In order to support and meet each lecturers' expectations towards an improvement in their ability to teach, a mix of training opportunities has been provided. This consists of an extremely wide variety of experiences, tools, relationships, from which everyone can feel inspired to increase the effectiveness of their teaching and the participation of their students. The provided activities are designed around three main components: methodological training, teaching technologies, methodological experiences. A discussion on the findings is included and presented basing on the data collected through a survey. The impact of the overall experience can be evaluated on two different levels: the real effect on redesigning lessons, and the discussion on the matter within the entire academic community.

The Selection of Children's Books Translated from Spanish to Galician, Basque and Catalan (1940–80)

2009 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-258
Author(s):  
Mónica Domínguez Pérez
Keyword(s):  
Social Economic ◽  
Children’S Literature ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Intercultural Relations ◽  
Children's Books ◽  
Source Text ◽  
The Status ◽  
Castilian Spanish ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Selection Of

This study deals with children's literature translated from Castilian Spanish into Galician, Basque and Catalan by a different publisher from that of the source text, between 1940 and 1980, and with the criteria used to choose books for translation during that period. It compares the different literatures within Spain and examines the intersystemic and intercultural relations that the translations reflect. Following the polysystems theory, literature is here conceived as a network of agents of different kinds: authors, publishers, readers, and literary models. Such a network, called a polysystem, is part of a larger social, economic, and cultural network. These extra-literary considerations play an important role in determining the selection of works to be translated. The article suggests that translations can be said to establish transcultural relations, and that they demonstrate different levels of power within a specific interliterary community. It concludes that, while translations may aim to change the pre-existent relationships, frequently they just reflect the status quo.

scholarly journals Three doors anomaly, “should I stay, or should I go”: an artefactual field experiment

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Morone ◽  
Rocco Caferra ◽  
Alessia Casamassima ◽  
Alessandro Cascavilla ◽  
Paola Tiranzoni
Keyword(s):  
Field Experiment ◽  
Experimental Evidence ◽  
Bayesian Updating ◽  
Anomalous Behavior ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Experimental Results ◽  
Illusion Of Control ◽  
Optimal Decision ◽  
Status Quo Bias ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThis work aims to identify and quantify the biases behind the anomalous behavior of people when they deal with the Three Doors dilemma, which is a really simple but counterintuitive game. Carrying out an artefactual field experiment and proposing eight different treatments to isolate the anomalies, we provide new interesting experimental evidence on the reasons why subjects fail to take the optimal decision. According to the experimental results, we are able to quantify the size and the impact of three main biases that explain the anomalous behavior of participants: Bayesian updating, illusion of control and status quo bias.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document