<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
 <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/">
  <channel rdf:about="http://pinboard.in">
    <title>Pinboard (cshalizi)</title>
    <link>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/public/</link>
    <description>recent bookmarks from cshalizi</description>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.programmablemutter.com/p/the-median-voter-theorem-is-a-clarity?publication_id=1745679&amp;post_id=187542876&amp;isFreemail=true&amp;r=v3b1&amp;triedRedirect=true"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/democracy-by-mistake-how-the-errors-of-autocrats-trigger-transitions-to-freer-government/7F9054A5F636EEE21B3BF56EF1BF8930"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00104140241271104"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/691274"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12779"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ejsp.2939"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://osf.io/7vy2f/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://osf.io/n32zk/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691237817/settling-for-less"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12724"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://tompepinsky.com/2022/07/29/what-if-this-is-as-good-as-it-gets-defective-democracy-and-the-comparative-democratic-ideal/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://ajps.org/2017/10/26/learning-about-voter-rationality/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/analytical-democratic-theory-a-microfoundational-approach/739A9A928A99A47994E4585059B03398"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/104/4/764/97753/The-Promise-and-Pitfalls-of-Conflict-Prediction?redirectedFrom=fulltext"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/citizenship-in-hard-times/6F6F2EEE3979D61CD2C4B69362012917#fndtn-information"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/other-divide/BAEDF5146C86E57F26696EF7AAB800FE#fndtn-information"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780197582268.001.0001/oso-9780197582268?rskey=PzGaKz&amp;result=254"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-study"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo163195227.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053168015608896"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://chrisblattman.com/2022/01/31/why-i-do-not-expect-a-civil-war-in-america-and-what-does-worry-me/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190858476.001.0001/oso-9780190858476?rskey=dFpIVp&amp;result=210"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo124039550"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/714780"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/85/2/539/6378766"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://twitter.com/henryfarrell/status/1422187568188252163"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691216881/rights-as-weapons"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/24/eabe8432.full"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/social-origins-of-dictatorships-elite-networks-and-political-transitions-in-haiti/755037888EE3C758A91E814844C15529"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.07811"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.pnas.org/content/118/6/e2019375118"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=32282"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197509456.001.0001"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190082116.001.0001"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.03787"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.mischiefsoffaction.com/post/we-freaking-warned-you"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-economics-081919-050239"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo5378434.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054609"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/11/10/21551766/election-polls-results-wrong-david-shor"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/renos/files/carneyenos.pdf"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/can-america-govern-itself/hollow-parties/D894D4E4EF6D44132E99D640B041AFCD"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052615-025801"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6508/1197"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabc4046"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3650704"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/703490?journalCode=jop"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/84/1/119/5855949?redirectedFrom=fulltext"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://fivebooks.com/best-books/politics-of-information-henry-farrell/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://academic.oup.com/poq/advance-article/doi/10.1093/poq/nfaa001/5822054"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691199511/steadfast-democrats"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352154620300036"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pops.12650"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/ZN3W2IDSM8ZEUEW97KFN/full?target=10.1080%2F13501763.2019.1678662#.XajI-75_McE.twitter"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.10554"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-economics-080218-030419"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5hhpr4"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7rr34"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-economics-080217-053339"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.press.umich.edu/9993024/initiatives_without_engagement"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.eitanhersh.com/uploads/7/9/7/5/7975685/hersh_hobbyism_june2017.pdf"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.johnmyleswhite.com/notebook/2019/01/20/interpretational-challenges-with-ideal-point-models/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118833162"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300232752/responsible-parties"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/R/bo27407562"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-theory/article/beyond-anarchy-logics-of-political-organization-hierarchy-and-international-structure/8E1C8F52C572E8A4383C170B81D3AD15/core-reader"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo27596045"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pnas.org/content/115/5/939"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/4/9/17214752/zuckerberg-facebook-power-regulation-data-privacy-control-political-theory-data-breach-king"/>
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
  </channel><item rdf:about="https://www.programmablemutter.com/p/the-median-voter-theorem-is-a-clarity?publication_id=1745679&amp;post_id=187542876&amp;isFreemail=true&amp;r=v3b1&amp;triedRedirect=true">
    <title>The Median Voter Theorem is a Clarity Trap</title>
    <dc:date>2026-02-17T19:06:31+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.programmablemutter.com/p/the-median-voter-theorem-is-a-clarity?publication_id=1745679&amp;post_id=187542876&amp;isFreemail=true&amp;r=v3b1&amp;triedRedirect=true</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[--- cf. [https://bactra.org/weblog/books-i-will-not-write.html], under "Logic Is a Pretty Flower That Smells Bad"]]></description>
<dc:subject>re:logic_is_a_pretty_flower_that_smells_bad political_science exploration-exploitation farrell.henry</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:41798b9ccdee/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:logic_is_a_pretty_flower_that_smells_bad"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:exploration-exploitation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:farrell.henry"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/democracy-by-mistake-how-the-errors-of-autocrats-trigger-transitions-to-freer-government/7F9054A5F636EEE21B3BF56EF1BF8930">
    <title>Democracy by Mistake: How the Errors of Autocrats Trigger Transitions to Freer Government | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core</title>
    <dc:date>2025-09-05T16:18:07+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/democracy-by-mistake-how-the-errors-of-autocrats-trigger-transitions-to-freer-government/7F9054A5F636EEE21B3BF56EF1BF8930</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["How does democracy emerge from authoritarian rule? Certain influential theories contend that incumbents deliberately choose to share or surrender power. They do so to prevent revolution, motivate citizens to fight wars, incentivize governments to provide public goods, outbid elite rivals, or limit factional violence. Examining the history of all democratizations since 1800, I show that such deliberate-choice arguments may help explain up to about one-third of the cases. In more than two-thirds, the evidence suggests that democratization occurred not because incumbents chose it but because, while trying to prevent it, they made mistakes that weakened their hold on power. Rather than being granted by farsighted elites or forced on them by the rise of new classes, democracy appears to have spread most often because of incumbents’ missteps that triggered previously latent factors."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB political_science democracy</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:7b0b23f27d81/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00104140241271104">
    <title>Separated by Degrees: Social Closure by Education Levels Strengthens Contemporary Political Divides - Jona de Jong, Jonne Kamphorst, 2025</title>
    <dc:date>2025-04-28T01:26:35+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00104140241271104</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Across Western democracies, education levels are predictive of immigration attitudes and voting for new left or far right parties. What explains education-based political divides? This article proposes that social closure of higher- and lower-educated citizens strengthens and reinforces differences in political attitudes and voting between them. Using social network data from the Netherlands, and ESS data, we show that large proportions of higher- and lower-educated citizens report no close relationships with different education levels. Network education levels, in turn, are predictive of immigration attitudes and voting behaviour. Difference-in-differences models show that a change in network education levels is associated with change in these outcomes. Our findings contribute to literatures on educational divides and peer effects. Moreover, they support an interpretation of political competition on the universalist-particularist dimension as durably rooted in social structure. Sizable, distinct and insulated educational groups can crystallize contemporary divides and predictably shape political reality."

--- Very curious to see the difference-in-difference argument.]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB political_science education social_networks polarization homophily social_influence to_teach:statistics_of_inequality_and_discrimination</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:9bb0db51ef6b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:education"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:polarization"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:homophily"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_influence"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_teach:statistics_of_inequality_and_discrimination"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/691274">
    <title>Belief Network Analysis: A Relational Approach to Understanding the Structure of Attitudes1 | American Journal of Sociology: Vol 122, No 5</title>
    <dc:date>2024-12-11T19:50:45+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/691274</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Many accounts of political belief systems conceive of them as networks of interrelated opinions, in which some beliefs are central and others peripheral. This article formally shows how such structural features can be used to construct direct measures of belief centrality in a network of correlations. This method is applied to the 2000 ANES data, which have been used to argue that political beliefs are organized around parenting schemas. This structural approach instead yields results consistent with the central role of political identity, which individuals may use as the organizing heuristic to filter information from the political field. In light of recent accounts of belief system heterogeneity, a search for population heterogeneity in this organizing logic was undertaken first by comparing 44 demographic subpopulations and then using inductive techniques. Contra these recent accounts, the study finds that belief systems of different groups vary in the amount of organization but not in the logic that organizes them."

--- Last tag is a guess based on the abstract.]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB causal_discovery ideology political_science sociology graphical_models of_course_its_really_a_spin_glass</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:4281f10e72a8/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:causal_discovery"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:ideology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:graphical_models"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:of_course_its_really_a_spin_glass"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12779">
    <title>Power to the People: The Hidden Link Between Support for Direct Democracy and Belief in Conspiracy Theories - Pantazi - 2022 - Political Psychology - Wiley Online Library</title>
    <dc:date>2023-05-02T20:50:44+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12779</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Although an increasing volume of research has identified several negative sociopolitical attitudes as correlates of conspiracy theories, to date it remains unclear whether belief in conspiracy theories is necessarily in conflict with support for democratic governance. In this contribution, we integrate previous findings suggesting inconsistent relationships between belief in conspiracy theories and support for democratic governance. Study 1 (N = 300) shows that belief in conspiracy theories is associated with decreased support for representative democracy but increased support for direct democracy. Study 2 (N = 270) replicated these findings and revealed that these relationships were mediated by political cynicism and feelings of powerlessness. In Study 3 (N = 298), we experimentally show that a system with direct democracy (as compared with representative democracy) empowered participants and therefore decreased belief in conspiracy theories. Contrary to the common notion that conspiracy theories are associated with decreased support for democracy, these findings suggest that conspiracy beliefs are associated with a preference for direct over representative democracy."

--- Of course, in [https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2939], the same authors find that belief in conspiracy theories causes anti-democratic attitudes!  (I should read the papers to see how they reconcile these claims.)]]></description>
<dc:subject>conspiracy_theories political_science in_NB</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:aa8b37cd7c64/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:conspiracy_theories"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ejsp.2939">
    <title>Is democracy under threat? Why belief in conspiracy theories predicts autocratic attitudes - Papaioannou - European Journal of Social Psychology - Wiley Online Library</title>
    <dc:date>2023-05-02T20:47:01+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ejsp.2939</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Scholars and policy-makers are increasingly concerned with the detrimental effects of conspiracy theories. Yet, it remains unclear whether conspiracy beliefs actually pose a threat to democracy by rendering people less supportive of democratic governance. Three studies suggest that conspiracy theories may incite support for autocratic regimes. A first nationally representative sample (Greece, N = 492), established a link between conspiracy beliefs and rejection of democracy and the political status quo. Study 2 extended these findings (Greece, N = 264) by showing that conspiracy beliefs are positively related to support for autocracy, while feelings of political powerlessness (but not cynicism) partly mediate this relationship. Study 3 (USA, N = 300, pre-registered) directly tested whether perceptions of conspiracies enhance support for autocratic rule. Results revealed that the perceived presence of conspiracies increased support for autocracy, partly due to feelings of political powerlessness. These studies are the first ones to establish empirically that conspiracy theories may increase support for autocracy."

--- I presume there is a detailed explanation of why results translate between the political & cultural environments of Greece and the US.
--- ETA: it turns out that in [https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12779], the same authors find that "conspiracy beliefs are associated with a preference for direct over representative democracy".  I should read the papers to see how they reconcile these claims (as _doubtless_ they do convincingly).]]></description>
<dc:subject>conspiracy_theories political_science in_NB</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:287679bfe7f7/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:conspiracy_theories"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://osf.io/7vy2f/">
    <title>OSF Preprints | Quantitative Political Science Research is Greatly Underpowered</title>
    <dc:date>2023-05-02T20:12:17+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://osf.io/7vy2f/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["We analyze the statistical power of political science research by collating over 16,000 hypothesis tests from about 2,000 articles. Even with generous assumptions, the median analysis has about 10% power, and only about 1 in 10 tests have at least 80% power to detect the consensus effects reported in the literature. There is also substantial heterogeneity in tests across research areas, with some being characterized by high-power but most having very low power. To contextualize our findings, we survey political methodologists to assess their expectations about power levels. Most methodologists greatly overestimate the statistical power of political science research."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB to_read political_science social_science_methodology statistics hypothesis_testing estimation re:neutral_model_of_inquiry</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:c31528a09f2b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_science_methodology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:hypothesis_testing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:estimation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:neutral_model_of_inquiry"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://osf.io/n32zk/">
    <title>OSF Preprints | Subjective and Objective Measurement of Democratic Backsliding</title>
    <dc:date>2023-01-23T05:45:47+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://osf.io/n32zk/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Despite the general narrative that we are in a period of global democratic decline, there have been surprisingly few empirical studies to assess whether this is systematically true. Most existing studies of backsliding rely heavily, if not entirely, on subjective indicators which rely on expert coder judgement. We survey other more objective indicators of democracy (such as incumbent performance in elections), and find little evidence of global democratic decline over the last decade. To explain the discrepancy between trends in subjective and objective indicators, we develop formal models that consider the role of coder bias and leaders strategically using more subtle undemocratic action. The simplest explanation is that recent declines in average democracy scores are driven by changes in coder bias. While we cannot rule out the possibility that the world is experiencing major democratic backsliding almost exclusively in ways which require subjective judgement to detect, this claim not justified by existing evidence."]]></description>
<dc:subject>social_measurement democracy political_science in_NB</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:c39e67999e9b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_measurement"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691237817/settling-for-less">
    <title>Settling for Less | Princeton University Press</title>
    <dc:date>2023-01-23T05:43:51+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691237817/settling-for-less</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Over the past few centuries, vast areas of the world have been violently colonized by settlers. But why did states like Australia and the United States stop settling frontier lands during the twentieth century? At the same time, why did states loudly committed to decolonization like Indonesia and China start settling the lands of such minorities as the West Papuans and Uyghurs? Settling for Less traces this bewildering historical reversal, explaining when and why indigenous peoples suffer displacement at the hands of settlers.
"Lachlan McNamee challenges the notion that settler colonialism can be explained by economics or racial ideologies. He tells a more complex story about state building and the conflicts of interest between indigenous peoples, states, and settlers. Drawing from a rich array of historical evidence, McNamee shows that states generally colonize frontier areas in response to security concerns. Elite schemes to populate contested frontiers with loyal settlers, however, often fail. As societies grow wealthier and cities increasingly become magnets for migration, states ultimately lose the power to settle frontier lands.
"Settling for Less uncovers the internal dynamics of settler colonialism and the diminishing power of colonizers in a rapidly urbanizing world. Contrasting successful and failed colonization projects in Australia, Indonesia, China, and beyond, this book demonstrates that economic development—by thwarting colonization—has proven a powerful force for indigenous self-determination."]]></description>
<dc:subject>books:noted history imperialism comparative_history political_science in_NB downloaded</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:0def6e6cf223/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:imperialism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:comparative_history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:downloaded"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12724">
    <title>When and Why Are Campaigns’ Persuasive Effects Small? Evidence from the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Broockman - American Journal of Political Science - Wiley Online Library</title>
    <dc:date>2022-08-17T20:56:02+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12724</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Why do political campaigns so often fail to persuade voters, and what does this say about voter decision making? Some interpret the difficulty of persuading voters as evidence that voters remain loyal to their parties even when confronted with new information. However, an informational (quasi-Bayesian) mechanism may also contribute. We test empirical implications of these alternatives with four survey experiments (total n = 113,742) conducted during the 2020 presidential election that exposed individuals to 291 messages. Our results support the quasi-Bayesian interpretation: We show that voters are more persuadable with information about candidates they know less about; that persuasive messages change both candidate evaluations and vote choices, and induce partisan defection; and that messages with more informational content are more persuasive. These results suggest voters’ reaction to information in a manner consistent with Bayesian updating, and not only partisan loyalty, can help explain variation in and the small size of campaign effects."

--- This makes sense, but framing it as "Bayesian" or "quasi-Bayesian" seems to add nothing, since there's no way they actually tried modeling voters as Bayesian agents.  (Just think about trying to specify the relevant likelihood functions _as perceived by the agents_.)]]></description>
<dc:subject>political_science decision-making persuasion to:NB</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:601a3477adc8/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:decision-making"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:persuasion"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://tompepinsky.com/2022/07/29/what-if-this-is-as-good-as-it-gets-defective-democracy-and-the-comparative-democratic-ideal/">
    <title>What If This is As Good As It Gets? Defective Democracy and the Comparative Democratic Ideal</title>
    <dc:date>2022-08-17T20:52:05+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://tompepinsky.com/2022/07/29/what-if-this-is-as-good-as-it-gets-defective-democracy-and-the-comparative-democratic-ideal/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>democracy political_science political_philosophy pepinsky.tom</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:660f218596de/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:pepinsky.tom"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://ajps.org/2017/10/26/learning-about-voter-rationality/">
    <title>Learning about Voter Rationality – American Journal of Political Science</title>
    <dc:date>2022-08-17T20:51:27+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://ajps.org/2017/10/26/learning-about-voter-rationality/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[--- IIRC, this analysis also appears in _Theory and Credbility_.]]></description>
<dc:subject>political_science democracy learning_in_games ashworth.scott in_NB</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:df3c3e40484b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:learning_in_games"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:ashworth.scott"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/analytical-democratic-theory-a-microfoundational-approach/739A9A928A99A47994E4585059B03398">
    <title>Analytical Democratic Theory: A Microfoundational Approach | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core</title>
    <dc:date>2022-08-04T14:15:33+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/analytical-democratic-theory-a-microfoundational-approach/739A9A928A99A47994E4585059B03398</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["A prominent and publicly influential literature challenges the quality of democratic decision making, drawing on political science findings with specific claims about the ubiquity of cognitive bias to lament citizens’ incompetence. A competing literature in democratic theory defends the wisdom of crowds, drawing on a cluster of models in support of the capacity of ordinary citizens to produce correct outcomes. In this Letter, we draw on recent findings in psychology to demonstrate that the former literature is based on outdated and erroneous claims and that the latter is overly sanguine about the circumstances that yield reliable collective decision making. By contrast, “interactionist” scholarship shows how individual-level biases are not devastating for group problem solving, given appropriate conditions. This provides possible microfoundations for a broader research agenda similar to that implemented by Elinor Ostrom and her colleagues on common-good provision, investigating how different group structures are associated with both success and failure in democratic decision making. This agenda would have implications for both democratic theory and democratic practice."

--- I am very happy to see this loosed upon the world.]]></description>
<dc:subject>in_NB democracy political_science political_philosophy collective_cognition kith_and_kin farrell.henry schwartzberg.melissa mercier.hugo re:democratic_cognition social_life_of_the_mind have_read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:647cadab93a4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:kith_and_kin"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:farrell.henry"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:schwartzberg.melissa"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:mercier.hugo"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:have_read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/104/4/764/97753/The-Promise-and-Pitfalls-of-Conflict-Prediction?redirectedFrom=fulltext">
    <title>The Promise and Pitfalls of Conflict Prediction: Evidence from Colombia and Indonesia | The Review of Economics and Statistics | MIT Press</title>
    <dc:date>2022-07-23T17:05:37+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/104/4/764/97753/The-Promise-and-Pitfalls-of-Conflict-Prediction?redirectedFrom=fulltext</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["How feasible is violence early-warning prediction? Colombia and Indonesia have unusually fine-grained data. We assemble two decades of local violent events alongside hundreds of annual risk factors. We attempt to predict violence one year ahead with a range of machine learning techniques. Our models reliably identify persistent, high-violence hot spots. Violence is not simply autoregressive, as detailed histories of disaggregated violence perform best, but socioeconomic data substitute well for these histories. Even with unusually rich data, however, our models poorly predict new outbreaks or escalations of violence. These “best-case” scenarios with annual data fall short of workable early-warning systems."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB prediction violence political_science blattman.chris</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:4795b27b0448/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:prediction"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:violence"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:blattman.chris"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/citizenship-in-hard-times/6F6F2EEE3979D61CD2C4B69362012917#fndtn-information">
    <title>Citizenship in Hard Times</title>
    <dc:date>2022-07-04T01:40:43+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/citizenship-in-hard-times/6F6F2EEE3979D61CD2C4B69362012917#fndtn-information</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["What do citizens do in response to threats to democracy? This book examines the mass politics of civic obligation in the US, UK, and Germany. Exploring threats like foreign interference in elections and polarization, Sara Wallace Goodman shows that citizens respond to threats to democracy as partisans, interpreting civic obligation through a partisan lens that is shaped by their country's political institutions. This divided, partisan citizenship makes democratic problems worse by eroding the national unity required for democratic stability. Employing novel survey experiments in a cross-national research design, Citizenship in Hard Times presents the first comprehensive and comparative analysis of citizenship norms in the face of democratic threat. In showing partisan citizens are not a reliable bulwark against democratic backsliding, Goodman identifies a key vulnerability in the mass politics of democratic order. In times of democratic crisis, defenders of democracy must work to fortify the shared foundations of democratic citizenship."]]></description>
<dc:subject>in_NB books:noted democracy political_science partisanship_and_polarization our_decrepit_institutions</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:0132fc6086c0/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:partisanship_and_polarization"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:our_decrepit_institutions"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/other-divide/BAEDF5146C86E57F26696EF7AAB800FE#fndtn-information">
    <title>The Other Divide</title>
    <dc:date>2022-07-04T01:32:56+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/other-divide/BAEDF5146C86E57F26696EF7AAB800FE#fndtn-information</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["There is little doubt that increasing polarization over the last decade has transformed the American political landscape. In The Other Divide, Yanna Krupnikov and John Barry Ryan challenge the nature and extent of that polarization. They find that more than party, Americans are divided by involvement in politics. On one side is a group of Americans who are deeply involved in politics and very expressive about their political views; on the other side is a group much less involved in day-to-day political outcomes. While scholars and journalists have assumed that those who are most vocal about their political views are representative of America at large, they are in fact a relatively small group whose voices are amplified by the media. By considering the political differences between the deeply involved and the rest of the American public, Krupnikov and Ryan present a broader picture of the American electorate than the one that often appears in the news."]]></description>
<dc:subject>books:noted partisanship_and_polarization us_politics political_science in_NB</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:a94acde4654a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:partisanship_and_polarization"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780197582268.001.0001/oso-9780197582268?rskey=PzGaKz&amp;result=254">
    <title>Tweeting is Leading: How Senators Communicate and Represent in the Age of Twitter - Oxford Scholarship</title>
    <dc:date>2022-07-03T13:50:51+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780197582268.001.0001/oso-9780197582268?rskey=PzGaKz&amp;result=254</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Social media is changing the business of representation and lawmaker reputation building, and this book uses the US Senate to illustrate the constituent-driven nature of political communication. I offer a critical analysis of senators’ communication on Twitter, the forces that shape it, and the agendas that result. Senators strategically communicate a political image that reflects their unique political persona. They have to decide what they want to be known for, crafting communications that prioritize legislation, constituent service, and party politics in ways that meet the interests of their constituencies and foster promising electoral returns. Senators’ communicated, public priorities—what is termed in this book as the rhetorical agenda—offer a necessary tool for understanding how senators link their carefully crafted public image with potential voters. The rhetorical agenda uses more than 180,000 lawmaker tweets to challenge what we know about representation, removing the institutional and political constraints on congressional communication and giving lawmakers a messaging platform where individual discretion is high, the relative costs are low, and someone is always watching."

--- Last two tags reflect my evaluation and not the author's...]]></description>
<dc:subject>books:noted rhetorical_self-fashioning text_mining social_media networked_life twitter congress us_politics political_science our_decrepit_institutions re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator in_NB</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:f307ec0f3631/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetorical_self-fashioning"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:text_mining"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_media"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:networked_life"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:twitter"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:congress"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:our_decrepit_institutions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-study">
    <title>Remember that study saying America is an oligarchy? 3 rebuttals say it's wrong. - Vox</title>
    <dc:date>2022-06-28T14:09:05+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-study</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>us_politics political_science inequality track_down_references to_teach:statistics_of_inequality_and_discrimination</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:fe836524f7ac/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:inequality"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:track_down_references"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_teach:statistics_of_inequality_and_discrimination"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo163195227.html">
    <title>Radical American Partisanship: Mapping Violent Hostility, Its Causes, and the Consequences for Democracy, Kalmoe, Mason</title>
    <dc:date>2022-05-11T15:55:49+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo163195227.html</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Political violence is rising in the United States, with Republicans and Democrats divided along racial and ethnic lines that spurred massive bloodshed and democratic collapse earlier in the nation’s history. The January 6, 2021 insurrection and the partisan responses that ensued are a vivid illustration of how deep these currents run. How did American politics become so divided that we cannot agree on how to categorize an attack on our own Capitol?
"For over four years, through a series of surveys and experiments, Nathan P. Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason have been studying radicalism among ordinary American partisans. In this groundbreaking book, they draw on new evidence—as well as insights from history, psychology, and political science—to put our present partisan fractiousness in context and to explain broad patterns of political and social change. Early chapters reveal the scope of the problem, who radical partisans are, and trends over time, while later chapters identify the conditions that partisans say justify violence and test how elections, political violence, and messages from leaders enflame or pacify radical views. Kalmoe and Mason find that ordinary partisanship is far more dangerous than pundits and scholars have recognized. However, these findings are not a forecast of inevitable doom; the current climate also brings opportunities to confront democratic threats head-on and to create a more inclusive politics. Timely and thought-provoking, Radical American Partisanship is vital reading for understanding our current political landscape."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB books:noted political_science polarization_and_partisanship our_decrepit_institutions via:henry_farrell books:suggest_to_library</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:0a41efdb8f60/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:polarization_and_partisanship"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:our_decrepit_institutions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:henry_farrell"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:suggest_to_library"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053168015608896">
    <title>Testing Inferences about American Politics: A Review of the “Oligarchy” Result - Omar S Bashir, 2015</title>
    <dc:date>2022-02-27T03:38:12+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053168015608896</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["In a well-publicized study, Gilens and Page argue that economic elites and business interest groups exert strong influence on US government policy while average citizens have virtually no influence at all. Their conclusions are drawn from a model which is said to reveal the causal impact of each group’s preferences. It is shown here that the test on which the original study is based is prone to underestimating the impact of citizens at the 50th income percentile by a wide margin. In addition, descriptive analysis of the authors’ dataset reveals that average Americans have received their preferred policy outcome roughly as often as elites have when the two groups have disagreed with each other. Evidence that average citizens are effectively ignored by the policy process may not be as strong as is suggested by the authors."

--- Need to see what Americanists think of this controversy.]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB political_science inequality to_teach:statistics_of_inequality_and_discrimination</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:7db574e861ae/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:inequality"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_teach:statistics_of_inequality_and_discrimination"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://chrisblattman.com/2022/01/31/why-i-do-not-expect-a-civil-war-in-america-and-what-does-worry-me/">
    <title>Why I do not expect a civil war in America (and what does worry me) - Chris Blattman</title>
    <dc:date>2022-02-01T15:19:11+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://chrisblattman.com/2022/01/31/why-i-do-not-expect-a-civil-war-in-america-and-what-does-worry-me/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[This is very good.  (The bits about Polity scores are disturbing / infuriating / blackly funny.)]]></description>
<dc:subject>us_politics the_continuing_crises violence political_science have_read blattman.chris social_measurement via:?</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:f9b1f06e3628/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:the_continuing_crises"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:violence"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:have_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:blattman.chris"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_measurement"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:?"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190858476.001.0001/oso-9780190858476?rskey=dFpIVp&amp;result=210">
    <title>Outside the Bubble: Social Media and Political Participation in Western Democracies - Oxford Scholarship</title>
    <dc:date>2022-01-12T02:17:18+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190858476.001.0001/oso-9780190858476?rskey=dFpIVp&amp;result=210</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["The ways in which citizens experience politics on social media have overall positive implications for political participation and equality in Western democracies. This book investigates the relationship between political experiences on social media and institutional political participation based on custom-built post-election surveys on samples representative of Internet users in Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States between 2015 and 2018. On the whole, social media do not constitute echo chambers, as most users see a mixture of political content they agree and disagree with. Social media also facilitate accidental encounters with news and exposure to electoral mobilization among substantial numbers of users. Furthermore, political experiences on social media have relevant implications for participation. Seeing political messages that reinforce one’s viewpoints, accidentally encountering political news, and being targeted by electoral mobilization on social media are all positively associated with participation. Importantly, these political experiences enhance participation, especially among citizens who are less politically involved. Conversely, the participatory benefits of social media do not vary based on users’ ideological preferences and on whether they voted for populist parties. Finally, political institutions matter, as some political experiences on social media are more strongly associated with participation in majoritarian systems and in party-centric systems. While social media may be part of many societal problems, they can contribute to the solution to at least two important democratic ills—citizens’ disconnection from politics and inequalities between those who choose to exercise their voice and those who remain silent."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB books:noted social_media political_science re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:86a05661c3ee/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_media"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo124039550">
    <title>Racial Resentment in the Political Mind, Davis, Wilson</title>
    <dc:date>2022-01-08T21:10:37+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo124039550</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["In Racial Resentment in the Political Mind, Darren W. Davis and David C. Wilson challenge the commonly held notion that all racial negativity, disagreements, and objections to policies that seek to help racial minorities stem from racial prejudice. They argue that racial resentment arises from just-world beliefs and appraisals of deservingness that help explain the persistence of racial inequality in America in ways more consequential than racism or racial prejudice alone. 
"The culprits, as many White people see it, are undeserving people of color, who are perceived to benefit unfairly from, and take advantage of, resources that come at Whites’ expense—a worldview in which any attempt at modest change is seen as a challenge to the status quo and privilege. Yet, as Davis and Wilson reveal, many Whites have become racially resentful due to their perceptions that African Americans skirt the “rules of the game” and violate traditional values by taking advantage of unearned resources. Resulting attempts at racial progress lead Whites to respond in ways that retain their social advantage—opposing ameliorative policies, minority candidates, and other advancement on racial progress. Because racial resentment is rooted in beliefs about justice, fairness, and deservingness, ordinary citizens, who may not harbor racist motivations, may wind up in the same political position as racists, but for different reasons."

--- Cf. Carney and Enos (2017, unpublished) [https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/renos/files/carneyenos.pdf]

--- Library access: https://doi-org.cmu.idm.oclc.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226814704]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB books:noted political_science us_politics racism to_teach:statistics_of_inequality_and_discrimination downloaded</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:4f92a988de8a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:racism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_teach:statistics_of_inequality_and_discrimination"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:downloaded"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/714780">
    <title>The Psychophysiology of Political Ideology: Replications, Reanalyses, and Recommendations | The Journal of Politics</title>
    <dc:date>2021-12-17T16:19:44+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/714780</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["This article presents a large-scale, empirical evaluation of the psychophysiological correlates of political ideology and, in particular, the claim that conservatives react with higher levels of electrodermal activity to threatening stimuli than liberals. We (1) conduct two large replications of this claim, using locally representative samples of Danes and Americans; (2) reanalyze all published studies and evaluate their reliability and validity; and (3) test several features to enhance the validity of psychophysiological measures and offer a number of recommendations. Overall, we find little empirical support for the claim. This is caused by significant reliability and validity problems related to measuring threat sensitivity using electrodermal activity. When assessed reliably, electrodermal activity in the replications and published studies captures individual differences in the physiological changes associated with attention shifts, which are unrelated to ideology. In contrast to psychophysiological reactions, self-reported emotional reactions to threatening stimuli are reliably associated with ideology."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB measurement psychometrics political_science via:?</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:cbc4efe37fff/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:measurement"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:psychometrics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:?"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/85/2/539/6378766">
    <title>Complicating the Role of White Racial Attitudes and Anti-Immigrant Sentiment in the 2016 US Presidential Election | Public Opinion Quarterly | Oxford Academic</title>
    <dc:date>2021-11-21T21:28:23+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/85/2/539/6378766</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Some scholars argue that Donald Trump’s electoral college victory in 2016 was predicated on his ability to attract racially hostile white voters. Others argue that the increased relationship between whites’ racial attitudes and presidential vote choice in 2016 was because racial attitudes and partisanship had become even more aligned following the presidency of Barack Obama. Building on research that shows voters tend to update their policy positions to align with their preferred candidates, we propose a third mechanism that helps account for the strong relationship between whites’ racial attitudes and vote choice in 2016. We hypothesize that over the course of the presidential campaign, many whites shifted their survey responses on questions related to race and immigration to align with their support for Trump or Clinton. To test this argument, we use a unique panel dataset from surveys conducted by YouGov of more than 5,000 respondents interviewed at multiple points during the 2016 presidential election campaign. We find that the strong link between white attitudes toward Black Americans and Trump support observed in prior studies is likely due as much to white Trump supporters updating their survey responses to report opinions more consistent with Trump’s, as it is to Trump drawing support from more racially antagonistic white voters. Similar results emerge with respect to whites’ immigration opinions. These findings complicate our understanding of the 2016 election by offering direct evidence that Trump’s campaign benefited from and catalyzed racial divisions. The results also hold implications for how we study election and campaign effects and the stability of race and immigration attitudes."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB us_politics political_science social_measurement to_teach:statistics_of_inequality_and_discrimination</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:8cc038134f20/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_measurement"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_teach:statistics_of_inequality_and_discrimination"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://twitter.com/henryfarrell/status/1422187568188252163">
    <title>Henry Farrell on Twitter: &quot;1. A thread, responding to a series of complaints about political science by @BrankoMilan which seem to me to be generally quite wrong-headed. Note before beginning - while I've only the most tenuous personal acquaintance with h</title>
    <dc:date>2021-08-02T15:26:44+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://twitter.com/henryfarrell/status/1422187568188252163</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>our_decrepit_institutions progressive_forces political_science the_conflict_of_the_disciplines twitter_threads_that_should_be_blog_posts farrell.henry</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:d67c65e376c6/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:our_decrepit_institutions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:progressive_forces"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:the_conflict_of_the_disciplines"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:twitter_threads_that_should_be_blog_posts"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:farrell.henry"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691216881/rights-as-weapons">
    <title>Rights as Weapons | Princeton University Press</title>
    <dc:date>2021-06-28T04:28:25+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691216881/rights-as-weapons</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Rights are usually viewed as defensive concepts representing mankind’s highest aspirations to protect the vulnerable and uplift the downtrodden. But since the Enlightenment, political combatants have also used rights belligerently, to batter despised communities, demolish existing institutions, and smash opposing ideas. Delving into a range of historical and contemporary conflicts from all areas of the globe, Rights as Weapons focuses on the underexamined ways in which the powerful wield rights as aggressive weapons against the weak.
"Clifford Bob looks at how political forces use rights as rallying cries: naturalizing novel claims as rights inherent in humanity, absolutizing them as trumps over rival interests or community concerns, universalizing them as transcultural and transhistorical, and depoliticizing them as concepts beyond debate. He shows how powerful proponents employ rights as camouflage to cover ulterior motives, as crowbars to break rival coalitions, as blockades to suppress subordinate groups, as spears to puncture discrete policies, and as dynamite to explode whole societies. And he demonstrates how the targets of rights campaigns repulse such assaults, using their own rights-like weapons: denying the abuses they are accused of, constructing rival rights to protect themselves, portraying themselves as victims rather than violators, and repudiating authoritative decisions against them. This sophisticated framework is applied to a diverse range of examples, including nineteenth-century voting rights movements; the American civil rights movement; nationalist, populist, and religious movements in today’s Europe; and internationalized conflicts related to Palestinian self-determination, animal rights, gay rights, and transgender rights."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB books:noted political_science rhetoric law books:suggest_to_library</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:9fcaa35de3ce/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:law"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:suggest_to_library"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/24/eabe8432.full">
    <title>Childhood cross-ethnic exposure predicts political behavior seven decades later: Evidence from linked administrative data | Science Advances</title>
    <dc:date>2021-06-24T20:45:01+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/24/eabe8432.full</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Does contact across social groups influence sociopolitical behavior? This question is among the most studied in the social sciences with deep implications for the harmony of diverse societies. Yet, despite a voluminous body of scholarship, evidence around this question is limited to cross-sectional surveys that only measure short-term consequences of contact or to panel surveys with small samples covering short time periods. Using advances in machine learning that enable large-scale linkages across datasets, we examine the long-term determinants of sociopolitical behavior through an unprecedented individual-level analysis linking contemporary political records to the 1940 U.S. Census. These linked data allow us to measure the exact residential context of nearly every person in the United States in 1940 and, for men, connect this with the political behavior of those still alive over 70 years later. We find that, among white Americans, early-life exposure to black neighbors predicts Democratic partisanship over 70 years later."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB political_science racism entity_resolution_and_record_linkage to_teach:statistics_of_inequality_and_discrimination</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:609194eda69f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:racism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:entity_resolution_and_record_linkage"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_teach:statistics_of_inequality_and_discrimination"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/social-origins-of-dictatorships-elite-networks-and-political-transitions-in-haiti/755037888EE3C758A91E814844C15529">
    <title>Social Origins of Dictatorships: Elite Networks and Political Transitions in Haiti | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core</title>
    <dc:date>2021-06-01T13:26:34+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/social-origins-of-dictatorships-elite-networks-and-political-transitions-in-haiti/755037888EE3C758A91E814844C15529</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Existing theories of democratic reversals emphasize that elites mount actions like coups when democracy is particularly threatening to their interests. However, existing theory has been largely silent on the role of elite social networks, which interact with economic incentives and may facilitate antidemocratic collective action. We develop a model where coups generate rents for elites and show that the effort an elite puts into a coup is increasing in their network centrality. We empirically explore the model using an original dataset of Haitian elite networks that we linked to firm-level data. We show that central families were more likely to be accused of participating in the 1991 coup against the democratic Aristide government. We then find that the retail prices of staple goods that are imported by such elites differentially increase during subsequent periods of nondemocracy. Our results suggest that elite social structure is an important factor in democratic reversals."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB social_networks political_economy political_science coups_d'etat political_networks naidu.suresh to_teach:baby-nets</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:838a330d472d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_economy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:coups_d'etat"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:naidu.suresh"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_teach:baby-nets"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.07811">
    <title>[2105.07811] Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur: Visual Communication of Uncertainty in Election Polls</title>
    <dc:date>2021-05-18T17:59:24+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.07811</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Election poll reporting often focuses on mean values and only subordinately discusses the underlying uncertainty. Subsequent interpretations are too often phrased as certain. Moreover, media coverage rarely adequately takes into account the differences between now- and forecasts. These challenges were ubiquitous in the context of the 2016 and 2020 U.S. presidential elections, but are also present in multi-party systems like Germany. We discuss potential sources of bias in nowcasting and forecasting and review the current standards in the visual presentation of survey-based nowcasts. Concepts are presented to attenuate the issue of falsely perceived accuracy. We discuss multiple visual presentation techniques for central aspects in poll reporting. One key idea is the use of Probabilities of Events instead of party shares. The presented ideas offer modern and improved ways to communicate (changes in) the electoral mood for the general media."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB visual_display_of_quantitative_information confidence_sets prediction statistics political_science</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:03eee10e15fb/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:visual_display_of_quantitative_information"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:confidence_sets"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:prediction"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.pnas.org/content/118/6/e2019375118">
    <title>Social penumbras predict political attitudes | PNAS</title>
    <dc:date>2021-02-06T20:01:49+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.pnas.org/content/118/6/e2019375118</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["To explain the political clout of different social groups, traditional accounts typically focus on the group’s size, resources, or commonality and intensity of its members’ interests. We contend that a group’s penumbra—the set of individuals who are personally familiar with people in that group—is another important explanatory factor that merits systematic analysis. To this end, we designed a panel study that allows us to learn about the characteristics of the penumbras of politically relevant groups such as gay people, the unemployed, or recent immigrants. Our study reveals major and systematic differences in the penumbras of various social groups, even ones of similar size. Moreover, we find evidence that entering a group’s penumbra is associated with a change in attitude on group-related policy questions. Taken together, our findings suggest that penumbras are pertinent for understanding variation in the political standing of different groups in society."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB social_networks social_influence political_science gelman.andrew to_read re:homophily_and_confounding</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:ffe54b6dbeef/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_influence"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:gelman.andrew"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:homophily_and_confounding"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=32282">
    <title>Slow Anti-Americanism: Social Movements and Symbolic Politics in Central Asia | Edward Schatz</title>
    <dc:date>2021-01-26T15:04:17+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=32282</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Negative views of the United States abound, but we know too little about how such views affect politics. Drawing on careful research on post-Soviet Central Asia, Edward Schatz argues that anti-Americanism is best seen not as a rising tide that swamps or as a conflagration that overwhelms. Rather, "America" is a symbolic resource that resides quietly in the mundane but always has potential value for social and political mobilizers. Using a wide range of evidence and a novel analytic framework, Schatz considers how Islamist movements, human rights activists, and labor mobilizers across Central Asia avail themselves of this fact, thus changing their ability to pursue their respective agendas. By refocusing our analytic gaze away from high politics, he affords us a clearer view of the slower-moving, partially occluded, and socially embedded processes that ground how "America" becomes political. In turn, we gain a nuanced appreciation of the downstream effects of US foreign policy choices and a sober sense of the challenges posed by the politics of traveling images.
"Most treatments of anti-Americanism focus on politics in the realm of presidential elections and foreign policies. By focusing instead on symbols, Schatz lays bare how changing public attitudes shift social relations in politically significant ways, and considers how changing symbolic depictions of the United States recombine the raw material available for social mobilizers. Just like sediment traveling along waterways before reaching its final destination, the raw material that constitutes symbolic America can travel among various social groups, and can settle into place to form the basis of new social meanings. Symbolic America, Schatz shows us, matters for politics in Central Asia and beyond."
]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB books:noted central_asia post-soviet_politics american_hegemony anthropology political_science</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:e90488423ae3/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:central_asia"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:post-soviet_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:american_hegemony"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:anthropology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197509456.001.0001">
    <title>Diversity, Violence, and Recognition - Oxford Scholarship</title>
    <dc:date>2021-01-16T06:32:51+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197509456.001.0001</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>to:NB books:noted political_science samii.cyrus to_download diversity</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:da98849c576e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:samii.cyrus"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_download"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:diversity"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190082116.001.0001">
    <title>Talking Politics: Political Discussion Networks and the New American Electorate - Oxford Scholarship</title>
    <dc:date>2021-01-16T05:59:16+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190082116.001.0001</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Individuals arrive at meaning through conversation. Scholars have long explored political conversations in the United States, and the vast majority of this research suggests that political discussion has important effects on political attitudes and engagement. However, much of this research relies on samples of White respondents, making it potentially difficult to generalize these findings to our increasingly diverse electorate. In this book, we seek to understand how political discussion networks vary across groups who have vastly different social positions in the United States, specifically along the lines of ethnorace, nativity, and gender. We build upon seminal work in the field as we argue that individuals with different social positions likely discuss politics with different groups of people and, as a consequence, their discussion networks have different effects on their political behavior. We use a novel discussion network data set with an ethnoracially diverse sample, paired with qualitative interviews, to test this argument. We assert that this book makes three central contributions: (1) expanding the scope of the political discussion network literature by providing a comparative analysis across ethnorace, nativity, and gender; (2) demonstrating how historical differences in partisanship, policy attitudes, and engagement are reflected within groups’ social networks; and (3) revealing how the social position of our respondents affects the impact that networks can have on their trust and efficacy in government, political knowledge, policy attitudes, and political and civic engagement patterns."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB books:noted social_networks us_politics political_science</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:25fa405fe4ab/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.03787">
    <title>[1611.03787] Understanding the 2016 US Presidential Election using ecological inference and distribution regression with census microdata</title>
    <dc:date>2021-01-16T04:03:14+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.03787</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["We combine fine-grained spatially referenced census data with the vote outcomes from the 2016 US presidential election. Using this dataset, we perform ecological inference using distribution regression (Flaxman et al, KDD 2015) with a multinomial-logit regression so as to model the vote outcome Trump, Clinton, Other / Didn't vote as a function of demographic and socioeconomic features. Ecological inference allows us to estimate "exit poll" style results like what was Trump's support among white women, but for entirely novel categories. We also perform exploratory data analysis to understand which census variables are predictive of voting for Trump, voting for Clinton, or not voting for either. All of our methods are implemented in Python and R, and are available online for replication."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB us_politics flaxman.seth ecological_inference_and_the_ecological_fallacy political_science</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:dd1b9a3b1de0/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:flaxman.seth"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:ecological_inference_and_the_ecological_fallacy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.mischiefsoffaction.com/post/we-freaking-warned-you">
    <title>We Freaking Warned You</title>
    <dc:date>2021-01-10T16:46:14+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.mischiefsoffaction.com/post/we-freaking-warned-you</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>us_politics trump.donald our_decrepit_institutions political_science</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:dcf66f24a03d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:trump.donald"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:our_decrepit_institutions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-economics-081919-050239">
    <title>Political Effects of the Internet and Social Media | Annual Review of Economics</title>
    <dc:date>2021-01-03T19:36:05+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-economics-081919-050239</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["How do the Internet and social media affect political outcomes? We review empirical evidence from the recent political economy literature, focusing primarily on work that considers traits that distinguish the Internet and social media from traditional off-line media, such as low barriers to entry and reliance on user-generated content. We discuss the main results about the effects of the Internet in general, and social media in particular, on voting, street protests, attitudes toward government, political polarization, xenophobia, and politicians’ behavior. We also review evidence on the role of social media in the dissemination of fake news, and we summarize results about the strategies employed by autocratic regimes to censor the Internet and to use social media for surveillance and propaganda. We conclude by highlighting open questions about how the Internet and social media shape politics in democracies and autocracies."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB political_science social_media networked_life re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:afb19c6dd26f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_media"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:networked_life"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo5378434.html">
    <title>Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics, Strolovitch</title>
    <dc:date>2020-12-12T20:12:43+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo5378434.html</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["The United States boasts scores of organizations that offer crucial representation for groups that are marginalized in national politics, from women to racial minorities to the poor. Here, in the first systematic study of these organizations, Dara Z. Strolovitch explores the challenges and opportunities they face in the new millennium, as waning legal discrimination coincides with increasing political and economic inequalities within the populations they represent.
"Drawing on rich new data from a survey of 286 organizations and interviews with forty officials, Strolovitch finds that groups too often prioritize the interests of their most advantaged members: male rather than female racial minorities, for example, or affluent rather than poor women. But Strolovitch also finds that many organizations try to remedy this inequity, and she concludes by distilling their best practices into a set of principles that she calls affirmative advocacy—a form of representation that aims to overcome the entrenched but often subtle biases against people at the intersection of more than one marginalized group. Intelligently combining political theory with sophisticated empirical methods, Affirmative Advocacy will be required reading for students and scholars of American politics."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB books:noted political_science us_politics inequality ngos the_advantaged_fraction_of_disadvantaged_groups to_teach:statistics_of_inequality_and_discrimination books:suggest_to_library</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:051f710fea56/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:inequality"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:ngos"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:the_advantaged_fraction_of_disadvantaged_groups"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_teach:statistics_of_inequality_and_discrimination"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:suggest_to_library"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054609">
    <title>Class Position and Political Opinion in Rich Democracies | Annual Review of Sociology</title>
    <dc:date>2020-11-19T22:18:21+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054609</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["In many high-income countries today, scholarly interest in the politics of class has coincided with growing economic inequality, rising support for nonmainstream political parties and candidates, and increasing flows of immigration. We review social science research on the views of different class segments vis-à-vis economic, political, and sociocultural issues, finding greater scholarly attention to the interdependence of economic, social, and political concerns and preferences than arguably was the case even a few years ago. Our main aim is to synthesize and critically evaluate this rapidly expanding literature, but we also provide empirical data on class differences and similarities in political opinion across 18 countries, and we pinpoint several areas of research that are in need of further empirical, methodological, and theoretical inquiry."

--- Curious to see how they define and measure "class".]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB inequality political_science</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:4989abedb080/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:inequality"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/11/10/21551766/election-polls-results-wrong-david-shor">
    <title>Election results: Why the polls got it wrong - Vox</title>
    <dc:date>2020-11-11T21:35:28+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/11/10/21551766/election-polls-results-wrong-david-shor</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>polling social_science_methodology social_measurement political_science whats_gone_wrong_with_america</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:e5c21e9ffaab/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:polling"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_science_methodology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_measurement"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:whats_gone_wrong_with_america"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/renos/files/carneyenos.pdf">
    <title>Conservatism and Fairness in Contemporary Politics: Unpacking the Psychological Underpinnings of Modern Racism</title>
    <dc:date>2020-11-11T19:35:14+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/renos/files/carneyenos.pdf</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["The study of intergroup attitudes is a central topic across the social sciences. While there is little doubt about the importance of intergroup attitudes in shaping behavior, both the psychological underpinnings of these attitudes and the tools used to measure them remain contentious. Modern racism scales, which are the most common way to measure anti-Black prejudice in political science, were created in response to a shift in the attitudes of white Americans toward African Americans, and reflect a mix of social conservatism and anti-Black affect. Using experiments, we offer evidence that modern racism scales measure attitudes toward any group, rather than African Americans alone. In the spirit of the original motivation behind modern racism scales, which were created to capture changing public opinion about race, we suggest this property of modern racism may reflect a change in how stereotypes about low workethic are applied across groups and that the target of resentment for white Americans, especially for political conservatives, has broadened beyond African Americans. Our results suggest that modern racism scales reflect a general set of attitudes about fairness and that new instruments may be needed to measure group-specific prejudice."

--- This is a really quite extraordinary paper.  If they're right, it is very hard to see how "modern racism" scales are actually measuring _racism_, at least not with the contemporary American population.  (Maybe they did in the early 1970s when first introduced.)]]></description>
<dc:subject>racism social_measurement psychometrics political_science the_american_dilemma re:g_paper to_teach:statistics_of_inequality_and_discrimination have_read in_NB</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:30ffe7953e3a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:racism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_measurement"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:psychometrics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:the_american_dilemma"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:g_paper"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_teach:statistics_of_inequality_and_discrimination"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:have_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/can-america-govern-itself/hollow-parties/D894D4E4EF6D44132E99D640B041AFCD">
    <title>The Hollow Parties (Chapter 6) - Can America Govern Itself?</title>
    <dc:date>2020-11-11T18:03:21+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/can-america-govern-itself/hollow-parties/D894D4E4EF6D44132E99D640B041AFCD</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Today’s parties are hollow parties, neither organizationally robust beyond their roles raising money nor meaningfully felt as a real, tangible presence in the lives of voters or in the work of engaged activists. The parties have become tarred with elements of polarization that the public most dislikes—from the screaming antagonism to the grubby money chase. More than any positive affinity or party spirit, fear and loathing of the other side fuels parties and structures politics for most voters. Party identification drives American politics—but party loyalty, in the older sense of the term, has atrophied. Even the activists who do so much to shape modern politics typically labor outside of the parties, drawn to ideologically tinged “para-party” groups such as MoveOn.org on the left or the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity on the right. The parties offer clear choices but get no credit. Our new Party Period features a nationalized clash of ideology and interests but parties that are weakly legitimized and hollowed out."]]></description>
<dc:subject>us_politics our_decrepit_institutions political_science via:henry_farrell partisanship_and_polarization in_NB have_read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:cd5f091586da/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:our_decrepit_institutions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:henry_farrell"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:partisanship_and_polarization"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:have_read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052615-025801">
    <title>Social Movement Theory and the Prospects for Climate Change Activism in the United States | Annual Review of Political Science</title>
    <dc:date>2020-09-09T17:49:48+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052615-025801</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["The issue of climate change poses something of a puzzle. For all the attention accorded the issue, climate change/global warming has spawned surprisingly little grassroots activism in the contemporary United States. Drawing on social movement theory, the author seeks to explain this puzzle. The prevailing consensus among movement scholars is that the prospect for movement emergence is facilitated by the confluence of three factors: the expansion of political opportunities, the availability of mobilizing structures, and cognitive and affective mobilization through framing processes. The author then applies each of these factors to the case of climate change, arguing that (a) awareness of the issue developed during an especially inopportune period in American politics, (b) the organizations that arose to address the issue were ill suited to the kind of grassroots mobilization characteristic of successful movements, and (c) the amorphous nature of the issue played havoc with efforts at strategic framing."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB political_science social_movements climate_change us_politics</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:5be99070238c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_movements"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:climate_change"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6508/1197">
    <title>False equivalencies: Online activism from left to right | Science</title>
    <dc:date>2020-09-04T18:28:11+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6508/1197</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Digital media are critical for contemporary activism—even low-effort “clicktivism” is politically consequential and contributes to offline participation. We argue that in the United States and throughout the industrialized West, left- and right-wing activists use digital and legacy media differently to achieve political goals. Although left-wing actors operate primarily through “hashtag activism” and offline protest, right-wing activists manipulate legacy media, migrate to alternative platforms, and work strategically with partisan media to spread their messages. Although scholarship suggests that the right has embraced strategic disinformation and conspiracy theories more than the left, more research is needed to reveal the magnitude and character of left-wing disinformation. Such ideological asymmetries between left- and right-wing activism hold critical implications for democratic practice, social media governance, and the interdisciplinary study of digital politics."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB networked_life why_oh_why_cant_we_have_a_better_press_corps vast_right-wing_conspiracy progressive_forces running_dogs_of_reaction political_science re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:f19eb42fcc25/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:networked_life"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:why_oh_why_cant_we_have_a_better_press_corps"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:vast_right-wing_conspiracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:progressive_forces"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:running_dogs_of_reaction"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabc4046">
    <title>The small effects of political advertising are small regardless of context, message, sender, or receiver: Evidence from 59 real-time randomized experiments | Science Advances</title>
    <dc:date>2020-09-03T00:03:25+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabc4046</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Evidence across social science indicates that average effects of persuasive messages are small. One commonly offered explanation for these small effects is heterogeneity: Persuasion may only work well in specific circumstances. To evaluate heterogeneity, we repeated an experiment weekly in real time using 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign advertisements. We tested 49 political advertisements in 59 unique experiments on 34,000 people. We investigate heterogeneous effects by sender (candidates or groups), receiver (subject partisanship), content (attack or promotional), and context (battleground versus non-battleground, primary versus general election, and early versus late). We find small average effects on candidate favorability and vote. These small effects, however, do not mask substantial heterogeneity even where theory from political science suggests that we should find it. During the primary and general election, in battleground states, for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, effects are similarly small. Heterogeneity with large offsetting effects is not the source of small average effects."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB advertising us_politics political_science experiments causal_inference to_teach:data-mining via:henry_farrell</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:a6032b70c25f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:advertising"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:experiments"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:causal_inference"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_teach:data-mining"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:henry_farrell"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3650704">
    <title>The Mechanisms of Cult Production: An Overview by Xavier Marquez :: SSRN</title>
    <dc:date>2020-07-27T18:46:01+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3650704</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["This chapter argues that leader personality cults are typically produced by a specific set of mechanisms of flattery inflation. It describes how loyalty signaling, emotional amplification, and direct production mechanisms can combine, under specific circumstances, to transform ordinary flattery into full-blown practices of ruler worship. And it argues for attending to the specific conditions that make possible the operation of these mechanisms, showing how patronage relationships in particular provide fertile ground for the emergence of personality cults. Moreover, the chapter argues that both ancient and modern leader cults depend on similar mechanisms, despite clear differences in context and function. I illustrate the operation of these mechanisms with many modern examples and an extended discussion of one ancient example, the abortive cult of Caligula during the Roman Principate."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB to_read political_science cults_of_personality marquez.xavier application_to_current_events_left_as_an_exercise_for_the_reader</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:63e6a3fe87b0/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:cults_of_personality"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:marquez.xavier"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:application_to_current_events_left_as_an_exercise_for_the_reader"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/703490?journalCode=jop">
    <title>Social Media, Political Science, and DemocracyFrenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America. By Jaime Settle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.The Internet Trap: How the Digital Economy Builds Monopolies and Undermines Democracy. By Matthew Hin</title>
    <dc:date>2020-07-14T15:36:13+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/703490?journalCode=jop</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Social Media, Political Science, and Democracy [Review Essay]
"Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America. By Jaime Settle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
"The Internet Trap: How the Digital Economy Builds Monopolies and Undermines Democracy. By Matthew Hindman. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018.
"Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy. By Siva Vaidhyanathan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018."]]></description>
<dc:subject>social_media our_decrepit_institutions us_politics political_science book_reviews to_read books:owned</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:8cf58da6df8b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_media"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:our_decrepit_institutions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:book_reviews"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:owned"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/84/1/119/5855949?redirectedFrom=fulltext">
    <title>Rise of Trump, The Fall of Prejudice? Tracking White Americans’ Racial Attitudes Via A Panel Survey, 2008–2018 | Public Opinion Quarterly | Oxford Academic</title>
    <dc:date>2020-07-13T20:33:49+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/84/1/119/5855949?redirectedFrom=fulltext</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["In his campaign and first few years in office, Donald Trump consistently defied contemporary norms by using explicit, negative rhetoric targeting ethnic/racial minorities. Did this rhetoric lead White Americans to express more or less prejudiced views of African Americans or Hispanics, whether through changing norms around racial prejudice or other mechanisms? We assess that question using a thirteen-wave panel conducted with a population-based sample of Americans between 2008 and 2018. We find that via most measures, White Americans’ expressed anti-Black and anti-Hispanic prejudice declined after Trump’s political emergence, and we can rule out even small increases in the expression of prejudice. These results suggest the limits of racially charged rhetoric’s capacity to heighten prejudice among White Americans overall. They also indicate that rather than being a fixed predisposition, prejudice can shift by reacting against changing presidential rhetoric."

--- These look like small effects mostly driven by self-identified Democrats.  (A brief scan doesn't tell me whether they consider party affiliation being driven by reaction to Trump.)  ]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB to_read us_politics political_science trump.donald us_culture_wars</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:1c7c8152601d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:trump.donald"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_culture_wars"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://fivebooks.com/best-books/politics-of-information-henry-farrell/">
    <title>The Politics of Information | Five Books Expert Recommendations</title>
    <dc:date>2020-05-01T15:34:13+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://fivebooks.com/best-books/politics-of-information-henry-farrell/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>books:recommended farrell.henry re:democratic_cognition political_science institutions kith_and_kin</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:b6a109032673/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:recommended"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:farrell.henry"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:institutions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:kith_and_kin"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://academic.oup.com/poq/advance-article/doi/10.1093/poq/nfaa001/5822054">
    <title>What Do Partisan Donors Want? | Public Opinion Quarterly | Oxford Academic</title>
    <dc:date>2020-04-30T17:03:46+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://academic.oup.com/poq/advance-article/doi/10.1093/poq/nfaa001/5822054</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Influential theories indicate concern that campaign donors exert outsized political influence. However, little data have documented what donors actually want from government, and existing research has devoted less attention to donors’ views on individual issues. Findings from an original survey of US donors, including an oversample of the largest donors, and a concurrently fielded mass survey document significant heterogeneity by party and policy domain in how donors’ and citizens’ views diverge. We find that Republican donors are much more conservative than Republican citizens on economic issues, whereas their views are similar on social issues. By contrast, Democratic donors are much more liberal than Democratic citizens on social issues, whereas their views are more similar on economic issues. Both parties’ donors, but especially Democratic donors, are more pro-globalism than their citizen counterparts. We replicate these patterns in an independent dataset. Our findings have important implications for the study of American politics."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB us_politics political_science us_culture_wars via:henry_farrell</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:5144431801e7/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_culture_wars"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:henry_farrell"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691199511/steadfast-democrats">
    <title>Steadfast Democrats | Princeton University Press</title>
    <dc:date>2020-03-12T14:56:50+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691199511/steadfast-democrats</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Black Americans are by far the most unified racial group in American electoral politics, with 80 to 90 percent identifying as Democrats—a surprising figure given that nearly a third now also identify as ideologically conservative, up from less than 10 percent in the 1970s. Why has ideological change failed to push more black Americans into the Republican Party? Steadfast Democrats answers this question with a pathbreaking new theory that foregrounds the specificity of the black American experience and illuminates social pressure as the key element of black Americans’ unwavering support for the Democratic Party.
"Ismail White and Chryl Laird argue that the roots of black political unity were established through the adversities of slavery and segregation, when black Americans forged uniquely strong social bonds for survival and resistance. White and Laird explain how these tight communities have continued to produce and enforce political norms—including Democratic Party identification in the post–Civil Rights era. The social experience of race for black Americans is thus fundamental to their political choices. Black voters are uniquely influenced by the social expectations of other black Americans to prioritize the group’s ongoing struggle for freedom and equality. When navigating the choice of supporting a political party, this social expectation translates into affiliation with the Democratic Party. Through fresh analysis of survey data and original experiments, White and Laird explore where and how black political norms are enforced, what this means for the future of black politics, and how this framework can be used to understand the electoral behavior of other communities."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB books:noted us_politics the_american_dilemma political_science social_influence</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:3f7940e14f05/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:the_american_dilemma"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_influence"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352154620300036">
    <title>Thinking clearly about causal inferences of politically motivated reasoning: why paradigmatic study designs often undermine causal inference - ScienceDirect</title>
    <dc:date>2020-02-12T22:14:41+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352154620300036</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["A common inference in behavioral science is that people’s motivation to reach a politically congenial conclusion causally affects their reasoning—known as politically motivated reasoning. Often these inferences are made on the basis of data from randomized experiments that use one of two paradigmatic designs: Outcome Switching, in which identical methods are described as reaching politically congenial versus uncongenial conclusions; or Party Cues, in which identical information is described as being endorsed by politically congenial versus uncongenial sources. Here we argue that these designs often undermine causal inferences of politically motivated reasoning because treatment assignment violates the excludability assumption. Specifically, assignment to treatment alters variables alongside political motivation that affect reasoning outcomes, rendering the designs confounded. We conclude that distinguishing politically motivated reasoning from these confounds is important both for scientific understanding and for developing effective interventions; and we highlight those designs better placed to causally identify politically motivated reasoning."]]></description>
<dc:subject>political_science cognition heuristics causal_inference experimental_psychology to_read via:? in_NB partisandship_and_polarization</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:dbf69c27dd7f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:heuristics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:causal_inference"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:experimental_psychology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:?"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:partisandship_and_polarization"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pops.12650">
    <title>Uses and Abuses of Ideology in Political Psychology - Kalmoe - - Political Psychology - Wiley Online Library</title>
    <dc:date>2020-02-10T16:21:40+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pops.12650</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Ideology is a central construct in political psychology. Even so, the field's strong claims about an ideological public rarely engage evidence of enormous individual differences: a minority with real ideological coherence and weak to nonexistent political belief organization for everyone else. Here, I bridge disciplinary gaps by showing the limits of mass political ideology with several popular measures and components—self‐identification, core political values (egalitarian and traditionalism's resistance to change), and policy indices—in representative U.S. surveys across four decades (Ns ~ 13 k–37 k), plus panel data testing stability. Results show polar, coherent, stable, and potent ideological orientations only among the most knowledgeable 20–30% of citizens. That heterogeneity means full‐sample tests overstate ideology for most people but understate it for knowledgeable citizens. Whether through top‐down opinion leadership or bottom‐up ideological reasoning, organized political belief systems require political attention and understanding to form. Finally, I show that convenience samples make trouble for ideology generalizations. I conclude by proposing analytic best practices to help avoid overclaiming ideology in the public. Taken together, what first looks like strong and broad ideology is actually ideological innocence for most and meaningful ideology for a few."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB ideology surveys us_politics political_science social_measurement public_opinion re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:85077edfe17c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:ideology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:surveys"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_measurement"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:public_opinion"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/ZN3W2IDSM8ZEUEW97KFN/full?target=10.1080%2F13501763.2019.1678662#.XajI-75_McE.twitter">
    <title>Decompensating domestically: the political economy of anti-globalism: Journal of European Public Policy: Vol 0, No 0</title>
    <dc:date>2019-10-19T17:58:54+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/ZN3W2IDSM8ZEUEW97KFN/full?target=10.1080%2F13501763.2019.1678662#.XajI-75_McE.twitter</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["The rise of populism across advanced industrial countries presents a challenge to the institutions and norms that make up the current global order and threatens to undo the global system that has enabled decades of free trade and investment. We outline in this paper a domestic political economy account of the contemporary crisis of the global order, rooted in disenchantment with the redistributive bargain between globalization’s winners and losers. We present individual and local-level evidence that is consistent with this account, first documenting the decline of the embedded liberal compromise over the past 40 years in Europe, and then providing individual-level evidence from the United States of growing protectionism and xenophobia in response to import exposure, particularly among respondents whose occupational profile is most risk-exposed."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB political_economy globalization whats_gone_wrong_with_america political_science via:henry_farrell</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:e8af556133a2/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_economy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:globalization"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:whats_gone_wrong_with_america"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:henry_farrell"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.10554">
    <title>[1909.10554] A data-driven model for Mass Media influence in electoral context</title>
    <dc:date>2019-09-26T18:04:30+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.10554</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Mass Media outlets have occupied the central role of the political scenario, and are persuasive in the process of opinion formation of the citizens. In particular, the study of the relationship between Mass Media and behaviour of citizens can be monitored during election times, given the accessibility of news related to the candidates and polls that precede the election's day. In this paper we present a novel two-dimensional data driven Mass Media model based on semantic analysis of newspapers and national election surveys, which we use to analyse how a single influence mechanism should behave in order to reproduce the behaviour of the voters. Using simple and feasible rules for dynamics, we were able to find a notable agreement between the model's predictions and the polls which help us to understand the underlying mechanisms of the interactions between reader and media."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB political_science social_influence statistics color_me_skeptical</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:686150063148/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_influence"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:color_me_skeptical"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-economics-080218-030419">
    <title>Social Networks in Policy Making | Annual Review of Economics</title>
    <dc:date>2019-08-26T23:52:22+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-economics-080218-030419</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Recent advances in data collection, computing power, and theoretical modeling have stimulated a growing literature in economics and political science studying how social networks affect policy making. We survey this literature focusing on two main aspects. First, we discuss the literature studying how (and if) social connections in Congress affect legislative behavior. We then discuss how social connections affect the relationship between policy makers and the outside world, focusing on lobbying; the importance of family, caste, and ethnic networks; and social media and public activism. In our discussion, we highlight the key methodological challenges in this literature, how they have been addressed, and the prospects for future research."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB political_networks social_networks political_science</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:0c23068c6fe1/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5hhpr4">
    <title>Dismantling Democratic States on JSTOR</title>
    <dc:date>2019-08-22T04:50:20+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5hhpr4</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>books:noted democracy political_science comparative_history fascism in_NB downloaded</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:87d8d8878541/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:comparative_history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:fascism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:downloaded"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7rr34">
    <title>Disjointed Pluralism: Institutional Innovation and the Development of the U.S. Congress on JSTOR</title>
    <dc:date>2019-08-22T04:49:55+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7rr34</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>books:noted congress us_politics political_science democracy to_download in_NB</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:8e4abfb17e11/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:congress"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_download"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034">
    <title>The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States | Annual Review of Political Science</title>
    <dc:date>2019-05-26T18:01:15+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["While previously polarization was primarily seen only in issue-based terms, a new type of division has emerged in the mass public in recent years: Ordinary Americans increasingly dislike and distrust those from the other party. Democrats and Republicans both say that the other party's members are hypocritical, selfish, and closed-minded, and they are unwilling to socialize across party lines. This phenomenon of animosity between the parties is known as affective polarization. We trace its origins to the power of partisanship as a social identity, and explain the factors that intensify partisan animus. We also explore the consequences of affective polarization, highlighting how partisan affect influences attitudes and behaviors well outside the political sphere. Finally, we discuss strategies that might mitigate partisan discord and conclude with suggestions for future work."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB us_politics political_science polarization whats_gone_wrong_with_america</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:6e5b30881528/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:polarization"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:whats_gone_wrong_with_america"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-economics-080217-053339">
    <title>Radical Decentralization: Does Community-Driven Development Work? | Annual Review of Economics</title>
    <dc:date>2019-05-26T16:41:32+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-economics-080217-053339</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Classic arguments for decentralization, augmented by ideas about how participation empowers the poor, motivate the widely used approach in foreign aid called community-driven development (CDD). CDD devolves control over the selection, implementation, and financial management of public goods to communities. Until recently, policy enthusiasm has outstripped the evidence. I synthesize findings from randomized controlled trials and find that CDD effectively delivers public goods and modest economic returns at low cost in difficult environments. There is little evidence, however, that CDD transforms local decision making or empowers the poor in any enduring way. Part of this failure may be because some constraints believed to be important—like insufficient social capital—appear not to bind. Others, like exclusive local institutions, are a problem, although not one that CDD remedies. These results present a conundrum: How much participation is enough to safeguard the gains of such extreme decentralization while minimizing the opportunity costs imposed on poor people's time?"]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB development_economics political_science institutions inequality</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:31dbaed84be2/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:development_economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:institutions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:inequality"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.press.umich.edu/9993024/initiatives_without_engagement">
    <title>Initiatives without Engagement</title>
    <dc:date>2019-03-25T20:45:17+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.press.umich.edu/9993024/initiatives_without_engagement</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Arguments about the American ballot initiative process date back to the Progressive Era, when processes allowing citizens to decide policy questions directly were established in about half of the states.
"When political scientists began to systematically examine whether the state ballot initiative process had spillover consequences, they found the initiative process had a positive impact on civic engagement. Recent scholarship casts doubt on these conclusions, determining the ballot initiative process did not make people believe they could influence the political process, trust the government, or be more knowledgeable about politics in general. However, in some circumstances, it got them to show up at the polls, and increased interest groups’ participation in the political arena. In Initiatives without Engagement, Dyck and Lascher develop and test a theory that can explain the evidence that the ballot initiative process fails to provide the civic benefits commonly claimed for it, and the evidence that it increases political participation. This theory argues that the basic function of direct democracy is to create more conflict in society. "]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB democracy political_science us_politics re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:bdd2865a68c1/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.eitanhersh.com/uploads/7/9/7/5/7975685/hersh_hobbyism_june2017.pdf">
    <title>Political Hobbyism: A Theory of Mass Behavior</title>
    <dc:date>2019-02-20T15:15:28+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.eitanhersh.com/uploads/7/9/7/5/7975685/hersh_hobbyism_june2017.pdf</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["For many citizens, participation in politics is not motivated by civic duty or selfinterest, but by hobbyism: the objective is self-gratification. I offer a theory of political hobbyism, situate the theory in existing literature, and define and distinguish the hobbyist motivation from its alternatives. I argue that the prevalence of political hobbyism depends on historical conditions related to the nature of leisure time, the openness of the political process to mass participation, and the level of perceived threat.  I articulate an empirical research agenda, highlighting how poli-hobbyism can help explain characteristics of participants, forms of participation, rates of participation, and the nature of partisanship. Political hobbyism presents serious problems for a functioning democracy, including participants confusing high stakes for low stakes, participation too focused on the gratifying aspects of politics, and unnecessarily potent partisan rivalries."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB political_science us_politics our_decrepit_institutions re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:d547428e9be3/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:our_decrepit_institutions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.johnmyleswhite.com/notebook/2019/01/20/interpretational-challenges-with-ideal-point-models/">
    <title>Interpretational Challenges with Ideal Point Models</title>
    <dc:date>2019-01-29T15:10:45+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.johnmyleswhite.com/notebook/2019/01/20/interpretational-challenges-with-ideal-point-models/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Note to self: Work through the ideal-point version of the Thompson sampling model.]]></description>
<dc:subject>congress political_science inference_to_latent_objects statistics obviously_correct via:? white.john_myles re:g_paper</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:6afcf1392fd2/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:congress"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:inference_to_latent_objects"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:obviously_correct"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:?"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:white.john_myles"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:g_paper"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118833162">
    <title>Political Attitudes | Wiley Online Books</title>
    <dc:date>2019-01-07T17:36:48+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118833162</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Political Science has traditionally employed empirical research and analytical resources to understand, explain and predict political phenomena. One of the long-standing criticisms against empirical modeling targets the static perspective provided by the model-invariant paradigm. In political science research, this issue has a particular relevance since political phenomena prove sophisticated degrees of context-dependency whose complexity could be hardly captured by traditional approaches. To cope with the complexity challenge, a new modeling paradigm was needed. This book is concerned with this challenge. Moreover, the book aims to reveal the power of computational modeling of political attitudes to reinforce the political methodology in facing two fundamental challenges: political culture modeling and polity modeling. The book argues that an artificial polity model as a powerful research instrument could hardly be effective without the political attitude and, by extension, the political culture computational and simulation modeling theory, experiments and practice."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB books:noted downloaded voter_model social_influence public_opinion agent-based_models political_science simulation interacting_particle_systems</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:741a3f44ef53/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:downloaded"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:voter_model"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_influence"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:public_opinion"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:agent-based_models"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:simulation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:interacting_particle_systems"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300232752/responsible-parties">
    <title>Responsible Parties | Yale University Press</title>
    <dc:date>2018-10-04T19:49:52+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300232752/responsible-parties</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["In recent decades, democracies across the world have adopted measures to increase popular involvement in political decisions. Parties have turned to primaries and local caucuses to select candidates; ballot initiatives and referenda allow citizens to enact laws directly; many places now use proportional representation, encouraging smaller, more specific parties rather than two dominant ones.Yet voters keep getting angrier.There is a steady erosion of trust in politicians, parties, and democratic institutions, culminating most recently in major populist victories in the United States, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere.
"Frances Rosenbluth and Ian Shapiro argue that devolving power to the grass roots is part of the problem. Efforts to decentralize political decision-making have made governments and especially political parties less effective and less able to address constituents’ long-term interests. They argue that to restore confidence in governance, we must restructure our political systems to restore power to the core institution of representative democracy: the political party."]]></description>
<dc:subject>books:noted political_science democracy re:democratic_cognition shapiro.ian in_NB</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:4c338b7ddcfb/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:shapiro.ian"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/R/bo27407562">
    <title>The Rise of Nerd Politics: Digital Activism and Political Change, Postill</title>
    <dc:date>2018-09-01T18:16:16+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/R/bo27407562</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Lively and wide-ranging, The Rise of Nerd Politics is a anthropological exploration of the role that freedom technologists play in sparking new processes of political change in the digital age. Drawing on John Postill’s anthropological fieldwork on social media and digital activism in Spain, Indonesia, and Malaysia, the book focuses on a new class of transnational political actors, arguing that freedom technologists have managed to shape the hybrid media worlds in which today’s political change unfolds. Comparing Spain’s ongoing techno-political transformation to that of Tunisia, Iceland, the United States, Malaysia, and Indonesia, Postill argues that in all five countries freedom technologists are playing significant roles in highly uneven ongoing political changes, with ramifications that will increasingly affect the future of politics in the digital age."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB books:noted networked_life political_science us_politics re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:c2942c2f4868/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:networked_life"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-theory/article/beyond-anarchy-logics-of-political-organization-hierarchy-and-international-structure/8E1C8F52C572E8A4383C170B81D3AD15/core-reader">
    <title>Beyond anarchy: logics of political organization, hierarchy, and international structure</title>
    <dc:date>2018-08-04T15:21:32+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-theory/article/beyond-anarchy-logics-of-political-organization-hierarchy-and-international-structure/8E1C8F52C572E8A4383C170B81D3AD15/core-reader</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Many scholars now argue for deemphasizing the importance of international anarchy in favor of focusing on hierarchy – patterns of super- and subordination – in world politics. We argue that only one kind of vertical stratification, governance hierarchy, actually challenges the states-under-anarchy framework. But the existence of such hierarchies overturns a number of standard ways of studying world politics. In order to theorize, and identify, variation in governance structures in world politics, we advocate a relational approach that focuses on three dimensions of hierarchy: the heterogeneity of contracting, the degree of autonomy enjoyed by central authorities, and the balance of investiture between segments and the center. This generates eight ideal-typical forms: national-states and empires, as well as symmetric and asymmetric variants of federations, confederations, and conciliar systems. We argue that political formations – governance assemblages – with elements of these ideal types are likely ubiquitous at multiple scales of world politics, including within, across, and among sovereign states. Our framework suggests that world politics is marked by a heterarchy of nested and overlapping political structures. We discuss broad implications for international-relations theory and comparative politics, and illustrate our approach through an analysis of contemporary China and the evolution of the British ‘Empire’ in the 19th and 20th centuries."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB political_science</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:4ed0e7d7bc90/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo27596045">
    <title>The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized, Hopkins</title>
    <dc:date>2018-06-05T15:43:24+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo27596045</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["In a campaign for state or local office these days, you’re as likely today to hear accusations that an opponent advanced Obamacare or supported Donald Trump as you are to hear about issues affecting the state or local community. This is because American political behavior has become substantially more nationalized. American voters are far more engaged with and knowledgeable about what’s happening in Washington, DC, than in similar messages whether they are in the South, the Northeast, or the Midwest. Gone are the days when all politics was local.
"With The Increasingly United States, Daniel J. Hopkins explores this trend and its implications for the American political system. The change is significant in part because it works against a key rationale of America’s federalist system, which was built on the assumption that citizens would be more strongly attached to their states and localities. It also has profound implications for how voters are represented. If voters are well informed about state politics, for example, the governor has an incentive to deliver what voters—or at least a pivotal segment of them—want. But if voters are likely to back the same party in gubernatorial as in presidential elections irrespective of the governor’s actions in office, governors may instead come to see their ambitions as tethered more closely to their status in the national party."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB books:noted us_politics political_science</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:35e10f72eb9d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.pnas.org/content/115/5/939">
    <title>A randomized controlled design reveals barriers to citizenship for low-income immigrants | PNAS</title>
    <dc:date>2018-05-07T16:44:32+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.pnas.org/content/115/5/939</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Citizenship endows legal protections and is associated with economic and social gains for immigrants and their communities. In the United States, however, naturalization rates are relatively low. Yet we lack reliable knowledge as to what constrains immigrants from applying. Drawing on data from a public/private naturalization program in New York, this research provides a randomized controlled study of policy interventions that address these constraints. The study tested two programmatic interventions among low-income immigrants who are eligible for citizenship. The first randomly assigned a voucher that covers the naturalization application fee among immigrants who otherwise would have to pay the full cost of the fee. The second randomly assigned a set of behavioral nudges, similar to outreach efforts used by service providers, among immigrants whose incomes were low enough to qualify them for a federal waiver that eliminates the application fee. Offering the fee voucher increased naturalization application rates by about 41%, suggesting that application fees act as a barrier for low-income immigrants who want to become US citizens. The nudges to encourage the very poor to apply had no discernible effect, indicating the presence of nonfinancial barriers to naturalization."

--- Or those particular nudges (and perhaps outreach efforts in general?) are just ineffective.]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB experimental_sociology us_politics political_science re:anti-nudging nudging</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:9731a8ee7ed9/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:experimental_sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:anti-nudging"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:nudging"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/4/9/17214752/zuckerberg-facebook-power-regulation-data-privacy-control-political-theory-data-breach-king">
    <title>Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg runs a nation-state, and he’s the king - Vox</title>
    <dc:date>2018-04-10T15:33:37+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/4/9/17214752/zuckerberg-facebook-power-regulation-data-privacy-control-political-theory-data-breach-king</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Fully endorsed; it makes very explicit some points implicit in Tufekci's recent _Wired_ piece.
--- This is now the second piece Henry has written about online proto-polities (the first was about Silk Road [https://aeon.co/essays/why-the-hidden-internet-can-t-be-a-libertarian-paradise] ).  I really hope he is not working on a trilogy.

(ObPedant: "Nation-state" is wrong; "sovereign state" would be better.  I _know_ Henry knows this perfectly well, and I am sure that Prof. Levi does too; but they don't get to write their own headlines.)
]]></description>
<dc:subject>facebook political_science political_economy networked_life kith_and_kin farrell.henry levi.margaret have_read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:908099b04dc6/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:facebook"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_economy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:networked_life"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:kith_and_kin"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:farrell.henry"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:levi.margaret"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:have_read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>