Skip to content

Details

This is going to be an online meetup using Zoom. If you've never used Zoom before, don't worry — it's easy to use and free to join.

Here's the link to the event: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89122895005?pwd=QVVDK05jTUVjNHNNdG9FbWY4Y3Jmdz09

Meeting ID: 891 2289 5005
Passcode: 855985

----------------------------------------------
POLITICAL SCIENCE & POLITICAL MYTHS, PART 2

INTRODUCTION:

Originally, I planned to have us look at some of the results from the 2020 election and try to gauge what issues voters might've been focused on judging from the results & exit polls, but upon reflection I was worried the exit polls may not have been representative of all voters (since so many voted by mail this year) and I thought it might be good to give political analysts another 2 weeks to dig into this before we discuss it. I also thought it would be good to review some "Political Science 101" material so we have a decent foundation of knowledge to build on for next time.

This meetup will look at some issues where political scientists have reached a rough consensus, and we'll address some common beliefs about politics that now appear to be empirically false - i.e. "political myths" - as well as beliefs based on kernels of truth that got embellished with a lot of exaggerations & falsehoods - what we might call "political legends" - and beliefs that sound plausible but are unsubstantiated & perhaps unfalsifiable (the "just-so stories" of politics).

Previously, we've hosted meetups that covered the expert consensus in other fields that bear upon politics. My hope is that over time we can try to establish a comprehensive list of issues on which subject matter experts have reached a relatively high degree of consensus. I don't think that we should go so far as to treat that list as a "holy text", but it could be useful as a series of null hypotheses & it would also establish where the burden of proof should lie in our political debates. For reference, here's the links to the earlier discussion outlines on the expert consensus in economics, international relations & political science:

"Expert Consensus & Economics" (Nov. 2016)
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/234098615/

"IR Scholars & The Foreign Policy Consensus" (Sept. 2017)
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/240811945/

"Political Science & Political Myths" (Feb. 2018) https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/xvbrznyxdbxb/

Unfortunately, I was not able to find polls of the political science profession as I did with economists & IR scholars. However, I did find a widely-shared article by the political scientist Hans Noel, "Ten Things Political Scientists Know That You Don't" (2010), that gave a succinct list of issues on which he claims political scientists have reached a relatively high degree of consensus, many of which run contrary to the average layperson's beliefs about politics.
http://faculty.georgetown.edu/hcn4/Downloads/Noel_Forum.PDF

We also discussed the major conclusions of the book Democracy for Realists (2016) by the political scientists Larry Bartels & Christopher Achen. You can find a summary here:
https://casparoesterheld.com/2017/06/18/summary-of-achen-and-bartels-democracy-for-realists/

In the meetup back in Feb. 2018, we reviewed all the points on Noel's paper and Bartels & Achen's book, but for this meetup I plan to focus our discussion on 4 of those issues: (1) the "median voter theorem" and how it impacts the debate over "electability" in primary elections as well as the "pivot" to the general election, (2) why political scientists tend to see most voters as "partisans not ideologues" and regard the "true independent voter" as mostly a myth, (3) "blind retrospection" theory and why political scientists tend to think the "fundamentals" matter more than campaigns, and (4) why political scientists think "Arrow's impossibility theorem" undermines the case for a "presidential mandate".

-----------------------------------------------

DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR OUR DISCUSSION:

The videos & articles you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of some of major theories in political science that run counter to common intuitions & folk wisdom gleaned from political pundits. As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles & watch all the videos prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just watch the numbered videos linked under each section - the videos come to about about 40 minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the topics in the order presented here. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section.

----------------------------------------------
I. THE MEDIAN VOTER THEOREM IN AN ERA OF POLITICAL POLARIZATION:

  • IS "ELECTABILITY" JUST A TRUISM - WHOEVER IS ELECTED WILL BE THE ONE LIKED BY MORE PEOPLE - OR A NOD TO THE MEDIAN VOTER THEOREM?

  • DID DONALD TRUMP DISPROVE THE NEED FOR "ELECTABILITY" IN 2016, OR WAS HE MORE CENTRIST ON SOME ECONOMIC ISSUES (E.G. TRADE, SAVING MEDICARE & SOC. SEC.)?

  • WOULD BERNIE OR WARREN HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BEAT TRUMP DESPITE BEING FURTHER LEFT BY BRINGING OUT MORE LEFT-WING VOTERS?

  • IS THE "PIVOT" FROM THE CANDIDATE WHO WINS THE PRIMARIES TO THE GENERAL ELECTION

  • DOES THE MEDIAN VOTER THEOREM STILL HOLD WHEN POLITICAL POLARIZATION HAS HOLLOWED OUT THE CENTER?

1a) Chris Cillizza, "‘Electability' won't help Democrats beat Trump in 2020" (video - 6:10 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYYPu3er_7U

1b) William Spaniel, "Explainer: The Median Voter Theorem, Turnout, and the Democratic Primary" (video - 3:07 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_qxi7oPjwM

.
II. SWING VOTERS, LOW-INFORMATION VOTERS & INDEPENDENT VOTERS:

  • IS IT TRUE THAT MOST VOTERS ARE "PARTISANS NOT IDEOLOGUES" - I.E. THEY'RE MORE ATTACHED TO PARTIES & POLITICIANS THAN POLITICAL PRINCIPLES OR ACTUAL POLICIES? IS THAT WHY THEY CAN BE FOOLED INTO ENDORSING THE OPPOSING CANDIDATE'S POLICIES IF THEY'RE ATTRIBUTED TO THEIR FAVORITE CANDIDATE?

  • ARE SWING VOTERS SYNONYMOUS WITH "LOW-INFORMATION VOTERS", OR ARE SOME POLITICALLY WELL-INFORMED?

  • ARE LOW-INFORMATION VOTERS MOSTLY LESS EDUCATED, OR JUST TOO BUSY TO FOLLOW POLITICS CLOSELY?

  • WHY ARE DISTRICTS WITH LOTS OF WHITE NON-EVANGELICALS THE MOST "ELASTIC", I.E. MORE SENSITIVE TO SHIFTS IN NATIONAL POLITICAL MOODS?

  • HAS DISGUST WITH THE TWO MAJOR PARTIES CAUSED THE GROWTH OF REGISTERED INDEPENDENTS OVER THE LAST DECADE?

  • DOES THE FACT THAT MOST INDEPENDENT VOTERS TEND TO VOTE CONSISTENTLY FOR ONE PARTY PROVE THE "TRUE INDEPENDENT VOTER" IS MOSTLY A MYTH?

2a) Chris Wlezien, "'Independent' Voters Not So Independent?" (video - 5:07 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgCdyeql14c

2b) Brian Stelter w/ Peter Hamby & Jon Favreau, "Importance 'low-information voters' make in the election" (video - 7:35 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_XjOxQGa-Y

2c) Rich Thao, "Key Characteristics of Swing Voters" (video - 1:39 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXVc0ngWYHo

.
III. GENERAL ELECTIONS - WHY "FUNDAMENTALS" MAY MATTER MORE THAN CAMPAIGNS:

  • IS IT TRUE, AS LARRY & CHRISTOPHER ACHEN ARGUE, THAT MOST VOTERS ARE "MYOPIC" (ONLY LOOK AT THE LAST YEAR) & POOR AT ASSIGNING PRAISE/BLAME? CAN RANDOM BAD EVENTS LIKE SHARK ATTACKS REALLY SWAY ELECTIONS?

  • HOW CAN POLITICAL SCIENTISTS CLAIM THAT "FUNDAMENTALS" (ECONOMIC STATS + INCUMBENCY FACTORS) MATTER MORE THAN CAMPAIGNS WHEN THEY CAN'T EVEN CONSISTENTLY PREDICT ELECTION OUTCOMES?

  • DOES ALAN ABRAMOWITZ'S "TIME FOR CHANGE MODEL" THAT JUST FACTORS IN A PRESIDENT'S NET APPROVAL RATING, 2nd QUARTER GDP GROWTH, AND INCUMBENCY PREDICT THE POPULAR VOTE SHARE WITH FAIRLY GOOD ACCURACY? IF SO, CAN IT PREDICT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE RESULTS WITH FAIRLY GOOD ACCURACY AS WELL?

  • DOES CAMPAIGN SPENDING REALLY NOT MATTER MUCH IN DETERMINING ELECTIONS, OR JUST NOT AT THE MARGIN?

  • DO THE WAYS IN WHICH CAMPAIGNS SPEND THEIR MONEY MATTER MORE THAN THE TOTAL AMOUNT?

  • IF CAMPAIGN ADS, SPEECHES & DEBATES CAN'T SWAY MANY "INDEPENDENTS" (BECAUSE THEY'RE CLOSET PARTISANS), CAN THEY SWAY THE FEW "UNDECIDED" & "SWING VOTERS"? DO THEY JUST BUILD NAME RECOGNITION & MOBILIZE EXISTING PARTY MEMBERS, OR NOT EVEN THAT?

3a) Ben's Election Forcasting, "How to forecast an Election: What are Election Fundamentals" (video - 6:39 min, start at 1:08)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1EmxSkW6OM&t=1m8s

3b) NowThis World, "Do Presidential Debates Sway Voters?" (video - 3:37 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vecw6H3AaM

3c) Vox, "Do political ads on TV actually work?" (video - 2:32 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVa3CFDdFuM

.
IV. ARROW'S IMPOSSIBILITY THEOREM, THE MYTH OF THE PRESIDENTIAL MANDATE & THE CONCEPT OF "POLITICAL CAPITAL":

  • SINCE MOST VOTERS DON'T HAVE CLEAR POLICY PREFERENCES (ASIDE FROM 1 OR 2 ISSUES), DOES THAT MEAN THE WINNER OF AN ELECTION CAN'T CLAIM IT'S "THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE" TO ENACT THE POLICIES IN THEIR PLATFORM?

  • EVEN IF MOST VOTERS HAD CLEAR POLICY PREFERENCES, WOULD IT STILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO AGGREGATE THEM ACCORDING TO "ARROW'S IMPOSSIBILITY THEOREM"? DOES THIS MEAN THE IDEA OF A "PRESIDENTIAL MANDATE" IS A MYTH?

  • WHAT DID BUSH MEAN WHEN HE SAID HE EARNED "POLITICAL CAPITAL" IN THE 2004 ELECTION & INTENDED TO "SPEND" IT?

  • WHEN OBAMA SAID "ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES" IN 2009, WAS HE CLAIMING A "MANDATE" THAT JUSTIFIED IGNORING THE WISHES OF REPUBLICANS WHO WERE OUT OF POWER? IF SO, DID THIS COME BACK TO BITE DEMOCRATS UNDER TRUMP?

  • CAN PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL RATINGS FUNCTION AS A MEASURE OF A PRESIDENT'S "MANDATE"? OR IS IT ONLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE SAME PARTY CONTROLLING THE WHITE HOUSE & CONGRESS TO GET THE PARTY'S AGENDA PASSED?

  • WHY WAS TRUMP'S APPROVAL RATING FAIRLY STABLE, EVEN WHEN THE COVID CRISIS HIT & WIDESPREAD RIOTS ERUPTED IN 2020? IS IT JUST DUE TO POLITICAL POLARIZATION?

  • IS THE GROWING PARTISAN GAP IN PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL RATINGS A SIGN OF "DERANGEMENT SYNDROME" WHERE THOSE OUT OF POWER OPPOSE EVERYTHING THE PRESIDENT DOES & CHARACTERIZE IT AS UNPRECEDENTED & DISASTROUS EVEN IF IT'S RELATIVELY NORMAL & MINOR?

4a) University of Leeds, "The paradox of democracy: Arrow impossibility explained" (video - 2:54 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzS-RkzRRVM

4b) VOA News, "Approval Ratings: A Powerful Measure of the Public's View of Their President" (video - 2:33 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNG6EP3cfSg

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXX

You may also like