scholarly journals Presidential Election & Public Opinion Polls: Focusing on the modification of the forbidden clause of the publicity of public opinion polls

2009 ◽  
Vol null (12) ◽  
pp. 245-277
Author(s):  
홍원식 ◽  
서영남 ◽  
한균태

Significance Sandu, the pro-EU, reformist challenger, defied public opinion polls and early results to become the principal beneficiary of a large turnout among Moldovans abroad, almost twice those voting in the first-round 2016 presidential election. As neither scored over 50%, Sandu and Dodon will contest a second round on November 15. Impacts Electoral discourse around Moldova's external orientation will become more pointed. Dodon failed to anticipate a strong showing by a pro-Western and pro-reform diaspora. Practical voter mobilisation on both sides will be complicated by the pandemic.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-75
Author(s):  
Alexey Levinson

The 2018 Russian presidential election was effectively a contest not between Vladimir Putin and the other seven candidates on the ballot paper, but between Putin and the level of election turnout. Anything less than a large majority based on a respectable level of turnout would have undermined Putin’s legitimacy to serve for a further six-year term. In the event, Putin achieved his goal. Through the analysis of public opinion polls conducted by the Levada Center, we examine the background to the election. Putin’s success can be traced, first to long-standing patterns of differential turnout across the regions and, second, administrative initiatives by the election authorities which created a renewed confidence in the integrity of the election process.


1949 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-111
Author(s):  
William F. Swindler

The historic upset of virtually all interpretations of public opinion polls in the Presidential election in November was perhaps the most striking journalistic event of 1948. The need for intensive self-examination and technical improvements became the order of business not only for poll takers but for the whole structure of market research which had been built upon them. The fact that for the fifth consecutive Presidential election the American press had supported the candidate rejected by the electorate was also a subject of considerable discussion by laymen and practitioners. Vastly shaken public confidence, as well as the rapid development of a powerful new competitor in the form of television, pointed to a need for major reforms in editorial methods and services of newspapers—an awareness of which was somewhat manifested in the growth of regional press institutes in several additional schools of journalism.—W. F. S.


1950 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. 101-103
Author(s):  
Arthur N. Feraru

Author(s):  
William W. Franko ◽  
Christopher Witko

Here the authors present the variation that exists in income inequality across the states, and variation in public awareness or concern about income inequality as measured by public opinion polls. Though politicians may decide to tackle income inequality even in the absence of public concern about inequality, the authors argue that government responses are more likely when and where there is a growing awareness of, and concern about, inequality, which is confirmed in the analyses in this book. To examine this question in subsequent chapters, a novel measure of public awareness of rising state inequality is developed. Using these estimates, this chapter shows that the growth in the public concern about inequality responds in part to objective increases in inequality, but also that state political conditions, particularly mass partisanship, shape perceptions of inequality.


2021 ◽  
pp. 136843022097903
Author(s):  
Alexander P. Landry ◽  
Elliott Ihm ◽  
Jonathan W. Schooler

Metadehumanization, the perception that members of an outgroup dehumanize your group, has been found to exacerbate intergroup conflict by inspiring reciprocal dehumanization of the offending outgroup. Moreover, metadehumanization is distinct from metaprejudice (i.e., the perception that an outgroup hates your group). Given the mutual animosity reported in public opinion polls toward the other side, we believed US–Russia relations would be a worthwhile context in which to extend this model. Therefore, we measured Americans’ levels of metadehumanization and metaprejudice of Russians to determine the association between these perceptions and their hostility toward Russians (Study 1). In this novel intergroup conflict, metadehumanization remained a consequential predictor of outgroup hostility over and above metaprejudice, suggesting that it can exacerbate a broader range of intergroup conflicts than those heretofore examined. Given these findings, we then sought to experimentally differentiate between metadehumanization and metaprejudice. In Study 2, we manipulated both metadehumanization and metaprejudice to (a) determine whether one or both cause greater outgroup hostility and (b) elucidate the underlying mechanisms by which they may produce this effect. Whereas metadehumanization produced greater hostility, metaprejudice did not. Moreover, although both metaperceptions inspired greater prejudice, only metadehumanization led to greater dehumanization. We conclude that metadehumanization may be a particularly potent fomenter of hostility because it inspires reciprocal dehumanization over and above more general negative bias.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document