Personal or Impersonal Evaluations? Political Sophistication and Citizen Conceptions of the Democratic Process

An energetic scholarly debate discusses possible reforms of representative democracy. Some support participatory forms of democracy, others a more elite-driven or technocratic democracy. This study contributes to the growing literature on the subject by emphasizing political sophistication as a theoretically relevant predictor of attitudes to democracy: different models of democracy make different demands regarding the political sophistication of citizens. The analysis includes two dimensions and three measures of sophistication: personal sophistication measured as political knowledge and internal efficacy, and impersonal sophistication measured as assessment of others’ political competence. Using the 2011 Finnish National Election Study, we find that perceptions of the sophistication of others have a substantial impact on preferences for political decision-making, and that politically sophisticated people support representative democracy. The analysis shows that perceptions of others’ political competence, which has been largely neglected by previous research, is a both theoretically and empirically relevant predictor of preferences for political decision-making processes.

The Logic of the Punisher: Retrospective Voting and Hyper-Accountability in Lithuania

This article explores the roots of electoral hyper-accountability in Central and Eastern Europe. I focus on Lithuania: a country that is a stable liberal democracy, but has re-elected none of its governments (in the same party composition) since the restoration of independence. Survey data from the Lithuanian National Election Study reveal that Lithuanian voters are constantly dissatisfied with the economy and retrospectively evaluate it worse than the objective indicators would suggest. This partially explains why the Lithuanian voters constantly turn away from the government parties at parliamentary elections. However, their subsequent choice between parliamentary and new (previously marginal) parties is another puzzle. Using the 2016 Lithuanian post-election survey, I test how retrospective voting (economic and corruption issues) and political factors (trust and satisfaction with democracy) explain vote choice between the three types of parties (governmental, oppositional, and successful new party). It appears that new parties in Lithuania capitalize on double dissatisfaction, as the logic of the punisher comprises two steps. First, due to economic discontent, she turns away from the incumbent. Second, due to political mistrust, she often turns not to the parliamentary opposition, but to new parties. An analysis of retrospective economic evaluations hints at the political roots of hyper-accountability: these two steps are connected, as dissatisfaction with democracy is a strong predictor of negative retrospective evaluations of economy. Additional analysis of the 2019 post-election survey corroborates the results and reveals that a similar logic also applies in direct presidential elections.

Choosing Imputation Models

Imputing missing values is an important preprocessing step in data analysis, but the literature offers little guidance on how to choose between imputation models. This letter suggests adopting the imputation model that generates a density of imputed values most similar to those of the observed values for an incomplete variable after balancing all other covariates. We recommend stable balancing weights as a practical approach to balance covariates whose distribution is expected to differ if the values are not missing completely at random. After balancing, discrepancy statistics can be used to compare the density of imputed and observed values. We illustrate the application of the suggested approach using simulated and real-world survey data from the American National Election Study, comparing popular imputation approaches including random forests, hot-deck, predictive mean matching, and multivariate normal imputation. An R package implementing the suggested approach accompanies this letter.

Media bias exposure and the incidence of COVID-19 in the USA

The role of the media as a source of reliable health information during the COVID-19 pandemic has come under intense scrutiny, with claims of misinformation and partisanship coming from all sides of the political divide. This paper seeks to understand the relationship between exposure to biased media outlets and the likelihood of testing positive for COVID-19 in the USA. I use detailed household data extracted from the 2020 American National Election Study in order to gauge media consumption patterns, coupled with data on media bias scores for different outlets and programmes. I combine these variables to compute media bias exposure values for each respondent, and relate these to the likelihood of a positive COVID-19 test within each respondent’s household, controlling for a variety of other factors including partisanship, social media use, trust in the media and several socioeconomic and demographic variables. The results indicate that media bias exposure is significantly related to COVID-19 incidence, and in particular the coefficients show that a 1% increase in exposure to left-wing media is associated with a 0.2% decrease in the probability of a positive COVID-19 test. Conversely, I find no significant relationship between right-wing media exposure and COVID-19 infection rates. I also find a significantly higher likelihood of contracting COVID-19 among low socioeconomic status households, suggesting a disproportionate impact of the pandemic on such cohorts. These findings are robust to a number of tests, and emphasise the importance of aligning media messages with those advocated by leading medical experts during public health crises.

Authoritarianism and Support for Populist Radical Right Parties

This chapter examines the relationship between authoritarianism and the likelihood of voting for populist radical right parties in Western Europe. Radical right parties share an ideology based around nativism, authoritarianism, and populism. This ideology appeals to high authoritarians because it promises tough measures to preserve social cohesion, so high authoritarians are more likely to vote for radical right parties. This prediction is tested using national election study data from a range of West European countries. The results show that high authoritarians are more likely to vote for radical right parties, but even more so if they have weaker attachments to the political mainstream. The final set of analyses examines whether economic anxieties or anti-immigration attitudes moderate this relationship. While economic anxieties matter little to radical right party support, high authoritarians who oppose immigration are more likely to vote for a radical right party. These findings build on existing research by providing a stronger explanation of previous findings linking anti-immigration attitudes or cultural anxieties to radical right party support.

Hefur umhverfisvitund aukist? Viðhorf Íslendinga til umhverfismála og stóriðju 1987-2017

The significance of environmental issues in the Icelandic public debate has increased in recent decades. Until now, it has not been possible to empirically examine whether this increased debate reflects a development towards a change in attitudes among the Icelandic public. The data from the Icelandic National Election Study (ICENES) shows an apparent long-term change in attitudes towards environmental issues over the past thirty years (1987-2017). Here, we analyze the results of two questions from ICENES. Firstly, we investigate attitudes concerning whether environmental issues should take precedence over efforts to increase economic growth, and, secondly, views on whether the government should place great or little emphasis on heavy industry. Similar changes are seen over time; the proportion of those who want to prioritize environmental issues increases year by year (with one exception immediately after the economic crisis), and the proportion of those who want the government to emphasize heavy industry decreases. The last survey (2017) found that 65% of respondents prioritized environmental issues above economic growth, and 80% wanted the government to place little emphasis on heavy industry. People who identified with a left political party where more likely to emphasize environmental issues whereas those who identified with a right political party where more likely to emphasize heavy industry.

The Effect of Partisan Representation at Different Levels of Government on Satisfaction with Democracy in the United States

In this paper, we analyze how variations in partisan representation across different levels of government influence Americans’ satisfaction with the democracy in the United States. We conduct two survey experiments and analyze data from the 2016 American National Election Study postelection survey. We find that Americans are the most satisfied with democracy when their most preferred party controls both the federal and their respective state governments. However, we also find that even if an individual’s least preferred party only controls one level of government, they are still more satisfied with democracy than if their most preferred party controls no levels of government. These findings suggest that competition in elections across both the national and state government, where winning and losing alternates between the two parties, may have positive outcomes for attitudes toward democracy.

American Party Women Redux: Stability in Partisan Gender Gaps

ABSTRACT Recent research in American politics demonstrates that despite gender-based partisan sorting, gender gaps in policy preferences persist within political parties—particularly among Republicans. Republican women report significantly more moderate views than their male counterparts across a range of policy areas. These gaps are largely attributable to gender differences in beliefs about the appropriate scope of government and attitudes toward gender-based inequality. Arguably, gender has become a more salient feature of American elections in recent years, and this heightened salience raises questions about whether these within-party gender gaps are stable over time or vary across campaign contexts. We use survey data from the 2012 and 2016 American National Election Study to evaluate whether gender gaps in policy preferences are stable across elections or if the 2016 election context affected the magnitude of gender differences in policy preferences. We find that gender gaps in policy preferences within political parties are fairly stable across the two electoral periods.