Proportional ranking in primary elections: A case study

Many democratic political parties hold primary elections, which nicely reflects their democratic nature and promote, among other things, the democratic value of inclusiveness. However, the methods currently used for holding such primary elections may not be the most suitable, especially if some form of proportional ranking is desired. In this paper, we compare different algorithmic methods for holding primaries (i.e., different aggregation methods for voters’ ballots) by evaluating the degree of proportional ranking that is achieved by each of them using real-world data. In particular, we compare six different algorithms by analyzing real-world data from a recent primary election conducted by the Israeli Democratit party. Technically, we analyze unique voter data and evaluate the proportionality achieved by means of cluster analysis, aiming at pinpointing the representation that is granted to different voter groups under each of the algorithmic methods considered. Our finding suggest that, contrary to the most-prominent primaries algorithm used (i.e., Approval), other methods such as Sequential Proportional Approval or Phragmen can bring about better proportional ranking and thus may be better suited for primary elections in practice.

Shifting party goals: Party electoral support and legislative behavior in the majority and the minority

While scholars agree that parties are interested in both pragmatic (electoral) and programmatic (policy) goals, they disagree about the relative importance of those goals. How parties weight these goals has implications for the effect of party involvement on legislative behavior. We argue that parties emphasize these goals differently based on whether they are in the majority or minority. We examine links between party support in primary elections for the US Congress and subsequent legislative behaviors, finding that candidates who received more party support during the primary election were more likely to engage in partisan efforts in the next Congress. Further, party support of incoming legislators is linked to increased partisan behavior through leapfrog representation. We find that these relationships are stronger for majority party candidates, suggesting that parties put a greater emphasis on winning majorities when in the minority but a greater emphasis on policy congruence when in the majority.

Haters Gonna Hate: How Symbolic and Psychological Variables Explain Attitudes towards Immigrants

This study examines how symbolic, psychological and material factors influence how Americans view migrants before and after the heated 2016 primary season leading to the nomination of Donald Trump as the Republican Party’s presidential candidate. We hypothesize that prior unfavorable predispositions towards migrants, preference for high skilled migrants, personality traits, and material variables strongly influence views on migrants. We examine the effect of these variables with two controlled experiments set a year apart, before and after the 2016 primary election. The experiments manipulate the ethnicity (Asian, Hispanic, Arab) and skill level (high skilled or low skilled) of migrant groups. In both experiments, we find that respondents have an overall positive view of migrants regardless of ethnicity. However, those respondents who hold anti-immigrant stereotypes, have authoritarian personalities, and whose economic standing is worsening see immigrants as threatening. We also find that negative emotion plays a mediating role in this process.

Strategic functions of linguistic impoliteness in US primary election debates

Since presidential primary debates in US election campaigns serve the function of identifying the most promising nominee for the subsequent presidency, they constitute a highly adversarial multilogue. Debaters do not only exchange factual arguments but also use diverse forms of impoliteness geared towards damaging the public image of political opponents and persuading audiences to vote accordingly. Combining political discourse analysis with pragmatic approaches to impoliteness, this paper examines the ways in which verbal aggression in debates inflicts damage on the addressee’s positive and negative face. On the basis of five Democratic and five Republican debates from 2016, it is shown that impolite utterances fulfil the four central strategic functions of (a) delegitimization, (b) coercion, (c) entertainment, and (d) (self-)defence, all of which support the macro-function of political persuasion through the construction of personal preferability.

The Supreme Court as an electoral issue: evidence from three studies

Judicial nominations, particularly those to the Supreme Court, have been a salient topic in recent presidential and senate elections. However, there has been little research to determine whether judicial nominations motivate political behavior. Across three studies we demonstrate the important role judicial nominations play in influencing political behavior. In Study 1, we analyze the extent to which voters perceive judicial nominations as an important electoral issue. We find that Republicans—and especially strong Republicans—are more likely to perceive judicial nominations as important. In Study 2, we analyze how congruence with an incumbent Senator's judicial confirmation votes influences voters’ decision to vote for the incumbent. We find that congruence with a Senator's judicial confirmation votes is a strong predictor of vote choice. Finally, in Study 3, we analyze data from an original conjoint experiment aimed at simulating a Senate primary election where voters must select among co-partisans. We find that Republican subjects are more likely to select a primary candidate who prioritizes confirming conservative Supreme Court nominees. Among Democratic subjects, however, we find that Democratic candidates who prioritize the Court might actually suffer negative electoral consequences. Overall, our results demonstrate the importance of judicial nominations as an electoral issue.

Democratizing the Party: The Effects of Primary Election Reforms in Ghana

The recent expansion of the primary electorate by one of Ghana's major parties offers a rare opportunity to assess the effects of franchise extensions in contemporary new democracies. Using an original dataset on candidate entry and nominations, this article shows that expanding the primary electorate opened paths to office for politicians from social groups that were previously excluded, such as women and ethnic groups outside the party's core national coalition. The authors propose that democratizing candidate selection has two consequences in patronage-oriented political systems: vote buying will become a less effective strategy and the electorate will become more diverse. These changes, in turn, affect the types of politicians who seek and win legislative nominations. This suggests that a simple shift in who votes in intraparty primaries can be a key institutional mechanism for improving the descriptive representation of women and other under-represented groups.

The Special Election Primary in Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District

Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District special election seemed the potential harbinger of change to the U.S. House and a referendum on the Trump presidency. Chapter 2 examines the first stage, a jungle primary election held in April 2017, where eighteen candidates competed. Much of what took place in the first round of this special election process to select Representative Tom Price’s replacement resulted from a miscalculation by Republicans. Viable GOP candidates expected that they were competing not for one but two opportunities to advance to the runoff. Soon the contest revealed a divided electorate, coalescing support to one Democrat and splitting the remaining votes among the field of Republicans. The campaign strategies and appeals made by the five leading candidates, four Republicans and one Democrat, and the response they received by the voters are examined.

Voting in a Pandemic: COVID-19 and Primary Turnout in Milwaukee, Wisconsin

We report the first study of the effect of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) on polling place consolidation and voting behavior. We draw upon individual-level observations from Milwaukee matched to similar observations in the surrounding municipalities to assess whether fewer polling places in the April 2020 presidential primary election decreased turnout in the city. We find polling place consolidation reduced overall turnout by about 8.7 points and reduced turnout among the Black population in the city by about 10 points. We conclude, based on these data, that polling place consolidation even accompanied by widespread absentee voting in the face of an emergency may result in disenfranchisement, particularly among Black voters.

The Crisis Comes Once a Year

Elections arrive on a schedule, which often determines when a crisis will arise. The author has worked to protect voters and their voting rights across decades and jurisdictions and shares examples, principles and best practices. The central story is about activities around a Virginia presidential primary election in which the conduct and decisions of certain election officials in one county led to hundreds of voters casting ballots on scrap paper that were not counted and an even larger number of voters who were unable to vote due to mismanagement of the polls, mainly in areas with larger minority populations than other precincts. This chapter explores specific lessons for crisis lawyering on Election Day, including preparation and anticipation, organization and planning, leadership, judgment, passion, and practicality.

Rhetorical moves in political discourse: closing statements by presidential candidates in US primary election debates

Presidential primary debates in the USA are commonly concluded by brief closing statements, in which the competitors outline the central messages of their election campaigns. These statements constitute a subgenre characterized by a set of recurring rhetorical moves, which are defined as functional units geared towards the respective communicative objective, in this case political persuasion. Located at the interface of rhetorical move analysis and political discourse studies, this paper demonstrates that moves and embedded steps in closing statements fulfill the persuasive function of legitimizing the respective candidate as the most preferable presidential successor. The study is based on the transcripts of 98 closing statements, which were extracted from eight Democratic and eleven Republican primary debates held between August 2015 and April 2016. Typical moves, such as projecting the speaker’s future political agenda or diagnosing the current situation in America, are presented with the help of illustrative examples, frequencies of occurrence, and a sample analysis of a complete closing statement.