Not Another Politics Podcast

Despite making up roughly half of the U.S. population, women only make up about one-quarter of representatives and senators. And this trend is not just national—it holds true globally as well. What explains why women are underrepresented in politics? If women are just as likely to win elections as men do, then why are they less likely to run for office?In a recent paper, "Modeling Theories of Women's Underrepresentation in Elections," University of Chicago Professors Scott Ashworth, Christopher Berry and Ethan Bueno de Mesquita explore the facts and theories around why women are elected less than men in U.S. politics. In this episode, we speak with Ashworth, a Professor in the Harris School of Public Policy.

When it comes to passing actual legislation, putting it forward and getting it all the way through the process, it can be difficult to measure exactly which legislators are effective. Not to mention which types of legislators tend to be more effective, moderates or extremists? And does majority-party membership increase effectives?In an innovative new paper, “Effective Lawmaking Across Congressional Eras”, University of Pittsburgh professor of political science Max Goplerud proposes a new measure of legislative effectiveness that may help us to answer some of these complex questions.

When we talk about the interpretation and ultimately implementation of policy we’re not talking about Congress so much as the Administrative State. But what happens when those who work in those agencies decide through their positions to not only sabotage a policy they’re meant to carry out, but perhaps the whole agency?In a recent paper titled “Administrative Sabotage” Rutgers law professor, David Noll, looks at the history of how agencies sabotage themselves and discuses what this means for a democracy and for the power of the Presidency.  

Examining the assumption that politicians favor the rich when it comes to redistribution. Surprising findings show that the desires of the poor hold more influence. Concerns about misinterpretation of research work and the correlation between socioeconomic preferences and redistribution. Exploring the responsiveness of policy outcomes and the preferences of the poor. The influence of billionaires in higher education and their impact on tax policy and redistribution.

The podcast explores the believability of political surveys and the correlation between partisanship, elections, and economic behavior. It also analyzes the influence of partisan bias on spending behavior and discusses the accuracy of survey responses and their correlation with beliefs and intentions. The relationship between religious beliefs and behavior, as well as the correlation between political beliefs and behavior regarding COVID-19, is also examined. The podcast concludes by discussing reliability and credibility in political science journals.

The podcast explores the concept of compulsory voting, discussing the benefits and drawbacks. They examine Australia as a case study and address complexities such as accessibility and costs. They explore the impact of voting on communities and nations, and discuss the potential benefits and limitations of compulsory voting. They debate the idea of mandatory voting and the inclusion of an 'I don't know' option on ballots.

The recent crisis in the Israel and Palestine conflict has added fuel to the already heated debate over free speech in our politics and on college campuses. Does the scientific literature having anything to tell us about the health of public discourse in these domains?A recent paper by Harvard Ph.D. candidate Yihong Huang titled “Breaking the Spiral of Silence” holds some answers. It looks at how the attention we pay, or don’t pay, to who stays silent in a debate can exacerbate self-censorship.

There is a political puzzle that has become prominent in the last few decades, especially with the recent turmoil over the Republican led Speaker of the House: how do a small group of extremists manage to get their way despite being a minority of members?In a recent paper, “Organizing at the Extreme: Hardline Strategy and Institutional Design” University of Chicago Political Scientist Ruth Bloch Rubin takes that question head on. Her conclusions could tell us a lot about the bargaining strategies of extremists, when and why they work, and how those strategies may create sticky organization practices and structures.

We often say on this podcast that the American electorate is not polarized but the elites are, and that this polarization causes policy gridlock. But what if it’s the other way around? Is it possible that gridlock in government is actually causing polarization and a turn toward extremist candidates?That’s the assertion of a paper called “From Gridlock to Polarization” by Barton Lee, the Chair of Political Economy and eDemocracy at ETH Zurich. Lee uses a large-scale online experiment to show how voters become more willing to vote for extremist candidates. It leads to some fascinating implications for how we should think about the consequences of ineffective government.Paper link:https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4521276

In this podcast, the speakers delve into the role of anti-establishment beliefs in shaping American politics. They discuss the measurement of left-right ideology and anti-establishment sentiments, the distribution of trust in institutions, the existence of a second dimension in politics, and the manipulation of populism. They also explore the appeal of populist leaders, the need for skepticism towards institutions, and the implications of anti-establishment sentiments for politics.