Not Another Politics Podcast

In this discussion, Adam Zelizer, a political scientist from the University of Chicago, challenges the idea that politicians are biased towards conservatism. He introduces the concept of "midpoint bias," revealing how legislators often misinterpret public opinion due to survey errors. The conversation dives into the complexities of political perceptions, the impact of polling question framing, and the discrepancies between voters' self-perceptions and their true political beliefs. Zelizer's insights shed light on the messy dynamics of democracy and representation.

Do Democrats and Republicans really misunderstand each other as much as we think?This week, we dive into a surprising new experiment that puts that idea to the test — literally. Psychologist and researcher Adam Mastriani created a kind of “political Turing test,” asking people to write persuasive statements from the perspective of the opposite political party. Then, he tested whether others could tell the real from the fake. The results? Most people couldn’t.We unpack what this means for our understanding of polarization, partisan animosity, and political identity. Is the problem really misunderstanding — or something deeper? Are partisans more empathetic than we give them credit for? Or are they just really good at writing what they think others want to hear?We also explore the experiment’s implications for political science research, theory-building, and the broader sociology of science.

When you ask ChatGPT or Gemini a question about politics, whose opinions are you really hearing?In this episode, we dive into a provocative new study from political scientist Justin Grimmer and his colleagues, which finds that nearly every major large language model—from ChatGPT to Grok—is perceived by Americans as having a left-leaning bias. But why is that? Is it the training data? The guardrails? The Silicon Valley engineers? Or something deeper about the culture of the internet itself?The hosts grapple with everything from “Mecha Hitler” incidents on Grok to the way terms like “unhoused” sneak into AI-generated text—and what that might mean for students, voters, and future regulation. Should the government step in to ensure “political neutrality”? Will AI reshape how people learn about history or policy? Or are we just projecting our own echo chambers onto machines?

The discussion tackles whether Supreme Court justices should have term limits, driven by recent controversial rulings. The idea of fixed 18-year terms emerges as a key reform, promising to reshape judicial independence and mitigate extreme ideological divides. Historical contexts and political dynamics reveal the complexities of implementing such reforms. Playfully, alternative selection processes for justices are proposed, highlighting the interaction between political strategy and court composition. Ultimately, how these changes could influence voter behavior and perceptions of justice is explored.

This discussion dives into whether American voters are truly polarized or more open-minded than we assume. New research uncovers how the framing of political issues can shift perceptions significantly. Voters aren't just reactionary; they process information from both party leaders carefully. The conversation highlights the effectiveness of nuanced dialogue in bridging divides, suggesting voters often prioritize policies over partisan lines. Ultimately, there's a hopeful outlook on reducing polarization and fostering constructive political discourse.

Emily Sellars, a Yale political scientist and author of "Emigration and Collective Action," joins to explore the surprising ramifications of emigration on political engagement. She reveals how the prospect of leaving may actually discourage activism among those who stay behind. Sellars discusses historical examples, like 20th century Mexico, illustrating how emigration can paradoxically weaken community solidarity while influencing democracy. The conversation dives into the complex interplay between individual liberty and collective welfare in shaping political landscapes.

In this discussion, Harvard Law Professor Jacob Gersen, who studies administrative law and co-authored 'The Sex Bureaucracy,' explores the surprising connection between Obama’s Title IX enforcement and Trump’s Title VI threats. He reveals how both presidents utilized informal bureaucratic tools to influence higher education without congressional approval. The conversation delves into the impact of these policies on academic freedom, university governance, and the balance of power between the federal government and educational institutions.

What if one of the most powerful tools to boost voter turnout isn’t a flashy campaign or a new voting law—but being randomly forced to work the polls?In this episode, we explore a surprising study of women in 1930s Spain who were randomly assigned to serve as poll workers—just after they gained the right to vote. The results? A massive, 30-point increase in future voting behavior. Is this just a historical curiosity—or a window into how habit, exposure, and civic experience shape democracy?We speak with researcher Toni Rodon about his paper Working for Democracy: Poll Officers and the Turnout Gender Gap, and unpack what this unexpected experiment teaches us about gender, political culture, and the power of participation.

Hello listeners, we're taking a much-needed spring break here at the podcast, but we want to re-share one of our episodes that has become increasingly salient. One of the defining features of the Trump administration so far is its entanglement with the courts. The legality or illegality of many of its actions are currently being decided by federal judges. Which means that judges suddenly have a lot of say over our politics. Is that good?There is a long running debate in political science: do we get better judges by letting the public vote in elections or by giving our leaders the power to appoint them? One side says that judges should be insulated from the influence of politics and elections, focusing entirely on the rule of law. The other side says that our judges should be accountable to the public for the decisions they make in office. Who is right?

In this discussion, economist Santiago Perez from UC Davis, who co-authored a notable paper on the Pendleton Act, sheds light on the complexities of meritocratic hiring in government. He reveals that while the Pendleton Act aimed to reduce corruption and enhance efficiency, its effectiveness has been questionable. The conversation focuses on the unintended consequences of merit-based exams, such as salary manipulations and political dynamics, raising the question of whether reintroducing these exams could address today's bureaucratic challenges or exacerbate them.