From our FirstView: Race, Responsiveness, and Representation in U.S. Lawmaking by G. AGUSTIN MARKARIAN,
@jacobhacker.bsky.social
, @maclockhart.bsky.social and ZOLTAN HAJNAL. doi.org/10.1017/S000...
You can read the whole paper here. Thanks so much to my amazing team of coauthors at @ispsyale.bsky.social and the good folks @today.yougov.com who made this research possible. Pretty cool getting to work with such an insane data source!
doi.org/10.1111/ajps...
Additionally, we show abortion attitudes are incredibly stable (approaching the stability of presidential approval ratings and surpassing the Big Five). We also show that attitudes are internally consistent, with voters holding complex attitudes in the policy space.
Using an absolutely enormous panel from @today.yougov.com (N = 50,000, t=4 years), we show that abortion attitudes explain changes in vote choice following the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
🚨 New paper out at @ajpseditor.bsky.social 🚨
Do the public hold meaningful attitudes? Using the case of abortion policy preferences, we provide strong evidence that policy prefrences can be coherent, stable over time, and causally explain vote choice.
doi.org/10.1111/ajps...
Check out this neat write up of our latest work in the @apsrjournal.bsky.social!
This is an important paper at @apsrjournal.bsky.social. It's not exactly surprising that racism undermines effective representation, but it is well and carefully done. Congrats to @markarianga.bsky.social, @jacobhacker.bsky.social, @maclockhart.bsky.social, and Hajnal
doi.org/10.1017/S000...
Check out this great thread on our latest work out now in the APSR!
Our new @apsrjournal.bsky.social is out! We study whether policy and congresspeople are more responsive to White Americans than racial minorities, matching individual level opinion to policy outcomes and roll call votes on 134 issues using 500K survey responses from 2016-2022. 1/n
Honoured to see our work recognized in this way. The project started in my first year of graduate school, so I’m glad to see the many, many hours we put in were worth it.
Two paper rejections in one day! I think it's a sign I should log off my email to make sure it doesn't hit 3.
BJPolS abstract discussing the impact of partisan actors on U.S. elections, mentioning investigations in states including Arizona, Pennsylvania, and others, and addressing the erosion of trust in the democratic process.
From February 2025 -
Can Official Messaging on Trust in Elections Break Through Partisan Polarization? - cup.org/433kRJP
- @jengaudette.bsky.social, @sethjhill.bsky.social, Thad Kousser, @maclockhart.bsky.social & Mindy Romero
#OpenAccess
With the Canadian election looming, are you wondering about how provincial politics might affect the federal outcome? Our pre-print shows where you should expect to see provincial politics bleed over the most (spoiler alert - the answer is Quebec!)
We're open to any feedback or thoughts. This project was motivated by a lot of things, but first and foremost among them was the disaster that was the BC United in the 2024 BC provincial election.
To preview our findings, we show:
(1) Provincial PID is correlated with federal PID, but distinct.
(2) Congruent PIDs lead to stronger partisan attachments
(3) In provinces with distinct party systems like QC, provincial PID helps structure federal vote choice.
In this preprint, we investigate how subnational PID interacts with our usual measure of PID. You can read the whole paper on osf here.
osf.io/preprints/os...
New pre-print out with Alex Rivard (
@sfufass.bsky.social):
"I’m a Federal Sovereigntist but a Provincial Nationalist: Party Identification in a Multi-Level Westminster Democracy"
Ever wondered how voters handle partisan identity at levels besides the national government?
If people never really expected the money, then it won’t be missed (it was just an occasional windfall). If they got used to an extra payment, then it’ll be politically noticeable.
I was just thinking about this. I wonder how much Canadians took into account the rebate in budgeting and salary expectations. I suppose that’s hard to figure, but it seems important for how much they’ll miss the money.
Did I promise myself not to take on any new projects? Yes.
Did I take on a new project because I promised myself it was a teenie tiny little itty bitty project? Also yes.
Is it going to end up being a teenie tiny little itty bitty project? I plead the fifth.
I've been an unwaivering NYT and WaPo subscriber since moving to the US. I have always been happy to support them despite many editorials and op-eds I disagree with, for the good journalism. I have no problem with balanced editorial rooms.
Other than the NYT, what is a good paper I can subscribe to to financially support good journalism? Ideally with minimal editorial content.
I happily subscribed to the WaPo for their news coverage and stayed subscribed through many editorials I disagreed with because I believe in paying for journalism.
But an editorial page with an official point of view is not something I need to fund. I’ll take my subscription dollars elsewhere.
BJPolS abstract discussing the impact of partisan actors on U.S. elections, mentioning investigations in states including Arizona, Pennsylvania, and others, and addressing the erosion of trust in the democratic process.
NEW -
Can Official Messaging on Trust in Elections Break Through Partisan Polarization? - cup.org/433kRJP
- @jengaudette.bsky.social, @sethjhill.bsky.social, Thad Kousser, @maclockhart.bsky.social & Mindy Romero
🚨 New paper out at @bjpols.bsky.social 🚨
Can Official Messaging on Trust in Elections Break Through Partisan Polarization? Yes!
We show, using large national and state specific survey experiments, that public information campaigns from election officials work.
It was great to work on this piece with @jengaudette.bsky.social, @sethjhill.bsky.social, Thad Kousser, and Mindy Romero - look forward to more in the near future!
We're incredibly grateful for the time and input of the election officials we worked with and believe this paper offers a model for future work. All our results are our own and don't reflect the views of any of the election officials we worked with.
Excited to see more of our work on election trust in print, providing election officials with clear scientific evidence for ways they can build trust in elections. You can read it open access here:
doi.org/10.1017/S000...
Come for the paper, but stay for the complex diagram outlining the survey flow in 5 different samples.
Additionally, videos explaining protections on election integrity in Arizona and Virginia increase trust in elections outside the respondents’ own states but the content of the message doesn't seem to matter.