Note: All seminars from September 19, 2017 onwards will be co-hosted with the Canada Research Chair in Electoral Democracy
UPCOMING TALKS
All information regarding the upcoming talks will now be updated on the Canada Research Chair in Electoral Democracy website.
PAST TALKS
Wednesday June 13 2022: Alex B. Rivard (Centre pour l'étude de la citoyenneté démocratique). The Correlates of Secessionist Party Support, 1945-2021 13h-14h, On Zoom.
Wednesday May 11 2022: Jean-François Daoust (University of Edinburgh) et Thomas Gareau Paquette (Université de Montréal). Is Quebec Independence Still Key in Making Sense of Canadian Elections? (In)Stability of Citizens’ Opinion and Impact on Vote Choice in the 21 st Century. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Wednesday May 04 2022: Claire Durand (Université de Montréal), Tim. P. Johnson (University of Chicago), and Luis P. Pena Ibarra (Université de Montréal). Mixed modes of data collection and administration and new sources of samples in the US 2020 election. How did they fare?12h-13h, On Zoom.
Wednesday April 27 2022: Erick Lachapelle (Université de Montréal), Thomas Bergeron (University of Toronto), Victor Schmidt (MILA), Alex Hernandez-Garcia (MILA) and Yoshua Bengio (MILA). Visualizing the impacts of climate change using AI. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Wednesday April 20 2022: Asli Cansunar (University of Washington) and Ben Ansell (University of Oxford). Local Economies, Local Wealth, and Economic Perceptions. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Wednesday April 13 2022: Sarah Lachance (University of British Columbia). Foraging for Policy: Ambiguity as a Heuristic. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Wednesday April 6 2022: Kathrin Ackermann (Heidelberg University). The Activation of Norms: Revisiting the Link between Citizenship Norms and Participation. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Wednesday March 30 2022: Alina Vrânceanu (European University Institut). How do voters respond to elite polarization? Mass and party polarization on immigration in Europe. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Wednesday March 23, 2022: Evelyne Hübscher (Central European University, European University Institute), Thomas Sattler (University of Geneva) et Markus Wagner (University of Vienna). Does Austerity Cause Polarization? 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Wednesday March 16, 2022: Dieter Stiers (KU Leuven). Spatial versus valence models of voting. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday March 8, 2022: Amanda Friesen (Western University). Risk, Social Identities, and Political Engagement. 12h-13h, Organized with LACPOP UQAM, Hybrid. Room A-1715 at UQAM & on Zoom.
Wednesday March 2, 2022: Rahsaan Maxwell (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). The Pro-Immigration Europeans. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Wednesday February 23, 2022: Love Aksel Christensen (Aarhus University) and Pablo Fernandez Vazquez (Carlos III University in Madrid). Shifting Motivations? Voters Infer Credible Committment from Policy Changes 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Wednesday February 16, 2022: David Talukder (Université Libre de Bruxelles). Au-delà de l’insatisfaction avec la démocratie : comment les citoyens évaluent-ils le système politique? 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Wednesday February 9, 2022: Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau (Université de Montréal). Do Unfounded Claims of Election Fraud Influence the Likelihood of Voting? 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Wednesday February 2, 2022: Catherine Ouellet (University of Toronto) and Nadjim Fréchet (Université de Montréal). Striking a Political Chord: The Effect of Musical Preferences on Voting Intentions in Canada. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Wednesday January 26, 2022: André Blais (Université de Montréal). Assemblée citoyenne sur la démocratie électorale municipale. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Wednesday January 19, 2022: Laura Uyttendaele (UCLouvain). The voting advice applications' match effects on pre-voters. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday December 21, 2021: Philippe Mongrain (Université de Montréal). I’m a Loser? Unexpected Election Outcomes and Satisfaction with Democracy. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday December 14, 2021: Nadjim Fréchet (Université de Montréal). Black Canadian Lives Matter in Public Opinion. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday December 7, 2021: Jelle Koedam, Garret Binding and Marco Steenbergen (University of Zurich). Polarization and the structure of multidimensional party competition in Europe. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday November 30, 2021: Werner Krause (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin), Denis Cohen (MZES, University of Mannheim) and Tarik Abou-Chadi (University of Oxford). Getting the most out of comarative vote switching data: A new framework for studying dynamic multi-party competition. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday November 23, 2021: Maxime Coulombe, André Blais and Ruth Dassonneville (Université de Montréal). "Do people vote to avoid disapproval? A study of social norms and partisan pressure in Austria" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday November 16, 2021: Jonathan Homola (Rice University), Petra Schleiter (University of Oxford), Margit Tavits (Washington University in St. Louis) and Dalston Ward (ETH Zurich). "How Fathers’ Leave Shapes Attitudes Toward Gender Equality" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday November 9, 2021: Elizabeth Simas and Scott Clifford (University of Houston). "Candidate Rhetorical Strategy and Perceptions of Sincerity" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday November 2, 2021: Evelyne Brie (University of Pennsylvania) and Félix Mathieu (University of Winnipeg). "Un pays divisé: identité, fédéralisme et régionalisme au Canada" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday October 26, 2021: Jae-Hee Jung (University of Houston). "Voters’ Preferences for Parties’ Moral Rhetoric" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday October 19, 2021: Éric Bélanger (McGill University) et Jean-François Godbout (Université de Montréal). "Les clivages politiques et le système partisan du Québec au XXIe siècle" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday October 12, 2021: Ruth Dassonneville (Université de Montréal). "The Effectiveness of Symbolic Group Appeals" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday October 5, 2021: Miguel Pereira (University of Southern California) and Patrik Ohberg (University of Gothenburg). "The Expertise Paradox: How Policy Expertise Can Hinder Responsiveness" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday September 28, 2021: Semih Çakır (Université de Montréal). "You can Sort but don’t Polarize: How Elite Polarization Shapes Opinion Formation" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday September 21, 2021: Discussion sur les résultats des élections fédérales au Canada. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday September 14, 2021: Fernando Feitosa (McGill University), Jennifer Oser (Ben-Gurion University), and Nir Grinberg (Ben-Gurion University). "Follow mainly the leader? An experimental study of the relative impact of parties on opinion formation" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday September 7, 2021: Jean-François Daoust (University of Edinburgh), John McAndrews (University of Toronto), Thomas Bergeron (University of Toronto), Roosmarijn de Geus (University of Oxford) et Peter J. Loewen (University of Toronto). "Les citoyens sont-ils plus sévères à l’égard des politiciens que des autres professions ? Preuves provenant d'expériences d'enquête aux États-Unis et au Canada" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday June 28, 2021: Nadjim Fréchet (Université de Montréal) and Maxime Blanchard (McGill University). "Can Party Id be a Proxy? The Measure of Party Ideology with Party Identification Conférenciers" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday June 22, 2021: Alexandra Jabbour (Université de Montréal). "The political consequences of a surge in housing prices: an experimental study" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday June 15, 2021: Fabio Votta (University of Amsterdam), Benjamin Guinaudeau (University of Konstanz), and Simon Roth (University of Konstanz). "Pernicious Personalization: An Audit on the Ideological Bias of Twitter Recommender System" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday June 8, 2021: Orit Kedar (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Odelia Oshri (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), and Lotem Halevy (University of Pennsylvania). "The Changing Gender Gap(s) in Voting: An Occupational Realignment" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday June 1, 2021: Christian H. Schimpf (Université du Québec à Montréal), Alexander Wuttke (University of Mannheim) and Harald Schoen (University of Mannheim). "No change in sight? Assessing the stability of populist attitudes" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday May 25, 2021: Marco Mendoza Aviña and Semra Sevi (Université de Montréal). "Did Trump Lose Reelection because of COVID-19?" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday May 18, 2021: Daniel Devine (University of Oxford) and Viktor Valgardsson (Southampton University). "Stability and Change in Political Trust: Evidence and implications from (at least) 3 panel studies" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday May 11, 2021: James Adams (UC Davis), Noam Gidron (Hebrew University in Jerusalem), Will Horn (Princeton University) and Yair Amitai (Hebrew University in Jerusalem). "Positivity breeds Positivity: Evidence that Positive In-party Affective Evaluations Predict Positive Out-party Evaluations in Western Publics" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday May 4, 2021: David Weisstanner (University of Oxford) and Sarah Engler (University of Zurich). "Inequality and voting: How widening socio-economic gaps explain mainstream party decline" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday April 27, 2021: Chan Ka-Ming (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich). "Does bottom-up spillover effect exist for radical right party? Evidence from Germany" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday April 20, 2021: Stefanie Reher (University of Strathclyde). "Voting for Disabled Candidates: The Roles of Voter Preferences and Belief Stereotypes" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday April 13, 2021: Emiliano Grossman (Centre d'Étude Européennes / Sciences Po) et Isabelle Guinaudeau (Centre Émile Durkheim / Sciences Po Bordeaux). "Do elections (still) matter? Mandate, institutions and policies Western Europe" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday April 6, 2021: Florence Vallée-Dubois (Université de Montréal). "Making Sense of Electoral Behaviour in Seniors’ Residences" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday March 30, 2021: Claire Durand (Université de Montréal) and Timothy P. Johnson (University of Illinois at Chicago). "What about modes? Differences Between Modes in the 21st Century’s Electoral Polls" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday March 23, 2021: Haley McAvay and Pavlos Vasilopoulos (University of York). "Do Neighborhoods Empower or Disenfranchise? A Longitudinal Analysis of the Effects of Spatial Disadvantage and Ethnoracial Segregation on Voter Registration in France" 13h-14h, On Zoom.
Tuesday March 16, 2021: Miriam Sorace (University of Kent) and Diane Bolet (Policy Institute, King’s College London). "Vox Populi, Vox Dei? Alienation, Mobilisation and Models of Democracy" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday March 9, 2021: Baowen Liang (Université de Montréal). "The Shadow of Confucianism: Traditional Values Condition the Negativity Bias among East Asians" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday March 2, 2021: Lewis Luartz (University of California, Riverside). "Party Strategy and Public Mood in Japan" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday February 23, 2021: Klara Dentler (University of Mannheim). "Ambivalence Across the Globe: Investigating the Effects of Political Ambivalence on Vote Switching in Multi-Party Systems" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday February 16, 2021: Anna Zagrebina (Université de Montréal). "Démocratie et élections libres à travers les yeux des immigrants" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday February 9, 2021: Kristin Eichhorn and Eric Linhart (Chemnitz University of Technology). "Election-related Internet-Shutdowns in Autocracies" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday February 2, 2021: Dieter Stiers (University of Leuven). "Evaluating Performance in Opposition" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday January 26, 2021: Maxime Coulombe (Université de Montréal). "Social norms and electoral participation: doing what is right or doing like everyone else" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday January 19, 2021: Nadjim Frechet (Université de Montréal) et Maxime Blanchard (McGill University). "Can Part ID be a Proxy? The Measure of Party Ideology with Party Identification" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday December 1, 2020: Stuart J. Turnbull-Dugarte (University of Southampton). "Attitudes towards homosexuality after “Obergefell v. Hodges”. Quasi-experimental evidence of anticipatory backlash from Israel" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday November 24, 2020: Florence Vallée-Dubois (Université de Montréal). "Dyadic Representation in Canadian Parliamentary Debates" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday November 17, 2020: Alexandra Jabbour (Université de Montréal). "Are citizens still receiving the treatment? A reassessment of previous findings on the effect of local context on the perception of the national economy" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday November 10, 2020: Liran Harsgor (University of Haifa), Reut Itzkovitch-Malka (The Open University of Israel) and Or Tuttnauer (MZES Universität Mannheim). "Vote switching and Coalition-Directed Voting: A Panel Study of Repeat Elections in Israel" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday November 3, 2020: Benjamin Guinaudeau (University of Konstanz). "Partisan Semantic Overlaps: Floor-speeches and Ideological Position" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday October 27, 2020: Zeynep Somer-Topcu (University of Texas at Austin) and Margit Tavits (Washington University in St. Louis). "Message Distortion as a Campaign Strategy: Does Rival Party Distortion of Focal Party Position Affect Voters?" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday October 20, 2020: Semih Cakir (Université de Montréal). "Evolution of Party Polarization and Voter Polarization in European Democracies" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday October 13, 2020: Tarik Abou-Chadi and Thomas Kurer (University of Zurich). "Economic Risks within the Household and Voting for the Radical Right" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday October 6, 2020: Jean-François Daoust (University of Edinburgh) and André Blais (Université de Montréal). "Critical Citizens: the Role of Education on Satisfaction with Democracy across Quality of Democracy" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday September 29, 2020: Jeanne Marlier (Université de Montréal). "Le Gender Gap dans le Vote d’Extrême Droite en Europe : Opinion Publique et Représentation" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday September 22, 2020: Henry Milner (Université de Montréal). "The End of Political Clientelism? An Analysis of the Consequences of the July Election in the Dominican Republic" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday September 15, 2020: Edana Beauvais (Duke University / Harvard University) and Dietlind Stolle (McGill University). "How White Identity Shapes Canadian Politics" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday September 8, 2020: Filip Kostelka (University of Essex), Eva Krejcova (University of Cambridge), Nicolas Sauger (Sciences Po, Paris) and Alexander Wuttke (University of Mannheim). "Democracy, Votes, and Participation: The Effect of Election Frequency on Voter Turnout" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday September 1, 2020: Julia Schulte-Cloos (LMU Munich). "Electoral Participation, Political Disaffection, and the Rise of the Populist Radical Right" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday July 21, 2020: Alexander Agadjanian (University of California, Berkeley). "Assessing the Accuracy of Vote Recall in the United States" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday July 14, 2020: Marta Gallina (Université catholique de Louvain). "Political sophistication and opinion constraint: a renewed empirical strategy" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday July 7, 2020: Ruth Dassonneville, Nadjim Fréchet and Alexandra Jabbour (Université de Montréal). "Are Parties Still Responsive to Public Opinion?" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday June 30, 2020: Alexandra Jabbour (Université de Montréal). "L’effet d’une visibilité accrue sur la performance électorale des partis extrêmes" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday June 23, 2020: Eric Guntermann (University of California, Berkeley). "Does Social Sorting Drive Affective Polarization? Some Comparative Evidence" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday June 16, 2020: Pauliina Patana (Cornell University). "Residential Constraints and the Political Geography of the Populist Radical Right: Evidence from France" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday June 9, 2020: Lewis Lartz (University of California Riverside). "It’s Not Just the Radical Right: Radical Left Populist Party Strategy and Success in Western Europe" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday June 2, 2020: Florence Vallée-Dubois (Université de Montreal). "Are Seniors Winning the Democratic Game?" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday May 26, 2020: Ka-Ming Chan (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich). “The Persuasion Effect and Contrast Effect of Radical Right Voters – the case of Germany" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday May 19, 2020: Evelyne Brie (University of Pennsylvania). “Politicization of Regional Cleavages: Explaining the Resurging Salience of the East-West Divide in Germany" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday May 12, 2020: Jérôme Schäfer (LMU Munich), Giorgio Bellettini, Carlotta Berti Ceroni, Enrico Cantoni, and Chiara Monfardini (University of Bologna). “Family Norms and the Gender Turnout Gap" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday May 5, 2020: Ameni Mehrez (CEU). “The Moral Foundations of Liberal and Conservative Parties in Post-Revolution Tunisia" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday April 28, 2020: Erick Lachapelle, Sarah Munoz and Richard Nadeau (Université de Montréal). “Don't call them refugees: Labelling affects public support for climate displaced peoples" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday April 21, 2020: Jennifer Oser (Ben-Gurion University). “Yes I Can…? Meta-analysis Findings on Patterns of Political Participation and Political Efficacy in the Digital Era" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday April 14, 2020: Semih Çakır (Université de Montréal). “Fostering Democratic Citizenship: How Mass Media Influence Election Campaign’s Causal Role on Voter Accuracy of Party Position” 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday March 31, 2020: Claire Durand, avec David Wutchiett, Luis Patricio Pena Ibarra et Nadia Rezgui (Université de Montréal). “La démocratie est-elle soluble dans les institutions?” 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday March 24, 2020: Abelardo Gómez Díaz (Universitat Pompeu Fabra Barcelona). “Contamination Effects in Mixed Electoral Systems: Temporal and Sub-National Variance” 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday March 10, 2020: Andrew Hunter (King’s College London). “Electoral Volatility and Democratic Performance: Does the Level of Measurement Matter?” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday February 25, 2020: Jean-François Daoust (University of Edinburgh). “Revisiting the winner-loser gap: Evidence from observational and quasi-experimental data” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h, C-4145.
Thursday February 20, 2020: Damien Bol (King’s College London) and Ria Ivandic (LSE). “Does the Number of Candidates Increase Turnout? Causal Evidence from Two-Round Elections.” Pavillion Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h, C-4145.
Friday February 14, 2020: Jean-François Laslier (Paris School of Economics). “The French 'Citizens' convention on climate change” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday February 4, 2020: Junhao Wang (CSC McGill and Mila), Sacha Levy (CSC McGill and Mila), Ren Wang (CSC UBC), Aayushi Kulshrestha (CSC McGill and Mila) and Reihaneh Rabbany (CSC McGill and Mila). “SPG: Spotting Polluting Groups in Social Media” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday January 28, 2020: Jordan Mansell (UQAM), Steven Mock (University of Waterloo), Jinelle Piereder (University of Waterloo), Carter Rhea (UdeM) and Adrienne Tecza (University of Colorado). “New Methods for the Study of Ideology: Field-Test of Cognitive Affective Mapping (CAM’s).” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday January 21, 2020: Érick Lachapelle and Thomas Bergeron (Université de Montréal). “Visualizing Climate Change with AI.” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday January 14, 2020: Annika Fredén, Karlstad University (Presenter) and Mats Bergman (Södertörn University). “Efficiency in Bureaucracy. Evidence from Telecom Regulation in Europe.” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday December 10, 2019: Matthew Polacko (Royal Holloway University of London). "Party Positions, Income Inequality, and Voter Turnout in Canada, 1984-2015.” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday December 3, 2019: Alexandra Jabbour (Université de Montréal). "Contexte immobilier local et vote pour le sortant : une réévaluation du vote économique.” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday November 26, 2019: Jordan Mansell (UQAM) and Michael Bang Petersen (Aarhus University). "Cooperation and Defection in an Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma: Do Liberals and Conservatives Display Differences in Social Cognition?". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Friday November 15, 2019: David Hagmann (Harvard Kennedy School). "Persuasion with Motivated Beliefs". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 11h30-12h30, C-4145.
Tuesday November 12, 2019 : Melanee Thomas (University of Calgary). "What Shapes Attitudes about Energy Transition? Evidence from Alberta". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday November 5, 2019 : Marta Rebolledo (Universidad de Navarra). “Les émotions comme recours stratégique en communication politique: comment sont-elles décodées par les spectateurs?”. Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday October 29, 2019 : André Blais, Semra Sevi, Clifton van der Linden. "Who supports electoral reform?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday October 22, 2019 : Échange sur les résultats des élections au Canada. Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday October 15, 2019 : Philippe Mongrain, Richard Nadeau and Bruno Jérôme. "Playing the synthesizer with Canadian data: Adding polls to a structural forecasting model". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday October 8, 2019 : Maxime Coulombe (Université de Montréal). "Préférences de mode de scrutin dans un contexte non-partisan : présentation d'un projet d'expérience par sondage". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday October 1, 2019 : Peter Loewen (University of Toronto). "Intrinsic Motivations to Represent Marginalized Groups in a Democracy: Evidence from an unelected legislature". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday September 24, 2019 : Ruth Dassonneville, Steven Quinlan and Ian McAllister. "La popularité des femmes chefs de partis à travers le monde". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday September 17, 2019 : Jean-François Daoust (McGill University) and Peter Loewen (University of Toronto). "What is the impact of winning an election? Evidence from a quasi-experimental approach". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday September 10, 2019 : Gabrielle Péloquin-Skulski (Université de Montréal). "Quelle façon de voter les électeurs préfèrent-ils?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday September 3, 2019 : Johannes Lindall (Lund University). "Inward Conquest, or The Origins of Public Services". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday June 18, 2019 : Valérie-Anne Le Luel Mahéo (McGill University). "How a Get-Out-The-Vote Campaign Impacts Families' Socialization Dynamics and Participation in the Election: Evidence from a Large Scale Randomized Field Experiment". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday June 11, 2019 : Filip Kostelka (University of Essex). "The Generational and Institutional Sources of the Global Decline in Voter Turnout". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday May 28, 2019 : Carolina Plescia (University of Vienna). "Compromising for worldly rewards? The short-term consequences of coalition agreements on voters" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday May 14, 2019 : André Blais (Université de Montréal). "What election outcomes do Canadians like?A Survey Experiment. Revisited" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday May 7, 2019 : Jordan Mansell (UQAM). “Behavioral Foundations of Negative Attitudes Towards Women and their Impacts on Male-Female Competition.” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday April 30, 2019 : Florence Vallée-Dubois (Université de Montréal). “Detecting ideas about the Canada Pension Plan: A view from inside Parliament.” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday April 23, 2019 : André Blais, Semra Sevi and Carolina Plescia. "What election outcomes do Canadians like?A Survey Experiment" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday April 16, 2019 : Jean-François Daoust (McGill University). "Blame it on Turnout? Polls accuracy and voter turnout" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday April 9, 2019 : Ruth Dassonneville, Fernando Feitosa, Marc Hooghe and Jennifer Oser. "Congruent with Citizens, or with Voters?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday April 2, 2019 : Olivier Jacques (McGill University). "Taxing the rich? Linking preferences for public spending to willingness to pay" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday March 26, 2019 : Claire Durand (Université de Montréal). "L’évolution de la confiance institutionnelle dans le monde : Les défis méthodologiques de la comparaison" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday March 19, 2019 : Alexie Labelle (Université de Montréal). "Why participate? An Intersectional Analysis of LGBTQ Activism of Color in Canada" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday March 12, 2019 : Emmanuel Heisbourg (Université de Montréal). "Does Music Affect Perceptions of Candidate Traits?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday February 26, 2019 : Semih Cakir (Université de Montréal). “Being Torn between Parties and Voter Turnout." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday February 19, 2019 : Philippe Mongrain (Université de Montréal). “To Trust, or Not to Trust: A Study of Canadians’ Confidence in the News Media”. Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday February 12, 2019 : Daniel Stockemer (University of Ottawa). “The gender gap in voter turnout: An artefact of errors in survey research?” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12:30h-13:30h, C-3141.
Tuesday February 5, 2019 : Tom Mulcair. "The 2019 Campaign and Climate” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday January 29, 2019 : Aengus Bridgman (McGill University). "Evaluating legislative influence in bicameral systems: Canadian Senate reform and lobbyist behaviour” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday January 15, 2019 : Carolina Plescia, André Blais, and John Hogstrom. "Process or Outcome? An Experimental Study on Voting Rules and Voter Satisfaction in Four Countries” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday December 11, 2018 : Jean-François Daoust. "Leaders’ evaluation, stereotypes and gender gap: Do women evaluate leaders differently and does it matter?” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday December 4, 2018 : Laurie Beaudonnet (Université de Montréal). "La gauche et l’enjeu européen : analyse d’une évolution radicale" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday November 27, 2018 : Henry Milner (Université de Montréal). "Les questions qui se posent si on pense à changer le mode de scrutin au Québec. Ce que j’ai appris de mes 35 ans d’implication en tant qu’expert/participant." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday November 20, 2018 : Aaron Erlich, Costin Ciobanu, Aengus Bridgman, Danielle Bohonos and Christopher Ross. "Losing elections for standing for your values? The (non-)electoral consequences of a court ruling on the niqab ban in Canada" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday November 13, 2018 : Susanne Garritzmann (University of Konstanz). "Education systems and turnout inequality in a cross-national perspective" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Monday November 5, 2018 : Éric Montigny (Université Laval). "Démocratie interne et nouvelles stratégies: Les effets des réformes du financement politique au Québec et au Canada." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
Tuesday October 30, 2018 : Aaron Erlich and Andrew McCormack (McGill University). “New Approaches to Spatial Visualization of Canadian Political Data.” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday October 16, 2018 : Théodore McLauchlin (Université de Montréal). “When Violence Deters and When it Provokes: Evidence from Spain.” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday October 9, 2018 : Edana Beauvais. “The Gender Gap in Political Discussion Group.” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday October 2, 2018 : Discussion sur les résultats des élections au Québec. Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12:15h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday September 18, 2018 : Christopher Rauh. "The Hard Problem of Prediction for Conflict Prevention" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday September 11, 2018 : Damien Bol, André Blais, Maxime Coulombe, Jean-François Laslier, and Jean-Benoit Pilet. "Choosing an Electoral Rule Behind the Veil of Ignorance: Self-Interest or Common Good?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday June 12, 2018 : Jean-François Daoust, André Blais et Gabrielle Péloquin-Skulski (Université de Montréal). "What do voters do when they like a leader from another party?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday May 29, 2018: Guillem Riambau (Yale-NUS College). "Voting Behavior under Doubts of Ballot Secrecy." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday May 22, 2018: Alexandra Jabbour (Université de Montréal). "L'effort d'un État en matière de protection sociale a t-il un effet sur le vote économique?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday May 15, 2018: Richard Nadeau et Jean-François Daoust (Université de Montréal). "Thick and thin Forms of Political Support in Old and Mature Democracies." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday May 8, 2018: Claire Durand et Paul Pelletier (Université de Montréal). "Peut-on regrouper les pays en fonction de l’évolution de leurs caractéristiques socio-politiques et économiques pour mieux comprendre la confiance envers le gouvernement?." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday May 1, 2018: André Blais et Jean-François Daoust (Université de Montréal). "Is Voting a Habit?." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday April 24, 2018: Maxime Coulombe (Université de Montréal). "La province de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard; une figure d’exception au Canada en matière de participation électorale." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday April 17, 2018: Valérie-Anne Mahéo. "Children's Political Socialization and Trickle-Up Influences: A Field Experiment on Civic Education". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday April 10, 2018: Katrine Beauregard. "(Re)Framing Gender Quotas: Sexism and Support for Gender-Based Affirmative Action in Politics". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Monday April 9, 2018: Irene Esteban. "A Revised Scale of the Measurement of Populist Attitudes". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday April 3, 2018: Semih Çakir (Université de Montréal). "Polarized Partisanship in Turkey". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday March 27, 2018: Christian Schimpf. "Making protest votes count: Investigating voter’s motivations to cast a protest vote in general elections". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday March 20, 2018: Eric Guntermann, Ruth Dassonneville and Peter Miller. "Compulsory Voting and Representation: Does Compulsory Voting Reduce Inequalities in Political Representation?". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday March 13, 2018: André Blais (Université de Montréal). "Conversation about a potential annual PhD Political Behaviour Colloquium." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday February 27, 2018: Fernando Feitosa (Université de Montréal). "Le rôle des parents et des écoles dans le développement du sentiment de devoir civique de voter." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday February 20, 2018: Dieter Stiers. "Political Information and retrospective voting: Combining individual and contextual heterogeneity." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday February 6, 2018: Eric Guntermann and André Blais. "Expliquer le choix de vote dans une élection historique: l'élection régionale catalane de 2017." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday January 30, 2018: Henry Milner. "Only in America? A Comparative Institutional Analysis of the Trump Phenomenon " Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday January 23, 2018: Jean-Philippe Gauvin and Mike Medeiros. "Regional Federalism? Accounting for Differences in Canadian Federal Culture." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday January 16, 2018: Kristin Kanthak and Jonathan Woon. Presented by André Blais. "Women Don't Run? Election Aversion and Candidate Entry" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday November 28, 2017: Ruth Dassonneville, Fernando Feitosa, Marc Hooghe, Richard Lau and Dieter Stiers. "Le vote obligatoire, les électeurs réticents et le vote de proximité idéologique?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday November 21, 2017: André Blais. "At what age should citizens be allowed to vote?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday November 14, 2017: Eric Guntermann. "Issue Voting and the Representation of Policy Preferences" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday November 7, 2017: Airo Hino. "The Spiral of Silence and the Crescendo of Voices: Opinion Expression after Fukushima Nuclear Crisis" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday October 31, 2017: Thiago Barbosa. "Experimental evidence from Brazil and Canada" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday October 17, 2017: Grégoire Saint-Martin. "Représentation proportionnelle et participation électorale: l’hétérogénéité des populations importe-t-elle?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday October 10, 2017: Eric Guntermann. "Accounting for Citizens’ Coalition Preferences: Party Evaluations vs Ideological Proximity" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday September 26, 2017: Claire Durand, Luis Patricio Pena Ibarra and Paul Pelletier. "Institutional Trust and Governance Outside the Western World, a 4-level Longitudinal Model" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday October 3, 2017: Liran Harsgor. "(In)Security during Formative Years: Long-Term Cohort Effects on Political Attitudes" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday September 19, 2017: Semra Sevi, Jean-François Daoust and André Blais. "What is a good representative?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday September 12, 2017: Ruth Dassonneville, Marc Hooghe, Rick Lau and Mary Nugent. "Do Women Vote Correctly? A Comparative Analysis of Levels and Predictors of Proximity Voting among Men and Women" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4145. 12-13h.
Tuesday September 5, 2017: Mathieu Turgeon. "Vote Buying, Undecided Voters, and their Effects on Polling Error in Brazil" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Wednesday May 17, 2017: Corinna Kröber. "Growing numbers, growing influence? A comparative study of policy congruence between parliaments and citizens of immigrant origin." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4145. 12-13h.
Tuesday May 8, 2017: André Blais, Jean-François Daoust and Dieter Stiers. "Am I a loser? The classification of electoral winners and losers in Canada, Spain and Germany." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4145. 12-13h.
Tuesday April 25 2017: André Blais. "Un nouveau cours sur les expériences en science politique." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4145. 12-13h.
Wednesday April 19 2017: Alexandra Remond. Independence Referendums: secession preventing or inducing? Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4145. 12-13h.
Tuesday April 18 2017: Remko Voogd. "The effect of elections and its outcomes on the development of political trust in Western Democracies: A multi-level study." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4145. 12-13h.
Thursday April 13 2017: Romain Lachat (Sciences Po Paris). "How party characteristics drive voters’ evaluation criteria." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday April 11 2017: Damien Bol and Jean-François Daoust. "The Spatial Dimension of Political Representation: Evidence from Canada."
Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4145. 12-13h.
Tuesday March 28 2017: André Blais and Mathieu Turgeon. "The impact of compulsory voting: Lessons from Brazil." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday Mach 21 2017: Pascal Doray-Demers. "The Politics of Fiscal Rules within the European Union. A dynamic analysis of fiscal rules stringency" & "Four Paths to Fiscal Rules: The Diverse Political Origins of Fiscal Rules Across the World." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday March 14 2017: André Blais and Jean-François Daoust. "Why is Messi more popular than Ronaldo?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday March 7 2017. Filip Kostelka. "Democratic Consolidation and Voter Turnout" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday February 21 2017: Richard Nadeau, Vincent Arel-Bundock, Jean-François Daoust. "Satisfaction with democracy and the American Dream." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday February 14 2017: Valerie-Anne Maheo. "Parents-enfants : influences mutuelles? Une étude expérimentale sur l’éducation civique et la transmission des comportements politiques." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday February 7 2017: Frédérick Bastien. "L'usage d'Internet et la participation politique des Canadiens avec un handicap." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday January 31 2017: Dieter Stiers. "Rewarding the incumbent or punishing the opposition? A new perspective on electoral accountability." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday January 17 2017: Jean-François Laslier. "Multi-winner voting rules: an efficiency-equality dilemma" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday January 10 2017: André Blais, Fernando Feitosa and Semra Sevi. "Was my decision to vote (or abstain) the right one?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday November 14th 2016: Guillem Riambau. "Who prefers a proportional system? Evidence from New Zealand". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday November 8th 2016: Michael Lewis-Beck, Diana Mutz and Claire Durand. "Élection présidentielle américaine: Interprétations et attentes". Carrefour des arts et des sciences, salle C-3061. 15-18h.
Tuesday November 1st 2016: Isabelle Valois. "La confiance envers les institutions au Canada est-elle en diminution? Une analyse longitudinale". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday October 11th 2016: Laura French Bourgeois & Roxane de la Sablonnière. "Augmenter le taux de participation aux élections : une intervention centrée sur les normes sociales". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday October 18th 2016: Étienne Ollion. " Au-delà des big data. Les sciences sociales face à la multiplication des données numériques". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday October 25th 2016: No seminar.
Tuesday September 20th 2016: André Blais. "La définition du vote stratégique". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday Septembre 13th 2016: Catherine Lemarier-Saulnier. "Honnêteté, vision et féminité: comprendre l'évaluation de la performance politique des leaders par la méthode quasi-expérimentale". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019.12-13h.
Tuesday August 9th 2016: Jean-François Godbout. "Will André Blais be convinced? Explaining the Electoral Realignment of Catholics in Canada". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Monday August 1st 2016: Dr. Christoher Gandrud. "Return of the British Disease? Credible commitments after Brexit". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday August 1st 2016: Vincent Arel-Bundock. “Return of the British Disease? Credible commitments after Brexit”. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Wednesday July 27th 2016: André Blais and Henry Milner will be making a parliamentary address next week.
Tuesday July 25th 2016: Ruth Dassonneville. "Nationalism and economic voting in Canada". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday July 12th 2016: André Blais. "Représentation politique: le choix d'un mode de scrutin", présentation d'un cours. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday April 26th 2016: Alexander Wuttke (University of Mannheim). "A Self-determination Theory of Political Motivation."Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday April 12th 2016: Reijo Sund, Hannu Lahtinen, Hanna Wass, Mikko Mattila & Pekka Martikai."The effect of chronic diseases on turnout: a population-based register study". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday April 5th 2016: Jan Eichhorn (University of Edinburgh), Daniel Kenealy (University of Edinburgh) and Christine Hübner (think tank d|part). "THE EU REFERENDUM: Views from the UK and the rest of the continent". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday March 15th 2016: André Blais (Université de Montréal). "What would PR change?". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday 1st March 2016: Alexander Wuttke (University of Mannheim). "Self-determination theory of political motivation". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday February 23rd 2016: Ruth Dassonneville (Université de Montréal). "Shifting Parties, Sophisticated Switchers. Are Voters Responding to Ideological Shifts by Political Parties?". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday February 9th 2016: Peter Söderlund (Åbo Akademi University). "Candidate-centred electoral systems and voter turnout". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday January 19th 2016: Alexandre Blanchet (Université de Montréal). "The Impact of Political Sophistication, Personality Traits and Party Identification on the Perceptions of Media Bias Among Political Junkies in Quebec". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday 23 November 2015: Jean-Michel Lavoie (Université de Montréal). "Inverting the freerider problem – Public goods as the root of turnout". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday 17 November 2015: André Blais (Université de Montréal). "The impact of visibility and punishment on turnout". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday 10 November 2015: Katherine V.R. Sullivan (Université de Montréal) and Jean-François Daoust (Université de Montréal). "Campaign-Specific Information: Great(?) Minds Think Alike." Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday 3 November 2015: Daniel Stockemer (University of Ottawa). "Voter Turnout: Introducing VEP Turnout into the Comparative Election Literature." Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday 18 August 2015: Carol Uhlaner (UC Irvine). "Descriptive Representation as a Mobilizer of Voter Participation: Evidence from the US States and from an Ethnic Enclave." Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday 11 August 2015: Eric Guntermann (with Henry Milner). "Education and the Generational Divide in Political Knowledge: A Comparative Analysis." Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday 4 August 2015: Eric Guntermann. "From Words to Time Series that are Ready for Analysis: A Bayesian Approach to Estimating Party Positions Over Time." Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday 28 July 2015: Jean-François Daoust (with Damien Bol). "Does strategic voting vary with partisan context?" . Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday 21 July 2015: Karima Bousbash. "To vote or to protest? Descriptive representation and young citizens' political repertoire". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday 14 July 2015: Eric Guntermann (with André Blais). "Does the Composition of Government Better Reflect the Party Preferences of Citizens who are Better Off?" Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
June 30 2015: André Blais. "Turnout in multilevel systems". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
June 14 2015: Carol Galais (with André Blais). "Duty to vote: For the sake of democracy or for the love of the country?". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
June 12 2015: Alexandre Debs (with Nuno Monteiro). "An Economic Theory of War". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h. (Note this is a Friday, not a Tuesday as usually!).
June 9 2015: Ignacio Lago (with Santiago Lago). "An Economic explanation Of the Nationalization of Electoral Politics". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
May 12 2015: Roundtable: Alberta's stunning election results. With Stephen Carter, Zain Velji, Corey Hogan, Alison Smith. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
April 28 2015: Eric Guntermann. "Assessing Ideological Content In Party Preferences: Political Dimensionality in Five Democracies." . Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
April 21 2015: Anja Kilibarda. "Lifting the Veil on Attitudes Toward Ethnic Minorities in Quebec". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
April 14 2015: Frédérick Bastien. "What Citizens Know About Internet and Why It Matters? Internet Skills and Political Engagement in the Web 2.0 Era". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
March 17 2015: Damien Bol. "Which matters most: Party strategic entry or strategic voting? A laboratory experiment". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
March 10 2015: Laurie Beaudonnet. "Red Europe Versus No Europe? The Impact Of The Economic Crisis On Radical Left Voting". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
March 3 2015: Eric Guntermann. "Do Words Alone Contain Enough Information to Place Parties along a Political Dimension Over Time? Creating Time Series of Party Positions on Regional Nationalism in Spain". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
February 24 2015: André Blais. "The turnout decision: The proximate considerations". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
February 16, 2015: Carol Galais. "An experimental design on shame and duty to vote". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
February 3 2015: Jean François Daoust. "Élections provinciales au Canada : le rôle des médias sur l'apprentissage d'informations politiques durant les campagnes et la participation électorale". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
January 27 2015: Carol Galais. "Half a loaf is not better than no bread. Austerity-related grievances and emotions as triggers of protest in Spain". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
January 20 2015: André Blais. "Strategic voting". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
January 13 2015: Mathieu Turgeon. "Compulsory Voting: Results from a Natural Experiment". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
December 9 2014: Carol Galais. "Shame, Pride and the duty to vote in the lab. A research design". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
December 4 2014: Mathieu Turgeon. (U. Brasilia). "The Inhibition Survey Effect: Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action Policies Among Whites and Non-Whites in Brazil and The Survey List-Experiment" Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
December 2 2014: Martin Larsen. (U. of Copenhagen). "The economic vote and tenure in office". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
November 25 2014: Damien Bol. "Micro-foundations of the (non) nationalisation of local elections". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
November 4 2014: Marc Sanjaume. "Normative arguments in the Spanish territorial debate: federalism and secession". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
October 28 2014: Eric Guntermann. "Does the Composition of Government Better Reflect the Party Preferences of Citizens who are Better Off, More Educated, and More Informed?" (coauthored with André Blais). Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
October 24 2014: Stan Wiener. (U.Carleton). "On the Measurement of Electoral Competitiveness: with application to Canada, 1867 - 2011". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
October 21 2014: Damien Bol. "Causal inference". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
October 7 2014: Pau Alarcón. (CSIC/IESA). "The Wheat from the Chaff: From Citizen Proposals to Local Policies" (coauthored with Joan Font, Graham Smith and Carol Galais). Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
September 30 2014: Henry Milner. "The Scottish Referendum" (with E.Guntermann). Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
September 23 2014: Martin Larsen. (U. of Copenhagen): "Experimental evidence on benchmarking and interdependence: How voters use economic comparisons to elect competent politicians". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
August 20 2014: Amparo González-Ferrer. (CSIC). "Do citizenship regimes shape political incorporation? Evidence from four european cities". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
August 13 2014: José Fernández-Albertos. (CSIC). "Who votes for Podemos?". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
August 6 2014: Pau Alarcón. (CSIC). "New political earthquake in Spain. From the squares to the Parliament with Podemos ("We can")". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
July 30 2014: Ruth Dassonneville. (KU Leuven). "The current political situation in Belgium". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
June 18 2014: Ellen Quintelier. (KU Leuven). "Peers and political socialization". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
June 11 2014: Elina Lindgren. "The Swedish Feminist party". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
June 4 2014: Jean-François Daoust. "Strategic Voting in the Quebec 2012 Election". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
May 28 2014: Eric Guntermann. "Inequalities in the Representation of Citizens' Party Preferences Under Proportional and Non-Proportional Systems" (with André Blais). Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
May 17 2014: Carol Galais. "You Cheated on me. Causes and consequences of cheating in online surveys" (with Eva Anduiza). Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
May 7 2014: Mike Medeiros. "Feelings and Language: The Influence of Linguistic Vitality on Intergroup and Political Attitudes among Francophones in Canada". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
April 30 2014: Laurie Beaudonnet (with Raul Gomez Martinez, Derby University) "Red Europe Versus No Europe? The Impact Of The Economic Crisis On Radical Left Voting". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
April 23 2014: Patrick Fournier. "Explaining Information Effects Around the World". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
April 16 2014: Antonin Macé. "Voting with evaluations". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
March 19 2014: Laurie Beaudonnet. "Finding an alternative to the Comparative Party Manisfesto coding". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
March 12 2014: Elina Lindgren. (U. Gotenburg): "Do words matter? Effects of value-laden rhetoric on voters’ interpretation and evaluation of intentions with election pledges". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
March 5 2014: Peter Esaiasson. (U. Gotenburg): "Does compliance correlate with political support? – New evidence to a long-standing debate". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
February 26 2014: Alexandre Morin-Chassé. "Partisan Polarization on Climate Change and Global Warming: A Direct and a Conceptual Replication of Schuldt et al 2011". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-3134. 12-13h.
February 13-14h: André Blais & Simon Labbé-St.Vincent. "Une élection québécoise avec deux modes de scrutin". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-3134. 12-13h.
February 5 2014: André Blais. "Comment préparer un dossier de candidature pour un poste académique?". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
January 29 2014: Patrik Öhberg and Carol Galais. "The role of Socialization and family support in female MPs' political ambition. Evidence from Sweden and Spain". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
January 22 2014: Damien Bol. "Electoral System and Number of Candidates: Candidate Entry under Plurality and Majority Runoff" (with André Blais and Jean-François Laslier). Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
December 18 2013: Patrik Öhberg and Elin Naurin. "When are politicians responsive to public opinion? Results from a scenario-based survey of 3600 Swedish politicians." Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
December 12 2013: Philipp Harfst. "The Costs of Electoral Fraud. Establishing the Link between Degrees and Types of Electoral Integrity and Satisfaction with Democracy" (co-authored with Jessica Fortin-Rittberger). Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
December 4 2013: Damien Bol. "The Effects of Electoral Systems on Personal Vote Strategies: A Field Experiment on German Legislators" (co-authored with Thomas Gwschend, Thomas Zittel, and Steffen Zittlau). C-4019. Pavilion Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h.
November 21 2013: Annika Fredén. "Coalitions, thresholds and coordination. A lab experimental study of strategic voting."C-4019. Pavilion Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h.
November 20 2013: Pavlos Vasilopoulos. "Anxiety and the Vote in the 2012 French Presidential Election". C-4019. Pavilion Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h.
November 13 2013: Eric Guntermann. "Does the composition of government reflect party preferences?" C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h.
October 30 2013: Philipp Harfst. "Quick update to the latest German Bundestag election." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
October 16 2013: Bernard Fournier. "À la recherche de nouveaux protocoles de recherche dans l’étude des mécanismes de socialisation politique". C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
October 9 2013: Alexandre Morin-Chassé. "Behavioral Genetics in the News: Empirical Evidence of a Disquieting Side Effect". C-4019. C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
October 2 2013: Eric Guntermann. "Making easy & better graphs on R". C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
September 25 2013: Alexandre Morin-Chassé. "Ideologically Motivated Reasoning in Response to Information about Genetics and Race”. The paper is coauthored by Alexandre Morin-Chasse (Montreal), Elizabeth Suhay (Lafayette College) and Toby Jayaratne (U of Michigan). C-4019. Pavilion Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h.
September 11 2013: Henry Milner. "Electoral Systems and political knowledge". C-4019. C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
July 10 2013: Annika Fredén. "Thresholds, coalition signals and strategic voting. A survey experimental study." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
May 30 2013: Laurie Beaudonnet. “Élisez-les tous, la République reconnaitra les siens”. Party preferences, electoral context and preferences for PR system in France. (With Martial Foucault). C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
May 23 2013: Mike Medeiros. "Alternatives for the Representation of National Groups in Parliament".(with Benjamin Forest). C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
May 22 2013: Ignacio Lago. "Turnout and fractionalization." (With Sandra Bermúdez, Marc Guinjoan and Pablo Simón). C-4019. C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
May 15 2013: Jean-François Laslier. "An In Situ experiment on evaluative voting”. C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
April 17 2013: Damien Bol. "Strategic candidate entry under plurality and majority runoff." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
April 3 2013: Carol Galais. "Civic Duty and the Spanish Economic crisis". (With André Blais). C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
March 27 2013: Martial Foucault. "Strategic Voting vs. Issue Voting. Evidence from the French 2012 election." (With Golder, Sona N.; Beaudonnet, Laurie and Bol, Damien). C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
March 20 2013: Damien Bol. "Negative Campaigning in Multi-party Systems: Assessing the Impact of Party Competition through the Swiss Natural Laboratory." (With Marian Bol). C-4019. C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
March 6 2013: Alexandre Morin-Chassé. “Framing genopolitics”. C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
February 27 2013: Ruth Dassonneville. ‘Mind the Gap! Political Sophistication and the Ideological Distance of Party Switching’. C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
December 12 2012: Laurie Beaudonnet. "Who's to blame? Responsibility allocation in multi-level systems of governance." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
January 23 2012: Éric Viladrich. "Catalogne, nouvel État d’Europe? C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
November 28 2012: Patrik Öhberg. "A comparative analysis of MP’s, candidates and citizens' perceptions of election promises." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
November 14 2012: Damien Bol. "The diffusion of Electoral Systems across European countries since 1945." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
October 24 2012: Ludovic Rheault. A pragmatic methodological discussion on time series analysis. C-4137. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
September 26, 2012: David Lublin. (Professor, department of Government American University). "Dispersing Authority or Deepening Divisions." C-4145. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
August 29, 2012: Henry Milner. "Are Facebook democracy and representative democracy compatible? reflections on the political participation of the internet generation inspired by Quebec's student protest movement." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
August 1, 2012: Carol Galais and Irene Martín (UAM). "The Spanish Indignant movement and its impact on Spaniards’ electoral behavior." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
July 18, 2012: André Blais. "Comments on Brady’s APSA editorial about the use of graphs on political science". C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
July 11, 2012: Beatriz Rivera (visiting student UCM). "New parties online, Internet effects on party structures". C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
May 23, 2012: Irene Martín (visiting researcher, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid). "Interest in politics in Spain and Greece." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
May 9, 2012. Ludovic Rheault. "Utility Theory". Pavilion Lionel Groulx. C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
April 18, 2012: Mike Medeiros. "The Importance of Language: The Relationship between Linguistic Vitality and Ethnic Conflicts." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
April 4, 2012: Carol Galais. "Methodological Challenges for the Study of Local Participatory Experiences: Mixing Methods and Databases". C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
April 4, 2012: Maxime Héroux-Legault . "Assessing the psychological and mechanical impat of electoral rules. A quasi experiment." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
March 28, 2012: Aina Gallego. "Duty to vote in the household." Pavilion Lionel Groulx. C-4019. 13h-14h.
March 21, 2012: Delia Dumitrescu. "The Meaning of ‘Don’t Know."Pavilion Lionel Groulx. C-4019. 13h-14h.
March 14, 2012: Eric Guntermann. "Economic Voting and Nationalism: An Analysis of the 2011 Spanish General Election". Pavilion Lionel Groulx. C4045. 13-14h.
February 29, 2012: Damien Bol. "Fuzzy Sets Analysis." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
February 22, 2012: Damien Bol. "Preliminary presentation of PhD dissertation." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
February 15, 2012: Daniel Marcelino. "Automation processes for collecting data online." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
February 8, 2012: André Blais. "To vote or not to vote".Pavilion Lionel Groulx. C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
February 1, 2012: Ludovic Rheault. "An introduction to LaTeX". Pavilion Lionel Groulx. C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
November 23, 2011: Stephen Quinlan (UCD School of Politics & International Relations, University College Dublin, Ireland, and International Council for Canadian Studies Research Fellow): "Do new modes and channels of engagement explain youth electoral participation today?". Pavillon Jean-Brillant, Université de Montréal. Room B-3295, 11h30-13h00
September 26, 2011: Dario Tuorto (University of Bologna): “Parents and Children in the Political Socialization: What Has Changed in Italy in 35 years”. 11H30-13H00
September 22, 2011: Paolo Bellucci (University of Siena): “European Identity: What it is and where it comes from”. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-9019, 11H30-13H00
September 15, 2011: Paolo Bellucci (University of Siena): “Leadership Effects in Italy: Personality traits or policy preferences?”. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-2059, 11H30-13H00
November 2010: Lindsey Zimmerman (Georgia State University): “YouTube persuasion during the primaries and presidential debates: Global discourse about the 2008 U.S. election”
September 2010: Yosef Bhatti & Kasper Møller Hansen (University of Copenhagen): "Voting is a social act".
Recent studies have highlighted how descriptive and injunctive norms matter for turnout. We aim in this research to expand our understanding of these relationships in two ways. First, we use discussion network data from an original question module in the Austrian National Election Study. This allows us to test whether previous findings observed in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom regarding social norms hold in a different political context. Second, we use a different question to measure injunctive norms by asking respondents whether their political discussants would disapprove if they abstained.
UPCOMING TALKS
All information regarding the upcoming talks will now be updated on the Canada Research Chair in Electoral Democracy website.
PAST TALKS
Wednesday June 13 2022: Alex B. Rivard (Centre pour l'étude de la citoyenneté démocratique). The Correlates of Secessionist Party Support, 1945-2021 13h-14h, On Zoom.
- Where there exists a host of research examining secessionist party ideology (Massetti 2009; Massetti and Schakel 2015, 2016), on how parties manage the presence of a regional cleavage (Alonso et al. 2013; Basile 2013, 2016; Meguid 2005, 2008; Zons 2016), and on how changes in autonomy affect statewide regionalist parties (Meguid 2015), the current research leaves the success of independence-seeking parties as an open and relatively unanswered empirical question apart from work done by Sorens (2004, 2005, 2012). This paper seeks to fill this gap by examining the correlates of support for clearly-identified secessionist parties in Western Europe and North America since 1945. To do so, I rely on a bespoke electoral dataset that traces secessionist party support in subnational and national elections. In total, it accounts for over 1,200 elections and includes economic (e.g., unemployment), sociographic (e.g., migrant stock), and political (e.g., conservative share of the legislature) variables. It further stresses the need for region-specific, non-national-level variables.
Wednesday May 11 2022: Jean-François Daoust (University of Edinburgh) et Thomas Gareau Paquette (Université de Montréal). Is Quebec Independence Still Key in Making Sense of Canadian Elections? (In)Stability of Citizens’ Opinion and Impact on Vote Choice in the 21 st Century. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- The place of the province of Quebec within the Canadian federation was the main driver of conflicts around national unity throughout the 20th century. Attitudes toward Quebec independence (and its accommodation within the country) were central to theoretical models making sense of electoral outcomes. Gidengil et al. (2012: 147) neatly encapsulated the significance of this issue when they claimed that it was “the single most important factor motivating vote choice in federal elections in Québec.” However, the conventional wisdom holds that the issue’s significance has been steadily declining to the point where it would no longer be one of the few core values relevant to citizens’ vote choice. While some (but limited) research has been conducted on this hypothesis at the provincial level, there is no such study at the federal level. This conventional wisdom thus lacks empirical evidence. In this research, we provide an in-depth assessment of the extent to which attitudes toward Quebec independence can help us make sense of Canadian elections in the 21st century. We do so in three ways. Using panel data from the Canadian Election Study, we first provide a thorough description of the (in)stability of attitudes toward independence. Second, we examine who changes their mind over time. Third, we analyze the impact of Quebec independence on vote choice, and most importantly, we compare this effect across seven elections spanning two decades. Our findings entail major implications for our understanding of electoral politics and public opinion in Canada.
Wednesday May 04 2022: Claire Durand (Université de Montréal), Tim. P. Johnson (University of Chicago), and Luis P. Pena Ibarra (Université de Montréal). Mixed modes of data collection and administration and new sources of samples in the US 2020 election. How did they fare?12h-13h, On Zoom.
- This paper presents the results of an analysis of the performance of the polls of the campaign in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election. We first focus on mixed mode and estimate the trends in support for Joe Biden according to the use of mixed mode. We validate these trends statistically using a longitudinal multilevel analysis where polls are nested within pollsters. We then focus on the last ten days of the campaign and observe the overwhelming presence of mixed mode polls among the best performing polls. This analysis allows for observing also that the best performing web polls usually do not use Web Opt-in panel. This leads us to validate an alternate multilevel model, which shows that the combination of the use of mixed mode and the use of other sampling sources than Web panels leads to better estimates of support for Biden. We conclude that we will need to examine more seriously the methods used by pollsters, particularly web pollsters, and differentiate the polls according to criteria that are more relevant than the unique mode of administration or data collection.
Wednesday April 27 2022: Erick Lachapelle (Université de Montréal), Thomas Bergeron (University of Toronto), Victor Schmidt (MILA), Alex Hernandez-Garcia (MILA) and Yoshua Bengio (MILA). Visualizing the impacts of climate change using AI. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Existing research suggests that climate change is perceived as a spatially and temporally distant threat, prompting researchers to explore various forms of risk communication that better engages the general public. However, results from attempts to proximize the threat of climate change in the literature have been mixed. In this presentation, we present results from two survey experiments designed to test the potential of a deep learning algorithm to generate personalized images to help citizens visualize the possible effects of climate change where they live. In a first experiment conducted on a sample of 1,099 residents living in the province of Quebec, we demonstrate that exposure to AI generated images of major flood events produce reactions among treated respondents that are no different from respondents exposed to an image of a real flood. In a second pre-registered experiment administered to samples drawn from Canada (n=2000) and in the United States (n=3000), we randomly assign respondents to a treatment asking them to self-administer a personalized AI-generated image of their home with a simulated 1m flood in real time. We found that, relative to the control group, treated respondents showed higher levels of perceived harm from climate change and floods, while also demonstrating higher levels of concern, greater behavioural intentions (e.g., contact their MP or discuss climate change with their family) and policy support (e.g., Increase taxes on fossil fuels). These treatment effects persisted after four weeks. Overall, we argue these results have important implications for thinking about how best to engage citizens with respect to the effects of climate change using personalized images of places people care about.
Wednesday April 20 2022: Asli Cansunar (University of Washington) and Ben Ansell (University of Oxford). Local Economies, Local Wealth, and Economic Perceptions. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Notwithstanding democratic norms of transparency and accountability, electoral candidates often take ambiguous policy positions by making vague or contradictory statements. Yet, the dominant assumption in the literature on voter behaviour is that voters are risk-averse. This poses a puzzle: if voters are risk-averse, why do candidates create uncertainty by taking ambiguous policy positions? To answer this question, this study uses insights from ecological rationality and foraging theory, and an experimental design that simulates an electoral campaign. I argue that, as foragers, voters have to deal with an uncertain environment. They are satisficers who seek a “good-enough”—rather than optimal—decision. In this context, ambiguity is not necessarily penalized. The experiment was fielded in Canada, the United States and Germany using a mix of panel respondents and workers on crowdsourcing platforms. The results provide evidence that voters in the United States and Canada use the ambiguity of policy statements by major party candidates as a cue for non-centrist policy positions. Policy ambiguity attracts voters who sit between the center and the extremes, yet it does so without repelling centrist and extremist voters. Hence it explains why policy ambiguity is an attractive strategy for electoral candidates and offers a solution to the puzzle. Further analyses suggest that the null treatment effect in Germany could be due to bias related to the composition of the sample.
Wednesday April 13 2022: Sarah Lachance (University of British Columbia). Foraging for Policy: Ambiguity as a Heuristic. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Notwithstanding democratic norms of transparency and accountability, electoral candidates often take ambiguous policy positions by making vague or contradictory statements. Yet, the dominant assumption in the literature on voter behaviour is that voters are risk-averse. This poses a puzzle: if voters are risk-averse, why do candidates create uncertainty by taking ambiguous policy positions? To answer this question, this study uses insights from ecological rationality and foraging theory, and an experimental design that simulates an electoral campaign. I argue that, as foragers, voters have to deal with an uncertain environment. They are satisficers who seek a “good-enough”—rather than optimal—decision. In this context, ambiguity is not necessarily penalized. The experiment was fielded in Canada, the United States and Germany using a mix of panel respondents and workers on crowdsourcing platforms. The results provide evidence that voters in the United States and Canada use the ambiguity of policy statements by major party candidates as a cue for non-centrist policy positions. Policy ambiguity attracts voters who sit between the center and the extremes, yet it does so without repelling centrist and extremist voters. Hence it explains why policy ambiguity is an attractive strategy for electoral candidates and offers a solution to the puzzle. Further analyses suggest that the null treatment effect in Germany could be due to bias related to the composition of the sample.
Wednesday April 6 2022: Kathrin Ackermann (Heidelberg University). The Activation of Norms: Revisiting the Link between Citizenship Norms and Participation. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Liberal democracies are under pressure around the globe. They are challenged by populist and authoritarian actors and movements who question and erode democratic norms. Against this backdrop, democracies depend particularly on the support and the actual participation of citizens in democratic and societal processes. To explain participation, this paper focuses on the role of citizenship norms. It asks under which circumstances citizens act upon their normative conceptions of a ‘good citizen’. I argue that it matters how strongly and how uniformly this norm is shared in the context. Strong prevalence and strong consensus about the norm to vote are expected to activate this norm and to promote actual participation in elections. In these circumstances, citizens will feel social pressure to show conforming behavior. This argument is empirically tested using data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) 2014 and applying hierarchical modelling techniques. The results lend support to the theoretical expectations: higher norm prevalence strengthens the link between the individual norm and participation while a higher variance weakens it. This informs us about ways to promote political participation as normatively desirable behavior.
Wednesday March 30 2022: Alina Vrânceanu (European University Institut). How do voters respond to elite polarization? Mass and party polarization on immigration in Europe. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Much of the existing research on public attitudes toward immigration focuses on their drivers and political consequences. However, we know less about mass polarization on this issue and the extent to which it is influenced by party system polarization, a factor shown in previous research to affect public opinion on a variety of issues. This paper addresses this question by employing time-series cross-section data analyses covering seventeen European countries between 2002 and 2019, coupled with additional analyses using panel data as well as an instrumental variable approach. Preliminary results suggest that the impact of elite polarization on voter polarization is moderated by partisanship and the election context.
Wednesday March 23, 2022: Evelyne Hübscher (Central European University, European University Institute), Thomas Sattler (University of Geneva) et Markus Wagner (University of Vienna). Does Austerity Cause Polarization? 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- In recent decades, governments in many Western democracies have shown a remarkable consensus in pursuing austerity during periods of strained public finances. In this paper, we show that these decisions have consequences for political polarization. Our macro-level analysis of 166 elections since 1980 finds that fiscal restraint increases both electoral abstention and votes for non-mainstream parties, thereby boosting party system polarization. A detailed analysis of selected fiscal adjustments also shows that new, small and radical parties benefit most from austerity policies. Finally, survey experiments with a total of 8,800 respondents in Germany, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom indicate that the effects of austerity on polarization are particularly pronounced when the mainstream right and left parties both stand for fiscal restraint. Austerity is a substantial cause of political polarization and hence political instability in industrialized democracies.
Wednesday March 16, 2022: Dieter Stiers (KU Leuven). Spatial versus valence models of voting. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Spatial and valence models are the workhorses of research on electoral behaviour. Yet, few is known about the factors that influence their relative strength. In this paper, I argue that the number of parties in a political system as well as their ideological dispersion affects the prevalence of spatial and valence considerations in voters’ minds. I investigate these expectations by combining all the available data of the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) with information of the political system in which the elections took place. The results show that ideological considerations become more important for the vote when the party system is more polarised. The results regarding the number of parties are mixed.
Tuesday March 8, 2022: Amanda Friesen (Western University). Risk, Social Identities, and Political Engagement. 12h-13h, Organized with LACPOP UQAM, Hybrid. Room A-1715 at UQAM & on Zoom.
Wednesday March 2, 2022: Rahsaan Maxwell (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). The Pro-Immigration Europeans. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- One of the central conflicts in Western Europe is whether nation-states should be open or closed to immigration and ethnic diversity. These issues have been at the center of election campaigns and may structure debates about the future of European societies. However, analysis of these debates tends to focus on the anti-immigration side, because those views are considered abhorrent and in need of explanation. People who do not hold anti-immigration views are considered normal and have not been rigorously analyzed. This oversight is unfortunate because pro-immigration sentiments may be a unique and complex set of preferences that are more than just the opposite of anti-immigration sentiments. Moreover, the depth of commitment to pro-immigration perspectives is unclear, as many Europeans may be neutral or have conditional preferences. I am writing a book that comprehensively analyzes pro-immigration people, which is essential for better understanding the future of immigration politics in Europe. I will present some of the preliminary results in this talk.
Wednesday February 23, 2022: Love Aksel Christensen (Aarhus University) and Pablo Fernandez Vazquez (Carlos III University in Madrid). Shifting Motivations? Voters Infer Credible Committment from Policy Changes 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- In the course of electoral competition, parties may find themselves compelled to change their policy positions. Even if these changes are motivated by substantive policy concerns, changing policy may be written off as vote-seeking behavior by voters, adversely affecting the credibility of the party’s position. What policy changes can parties make without losing their credibility? We propose that voters use the direction of the policy shift as a signal of whether a party is motivated by and committed to policy and not merely by winning office. Shifting to an unpopular policy position is a costly signal of principled motives, while a shift to a popular position signals opportunistic motives. We test our theory using survey experiments with both hypothetical parties and the real case of Social Democrat accommodation on the immigration issue in Sweden. We find that policy shifts signal motivations and commitment in the expected ways but the effects on commitment are less pronounced for the real world case. The study speaks against the notion of costless spatial mobility and helps to explain the limited effect of accommodating the radical right and the stability of issue ownership.
Wednesday February 16, 2022: David Talukder (Université Libre de Bruxelles). Au-delà de l’insatisfaction avec la démocratie : comment les citoyens évaluent-ils le système politique? 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Durant cette présentation, je vais présenter l’un des chapitres de ma thèse dans laquelle j’examine la manière dont les citoyens évaluent le système politique. Plus particulièrement, j’aborde la question de l’évaluation de la légitimité du système politique par le biais du triptyque input, throughput et output en opposition à l’approche classique utilisée par Satisfaction with Democracy. La présentation envisage de discuter conceptuellement de la manière dont j’ai étudié l’insatisfaction démocratique par le biais du triptyque input, throughput et output et de présenter les résultats d'une analyse en profils latents sur les citoyens belges qui montre que certains profils de citoyens distinguent les différentes dimensions d’input, throughput et output.
Wednesday February 9, 2022: Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau (Université de Montréal). Do Unfounded Claims of Election Fraud Influence the Likelihood of Voting? 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- The legitimacy of the electoral process is often put into question by political candidates and elites who seek to account for their loss. As a result, a significant portion of voters are presented with unfounded allegations of widespread election fraud even though such fraud seldom occurs in established democracies. Previous research has determined that misleading claims regarding the integrity of elections carry important implications for citizens’ perceptions of electoral fairness. In fact, scholars have shown unsubstantiated claims of election fraud to be detrimental to voters’ confidence in elections as well as their support for key democratic norms. However, the literature has yet to systematically explore the impact of electoral fraud allegations on voter participation. Using original survey data from the United Kingdom, this research will measure the impact of unfounded allegations of election fraud on the decision to vote or not. We will first look at the impact on specific dispositions of voting, that is, the likelihood that an individual will turn out at the next election. Then, we will turn to general dispositions of voting by considering the impact of fraud misperceptions on citizens’ sense that voting is a civic duty. Lastly, we will examine the ability of corrective messages to rectify misperceptions of electoral integrity and address the impacts of fraud allegations on voter participation.
Wednesday February 2, 2022: Catherine Ouellet (University of Toronto) and Nadjim Fréchet (Université de Montréal). Striking a Political Chord: The Effect of Musical Preferences on Voting Intentions in Canada. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Music is arguably one of the most meaningful and widespread forms of communication. There is also extensive evidence that musical taste is often revealing of values, personality traits, and lifestyle-related attributes. Drawing on a unique dataset (n=7,229) collected during the 2021 Canadian federal election, this paper investigates the extent to which fans of different music genres might differentiate in their political attitudes. We find that age, gender, immigration status and income explain some of the variations in terms of musical styles. Significant correlations also emerge between music preferences and vote intentions, where Conservatives particularly stand out from other groups. These findings suggest that music preferences encompass a wide range of information and are therefore worthy of scientific attention by social scientists. More generally, this analysis contributes to the emerging research on the relationships between lifestyle, or non-political characteristics, and political behavior.
Wednesday January 26, 2022: André Blais (Université de Montréal). Assemblée citoyenne sur la démocratie électorale municipale. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Je vais présenter un projet de recherche que je compte mener en 2023 sur la démocratie électorale municipale. Il s’agira de mener un exercice de délibération citoyenne dans une municipalité québécoise. Une centaine de citoyens seront invités à réfléchir, discuter et faire une recommandation collective sur les institutions électorales qui devraient être mises en place dans leur municipalité. Ils seront appelés à répondre aux 5 questions suivantes: 1. Qui devrait avoir le droit de vote?; 2. Le vote devrait-il être obligatoire?; 3. Quel devrait être le mode de scrutin pour l’élection du maire?; 4. Quel devrait être le mode de scrutin pour l’élection des conseillers municipaux?; 5. Devrait-on permettre le vote en ligne?
Wednesday January 19, 2022: Laura Uyttendaele (UCLouvain). The voting advice applications' match effects on pre-voters. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- The Test électoral is a Voting Advice Application (VAA) providing citizens with personalized information on their ideological profile by comparing their positions on a selection of political issues with those of parties. Scholars agree that VAAs have the potential to assist young people in familiarizing themselves with political issues and ideological positions. Nevertheless, field research examining the effects of VAAs on young people particularly is lacking.First findings from a field experiment with pre-voting pupils aged 16 to 18 in Wallonia have shown that the mere use of a VAA in the classroom contributes to increasing pre-voters’ political trust. One may therefore wonder about the VAA match effect — the effect resulting from the matching/congruence of the advice with the user prior party preferences. First, we investigate advice congruence as evidence of a VAA’s validity. The Test électoral éducatif is expected to render accurate advice and to be a valid VAA assuming that pupils are sufficiently competent to quickly express cogent policy preferences in response to appropriately formulated issue statements. We expect that those who are better able to understand the realm of politics are more likely to get congruent advice as they are more literate in using a VAA. Second, we investigate VAA match effects on pre-voters’ political self-efficacy, political trust, and their evaluation of the tool. Results confirm that politically sophisticated pre-voters are more likely to get congruent advice. In turn, those who receive congruent advice tend to evaluate more positively the VAA compared to those who were exposed to incongruent advice. However, we do not find any evidence of VAA match effects on political efficacy and trust.
Tuesday December 21, 2021: Philippe Mongrain (Université de Montréal). I’m a Loser? Unexpected Election Outcomes and Satisfaction with Democracy. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- A great amount of research has noted the existence of a gap between winners and losers in relation to satisfaction with democracy and other political attitudes. One aspect of the winner–loser gap that has been overlooked is the impact of citizens’ expectations and the strength of these expectations on their level of satisfaction with democracy (SWD) and perceptions of electoral fairness. More precisely, how do citizens react to unexpected winners and losers? Are individuals on the losing side less dissatisfied or critical when they recognize that their favourite party or candidate was likely to be defeated at the polls? Does experiencing a surprise victory lead to a boost in satisfaction or perceived electoral integrity? To answer these questions, I use data from multiple national and regional elections in Canada, France, Scotland, and the United States. While the results confirm the existence of a gap between winners and losers in SWD and perceived electoral integrity, citizens’ expectations do not appear to matter, although there is some evidence that unexpected losers are more likely than other losers to hold negative evaluations of electoral fairness.
Tuesday December 14, 2021: Nadjim Fréchet (Université de Montréal). Black Canadian Lives Matter in Public Opinion. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Political cleavages, the relevance of the old ones like the emergence of new ones, are still highly debated in the literature since the canonical work of Lipset and Rokkan (1967). Some political scientists believe important sociodemographic changes in Western democracies might create political cleavages between ethnic minorities and the white majority. In the aftermath of the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, the black Canadians demands for racial justice suggest the possibility of political divisions between black and white voters on how to fight racial inequalities in Canada. With data from the 2021 Canadian Election Study, this paper analyzes how black and white voters’ stances differ on measures to correct racial inequalities in Canada.
Tuesday December 7, 2021: Jelle Koedam, Garret Binding and Marco Steenbergen (University of Zurich). Polarization and the structure of multidimensional party competition in Europe. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Ideological polarization is a key quality of any democratic system. While pluralism is necessary for electoral competition to function, there is growing concern over the increased division and fragmentation of today’s political landscape. In order to evaluate (trends in) party system polarization, we need a valid and reliable indicator. Yet, despite a wide acceptance of the multidimensionality of contemporary European politics, existing measures of polarization remain unidimensional. To reflect our understanding that party competition is no longer structured by a single left-right divide, this study introduces a novel two-dimensional, variance-based measure of party system polarization. It relies on Chapel Hill Expert Survey (CHES) estimates of party positions to map their distribution along an economic and a cultural dimension. It subsequently computes system-level polarization by accounting for the degree to which the two axes are orthogonal to each other. By offering a tool to evaluate how condensed or dispersed a party system is—both cross-sectionally and temporally—this study has important implications for our understanding of party strategy and democratic representation.
Tuesday November 30, 2021: Werner Krause (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin), Denis Cohen (MZES, University of Mannheim) and Tarik Abou-Chadi (University of Oxford). Getting the most out of comarative vote switching data: A new framework for studying dynamic multi-party competition. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Large literatures on party competition and voting behavior focus on voter reactions to parties’ policy strategies, agency, or legislative performance. While many inquiries make explicit assumptions about the direction and magnitude of voter flows between parties, comparative empirical analyses of vote switching remain rare. In this paper, we overcome three challenges that have previously impeded the comparative study of dynamic party competition based on voter flows: We showcase a newly compiled data set that marries comparative vote switching data with information on party behavior and party systems in 204 electoral contexts across 36 OECD countries, present a novel conceptual framework for studying how party behavior affects voter retention, defection, and attraction in multi-party systems, and introduce a statistical model that renders this framework operable. Based on the example of the positional convergence between mainstream parties in Western Europe, we highlight how the study of voter flows can advance our understanding of the dynamic complexities of multiparty competition.
Tuesday November 23, 2021: Maxime Coulombe, André Blais and Ruth Dassonneville (Université de Montréal). "Do people vote to avoid disapproval? A study of social norms and partisan pressure in Austria" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Recent studies have highlighted how descriptive and injunctive norms matter for turnout. We aim in this research to expand our understanding of these relationships in two ways. First, we use discussion network data from an original question module in the Austrian National Election Study. This allows us to test whether previous findings observed in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom regarding social norms hold in a different political context. Second, we use a different question to measure injunctive norms by asking respondents whether their political discussants would disapprove if they abstained.
Tuesday November 16, 2021: Jonathan Homola (Rice University), Petra Schleiter (University of Oxford), Margit Tavits (Washington University in St. Louis) and Dalston Ward (ETH Zurich). "How Fathers’ Leave Shapes Attitudes Toward Gender Equality" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Stereotypical attitudes about gender roles help sustain inequalities, which favor men over women in the social, economic, and political domains. We explore whether exposure to counter-stereotypical gender roles reduces traditional gender stereotypes and promotes more equal attitudes. Our study focuses on a real-world social policy intervention that disrupts traditional gender roles: paid paternity leave. We exploit a policy discontinuity in Estonia, which increased fathers’ paid leave entitlement from 10 to 30 days for children born on or after July 1, 2020 and fielded a survey to pre- and post-reform new parents. Contrasting the attitudes of parents who were (and were not) directly affected by the reform that required active choices about adopting the counter-stereotypical gender role, we find that the reform led to more gender egalitarian views (but not to support for positive action policies) in the social and political domains among new parents.
Tuesday November 9, 2021: Elizabeth Simas and Scott Clifford (University of Houston). "Candidate Rhetorical Strategy and Perceptions of Sincerity" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Recent polls suggest that as few as 8% of Americans think that politicians believe most of the stances that they take on issues. This extreme level of cynicism threatens to break a fundamental link in representation. If candidates cannot credibly convey their positions, then voters cannot evaluate them on policy. Yet, we know little about the strategies politicians might take to convey the sincerity of their claims. In this paper, we investigate whether politicians can signal sincerity by taking extreme positions or by justifying their stances in moral terms. Across two experiments, we show that moral justifications tend to enhance sincerity, while extreme positions do not. In a third study, we show that while extreme stances increase polarization in candidate evaluations, moral justifications do not. Taken together, our findings suggest that moral justifications are a useful strategy to reduce cynicism without contributing to rising levels of polarization.
Tuesday November 2, 2021: Evelyne Brie (University of Pennsylvania) and Félix Mathieu (University of Winnipeg). "Un pays divisé: identité, fédéralisme et régionalisme au Canada" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Le Canada est un pays divisé… mais à quel point? Et surtout, comment expliquer et interpréter ce phénomène ? À l’aide de données de sondage originales issues de l’enquête La Confédération de demain 2.0 / The Confederation of Tomorrow 2.0 , c’est la question à laquelle Evelyne Brie et Félix Mathieu tente de répondre dans leur plus récent ouvrage, Un pays divisé : identité, fédéralisme et régionalisme au Canada(Presses de l’Université Laval, 2021). Concrètement, Brie et Mathieu ont sondé les Canadiens pour mieux saisir le rapport qu’ils entretiennent avec leurs pôles identitaires ainsi qu’avec le fédéralisme et le régionalisme. Divisé, le Canada l’est en effet d’abord sur le plan des équations identitaires que ses citoyens mettent de l’avant pour s’autoreprésenter. Dans cette présentation, ils feront ressortir l’influence de certains nœuds dans cette toile identitaire sur les préférences institutionnelles à l’échelle provinciale et régionale. De même, ils analyseront la manière dont les diverses catégories de population au pays se représentent les avantages et les inconvénients du système fédéral, ainsi que les rapports qu’elles entretiennent avec certaines politiques publiques clés pour leur province ou leur région, comme le programme de la péréquation, la protection de l’environnement, le processus de réconciliation, etc. Devant ces constats, Evelyne Brie et Félix Mathieu proposent deux avenues possibles pour le Canada : (1) développer un système de fédéralisme asymétrique pour que les partenaires qui le souhaitent aient accès à une autonomie accrue, ou (2) accepter l’éclatement de la fédération canadienne et l’émergence de nouveaux projets politiques et démocratiques souverains en Amérique du Nord.
Tuesday October 26, 2021: Jae-Hee Jung (University of Houston). "Voters’ Preferences for Parties’ Moral Rhetoric" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Moral rhetoric in party messages reflect parties’ attempts to represent voters’ moral values. It is unclear, however, how voters feel about such messages of moral representation. Do voters want parties to use moral rhetoric? Based on insights about the link between morality and politics, I argue that moral rhetoric is preferred by a broad set of voters, including copartisans and non-copartisans. Specifically, I posit that moral rhetoric is appealing to not only supporters of the party, but also non-supporters who hold strong moral convictions about politics. Using original survey data from six countries and additional studies in the UK, I find evidence in support of my argument that moral rhetoric is attractive to voters beyond the party base. The results point to the unifying potential of morality in politics, in addition to its divisiveness. The paper contributes to research on party competition, morality and politics, and representation.
Tuesday October 19, 2021: Éric Bélanger (McGill University) et Jean-François Godbout (Université de Montréal). "Les clivages politiques et le système partisan du Québec au XXIe siècle" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Depuis quelques années, le Québec semble en proie à une transformation significative sur le plan politique. L’exemple le plus frappant de cette évolution tient au fait que les débats qui occupent la scène politique ont commencé à accorder moins de place à la question de la souveraineté, un enjeu qui a accaparé l’attention du public et des élites pendant plus d’une quarantaine d’années. Dans la foulée, des questions davantage reliées à l’interventionnisme de l’État et à la gestion de la diversité ethnoculturelle ont commencé à occuper de plus en plus d’espace dans les débats politiques. Est-il pour autant possible de parler de « réalignement » politique au Québec? Répondre à cette question demande, entre autres choses, de se pencher plus spécifiquement sur l’état de l’opinion publique et du système partisan dans la province. Mais, rassurez-vous, nous allons vous offrir en grande primeur une réponse définitive à cette question le 19 octobre.
Tuesday October 12, 2021: Ruth Dassonneville (Université de Montréal). "The Effectiveness of Symbolic Group Appeals" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Citizens’ socio-demographic characteristics shape their political preferences, resulting in systematic differences in how social groups vote. These group-differences emerge when there are clear associations between social groups and specific parties. Recent work has shown that one way in which parties can create such linkages and strengthen the association between membership of a social group and electoral support is by means of symbolic group appeals. However, what we know about such appeals is mostly limited to the role of class-based appeals. By means of a vignette experiment that was embedded in a survey of British voters, I bring insights in the generalizability of symbolic group appeals for other types of societal groups. The results show that symbolic group appeals are not only effective when appealing to the working class, but that parties can also use symbolic group appeals to effectively polarize groups along the rural/urban and education cleavages. In contrast, symbolic group appeals based on age do not appear to increase support among the targeted group. These findings imply that symbolic group appeals can be effective beyond a focus on the well-established class cleavage. More work is needed, however, to understand the scope conditions of the effectiveness of symbolic group appeals.
Tuesday October 5, 2021: Miguel Pereira (University of Southern California) and Patrik Ohberg (University of Gothenburg). "The Expertise Paradox: How Policy Expertise Can Hinder Responsiveness" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- We argue that policy expertise constrains the ability of politicians to act on voter preferences. Legislators with more knowledge and experience in a given domain have more confidence in their own issue-specific positions. Enhanced confidence, in turn, may lead legislators to discount opinions they disagree with, producing a distorted image of the electorate. Two experiments with Swedish politicians support our argument. First, we find that officials are more likely to dismiss appeals from voters in their areas of expertise, and less likely to accept that opposing views may represent the majority opinion. Consistent with the proposed mechanism, in a second experiment we show that inducing perceptions of expertise increases self-confidence. The results suggest that representatives with more specialized knowledge in a given area may be less capable of acting as delegates in that domain. The study provides a novel explanation for variations in policy responsiveness.
Tuesday September 28, 2021: Semih Çakır (Université de Montréal). "You can Sort but don’t Polarize: How Elite Polarization Shapes Opinion Formation" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Prior work convincingly demonstrates that Americans follow the policy positions of parties with whom they identify. However, not much research investigates the relative impact of parties on opinion formation. More specifically, are parties the main source of opinion formation in the United States, or are there more influential sources? This study will provide an answer to this question by means of a survey experiment, which will be conducted as a survey module within the framework of the 2021 Cooperative Election Study. In this experiment, individuals will be exposed to information about a salient policy (the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines among developing countries) with the endorsement from either a) a politician from the Democratic or the Republican Party or b) a friend who identify with Democratic or the Republican Party. The results from this study will provide important knowledge on the relative power of parties in shaping opinion formation in the United States.
Tuesday September 21, 2021: Discussion sur les résultats des élections fédérales au Canada. 12h-13h, On Zoom.
Tuesday September 14, 2021: Fernando Feitosa (McGill University), Jennifer Oser (Ben-Gurion University), and Nir Grinberg (Ben-Gurion University). "Follow mainly the leader? An experimental study of the relative impact of parties on opinion formation" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Prior work convincingly demonstrates that Americans follow the policy positions of parties with whom they identify. However, not much research investigates the relative impact of parties on opinion formation. More specifically, are parties the main source of opinion formation in the United States, or are there more influential sources? This study will provide an answer to this question by means of a survey experiment, which will be conducted as a survey module within the framework of the 2021 Cooperative Election Study. In this experiment, individuals will be exposed to information about a salient policy (the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines among developing countries) with the endorsement from either a) a politician from the Democratic or the Republican Party or b) a friend who identify with Democratic or the Republican Party. The results from this study will provide important knowledge on the relative power of parties in shaping opinion formation in the United States.
Tuesday September 7, 2021: Jean-François Daoust (University of Edinburgh), John McAndrews (University of Toronto), Thomas Bergeron (University of Toronto), Roosmarijn de Geus (University of Oxford) et Peter J. Loewen (University of Toronto). "Les citoyens sont-ils plus sévères à l’égard des politiciens que des autres professions ? Preuves provenant d'expériences d'enquête aux États-Unis et au Canada" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Être politicien ne fait pas partie des professions tenues en haute estime par les citoyens. Cependant, nous ne savons pas si les citoyens sont toujours intrinsèquement sévères lorsqu'il s'agit d'évaluer les actions quotidiennes des politiciens ou les scandales périodiques. Ceci est crucial étant donné que l'attribution du blâme et de la récompense est au cœur de notre compréhension de la relation entre les citoyens et les politiciens. Si les citoyens sont sévères avec les politiciens, ou autrement dit, affichent un fort biais négatif contre leurs représentants élus, nous devrions nous inquiéter de la façon dont les citoyens tiendraient les politiciens responsables de manière équitable. Pour examiner cette relation de responsabilité, nous posons la question suivante : les citoyens sont-ils plus sévères envers les politiciens par rapport aux individus d’autres professions lorsque les contextes sont identiques ? Nous développons deux propositions théoriques pour évaluer si les citoyens sont plus sévères envers les politiciens. Premièrement, nous examinons si les citoyens punissent les politiciens plus que les autres professionnels pour exactement la même infraction --- et s'ils les récompensent de la même manière en ce qui concerne les avantages associés à un emploi. Deuxièmement, nous analysons si, en l'absence d'information, les citoyens émettent des hypothèses moins favorables sur la conduite des politiciens que la conduite des autres professionnels. Nous testons ces deux propositions dans trois expériences d'enquête préenregistrées, chacune menée auprès d'échantillons représentatifs à l'échelle nationale d'Américains et de Canadiens.
Tuesday June 28, 2021: Nadjim Fréchet (Université de Montréal) and Maxime Blanchard (McGill University). "Can Party Id be a Proxy? The Measure of Party Ideology with Party Identification Conférenciers" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- De nombreuses questions de recherche dans les études électorales portent directement ou indirectement sur la position des partis politiques sur des enjeux spécifiques. Malheureusement, les partis ne répondent pas aux sondages. Par conséquent, il est beaucoup plus complexe de déterminer leur position sur des enjeux spécifiques comparativement aux électeurs. Nous pouvons généralement estimer l'idéologie des partis politiques à l'aide de données d'enquête électorale en demandant aux répondants de les positionner sur l'échelle gauche-droite. Cependant, les sondeurs ou les chercheurs demandent rarement aux répondants du sondage de positionner les partis politiques sur d'autres enjeux. Nous proposons une nouvelle approche pour estimer les positions des partis. Notre méthode a l'avantage d'être efficace et simple, car elle ne repose que sur des sondages d'opinion publique menés auprès des électeurs. La méthode que nous développons se concentre sur la position des répondants s’identifiant à un parti politique sur des questions spécifiques. Nous nous attendons à ce que les partisans soient représentatifs de leur parti sur des enjeux spécifiques. Pour évaluer la fiabilité de l'approche, nous l'appliquons au cas britannique et comparons les résultats avec d'autres méthodes d’analyse.)
Tuesday June 22, 2021: Alexandra Jabbour (Université de Montréal). "The political consequences of a surge in housing prices: an experimental study" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Change in housing princes has direct pocketbook effects which probably explain the interest of political scientists in establishing a link between real estate and political attitudes. The literature predominantly assumes that housing unaffordability benefits homeowners, while renters are perceived to be the ’losers’ of such market situations. Based on this assumption, most studies seek to demonstrate that a surge in housing prices leads homeowners to reward the incumbent and adopt conservative opinions such as being tax-averse while renters endorse opposite preferences. By means of an experimental study, I aim to provide two contributions to the burgeoning literature on the link between housing prices and political behavior. First, I seek to underline that owners and tenants have more in common than currently assumed since they might share similar reactions to the market when housing prices surge. The common denominator being the economic anxiety that is likely to affect both groups. Second, I put the theoretical mechanism through an experimental test since the current literature is limited to observational evidence.
Tuesday June 15, 2021: Fabio Votta (University of Amsterdam), Benjamin Guinaudeau (University of Konstanz), and Simon Roth (University of Konstanz). "Pernicious Personalization: An Audit on the Ideological Bias of Twitter Recommender System" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Although social media only recently emerged, the accumulation of evidence undermining the ‘echo chamber’ hypothesis is striking. While self-selective exposure to congruent content - the echo chamber - is not as salient as expected, the ideological bias induced primarily by algorithmic selection - the filter bubble - has been less scrutinized in the literature. In this study, we propose a new experimental research design to investigate recommender systems. To avoid any behavioral confounder, we rely on automated agents, which ‘treat’ the algorithm with ideological and behavioral cues. For each agent, we compare the ideological slant of the recommended timeline with the ideological slant of an artificially reconstructed chronological timeline and, hence, isolate the ideological bias of the recommender system. This allows us to investigate two main questions : (1) how much bias is induced by the recommender system? (2) what role is played by implicit and explicit cues, when triggering ideological recommendations?The experiment has been pre-registrated (https://osf.io/5kwpr) and features 170 automated agents, which were active for three weeks before and three weeks after the 2020 American presidential election. We find that, after three weeks of delivering ideological cues (following accounts and liking content), the average algorithmic bias is about 5%. In other words, the timeline as structured by the algorithm entails 5% less cross-cutting content than it does when it is structured chronologically. While the algorithm relies on both implicit and explicit cues to formulate recommendations, the effect of implicit cues is significantly stronger.
Tuesday June 8, 2021: Orit Kedar (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Odelia Oshri (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), and Lotem Halevy (University of Pennsylvania). "The Changing Gender Gap(s) in Voting: An Occupational Realignment" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- In a dramatic reversal from five decades ago, in most Western democracies today, women support left-leaning parties at higher rates than men do. We explain this change on the left by focusing on men’s vote. We contend that occupational vulnerability to immigration led manual workers, most of whom are men, to abandon the mainstream left and support the radical right at disproportionately high rates. Furthermore, this effect is contingent on economic positions of parties both on the left and the radical right. Drawing on public opinion data from 18 countries over a 46 year period, labor data on skills required in different sectors, and party positions, we conduct both aggregate and individual-level analyses. We find that realignment of the vote along occupational lines in a gender-segregated labor market is at the heart of the change in the gender gap in voting.
Tuesday June 1, 2021: Christian H. Schimpf (Université du Québec à Montréal), Alexander Wuttke (University of Mannheim) and Harald Schoen (University of Mannheim). "No change in sight? Assessing the stability of populist attitudes" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- A rapidly growing literature addresses the role of so-called populist attitudes in contemporary democracies. Generally speaking, populist attitudes are defined as a multi-dimensional attitudinal syndrome implying (dis-)agreement with populism’s central ideas of anti-elitism, preference for popular sovereignty, and a view of society as a homogenous body. In the literature investigating the antecedents and consequences of populist attitudes, we can identify two different premises about the temporal stability of populist attitudes. Some scholars assume that levels of populist attitudes are reasonably stable for individuals. By contrast, other researchers conceive of populist attitudes as a more flexible construct. Which of the two views researchers choose to adopt has fundamentally different implications for theorizing the role that populist attitudes play in contemporary democracies. Yet, despite the diverging perspectives of the temporal stability of populist attitudes and the implications for research, few studies investigate the stability of populist attitudes over time. To this end, we draw on panel data collected over six panel waves between September 2017 and March 2021 in Germany to investigate how stable populist attitudes are. The observed period includes both the 2017 German Federal Election as well as the onset and course of the Covid-19 pandemic. Initial results suggest that populist attitudes are best characterized as a relatively stable set of attitudes that only show limited flexibility over time. We discuss not only the implications for the populism literature and the role of stability in multi-dimensional concepts more generally.
Tuesday May 25, 2021: Marco Mendoza Aviña and Semra Sevi (Université de Montréal). "Did Trump Lose Reelection because of COVID-19?" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- A significant body of literature on retrospective voting shows that citizens evaluate elected officials based on their past performance. In the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, the conventional wisdom in both media and academic discourse is that Trump would have been a two-term president absent an unprecedented, global force majeure. In this research note, we address a simple question: Did Donald Trump’s (mis)management of the COVID-19 pandemic impact the 2020 US election? Using data from the Cooperative Election Study, we estimate the effect of exposure to coronavirus cases and deaths on vote choice in last year’s presidential election. While Trump did lose votes because of COVID-19, we find no evidence that he would have won the election under different circumstances. These negligeable effects are found both at the national and state levels, and are robust to an exhaustive set of confounders across model specifications.
Tuesday May 18, 2021: Daniel Devine (University of Oxford) and Viktor Valgardsson (Southampton University). "Stability and Change in Political Trust: Evidence and implications from (at least) 3 panel studies" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Theories of determinants of political trust make different assumptions about the stability or malleability of trust. For instance, at different ends of the spectrum, theories of policy evaluation suggest a rational ‘running tally’ process of updating whilst disposition theories assume a more stable attitude formed through genetics or early-life socialisation. In this paper, I present early work which aims to address this question directly by using long-run panel data from (at least) three countries: Britain, Switzerland and the Netherlands. By studying the development of political trust within the same individuals over a period of up to 19 years, we can identify to what extent political trust changes and in response to what events. Early results suggest that political trust in the long-term is at least as stable as other attitudes such as on immigration, redistribution and `moral regulation’, and life events such as unemployment, education and income change do not have large effects. Overall, the implications so far are that the base determinant of trust are generational or dispositional – whilst short-term factors likely play a role, trust returns to its equilibrium over the longer term.
Tuesday May 11, 2021: James Adams (UC Davis), Noam Gidron (Hebrew University in Jerusalem), Will Horn (Princeton University) and Yair Amitai (Hebrew University in Jerusalem). "Positivity breeds Positivity: Evidence that Positive In-party Affective Evaluations Predict Positive Out-party Evaluations in Western Publics" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Political observers voice growing concerns over cross-party distrust and hostility in western publics, commonly labeled affective polarisation. Scholars typically measure affective polarisation as the difference between partisans’ evaluations of their own party versus its opponents. However theoretical intuitions conflict regarding how partisans’ in-party and out-party evaluations should relate to one another. We review these conflicting arguments, and we report empirical analyses that show a positive association between partisans’ affective evaluations of in-parties versus out-parties: when people express warmer feelings toward their own party, they also tend to express warmer feelings toward other parties, and vice versa. This relationship holds for both cross-national and temporal comparisons of survey data on twenty western publics, and in individual-level Dutch panel survey data. These findings advance debates over the building blocks of affective polarisation.
Tuesday May 4, 2021: David Weisstanner (University of Oxford) and Sarah Engler (University of Zurich). "Inequality and voting: How widening socio-economic gaps explain mainstream party decline" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- The political landscape of Western democracies has changed substantively over the past decades; mainstream parties have lost ground to radical left and radical right parties. Previous studies focusing on socio-structural transformations, such as occupational change or globalization, rely on distributional assumptions about winners and losers but do not directly test whether the cross-national and temporal variation in inequality explains this changing voting behaviour. We propose a theoretical framework that links rising income inequality with changing voting behaviour and discusses under which circumstances different groups affected by widening socio-economic gaps turn their backs on mainstream parties and vote for radical right or radical left parties instead. We test our claims in an empirical analysis of 18 Western democracies between 1987 and 2019 and indeed find rising income inequality to have different implications for radical left and radical right parties. While radical left parties draw their support primarily from the most deprived groups, we provide evidence that radical right parties attract support from voters with higher subjective social status who are perceiving a threat of social decline as income inequality increases. This study has important implications on the role of income inequality in understanding changing voting behaviour in advanced democracies.
Tuesday April 27, 2021: Chan Ka-Ming (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich). "Does bottom-up spillover effect exist for radical right party? Evidence from Germany" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Previous literature suggests that a party’s electoral result can shape its vote share and voters’ calculus in a subsequent election. Yet, can this information-updating process help explaining the success of radical right party (RRP) in a multi-level system? To answer this question, I bring together the literature of concatenated elections and second-order elections, and propose that crossing the regional electoral hurdle can foster a RRP’s performance in a subsequent general election. By leveraging the case of Germany, I first use a regression discontinuity design to estimate whether a bottom-up spillover effect exists for RRP at the aggregate level. Next, to analyze the micro-level foundation of this effect, I use a recent panel data to ascertain whether it is the changed viability mechanism or bandwagon mechanism that drives such effect. The analysis suggests that bandwagon mechanism is more likely, since AfD voters see the party in a more positive light after it had entered subnational parliaments. These findings enrich our understanding of both the second-order election framework and radical right studies, as they indicate that radical right parties can take advantage of regional electoral success to enter national party system.
Tuesday April 20, 2021: Stefanie Reher (University of Strathclyde). "Voting for Disabled Candidates: The Roles of Voter Preferences and Belief Stereotypes" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Despite important advances in the rights of disabled people over the past decades, stigma and prejudice against them remain widespread. Given ample evidence that voters use group stereotypes when evaluating candidates and casting their votes, we might expect disabled candidates to be penalised at the ballot box. However, voters’ considerations about policy and representation likely matter, too. Disabled candidates tend to be seen as more ideologically left, which might gain them support amongst left-wing voters. These voters likely also hold a preference for the inclusion of under-represented groups. The study analyses voter support for disabled candidates through survey experiments with a conjoint design in Britain and the United States. Overall, being disabled does not reduce candidates’ electoral support. Yet, voter ideology conditions the effect through perceptions of left-right congruence and representation preferences. The findings expand our understanding of the role of disability in politics and yield important insights for disabled candidates and parties who might be worried about discrimination at the ballot box.
Tuesday April 13, 2021: Emiliano Grossman (Centre d'Étude Européennes / Sciences Po) et Isabelle Guinaudeau (Centre Émile Durkheim / Sciences Po Bordeaux). "Do elections (still) matter? Mandate, institutions and policies Western Europe" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Are election campaigns relevant to policymaking, as they should in a democracy? This book sheds new light on this central democratic concern based on an ambitious study of democratic mandates through the lens of agenda-setting in five West European countries since the 1980s. The authors develop and test a new model bridging studies of party competition, pledge fulfillment and policymaking. The core argument is that electoral priorities are a major factor shaping policy agendas, but mandates should not be mistaken as partisan. Parties are like “snakes in tunnels”: they have distinctive priorities, but they need to respond to emerging problems and their competitors’ priorities, resulting in considerable cross-partisan overlap. The "tunnel of attention" remains constraining in the policymaking arena, especially when opposition parties have resources to press governing parties to act on the campaign priorities. This key aspect of mandate responsiveness has been neglected so far, because in traditional models of mandate representation, party platforms are conceived as a set of distinctive priorities, whose agenda-setting impact ultimately depends on the institutional capacity of the parties in office. Rather differently, this book suggests that counter-majoritarian institutions and windows for opposition parties generate key incentives to stick to the mandate. We show that these findings hold across five very different democracies: Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and the UK. Our results contribute to a renewal of mandate theories of representation and lead to question the idea underlying much of the comparative politics literature that majoritarian systems are more responsive than consensual ones.
Tuesday April 6, 2021: Florence Vallée-Dubois (Université de Montréal). "Making Sense of Electoral Behaviour in Seniors’ Residences" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Does placing polling stations in seniors’ residences have a positive impact on turnout? Does it benefit parties that are more popular among older citizens? I explore these questions using original data on electoral outcomes in seniors’ residences during the 2015 and 2019 federal elections in Canada. Results show that turnout was 4.2 higher in seniors’ residences in 2015, and 6.7 points higher in 2019. In 2019, Liberal candidates scored approximately 4 points higher in seniors’ residences than in other polling stations, even though survey data reveal that Liberal support was not higher among older people during this election. In this presentation, I will discuss plausible explanations for this result and present my strategy to address this puzzle. This paper documents the electoral consequences of facilitating turnout among seniors and contributes to research on the costs of voting.
Tuesday March 30, 2021: Claire Durand (Université de Montréal) and Timothy P. Johnson (University of Illinois at Chicago). "What about modes? Differences Between Modes in the 21st Century’s Electoral Polls" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- The 21st Century has seen an important transition in survey modes used for electoral polls. This transition has not ended yet. It is thus possible to examine differences between modes used in the same election. Different modes are more or less prone to social desirability and use different sampling frames and recruitment strategies that may lead to differences in estimation. In this paper, we examine differences between modes across 15 elections and referendums that took place since 2005 in Canada, France, the United Kingdom and the United States. We first assessed differences in average estimates, variance, trends and forecasts. We then pooled the data to analyze whether there are differences that apply in all contexts and over time. In this paper, we focus on the difficulties associated with pooling data from very different contexts. We conclude that differences between modes vary with context and over time. There are some consistent differences however as online polls are less likely to detect movement than are telephone or IVR polls. In a context in which online polls are becoming dominant, citizens may not be provided with a reliable portrait of the state of public opinion. IVR polls tended to be more precise than other polls recently, but they also tended to have a conservative bias. For the future, it will be important to monitor closely new developments in the methodology used for election polls. The presence of multiple modes in pre-election polling and new developments in mixed modes would be beneficial to voters and researchers alike.
Tuesday March 23, 2021: Haley McAvay and Pavlos Vasilopoulos (University of York). "Do Neighborhoods Empower or Disenfranchise? A Longitudinal Analysis of the Effects of Spatial Disadvantage and Ethnoracial Segregation on Voter Registration in France" 13h-14h, On Zoom.
- Prior research from different national contexts indicates persistent ethnic/racial disparities in political participation. Studies have sought to explain these disparities by focusing on compositional differences between groups in socioeconomic resources, as well as on the impact of citizens’ local communities. This article investigates unequal voter registration in France focusing on differences across ethnic/racial groups and neighborhoods. We make a novel contribution to the literature by leveraging longitudinal data over a twenty-year period and by focusing on the effects of both the ethnoracial and socioeconomic composition of neighborhoods. Using an event history model, we show that minorities are indeed less likely than natives to register to vote, yet neighborhood and individual-level variables account for these disparities. Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood exerts a negative effect on registration, net of individual and neighborhood heterogeneity. However, the presence of co ethnics in the neighborhood has a mobilizing effect for some groups. African-origin and French majority citizens are in fact more likely to register as the share of co-ethnics increases in their local areas.
Tuesday March 16, 2021: Miriam Sorace (University of Kent) and Diane Bolet (Policy Institute, King’s College London). "Vox Populi, Vox Dei? Alienation, Mobilisation and Models of Democracy" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Attitudes towards democracy are gaining salience, as recent populist parties’ successes, and the rise of anti-system behaviours attest. This study innovatively adjudicates between cognitive mobilisation and political alienation explanations of preferences towards elitist, representative, and participatory models of democracy. We run a large survey experiment in France where we manipulated, via vignettes: (a) the ideological congruence of hypothetical MPs with the entire nation (vs. with the individual respondent); (b) the salience of technocracy; (c) the policy issue. We can test whether preferences for elite, representative and participatory democracy are moved by sociotropic consideration on the system-level health of political representation, or by self-centered considerations. We find that preferences for popular involvement in decision-making raise when system-level failures are primed, while the political alienation of the individual is responsible for shifts away from representative and elite democracy. The findings explain why the existing literature on satisfaction with democracy and/or preferences for direct or stealth democracy could not disentangle between alienation and mobilisation explanations: both factors matter but for different democratic dimensions. The findings also have strong implications for the characterisation of process preference change as benign and justified, and for the institutional reforms that are required to ensure that liberal representative democracy does not fall out of favour.
Tuesday March 9, 2021: Baowen Liang (Université de Montréal). "The Shadow of Confucianism: Traditional Values Condition the Negativity Bias among East Asians" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- The negativity bias theory contends that people pay more attention to negative than to positive information. It is argued that the bias is a consequence of risk-aversion that developed through evolution and is therefore a part of human nature. In this paper, I challenge this dominant claim, by emphasizing the relevance of cultural values in understanding the presence and strength of the negativity bias. Using data from the World Value Survey, I demonstrate that negativity in political judgment is prevalent in the Western context (Europe, Oceania and America), but no such phenomenon is observed in Asia and Africa. To explain this discrepancy, I focus on the East Asian case and explore how regional cultural heritage may impact citizens’ cognitive bias towards negativity. An analysis of the Asian Barometer data shows that Confucianist values significantly reduce people’s negativity in political impressions. In addition, I find that Confucianism moderates how citizens resort to negative and positive government performance considerations when they express regime support. These results question the generalizability of judgment asymmetry outside the Western context, and advocate for an inclusion of cultural variables in future studies on the topic.
Tuesday March 2, 2021: Lewis Luartz (University of California, Riverside). "Party Strategy and Public Mood in Japan" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- What impacts do Japanese party strategies have on their electoral outcomes? Although the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has a near continuous hold of government in Japanese politics, many have simplified competition to a state of competition among other parties for the opposition position. It is such that most studies within the literature on Japanese party politics will either focus on policies that help keep the LDP in power or the politics surrounding parties in the opposition. Comparisons among parties have been limited, at best, to comparisons along specific policy dimensions and usually within the aforementioned framework. The result is that, to date, there are no studies on Japanese party strategies that identify where parties within this system stand in relation to each based on their party strategies, much less identifying the real political effects of taking variable strategic positions. I attempt to resolve this gap in the literature by examining Japanese party strategies over time to determine what effects they have on electoral outcomes. I find that there is a significant relationship between a party’s strategic positioning and electoral outcomes over time in Japan, such that the LDP experiences negative electoral outcomes when it significantly changes its strategic positioning. This suggests party competition is more complex than a simple dichotomy between the party-in-government and opposition.
Tuesday February 23, 2021: Klara Dentler (University of Mannheim). "Ambivalence Across the Globe: Investigating the Effects of Political Ambivalence on Vote Switching in Multi-Party Systems" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Since the past two decades, vote switching has been on the rise. An under-researched dimension of this phenomenon is the impact of ambivalent political attitudes. Whilst the effects of ambivalence on vote switching have been investigated in the American political system, its application to multi-party systems has not been explored. In this paper, I extend the investigation of party and leader ambivalence to a variety of multi-party systems across the globe. For this research purpose, I use data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systemsincluding 51 countries with multi-party systems. The results provide empirical support and show that party ambivalence and leader ambivalence increase voters’ probability to switch parties at two consecutive elections. Therefore, this paper highlights once more the importance of ambivalence on understanding the underlying determinants of electoral volatility in 21st century politics.
Tuesday February 16, 2021: Anna Zagrebina (Université de Montréal). "Démocratie et élections libres à travers les yeux des immigrants" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Les visions de la démocratie changent les orientations des gens vers la démocratie, affectent la satisfaction à l’égard de la démocratie et ont un effet significatif sur le comportement politique et sont donc devenues un sujet de recherche. Sur la base de données originales, 127 questionnaires remplis par des immigrants récents, ma recherche montre que l’expérience de vivre dans une société démocratique modifie les visions de la démocratie des immigrants en ajoutant des aspects spécifiques de l’environnement social et physique avec lesquels les immigrants se familiarisent au cours de leurs activités quotidiennes dans leur société d’accueil. Les résultats montrent que les immigrants récents n’ont pas une idée claire des élections libres, car ils considèrent les élections libres plus importantes pour la démocratie que la possibilité de voter pour n’importe quel parti politique. La recherche conclut également sur les motivations d’actions qui pourraient émerger derrière les concepts de démocratie des immigrants récents et montre comment ces résultats peuvent être utilisés pour analyser le comportement politique des immigrants.
Tuesday February 9, 2021: Kristin Eichhorn and Eric Linhart (Chemnitz University of Technology). "Election-related Internet-Shutdowns in Autocracies" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Contemporary autocracies face a digital dilemma concerning the provision of access to the internet. General access to free information and instant communication seems to be contradictory to non-democratic governance. Its mobilization potential may destabilize the regime. At the same time, access to the internet may provide informational advantages for the regime and has become an economic necessity. The provision of access to the Internet, therefore, results from a balancing act caused by this digital dilemma. From 2012 onwards, the democracy advantage in the provision of access has vanished. However, especially in times of uncertainty autocracies re-gauge the access to the internet and impose (temporal) restriction. A prime example are elections. During elections in autocracies, digital communication tools may be utilized by the opposition for campaigning, electoral manipulations may be reported in crowd sourced networks, and election-related protests may be intensified by online coordination. However, election-related internet shutdowns remain an exception. Previous research on the conditions of these shutdowns hints to the importance of ownership structures of service providers. Although the ownership structure may provide the capacity to impose a shutdown, it does not explain the incentive to do so. We argue that the incentives are provided rather by the electoral context. If authoritarian leaders fear substantial contestation, they are incentivized to block the access to the internet to tilt the electoral playing field to their advantage.
Tuesday February 2, 2021: Dieter Stiers (University of Leuven). "Evaluating Performance in Opposition" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Recent scholarship in retrospective voting has shown that voters do not only evaluate incumbent performance when they go to the polls, but the performance of parties in opposition as well. So far, however, these studies could only speculate what it is exactly that voters evaluate of the performance of parties in opposition. Using the answers to a unique question included in a Belgian electoral study in 2019, first, this study investigates what voters think about when they evaluate performance in opposition. Second, it tests whether voters also hold opposition parties responsible for the state of affairs in the country. The results show that voters care most about the competence of opposition parties in scrutinising the government and providing constructive criticism – and dislike unconstructive overly negative opposition. Furthermore, while less than the incumbent parties, voters also hold opposition parties accountable for the state of affairs in their country. These results provide a vital step in further developing a framework of retrospective voting on the party level.
Tuesday January 26, 2021: Maxime Coulombe (Université de Montréal). "Social norms and electoral participation: doing what is right or doing like everyone else" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- People tend to behave differently, often more in accordance with social norms, when they feel observed or when they know their behavior is monitored or disclosed to others. In political science, Get-Out-To-Vote experiments have shown how people can be influenced to vote when told that their decision to vote or to abstain will be disclosed. Yet, we do not know if and how expectations about others knowing whether we voted or disapproving if we would abstain, influence the decision to vote. I hypothesize a moderation effect where disapproval only matters when respondents expect their behavior to be known. Using survey data from an original question module in the 2019 Canadian Election Study, I capture the influence of empirical expectations about others’ behavior, disapproval (normative) expectations, and visibility expectations. All measures distinguish the partner, family, friends, and neighbors. I have three main findings: 1) relationship status shapes the clarity of expectations, 2) expectations about others’ behavior are strongly related to voting intentions, and 3) there is no evidence supporting direct or moderation effects for disapproval and visibility. My findings regarding visibility are at odds with the literature. I discuss the implications.
Tuesday January 19, 2021: Nadjim Frechet (Université de Montréal) et Maxime Blanchard (McGill University). "Can Part ID be a Proxy? The Measure of Party Ideology with Party Identification" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Many research questions in electoral studies focus directly or indirectly on political parties’ position on specific issues. Unfortunately, parties do not answer surveys. Accordingly, it is much more complex to determine their position on specific issues compare to voters. We can usually estimate political parties’ ideology with survey data by asking the respondents to position them on the left-right scale. However, pollsters or scholars rarely ask survey respondents to position political parties on other specific issues. We propose a novel approach to estimating party positions. Our method benefits from being data-efficient and straightforward, as it only relies on public opinion surveys conducted among voters. The method we develop focuses on the position of party identifiers on specific issues. Through aggregation, we expect party supporters to be representative of their party on specific issues. To assess the approach’s reliability, we apply it to the British case and compare its results to that of other more data-extensive techniques.
Tuesday December 1, 2020: Stuart J. Turnbull-Dugarte (University of Southampton). "Attitudes towards homosexuality after “Obergefell v. Hodges”. Quasi-experimental evidence of anticipatory backlash from Israel" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- The US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges was a landmark judicial ruling that expanded the civil rights afforded to sexual minority individuals by recognising the constitutional and federal right of lesbian, gay or bisexual individuals to access a marriage licence. Research recent has explored the role of domestic recognition of samesex marriage (SSM) on mass attitudes, finding that SSM tends to expand mass support for LGBT+ rights and tolerance of sexual minorities. In this paper, I move beyond the confines of the domestic state and ask if the legalisation of SSM in the US, which was widely reported on across the global media, had an impact on attitudes towards sexual minorities in other countries. I present three alternative hypotheses: (i) the ruling will expand support for homosexuality, (ii) the ruling will engender an anticipatory backlash, (iii) the ruling will have no effect. Empirically, I leverage the naturally random exposure to the court's ruling among survey respondents in Israel. Relying on this quasi-experimental design, I find that individuals interviewed immediately after the ruling were substantially less likely to support homosexuality compared to those interviewed before. Moreover, we find that the increasing intolerance of homosexuality brought about by the ruling is driven mostly by women. These findings have important implications for our understanding of the efficacy and effect of transnational norm transfusion. Advances in the state recognition of LGBT+ rights at home can engender a rejection and anticipatory backlash against liberalised norms among citizens abroad.
Tuesday November 24, 2020: Florence Vallée-Dubois (Université de Montréal). "Dyadic Representation in Canadian Parliamentary Debates" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Dyadic representation rests on the incentives of representatives to attend to the interests of their constituents in single-member district electoral systems. But party discipline greatly limits dyadic representation. In Westminster style parliamentary systems, for example, members are expected to toe the party line, which may limit their ability to support constituents’ interests in the legislature. Can members of Parliament still act as good representatives in this context? This paper provides a hard test of the theory of dyadic representation by drawing on the Canadian case, a country where party discipline is omnipresent and unwhipped divisions are extremely rare. Using automated text analysis and an original dataset combining population demographics, legislators’ profiles and the content of parliamentary debates, I find evidence that members of the Canadian House of Commons are attentive to the interests of their constituents when making speeches in the legislature. This finding helps to restore confidence in the work of private members in Westminster legislatures and contributes to the study of democratic representation in general
Tuesday November 17, 2020: Alexandra Jabbour (Université de Montréal). "Are citizens still receiving the treatment? A reassessment of previous findings on the effect of local context on the perception of the national economy" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- A growing number of studies investigate the role of local factors on individuals' perceptions of the national economy. Some of those studies showed that individuals use local economic conditions to infer the state of the national economy. What remains unknown is the extent to which individual mobility mitigates the impact of the local economic conditions on the perception of the national economy. The aim of this study is to demonstrate that when considering the impact of the local economic context on the perception of the national economy, it is necessary to take into account the mobility between the two places where citizens tend to spend most of their time: home and work. To do so, I use large administrative data from the US census bureau on the unemployment rate, information on where workers live and work and surveys measuring the perception of the national economy. By means of this study, I aim to contribute to the literature on local politics and economic voting by giving a more complete picture of the context in which an individual lives and the effect of this specific environment on economic perception.
Tuesday November 10, 2020: Liran Harsgor (University of Haifa), Reut Itzkovitch-Malka (The Open University of Israel) and Or Tuttnauer (MZES Universität Mannheim). "Vote switching and Coalition-Directed Voting: A Panel Study of Repeat Elections in Israel" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- A growing body of knowledge highlights the determinants of vote switching, such as issues, party positions and personality. This literature, however, does not take into account coalition-directed voting, which has been found to matter for vote choice in many parliamentary democracies. According to this literature voters are likely to consider not only which party they prefer, but also which coalition they prefer and how realistic a chance it has of forming. However, empirically distinguishing between vote switching derived from party considerations to switching derived from coalition-directed considerations is not straightforward. We argue that a context of “repeat elections” due to a failure to form a government may be uniquely beneficial for such an endeavor. In this case voters already know the distribution of votes between parties and are also informed by the various failed moves towards coalition building. Such context provides the voters with an opportunity of changing their vote according to possible coalition-building consideration while already knowing the approximate distribution of party preferences in the electorate. We take advantage of the extraordinary Israeli political context in 2019-20, in which three election-cycles were held within less than a year without a coalition forming. We utilize a unique panel data based on three original online surveys. Findings show that voters’ coalition expectations affect their likelihood of vote switching.
Tuesday November 3, 2020: Benjamin Guinaudeau (University of Konstanz). "Partisan Semantic Overlaps: Floor-speeches and Ideological Position" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- L'estimation de la position idéologique des membres du Parlement (MP) reste un défi pour les politologues. Différentes approches ont été développées, notamment des sondages, des votes par appel nominal et des discours. Inspirés par la mesure de polarisation proposée dans Peterson et Spirling (2018), nous présentons une nouvelle stratégie non supervisée pour extraire les positions idéologiques des discours. Nous nous appuyons sur les chevauchements sémantiques partisans (PSO), définis comme des modèles de langage utilisés de manière indiscernable entre les partis. Nous formons des réseaux de neurones artificiels pour prédire les étiquettes des partis à partir des textes et nous nous attendons à ce que ces chevauchements sémantiques soient cartographiés par les probabilités partisanes. Plus le chevauchement entre deux députés est élevé, plus leur distance idéologique est faible. Nous utilisons trois décennies de discours parlementaires dans six pays (Canada, France, Allemagne, Nouvelle-Zélande, Espagne, Royaume-Uni) et estimons, dans chacun de ces pays, des probabilités partisanes avec un réseau convolutif. Nous montrons que les positions au niveau des partis sont capturées avec précision par la mesure (forte corrélation avec le CMP). En l’absence de toute mesure idéologique individuelle largement acceptée, nous utilisons une nouvelle enquête d’experts conçue pour saisir la position des députés pour valider nos scores idéologiques au niveau individuel. Pour l'instant, l'hétérogénéité intra-partisane n'est pas capturée avec précision. Nous discutons des origines potentielles de ces résultats et proposons des pistes pour y remédier à l'avenir.
Tuesday October 27, 2020: Zeynep Somer-Topcu (University of Texas at Austin) and Margit Tavits (Washington University in St. Louis). "Message Distortion as a Campaign Strategy: Does Rival Party Distortion of Focal Party Position Affect Voters?" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Do voters understand party positions? A growing literature is interested in answering this question but has limited its focus on parties’ own policy messages. In real life, parties are engaged in constant exchange with their rivals about their policy positions, which creates possibilities for partisan rivals to misconstrue each other’s policy messages. Using experimental and large-scale cross-national data, we show that such message distortion by rival parties significantly moves voters’ perceptions away from where the party locates itself and toward the distorted position. Furthermore, contrary to expectations from the literature on partisan motivated reasoning, this effect holds for all voters, regardless of whether they support the rival party, the focal party, or neither. These findings have important implications for our understanding of voter perceptions, partisan bias, and party strategies.
Tuesday October 20, 2020: Semih Cakir (Université de Montréal). "Evolution of Party Polarization and Voter Polarization in European Democracies" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Traditionally, party competition in established democracies in Europe is mainly structured around the economic cleavage. However, scholars increasingly argue that political conflicts that motivate party competition and mobilize voters have been under transformation. There is growing evidence that party competition occurs on different dimensions of political conflict. Combining data from the Comparative Manifesto Project (CMP) with voter-level data from European Value Survey, European Social Survey, European Election Study and World Value Survey, this study explores trends of party polarization and mass polarization in European democracies on different dimensions from 1980 onward.
Tuesday October 13, 2020: Tarik Abou-Chadi and Thomas Kurer (University of Zurich). "Economic Risks within the Household and Voting for the Radical Right" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- This article investigates how unemployment risk within households affects voting for the radical right. Recent advances in the literature demonstrate the role of latent economic threats for understanding the support of radical right parties. We build on these studies and analyze economic risks as a determinant of radical right voting. Crucially, we do not treat individuals as atomistic but investigate households as a crucial context moderating economic risks. Combining large-scale labor market data with comparative survey data, we confirm the relationship between economic risk and support for radical right parties but demonstrate that this direct effect is strongly conditioned by household risk constellations. Voting for the radical right is not only a function of a voters’ own but also their partner’s risk. We provide additional evidence on the extent to which these effects are gendered and on the mechanisms linking household risk and party choice. Our results imply that much of the existing literature on individual risk exposure underestimates the impact on political behavior due to the neglect of multiplier effects within households.
Tuesday October 6, 2020: Jean-François Daoust (University of Edinburgh) and André Blais (Université de Montréal). "Critical Citizens: the Role of Education on Satisfaction with Democracy across Quality of Democracy" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- The influential ‘critical citizens’ and ‘postmaterialism’ theories have important implications about how citizens react to democratic governance and their levels of satisfaction with the way democracy works. In this research, we argue that, following conventional wisdom, better educated people should be more critical and dissatisfied with the way democracy works in their country. We believe, however, that taking the context into account and especially the quality of democracy is crucial. We expect the following conditional effect: the effect of education on satisfaction with democracy in a high-quality democracy should be positive, while its impact should be negative in a low-quality democracy. Using CSES datasets (~200 elections in 55 countries from 1996 to 2018), we show that the effect of education is positive (contrary to expectations) in high quality democracies but negative in low quality ones. We discuss the implications of our findings for our understanding of the role of education in the process of democratization.
Tuesday September 29, 2020: Jeanne Marlier (Université de Montréal). "Le Gender Gap dans le Vote d’Extrême Droite en Europe : Opinion Publique et Représentation" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Un des constats les plus partagés dans la littérature sur le vote d’extrême droite est que les hommes votent plus pour ces partis que les femmes. Cet article contribue à la compréhension de ce gender gap en analysant le vote d’extrême droite lors des élections européennes de 2019. Notre recherche a deux objectifs, nous chercherons d’abord à déterminer si les différences de genre dans les indicateurs socio-économiques et les opinions politiques contribuent au gender gap en faisant une analyse de décomposition Blinder-Oaxaca. Nous chercherons ensuite à déterminer si les différences de genre dans l’explication du vote d’extrême droite contribuent également au gender gap. Nos résultats montrent que la classe sociale motive le vote d’extrême droite chez les femmes tandis que son effet est nul chez les hommes. De plus, nous trouvons que c’est le niveau de revenu qui impacte le vote d’extrême droite chez les hommes tandis que l’effet est nul chez les femmes. Nous savons également qu’une position pro-régulation étatique a un effet positif sur le vote d’extrême droite uniquement chez les femmes. Notre étude a des implications importantes pour la compréhension des dynamiques de genre dans le comportement électoral.
Tuesday September 22, 2020: Henry Milner (Université de Montréal). "The End of Political Clientelism? An Analysis of the Consequences of the July Election in the Dominican Republic" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Apart from being the country in the Caribbean favoured by Canadian tourists, and the one most affected by the continuing tragedy in Haiti with which it shares the Island of Hispaniola, the Dominican Republic is now of particular interest to students of comparative politics. This is because the result of the election of July 5th, 2020 and the changes it heralds raise the question of whether we are witnessing a rare event, the transition from a clientelist to a modern democracy. I pose the question of whether the ongoing changes are wide and deep enough to sustain such a transition, drawing on the scholarly literature, ongoing news reports and data on the evolution of public opinion.
Tuesday September 15, 2020: Edana Beauvais (Duke University / Harvard University) and Dietlind Stolle (McGill University). "How White Identity Shapes Canadian Politics" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- White identity is an understudied concept in Canadian politics. In this talk, we describe the contours of Canadian White identity and ask how it shapes White Canadians’ policy preferences and vote choice. We compare the political consequences of White ingroup identity and White outgroup attitudes, particularly anti-Indigenous attitudes. Our findings confirm some insights from the American literature: stronger identification with the White ingroup relates to White Canadians’ support for government spending on policies that disproportionately benefit Whites, while negative outgroup evaluations are related to opposition to welfare. In Canada outside Québec, there is only limited evidence that White identity relates to voting Conservative, however, we confirm that anti-Indigenous attitudes are associated with voting Conservative. In Québec, White identity seems to mobilize support for the Bloc Québécois while Whites’ attitudes toward Indigenous peoples do not explain vote choice. Our findings indicate that White identity is an important group identity that seems to play a role in politics and should be included in the political behaviour literature.
Tuesday September 8, 2020: Filip Kostelka (University of Essex), Eva Krejcova (University of Cambridge), Nicolas Sauger (Sciences Po, Paris) and Alexander Wuttke (University of Mannheim). "Democracy, Votes, and Participation: The Effect of Election Frequency on Voter Turnout" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- In recent decades, liberal democracies have considerably expanded the scope for citizen participation. Citizens are called to take part in a growing number of popular votes. This research investigates the effects of the rising election frequency on electoral participation. Building on the existing literature, we theorize which, when, and how past votes affect current voter turnout. We test the new hypotheses using an original database of all significant elections and referendums held in twenty-two European democracies between 1939 and 2019, two natural experiments, and survey data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. Our results reveal that all election types contribute to a common factor of election frequency, whose high values depress voter turnout in legislative elections and reduce the effectiveness of party mobilization. These findings shed light on the contemporary participation trends and have major implications for democratic citizenship and democratic institutional engineering.
Tuesday September 1, 2020: Julia Schulte-Cloos (LMU Munich). "Electoral Participation, Political Disaffection, and the Rise of the Populist Radical Right" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Does the populist radical right benefit from increased electoral mobilization? This article contributes to understanding radical right success by analyzing variation in local turnout surges in all nation-wide elections in Germany since the foundation of the German populist radical right AfD. Relying on a novel panel dataset of more than 10.000 German municipalities and city districts, we demonstrate that the populist right draws advantage from increased electoral mobilization. This effect, however, only holds in local communities marked by high levels of political disaffection, whereas increased mobilization even acts to depress the fortune of the radical right under conditions of low political disaffection. In shedding light on the interplay between disaffection and popular mobilization, this study has important implications for understanding the surge of the populist radical right in established democracies.
Tuesday July 21, 2020: Alexander Agadjanian (University of California, Berkeley). "Assessing the Accuracy of Vote Recall in the United States" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- How accurate is the public in reporting past vote choice? Survey researchers often record this vote recall measure, which informs popular voting analyses, polling figures, and survey methodology. However, skeptics argue poor voter memory and "winner's bias," among other issues, render this data untrustworthy. In an American context specifically, basic descriptive information on vote recall is lacking. To fill this gap in understanding, I collect data from six unique panel surveys from 1956 to 2019 to paint an over time picture of recall accuracy for American presidential vote choice. Results suggest recall ability has always been high but has steadily gotten better over time, and that winner's bias gaps have increasingly closed. In explaining recall accuracy, I assess factors identified by research outside the U.S. (e.g. cognitive dissonance and political engagement) and begin to consider new ones (e.g. voter regret). I also shed light on common political tropes, such as whether some Donald Trump voters no longer admit that they voted for him.
Tuesday July 14, 2020: Marta Gallina (Université catholique de Louvain). "Political sophistication and opinion constraint: a renewed empirical strategy" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- In this paper, I aim at methodologically defining and testing a new measure of opinion constraint, i.e. individuals’ capacity to connect their political ideas meaningfully and consistently. Opinion constraint has been originally defined by Converse as “the success we would have in predicting, given initial knowledge that an individual holds a specified attitude, that he holds certain further ideas and attitudes” (1964, 3). Methodologically speaking, this concept has been measured by means of several techniques, among which the most prominent is correlations between pairs of issues. However, correlations have the limit not to be suitable for individual-level analyses. To overcome this gap, this paper builds on previous studies (Sauer et al. 2011) by proposing a new measurement based on squared regression residuals. For the analyses, I focus on the European case, using data from the 2014 European Election Studies. First, I test what model of issue structure described in the literature best fits each country by means of CFA. Then, residuals are computed on the basis of OLS regressions, where one factor (i.e. issue dimension) resulting from the CFA is regressed on another.
Tuesday July 7, 2020: Ruth Dassonneville, Nadjim Fréchet and Alexandra Jabbour (Université de Montréal). "Are Parties Still Responsive to Public Opinion?" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- One of the core assumptions of models of democratic representation is that parties respond dynamically to shifts in public opinion. Reassuringly, previous work in the field shows indications of party responsiveness. Generally focusing on responsiveness on a left-right dimension, scholars have shown that mainstream parties in Western Europe tend to adjust their left-right position when voters shift. Motivated by the fact that party competition in European democracies is increasingly multidimensional, however, and by indications that citizens' perceptions of left and right are changing over time, we verify whether this core finding still holds. We use information on parties' positions from the Comparative Manifesto Project, and public opinion data on the left-right scale and on more specific issue dimensions from the Eurobarometer project and from Caughey et al. (2019). Our results suggest that mainstream parties in recent times are no longer responsive to shifts in the mean voter's left-right position. However, we also find that a pattern or responsiveness to the public's attitudes on immigration has gradually emerged.
Tuesday June 30, 2020: Alexandra Jabbour (Université de Montréal). "L’effet d’une visibilité accrue sur la performance électorale des partis extrêmes" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Les récents succès électoraux des partis extrêmes, notamment à droite du spectre idéologique, ont incité les chercheurs à étudier les raisons pour lesquelles les électeurs sont attirés par ces partis. Des facteurs tels que l'économie, l'immigration ou les aspects identitaires sont les suspects habituels de ce courant de recherche. On peut aussi supposer qu'une visibilité accrue des partis extrêmes aurait un effet sur leur succès électoral. Bien que théoriquement intuitif, les preuves empiriques sont lacunaires sur ce point. L’absence d’étude pourrait s’expliquer en partie par la difficulté de démontrer le mécanisme en raison de la nature endogène du succès électoral et de la visibilité accrue. La présente étude tente de dépasser cette limite empirique en utilisant le système à deux tours tel qu'il est appliqué lors des élections législatives et locales en France, en utilisant des données agrégées de 1978 à 2015. Le caractère quasi-aléatoire du système électoral français permet de mesurer l'effet de la présence d'un parti extrême ayant de peu franchi le seuil d’accès au second tour (devenant de facto plus visible) sur son futur succès électoral. Cette étude vise à apporter une contribution à la littérature plus large sur la stratégie des partis ainsi que sur les raisons du succès électoral des partis extrêmes.
Tuesday June 23, 2020: Eric Guntermann (University of California, Berkeley). "Does Social Sorting Drive Affective Polarization? Some Comparative Evidence" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- In recent years, countless studies have documented increasing levels of affective polarization between partisans in the United States. Many observers see this phenomenon as a threat to democratic accountability and stability. An increasing number of studies find evidence for similar or even higher levels of affective polarization in other countries. The dominant explanation for affective polarization is that it reflects overlapping social identities. I test this explanation using comparative data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES). I find strong support for the impact of reinforcing social pressures. Given that diverse societies are composed of a variety of cross-cutting cleavages, this finding suggests that more diverse societies are less susceptible to affective polarization.
Tuesday June 16, 2020: Pauliina Patana (Cornell University). "Residential Constraints and the Political Geography of the Populist Radical Right: Evidence from France" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- What explains variation in populist radical right (PRR) support within Western democracies? Counterintuitively, and against both the popular narrative and prior research, PRR parties are often and increasingly stronger in areas seemingly removed from their electorates’ key concerns with immigration, de-industrialization and transnationalism. To explain this puzzle, I articulate a theory of residential constraints as a key driver of PRR support. I hypothesize that when citizens’ means of reacting to local conditions or “voting with their feet” are blocked, they are more likely to support PRR parties. To test this claim, I use a multi-method research design and exploit both qualitative and quantitative evidence from France, an important case of longstanding and geographically divided PRR support. I demonstrate that the PRR performs well in areas where locals are more residentially constrained, access to services are compromised, and where opportunities and incentives to relocate are blocked by economic considerations.
Tuesday June 9, 2020: Lewis Lartz (University of California Riverside). "It’s Not Just the Radical Right: Radical Left Populist Party Strategy and Success in Western Europe" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- This project examines the relationship between Radical Left Populist Party (RLPP) strategy and electoral success in Western Europe by answering an important question: "In what ways do the macro-conditions under which RLPPs compete influence their success given shifts in intra-party strategy?" To answer this question, we investigate how these parties compete under varying levels of Immigration and Unemployment and break down our expectations in two directions. First, we expect these macro-conditions to, at the least, individually influence electoral success directly. Second, we expect these macro-conditions to provide an interactive effect in influencing electoral success. Using a new measure of intra-party strategy and a custom dataset composed of the ParlGov and MARPOR datasets with additional OECD, Eurostat, World Bank, and publication data, we classify parties as RLPP and analyze them using fixed effects regression methods across 19 countries. We find mixed results confirming our first expectation, but not our second expectation.
Tuesday June 2, 2020: Florence Vallée-Dubois (Université de Montreal). "Are Seniors Winning the Democratic Game?" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Résumé du projet: The study of dyadic representation has confirmed that elected representatives are particularly responsive to the interests of specific subgroups of the population, such as wealthier citizens. However, there has not been widespread interest for the representation of senior constituents by their legislators. This is surprising, because seniors are making up a larger and larger share of the population of many countries, and they are also more likely to participate in elections. In this paper, I make use of a parliamentary speech data from the Canadian House of Commons to analyse the congruence between constituencies' age composition and how members of Parliament speak about seniors and policies that are geared towards older citizens, like old-age pensions.
Présentation: Lors de cette présentation, je souhaite discuter avec vous de la problématique, du cadre théorique et de la stratégie empirique derrière ce projet. Je n'ai pas encore de résultats d'analyse qui permettent de répondre à ma question de recherche, mais je vous présenterai les données que j'ai l'intention d'utiliser ainsi que quelques analyses descriptives préliminaires. La présentation sera donnée en français.
Tuesday May 26, 2020: Ka-Ming Chan (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich). “The Persuasion Effect and Contrast Effect of Radical Right Voters – the case of Germany" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- During the 2013-2017 electoral cycle, Alternative for Germany (AfD) emerged as a radical right party in the electoral market and it broke into thirteen subnational parliaments. This research investigates whether its voters shifted their ideological self-position in the rightward direction throughout these concatenated elections. This rationalization process, in which radical right voters align their left-right position to their supported party, is the so-called persuasion effect. In addition, this research studies the contrast effect of these radical right voters, which concerns how they adjust their perceived position of other parties. In particular, it analyzes whether radical right voters perceive the conservative party, Christian Democratic Union (CDU), as more leftward leaning. By means of a panel data, I find that both persuasion effect and contrast effect exist. This research not only sheds light on why AfD could successfully break into national parliament after these successful concatenated subnational elections. Also, it expands our understanding of spatial model, as it suggests that radical right voters update their ideological positions within a rather short period of time, so as to match their party’s stance and avoid cognitive dissonance.
Tuesday May 19, 2020: Evelyne Brie (University of Pennsylvania). “Politicization of Regional Cleavages: Explaining the Resurging Salience of the East-West Divide in Germany" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Depuis 1990, d’importants efforts politiques ont été déployés pour réduire les disparités économiques entre l'Allemagne de l'Est et l'Allemagne de l'Ouest, notamment par le transfert de plus de 1,7 billion d'euros d'aide économique du gouvernement fédéral aux États est-allemands. En conséquence, les inégalités de revenus et de chômage entre les deux régions du pays ont été réduites de plus de moitié au cours des quinze dernières années. Pourtant, malgré ces améliorations, une proportion croissante d’Est-Allemands considèrent que d'importantes disparités persistent entre les deux parties du pays. Ma thèse s'appuie sur le pouvoir explicatif de la division Est-Ouest le long de l'ancienne frontière du rideau de fer pour comprendre les causes et les conséquences du désenchantement politique est-allemand. Cette présentation exposera les résultats préliminaires d'une analyse de données de connectivité Facebook (n=26,800,000) et d'une boussole électorale en ligne réalisée lors des élections fédérales allemandes de 2017 (n=492,865). Les résultats obtenus par une analyse de régression suggèrent que les niveaux de contacts sociaux entre les Allemands de l'Est et de l'Ouest expliquent en partie les différences d'attitudes politiques entre les deux régions.
Tuesday May 12, 2020: Jérôme Schäfer (LMU Munich), Giorgio Bellettini, Carlotta Berti Ceroni, Enrico Cantoni, and Chiara Monfardini (University of Bologna). “Family Norms and the Gender Turnout Gap" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Gender differences in participation endure in many democracies even though socio-economic differences between men and women have narrowed and the number of female political figures has increased. We contribute to explaining this persistence by showing the highly gendered effects of family norms on the opportunity costs and social benefits of voting. To this end, we estimate the impact of changes in family composition–i.e., marital status and childrearing–on turnout among male and female voters using a unique administrative panel dataset from Italy. Our difference-in-difference impact estimates reveal that marriage equalizes turnout among spouses, increasing men’s participation, and leaving women’s unchanged. By the same token, young children reduce maternal turnout, leaving paternal turnout unchanged. Exploring potential mechanisms, we suggest that increased well-being among men and peer pressure within couples are the likely sources of the marriage effect, whereas gender imbalance in family chores allocation is the source of the effect of parenthood.
Tuesday May 5, 2020: Ameni Mehrez (CEU). “The Moral Foundations of Liberal and Conservative Parties in Post-Revolution Tunisia" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Theories of morality have helped political scientists better understand variation in political ideology and voting behavior. Studies show that while conservatives are more likely to endorse values of loyalty, authority, and purity, liberals are more likely to endorse the values of compassion and fairness. While this strand of literature provides evidence that people’s moral judgements shape their views about politics, its findings may not be generalizable across populations. Recent work in cultural psychology (Muthukrishna et al., 2020) has shown systematic differences between WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic) and non-WEIRD populations on important psychological and behavioral variables. In this paper, I introduce my theory about the link between moral values and political ideologies using a historical psychological approach that stands in contrast with Haidt’s and colleagues’ influential work – the Moral Foundations Theory – and I test the predictions of both approaches by looking at an unusual population: Tunisia. A quantitative text analysis is applied to the discourses of the two major parties in post-revolution Tunisia: Ennahda Party (conservative-Islamist) and Nidaa Tounes (liberal-secularist). 100 discourses (for each party) were randomly collected from online sources (TV channels websites, radios, and political parties’ websites). Using a customized dictionary, references to moral values used by the two parties were measured and analyzed. These data show that Ennahda Party scores higher on the care and fairness values than Nidaa Tounes party. These results are partly at odds with the predictions derived from the MFT. Via a semantic network analysis, I provide more evidence for my theory by including historical factors to analyze the link between moral values and political ideologies.
Tuesday April 28, 2020: Erick Lachapelle, Sarah Munoz and Richard Nadeau (Université de Montréal). “Don't call them refugees: Labelling affects public support for climate displaced peoples" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- In late January 2020, the UN Human Rights Committee recognized the existence of “climate refugees” in a non-binding ruling, sparking a debate on the moral obligation of industrialized countries to grant asylum to people seeking refuge from life-threatening climate change. Research has shown the link between partisan opposition to diversity and a reluctance to accept responsibility towards refugees and immigrants, but none have tested the effect of framing climate displacement issues on public opinion. Moreover, the literature exploring the links between populism and climate change is in its relative infancy. The present research aims to question the public acceptability of the “climate refugee” label, and highlights the extent to which a public opinion backlash against refugees has rendered this form of asylum-seeking counterproductive. In what ways does labelling climate-displaced people affect support for this new class of refugees? To what extent does the word “refugee” prevent people from accepting climate displaced peoples in their country? This research is based on surveys conducted in Canada – a country known for its relative openness and acceptance of new immigrants – and finds a labelling effect on use of the phrase “climate refugee” as opposed to the less loaded language of “climate displaced peoples.” Overall, results suggest that this label deters public acceptability and is counterproductive for the protection of climate-vulnerable persons. This research contributes to discussions on the governance of “climate refugees” by showing a distinct labelling effect on their public acceptance in Canada, bridging the gap between literatures on public attitudes towards immigration, climate change, and debates on the juridical validity of this new form of asylum-seeking.
Tuesday April 21, 2020: Jennifer Oser (Ben-Gurion University). “Yes I Can…? Meta-analysis Findings on Patterns of Political Participation and Political Efficacy in the Digital Era" 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- The rapid rise of digital media use for political participation has coincided with increased concerns about democratic representation and political efficacy. In this seminar I address these topics by presenting findings from the first meta-analysis of repeated-wave panel data studies on the relationship between digital media use and political participation (co-authored with Shelley Boulianne, forthcoming in Public Opinion Quarterly; accepted manuscript version link). The findings, based on 38 survey-based, repeated-wave panel studies (279 coefficients) bring new evidence to bear on two questions central to this literature. First, the findings provide new insight into the classic mobilization versus reinforcementdebate: contrary to common assumption, the findings support a reinforcement effect, whereby those who are already politically active are motivated to use digital media. Second, the results indicate that the relationship between digital media use and political participation is durable, as studies with a longer time lag were more likely to yield positive and significant effects. Taken together, this evidence in support of a durable reinforcement effect implies the potential for digital media use to contribute to increased inequality in political participation over time.I will conclude the seminar by noting two related working papers: a new meta-analysis on political efficacy in relation to online and offline political participation (with Shelley Boulianne and Amit Levinson); and a cross-national analysis of expanded repertoires of political participation and citizen-government congruence on multiple policy issues (with Ruth Dassonneville and Marc Hooghe).
Tuesday April 14, 2020: Semih Çakır (Université de Montréal). “Fostering Democratic Citizenship: How Mass Media Influence Election Campaign’s Causal Role on Voter Accuracy of Party Position” 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Although normative theories assume that citizens cast an informed and considered vote, ordinary citizens depict a less optimistic image of democratic citizenship: They are rather uninterested in politics and uninformed about party positions. Using the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Integrated Module that covers 55 countries and 174 elections over 20 years, I investigate whether election campaigns serve to foster democratic citizenship by bringing them up to date about party positions. Given that the factors that determine respondents’ interview time are independent from those that explain voter accuracy, I can interpret the impact of time between interview and election as causal. I find that election campaigns matter for voter accuracy of party positions. Voters estimate party positions more accurately as the interview time is closer to the election. However, this is only true in countries with open media. By contrast, voters in countries with government-controlled media become less accurate with party positions during campaigns. These results demonstrate how 1) mass media independence fosters democratic citizens and 2) lack of free media cripples the ability of citizens to be cognizant of which party best represents their preferences.
Tuesday March 31, 2020: Claire Durand, avec David Wutchiett, Luis Patricio Pena Ibarra et Nadia Rezgui (Université de Montréal). “La démocratie est-elle soluble dans les institutions?” 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- Qu’est-ce que la démocratie? Comment la mesurer? Comment la mesure-t-on? Cette présentation examine cinq des principales mesures de la démocratie utilisées en sciences sociales et particulièrement en sciences politiques soit celles de Freedom House, PolityIV, V-Dem, The Economist Intelligence Unit et Global State of Democracy. Les recherches sur la fiabilité et la validité de ces mesures sont nombreuses et montrent a) que les sous-échelles sont extrêmement corrélées entre elles, b) qu’il y a des biais selon les sources et c) que ces bais sont liés à la vision de la démocratie adoptée et aux choix relatifs à la mesure (Bollen et Paxton, 2000; Munck & Verkuilen, 2002; Steiner, 2016; Elff et Ziaja, 2018).
Dans cette présentation, après avoir introduit les cinq séries d’indices et leurs propriétés, je m’intéresse à la validité critérielle des indices. Pour ce faire, j’analyse leur relation avec la confiance dans les institutions et plus spécifiquement les institutions politiques. Les données comprennent les mesures de confiance institutionnelle provenant de près de 2M de répondants dans 143 pays depuis 1995 et les indices de démocratie pour ces mêmes pays et cette même période. Les résultats montrent que, en général et sauf pour la confiance dans le processus électoral, plus un pays est considéré démocratique, moins sa population a confiance dans ses institutions. Je tente de premières interprétations des résultats. Est-ce que certains indices sont plus fiables et plus valides? Est-ce que ces résultats mettent en doute les mesures de la démocratie ou est-ce qu’ils nous informent plutôt sur des éléments essentiels de ce qu’est la démocratie? La démocratie est-elle d’abord une question d’institutions, de culture, de valeurs?
Tuesday March 24, 2020: Abelardo Gómez Díaz (Universitat Pompeu Fabra Barcelona). “Contamination Effects in Mixed Electoral Systems: Temporal and Sub-National Variance” 12h-13h, On Zoom.
- In electoral studies, ‘contamination’ refers to the interaction between the two arenas that co-habit a mixed electoral system: the single-seat district (SSD) arena and the proportional representation (PR) arena. This interaction tends to cause a centrifugal force that raises the number of parties in the SSD arena above what Duverger’s Law and the M+1 rule suggest. However, the literature offers no definitive methodology to measure such an increase; it tends to assume that contamination remains constant over time; and that it remains constant across a given territory. For this reason, this study presents a new, presumably better methodology to actually measure contamination, framed around Rubin’s model of causal inference. It performs the first large-N longitudinal analysis of contamination and confirms the impact of voter learning processes on the observed variations. And finally, it performs the first multi-level analysis of contamination and confirms that it varies across a territory to the extent that national parties can compete with equal strength in sociologically dissimilar sub-national units.
Tuesday March 10, 2020: Andrew Hunter (King’s College London). “Electoral Volatility and Democratic Performance: Does the Level of Measurement Matter?” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Electoral volatility has been used to evaluate democratic stabilisation, the strength of partisanship, and the salience of cleavage structures. The most widely cited measure of volatility is the ‘Pedersen index’ which relies on the change of aggregate party vote shares. Despite its parsimony and ease of calculation, significant shortcomings in its construction remain. For one, the index underestimates the magnitude of volatility occurring within an election due to its measurement of the total net change and not the total change. While this concern is not new, this paper demonstrates that this distinction matters insofar as the latter can distort key relationships between volatility and democratic performance. Using aggregate and survey data from 51 elections in 23 countries between 2001 and 2015, this paper demonstrates that the Pedersen index obfuscates a non-monotonic relationship between electoral volatility democratic performance, whereas total volatility accurately captures it. This finding has implications for the study of electoral volatility, democratic stabilisation and the so-called ‘crisis of democracy’.
Tuesday February 25, 2020: Jean-François Daoust (University of Edinburgh). “Revisiting the winner-loser gap: Evidence from observational and quasi-experimental data” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Le winner-loser gap, c’est-à-dire le fait que les électeurs ayant appuyé un parti formant le gouvernement soient plus satisfaits avec le fonctionnement de leur régime politique, est l’une des relations les plus récurrentes en science politique. Dans cette présentation, une première étude teste le mécanisme causal de cette relation: est-ce le fait de voter pour un parti ‘objectivement’ gagnant (i.e. qui forme le gouvernement) ou plutôt le fait qu’un citoyen perçoit (subjectivement) son parti comme ayant gagné les élections qui crée ce winner-loser gap? Dans une deuxième étude, certaines formations de gouvernements de coalitions qui étaient inattendues après une élection venant causer une surprise en termes de qui est gagnant/perdant sont utilisées pour isoler l’effet causal de gagner une élection. Les résultats des deux études vont à l’opposé de la littérature sur la satisfaction envers la démocratie et le winner-loser gap : d’une part, le mécanisme ne serait pas celui que l’on croit et d’autre part, l’effet causal semble être nul.
Thursday February 20, 2020: Damien Bol (King’s College London) and Ria Ivandic (LSE). “Does the Number of Candidates Increase Turnout? Causal Evidence from Two-Round Elections.” Pavillion Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h, C-4145.
- We estimate the causal effect of the number of candidates on turnout in applying a regression discontinuity design (RDD) to data from 14,000 legislative and cantonal electoral districts in France since 1978. In the two-round system used in these elections, the candidates that pass a certain vote threshold in the first round can participate in the second round. We use this discontinuity in qualifying to compare districts in which the third candidate falls just above and below this threshold. We find that an additional candidate increases turnout by 4.1% points, and increases the share of valid votes by 7.7% points. Further, we look into the mechanism and find evidence supporting the alienation theory, according to which turnout increases the most when the third candidate is from a different ideology than the two first. We also confirm the finding with an analysis of survey data from the 2012 legislative election.
Friday February 14, 2020: Jean-François Laslier (Paris School of Economics). “The French 'Citizens' convention on climate change” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h, C-4145.
- In this seminar, I will present the Citizens' Assembly for climate change that is currently at work in Paris and who is able to make proposals to limit carbon emissions to a sustainable level.
Tuesday February 4, 2020: Junhao Wang (CSC McGill and Mila), Sacha Levy (CSC McGill and Mila), Ren Wang (CSC UBC), Aayushi Kulshrestha (CSC McGill and Mila) and Reihaneh Rabbany (CSC McGill and Mila). “SPG: Spotting Polluting Groups in Social Media” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Recent events have led to a burgeoning awareness on the misuse of social media sites to affect political events, with the goal of swaying the public opinion and confusing the voters. It is critical to be able to comprehend the dynamics within these sites and spot users polluting the information space. This has motivated a large body of works on bots and troll detection, fake news detection, etc., which mostly focus on classifying at the user level based on the content and activities generated by the users. In this study, we take a higher-level approach and propose SPG to map out all the activities in these social media platforms around a broad topic and identify groups of users that exhibit coordinated activity in polluting the general discourse around the topic of interest. To show the effectiveness of SPG, we employ SPG to summarize and explain the polluting activity in Twitter around the 2019 Canadian Federal Elections, by analyzing over 60 thousand user accounts connected through 3.4 million connections and 1.3 million hashtags. We verify that users in polluting groups detected by SPG-flag are over 4x more likely to become suspended while a majority skip the filtering in place. We also verify that polluting hashtags discovered by SPG-signature are known to be linked to misinformation campaigns. Finally, we also show that a large block of right-winged conservatives based in the US is heavily engaged in Canadian politics.
Tuesday January 28, 2020: Jordan Mansell (UQAM), Steven Mock (University of Waterloo), Jinelle Piereder (University of Waterloo), Carter Rhea (UdeM) and Adrienne Tecza (University of Colorado). “New Methods for the Study of Ideology: Field-Test of Cognitive Affective Mapping (CAM’s).” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h, C-4145.
- In this study, we conduct the first test of cognitive-affective mapping as an empirical tool to study ideological differences. Based on neuroscientific theories of emotional coherence, cognitive-affective mapping (CAM) is a method to visually represent beliefs as networks of concepts with emotional valence that an individual associates with a given political issue. Using a software application developed for this study, we ask (n=150) Canadians to draw a CAM of their views on a single political issue, the introduction of the Carbon Tax in Canada. Using this data we generate a series of variables capturing the structural properties of each network. After normalizing the network measures using graph theory, these variables are added to a series of traditional linear regressions to test whether different ideological groups show structured differences in how they think about political issues. This is the first attempt to investigate whether the structural properties of CAMs provide insight into ideological thinking.
Tuesday January 21, 2020: Érick Lachapelle and Thomas Bergeron (Université de Montréal). “Visualizing Climate Change with AI.” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Despite expert warnings of the catastrophic effects of runaway climate change and growing public acceptance of climate science regarding a rapidly warming planet and its human causes, the general public remains relatively unconcerned with this problem. Cross-national research has consistently shown that many people perceive the risks of climate change to be spatially and temporally distant, affecting others, but posing limited risk to them personally. In an effort to build more public support for climate action, both academics and activists have attempted to “proximize” the issue by making climate change more personally salient, with varying levels of success. In this study, we assess how the visualization of the effects of climate change on subject’s places of interest (e.g. their home, their neighborhood) will affect their perception and engagement toward mitigation. We use a Multimodal Unsupervised Image to Image Translation (MUNIT) and a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) model to develop images of climate-induced floods. This machine learning model will produce a realistic image of recent flooding estimates for their house, neighborhood and places of interest (e.g. metro station; community library). Our objective is to test the effectiveness of this decision-aid technology in helping individuals visualize the effects of climate change, as well as the effects of this information-updating on subsequent emotional states, risk perceptions, policy preferences, behavioural responses, and political engagement with the issue.
Tuesday January 14, 2020: Annika Fredén, Karlstad University (Presenter) and Mats Bergman (Södertörn University). “Efficiency in Bureaucracy. Evidence from Telecom Regulation in Europe.” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h, C-4145.
- This paper addresses the relation between the design of regulatory boards and efficiency. Drawing on capture theory (or interest-group theory) and the tendency of strong group interests to “capture” the political regulation, we develop the hypothesis that regulatory authority concentrated to a single individual outperforms more collegial forms of decision-making when the regulated firms have similar interests. On the other hand, when their interests are more adversarial, multimember decision-making performs as well. We test our hypothesis on the (regulated) markets for mobile and fixed broadband, using broadband penetration as an indicator of efficiency and executive versus collegial decision-making as our key explanatory variable. In the mobile market, the regulated firms are similarly positioned, whereas in the fixed broadband market, the firms typically have adversarial positions, with an incumbent being challenged by entrants. A statistical analysis of regulatory boards in 33 European countries lends support to the hypothesis that regulation of mobile broadband benefits from having a single decision-maker whereas a bureaucratic regulation with more power sharing, functions as well for fixed broadband. Our interpretation is that the risk of special interest influence is higher when the regulated firms’ interests are aligned. The relationship holds under control for relevant geo-political variables: geographic location, judicial procedures and GDP levels
Tuesday December 10, 2019: Matthew Polacko (Royal Holloway University of London). "Party Positions, Income Inequality, and Voter Turnout in Canada, 1984-2015.” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Scholars have so far only examined the relationship between inequality and turnout cross-nationally, and within the United States (US). However, rising income inequality and declining voter turnout has afflicted Canada to a greater extent than most other advanced Western countries, providing an ideal test case. Turnout in Canadian federal elections began to decline appreciably in the 1990s, precisely when income inequality began to substantially rise. Moreover, the turnout inequality literature has thus far only focused on the demands of citizens, while neglecting the supply side policy offerings of parties. Therefore, in a multilevel pooled analysis utilizing Canadian Election Survey (CES) data from 1984 to 2015, party manifesto data, and measures of inequality at the sub-national level, this paper explores both sides of the voting equation in the Canadian context. The results indicate that income inequality is negatively associated with turnout and provinces with greater inequality have lower predicted turnout. However, when political parties propose greater redistribution – the negative effects of inequality on turnout are significantly alleviated.
Tuesday December 3, 2019: Alexandra Jabbour (Université de Montréal). "Contexte immobilier local et vote pour le sortant : une réévaluation du vote économique.” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Le vote économique désigne le mécanisme par lequel les électeurs sanctionnent ou récompensent le Gouvernement sortant en fonction de l’état de l’économie. Bien que sa stabilité donne une certaine crédibilité à la théorie du vote économique, des chercheurs ont récemment commencé à remettre en question l'association entre performance économique et vote pour le sortant. Cet article s'inscrit dans cette démarche et étudie l'effet modérateur de l'environnement local sur la perception de l'économie. Plus précisément, je soutiens que les évaluations économiques traditionnelles, sociotropiques et égotropiques, sont toutes deux façonnées par des considérations locales hétérogènes. Or cet aspect, l'environnement local, est peu couvert dans le cadre des études sur le vote économique. Partant de ce constat, ma recherche vise à suggérer un niveau d'analyse supplementaire, géotropique, et ce accompagné de nouvelles mesures, soit, dans le cadre de cette étude, le logement. In fine, l'objectif de cette recherche est de démontrer que, en l'absence de prise en compte de l'environnement local, le vote économique pourrait être sous-estimé.
Tuesday November 26, 2019: Jordan Mansell (UQAM) and Michael Bang Petersen (Aarhus University). "Cooperation and Defection in an Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma: Do Liberals and Conservatives Display Differences in Social Cognition?". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- In its most simple form, the research question that we want to answer is: Do individuals with different political values differ in their general social-cognitive strategies? Research into ideological differences links liberal and conservative ideological positions to variation in cognition and decision-making in response to environmental stimuli including risk, ambiguity, and uncertainty. We apply an evolutionary framework and investigate whether the differences in cognition and decision-making observed in liberals and conservatives reflect alternative adaptive strategies for social interactions? We recruit a sample of (N=450) liberals and conservatives to participate in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma. Using a multi-wave approach to data collection we obtain a sample of liberals and conservatives which is matched on age, education, income, and strength of ideological orientation. We hypothesize that both ideological groups will converge to cooperative behaviour however, cooperation in conservative participants will be more sensitive to social defections. On multiple measures of ideological orientation, we find strong evidence liberals and conservatives significantly differ in their: (1) initial willingness to cooperate; (2) overall cooperation; and, (3) forgiveness of a social defection. We implement our study online in real-time using the OTree tool for experimental research on a Heroku server.
Friday November 15, 2019: David Hagmann (Harvard Kennedy School). "Persuasion with Motivated Beliefs". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 11h30-12h30, C-4145.
- Considerable empirical research finds that people derive utility not only from consumption, but also from their beliefs about themselves and the world. Rather than dispassionately updating their views in response to new information, such belief-based utility implies that people at times avoid information and use other strategies to protect their existing beliefs. We present a two-stage model of persuasion in the presence of belief-protecting strategies and test it in an incentive-compatible task. In the experiment, persuaders seek to shift receivers' subjective numeric estimates related to emotionally charged topics, such as abortion and racial discrimination. We manipulate whether the persuader first acknowledges her own lack of certainty and whether she first has an opportunity to build rapport with the receiver. Though these elements of communication ought to be irrelevant or even backfire under the standard account, our theory predicts they will enhance persuasiveness. We find that acknowledging doubt leads to a greater change in the receivers' beliefs, but find no effect for building rapport. Moreover, we find that persuaders end up changing their own estimates after writing a persuasive message. Those who presented a strong argument (as judged by third party raters) end up revising their own estimate in the direction of their argument, while those who provided a weak argument dissuade themselves and update in the opposite direction.
Tuesday November 12, 2019 : Melanee Thomas (University of Calgary). "What Shapes Attitudes about Energy Transition? Evidence from Alberta". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Energy transition – that is, moving away from fossil fuels as a source of energy to more renewable and sustainable forms – is, according to some scholars, “technically feasible, but politically impossible” (Bernauer and McGrath 2016: 680) as democratic politics produce constraints that may stymie the adoption of low(er) carbon energy. Indeed, current events, including reactions to the 2019 federal election, show that aspects of Canadian identity affect views about if, when, and how best to transition to a low-carbon economy. This paper addresses two questions. First, how is public opinion about energy transition structured by existing attitudes about politics and/or climate change? Second, how malleable are those opinions? Using a survey experiment conducted in Alberta immediately following their 2019 provincial election, results show that the factors that produce support for, and opposition to energy transition are diverse and, at times, inconsistent and unexpected. Furthermore, these opinions appear to be malleable when exposed to news about the positive (and negative) economic effects of transition, as well as Indigenous support (and opposition) to the expansion of fossil fuel extraction. This suggests that attitudes about energy transition should be seen as at least somewhat distinct from attitudes about climate change.
Tuesday November 5, 2019 : Marta Rebolledo (Universidad de Navarra). “Les émotions comme recours stratégique en communication politique: comment sont-elles décodées par les spectateurs?”. Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Historiquement les émotions ont été reléguées au second plan de la recherche en sciences politiques. Cependant, depuis quelques années, les politologues se sont davantage intéressés aux rôles des émotions, notamment en communication et en psychologie politique. Dans le cadre des prochaines élections espagnoles, je mènerai une expérience en laboratoire afin d'étudier comment les émotions sont décodées par les spectateurs à partir de spots électoraux non-officiels. Ce projet vise à faire progresser notre compréhension du rôle complexe et multidimensionnel joué par les émotions en politique.
Tuesday October 29, 2019 : André Blais, Semra Sevi, Clifton van der Linden. "Who supports electoral reform?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Electoral reform has been on the political agenda in Canada since the turn of the millennium. During the 2015 Canadian federal election, Justin Trudeau promised that would be the last election under First Past The Post. After the election, he commissioned a national public consultation to better understand the preferences of Canadians on different features of electoral system. This study examines voters preferences for different feature of electoral systems using approval and trade-off statements among over 200,000 Canadians.
Tuesday October 22, 2019 : Échange sur les résultats des élections au Canada. Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Un échange sur les résultats de l’élection et sur les leçons préliminaires qu’on peut en tirer.
Tuesday October 15, 2019 : Philippe Mongrain, Richard Nadeau and Bruno Jérôme. "Playing the synthesizer with Canadian data: Adding polls to a structural forecasting model". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- La prévision électorale est maintenant partie intégrante des campagnes politiques dans un certain nombre d’États. Les modèles structurels, qui constituent l’une des principales approches employées afin de prédire les résultats d’élections, reposent sur la combinaison de variables politiques et économiques dites « fondamentales » afin de prédire la part des voix du parti sortant avec généralement quelques mois d’avance. Certains chercheurs affirment que l’efficacité prévisionnelle de ces modèles peut être renforcée par l’ajout de données d’intention de vote--c’est-à-dire en opérant la synthèse des variables fondamentales et de l’information provenant des sondages. Nous testons cette affirmation en élaborant divers modèles ayant pour but de prédire le résultat des élections fédérales canadiennes entre 1953 et 2015. Nous trouvons que l’ajout de données d’intention de vote (récoltées à divers moment avant l’élection) à un modèle structurel n’engendre que des gains de précision minimes tard dans la campagne. Par ailleurs, nous livrons une prédiction pour l’élection fédérale qui se tiendra le 21 octobre prochain.
Tuesday October 8, 2019 : Maxime Coulombe (Université de Montréal). "Préférences de mode de scrutin dans un contexte non-partisan : présentation d'un projet d'expérience par sondage". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4019.
- Les études sur les préférences de modes de scrutin font généralement appel soit à un contexte électoral réel, affecté par des considérations partisanes, soit à un contexte abstrait, auquel cas les résultats importent peu aux gens. Je propose de pallier à ces limites en étudiant un scrutin organisé dans un contexte non partisan, mais dont les résultats importent aux électeurs. Les Services aux étudiants de l’Université de Montréal organisent depuis 2017 un gala lors duquel est tenu un vote du public pour la remise de deux prix. Il s’agit d’un scrutin par approbation mobilisant environ 400 personnes chaque année. Les participants au prochain scrutin, en 2020, seront invités à participer à un sondage dans lequel ils pourront voter à nouveau avec d’autres modes de scrutin. Je présenterai les données descriptives des éditions 2017 à 2019 ainsi que le design de mon expérience par sondage.
Tuesday October 1, 2019 : Peter Loewen (University of Toronto). "Intrinsic Motivations to Represent Marginalized Groups in a Democracy: Evidence from an unelected legislature". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Do legislators from marginalized groups have intrinsic motivations to represent ‘their’ group? Previous observational and experimental research on this question focuses on elected politicians and is thus unable to fully disentangle a legislator’s intrinsic motivations from their need to win re-election. We address this limitation by observing the decision-making of appointed legislators who, by institutional design, have no re-election motive whatsoever. We administered to Canadian senators and their staff a novel survey instrument that captured how they prioritized learning about the policy opinions of various groups of citizens. We show that senators’ group identities—particularly those associated with racial and regional minorities— influenced which group’s views they chose to learn about. The findings refine the central conclusion of the literature and have implications for the study not only of unelected legislators but also of elected officials in settings where public monitoring is weak.
Tuesday September 24, 2019 : Ruth Dassonneville, Steven Quinlan and Ian McAllister. "La popularité des femmes chefs de partis à travers le monde". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Les femmes sont réputées être victimes d’un biais lié au genre dans la sphère politique. Toutefois, les travaux qui analysent les déterminants du choix électoral ne laissent guère à penser qu’il existe un coût électoral véritable associé au fait d’être une femme. Cependant, l’absence d’effet sur le vote n’exclut pas la possibilité que les femmes candidates puissent souffrir de perceptions biaisées ou qu’elles puissent être moins appréciées que leurs homologues masculins. De plus, les études antérieures s’étant intéressées aux femmes candidates de manière générale plutôt qu’aux femmes occupant des postes dans les hautes instances du pouvoir, celles-ci courent le risque de sous-estimer l’impact des stéréotypes de genre sur l’évaluation des femmes politiques par les citoyens. Dans cet article, nous cherchons à déterminer, de manière plus définitive, si les femmes sont moins populaires que les hommes dans l’arène politique. Dans ce but, nous mobilisons des données provenant du Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) afin d’analyser les différences de genre dans l’évaluation de leaders politiques à travers le monde. Notre base de données couvre plus de 600 dirigeants politiques dans 46 États, ce qui rend possible une analyse approfondie unique de la popularité des leaders en fonction de leur sexe.
Tuesday September 17, 2019 : Jean-François Daoust (McGill University) and Peter Loewen (University of Toronto). "What is the impact of winning an election? Evidence from a quasi-experimental approach". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Démocratie et égalité sont souvent associés. Toutefois, son mécanisme principal, à savoir les élections, génèrent nécessaire des inégalités : d’un côté, il y a les gagnants, et de l’autre, les perdants. Les gagnants sont plus satisfaits envers leur régime démocratique tandis que les perdants le sont moins. C’est ce qu’on appelle le « winner-loser gap ». Une littérature assez importante s’est intéressée aux causes et aux conséquences de ce gap, mais nous proposons une approche quasi-expérimentale en utilisant un regression discontinuity design (RDD) afin d’estimer l’effet causal moyen de gagner ou perdre une élection. Nos données couvrent environ 150 élections dans plus de 40 pays différents dans le monde durant vingt ans (1996-2016) et permettent d’améliorer notre compréhension de la satisfaction envers la démocratie
Tuesday September 10, 2019 : Gabrielle Péloquin-Skulski (Université de Montréal). "Quelle façon de voter les électeurs préfèrent-ils?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Au-delà de la façon dont les votes sont comptabilisés en sièges, il est important d’étudier les règles qui permettent aux électeurs d’exprimer leurs opinions sur les candidats et les partis. Dans le cadre des prochaines élections canadiennes, je mènerai une expérience en laboratoire, afin d’étudier l’évaluation que les citoyens font de différentes façons de voter. Les participants voteront de trois façons différentes, soit par vote unique, vote par approbation et vote avec rangement. Après chaque élection, ils indiqueront leur niveau de satisfaction envers la façon de voter en question.
Tuesday September 3, 2019 : Johannes Lindall (Lund University). "Inward Conquest, or The Origins of Public Services". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, states introduced most of the public services we now take for granted, such as policing, schooling, and public health. But those services were governed very differently in different countries, and at different points in time. In this presentation I will focus on Montreal and Gothenburg in Sweden. Both cities introduced modern public services in the nineteenth century. But these services emerged in very different political, social, and religious environments, which is why they were all governed differently in Montreal and Gothenburg.In comparing them, I place them in the wider context of the expansion of public services in his period in nineteen countries in Western Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region. In our book, "Inward Conquest, or The Origins of Public Services" Ben Ansell and I write about two conflicts: over the vertical distribution of power among localities, regions, and central authorities, and over the horizontal distribution of power among secular authorities, churches, and voluntary associations. We show that there were two paths to centralization: on the one hand an authoritarian path, on the other hand a progressive, democratic path. In other words, the conflict over the vertical distribution of power was shaped primarily by the political regime and by the identity of the parties or groups that controlled the government. But the conflict over the horizontal distribution of power was largely a religious conflict, reflecting the religious composition of the population and the institutional role of the church, or churches. A mix under which public services are provided, in part, by private organizations was most common in countries where several religious groups lived side by side. These findings have important implications for contemporary conflicts over public services.
Tuesday June 18, 2019 : Valérie-Anne Le Luel Mahéo (McGill University). "How a Get-Out-The-Vote Campaign Impacts Families' Socialization Dynamics and Participation in the Election: Evidence from a Large Scale Randomized Field Experiment". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Elections are an important moment in democratic life, providing not only an opportunity for citizens to participate in politics through voting, but also a salient context for both adults and children to learn about politics. In the context of the 2018 provincial election in Quebec, where a new voting activity was organized for children at the polling station on Election Day, I investigate the effect a Get-Out-The- Children’s-Vote campaign (GOTcV) in 220 elementary schools on children’s participation in the election, families’ socialization dynamics, and parents’ electoral behavior. The results of post-election surveys with 1,500 students and 6,000 parents show that the GOTcV information card had positive effects on both children’s and parents’ electoral behavior. First, students in the treatment group were more likely to go to the polling station with their parents, and they were also more likely to cast a ballot themselves at the children’s polling station, compared to students in the placebo group. While the GOTcV campaign did not lead to an increase in parents’ turnout rate, this campaign did encourage more parents to vote with their children. Several mechanisms are at play, as the GOTcV information card proved to alter parents’ costs and benefits of voting with their child, and lead children to exert social pressure on their parents. These results have important implications for the study of political socialization and interpersonal influences within the family, as I find evidence of trickle-up influences of children on their parents’ behavior, showing that children can be active agents of political mobilization.
Tuesday June 11, 2019 : Filip Kostelka (University of Essex). "The Generational and Institutional Sources of the Global Decline in Voter Turnout". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Voter turnout in electoral democracies declined by nearly ten percentage points between the 1960s and 2010s. The reasons for this global decline are yet unclear. This article draws on the findings from micro-level studies and theorizes two explanations: generational change and a rise in the number of elective institutions. The empirical section tests these hypotheses along with other explanations proposed in the literature (shifts in party/candidate competition, voting age reforms, weakening group mobilization, economic globalization). We conduct two analyses. The first analysis employs an original data set covering all post-1945 democratic national elections. The second studies individual-level data from the four waves of the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. The results strongly support the generational change and elective institutions hypotheses, which account for most of the decline. These findings have important implications for a better understanding of the current transformations of representative democracy and the challenges it faces.
Tuesday May 28, 2019 : Carolina Plescia (University of Vienna). "Compromising for worldly rewards? The short-term consequences of coalition agreements on voters" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- As government formation becomes increasingly difficult in multiparty systems, coalition talks and the content of coalition agreements receive heightened media and public attention. How do people react to these coalition agreements? This paper examines the short-term consequences of coalition agreements on voters in European democracies relying on survey panel data and original content analysis of coalition agreements. It tests a set of theoretical expectations that deal with what makes voters less likely to be satisfied with government agreements, focusing on variation across coalition agreements and across voters. The results indicate that coalition agreements have important consequences on voters, but more so for party identifiers and on issues that voters consider important. These findings have important implications for our understanding of public opinion and provide important insights into the current difficulties and challenges of representative democracy.
Tuesday May 14, 2019 : André Blais (Université de Montréal). "What election outcomes do Canadians like?A Survey Experiment. Revisited" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- We will present a modified version of a survey experiment project to be undertaken at the time of the forthcoming Canadian election. We will present Canadians with a series of scenarios about potential outcomes of the election, in terms of vote shares, seats shares, and the composition of government, and we will ask them to indicate how much they like/dislike these various outcomes.
Tuesday May 7, 2019 : Jordan Mansell (UQAM). “Behavioral Foundations of Negative Attitudes Towards Women and their Impacts on Male-Female Competition.” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Political scientists are becoming increasingly interested in the applicability of psychological traits as predictors of individuals’ attitudes. This interest is driven in part by the failure of conventional explanations, including socioeconomic resources and traditional family structures, to explain the variation and persistence of different attitude positions. In our study, we investigate the psychological traits underlying individuals’ attitudes towards and appraisal of women. Considering traits of social competition, we assess whether negative appraisals of women are correlated with “defensive” (low implicit and high explicit) self-esteem. Specifically, we ask whether individuals wholack a strong positive perception of self are: 1) More likely to hold negative attitudes and appraisals of women; and, 2) More sensitive to cues about the success of other individuals—in comparison to individuals with a strong positive perception of self. To answer these questions, we recruit a sample of (N=405) US-based participants to complete an experimental interaction involving a series of other-self Implicit Association Tests (IATs). Our novel design intercalates an unspecified-other-self Implicit Association Test (IAT) with a randomly assigned prime and corresponding specified-other-self IAT (specifying either a successful man or a successful woman). This design allows us to uncover baseline psychological traits associated with attitudes towards women, as well as to examine how social conditions and experience may causally reinforce the formation of different attitude positions. Our initial results suggest that individuals who lack a positive sense of self are more likely to hold negative attitudes and appraisal towards women. The design of this study was pre-registered through EGAP prior to data collection and can be accessed through http://egap.org/registration-details/3098.
Tuesday April 30, 2019 : Florence Vallée-Dubois (Université de Montréal). “Detecting ideas about the Canada Pension Plan: A view from inside Parliament.” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Les tenants de l’approche idéationnelle en politiques publiques mettent l’emphase sur les idées pour expliquer le changement dans les politiques. Ce champ de recherche est généralement dominé par « les méthodes narratives, interprétatives » (Béland et Cox 2011: 17), mais certains tenants de cette approche ont lancé un appel au développement d’autres méthodes, incluant les méthodes quantitatives, pour identifier les idées sous-jacentes au développement de politiques publiques. Dans cette recherche, j’ai recours à une banque de données des discours prononcés à la Chambre des communes canadienne ainsi qu’à la modélisation thématique pour déterminer quelles idées ont structuré les débats autour du Régime de Pensions du Canada (RPC) depuis sa création dans les années 1960. Je trouve que la rhétorique autour du RPC varie entre les partis et change substantivement à travers le temps. Ces résultats ouvrent la porte à l’utilisation de cette méthode dans l’analyse des idées en politique publique canadienne.
Tuesday April 23, 2019 : André Blais, Semra Sevi and Carolina Plescia. "What election outcomes do Canadians like?A Survey Experiment" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- André Blais will present a survey experiment project to be undertaken at the time of the forthcoming Canadian election. We will present Canadians with a series of scenarios about potential outcomes of the election, in terms of vote shares, seats shares, and the composition of government, and we will ask them to indicate how much they like/dislike these various outcomes.
Tuesday April 16, 2019 : Jean-François Daoust (McGill University). "Blame it on Turnout? Polls accuracy and voter turnout" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Malgré la croyance populaire, les recherches illustrent clairement que la capacité des sondages à prédire les résultats électoraux est constante à travers le temps. Ils ne sont ni meilleur, ni pire. Depuis « l’échec » des sondeurs lors de la victoire de Donald Trump et du Brexit il y a environ deux ans, il y a un intérêt marqué pour expliquer la performance des sondeurs. Cet article s’inscrit dans cette littérature en intégrant notamment la participation électorale, ses effets, et les contextes dans lesquels elle influence la précision des sondages. Pour se faire, j’utilise une base de données qui comprend 1680 sondages pour 181 élections dans 31 pays de 1942 à 2017 (Jennings and Wlezien, 2018). À la fin de cette présentation, vous saurez si les firmes de sondages ont raison (ou non) de blâmer un taux de participation ‘inattendu’ pour expliquer leurs échecs.
Tuesday April 9, 2019 : Ruth Dassonneville, Fernando Feitosa, Marc Hooghe and Jennifer Oser. "Congruent with Citizens, or with Voters?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- The presence of a close connection between public opinion and policy is often considered a vital element of democracy. In representative democracies, it is assumed that elections are key for realising such congruence. The extent of such a public opinion-policy nexus in representative democracies and the mechanisms behind it are, however, the subjects of heated scientific debates. In this paper, we make two important contributions to this literature. First, we unpack ‘public opinion’ and investigate whose preferences matter most: those of all citizens, or those the citizens who turn out to vote? Second, having found that government policies are more in line with the opinions of voters than those of citizens, we explore the reasons for this ‘advantage’ for voters. To do so, we rely on a newly constructed dataset that includes measures of citizens’, voters’ and governments’ ideological (left-right) positions as well as data on welfare spending in OECD countries since 1980.
Tuesday April 2, 2019 : Olivier Jacques (McGill University). "Taxing the rich? Linking preferences for public spending to willingness to pay" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Support for additional public spending is widespread in advanced industrial democracies. However, voters might want something for nothing: higher spending paid for by another group. For many voters, high income citizens remain the preferred outgroup on which to shift the tax burden. Indeed, survey responses show that a majority of respondents think taxes on the rich are too low, but almost nobody thinks that taxes on the middle class are too low. This is possibly because most voters perceive themselves to be in the middle class, even if they are considerably richer than average. This study aims to identify which voters are willing to pay higher taxes themselves to fund additional spending and ask whether willingness to pay covary with preferences for different types of spending. The study test if anti-tax voters are more or less likely than pro spending voters to exhibit a something for nothing preference, i.e. wanting lower taxes but refusing cuts to spending. To do so, I use the ISSP 2016 survey on the “role of government”.I find that among self-perceived middle-class voters, preferences for much more public spending are correlated with a higher likelihood of thinking that taxes on middle incomes are too high. This something for nothing preference is more likely for voters who want more short-term social consumption than for those preferring additional long-term oriented investments. In contrast, I find that anti-tax voters form coherent preferences and tend to favour lower public spending. I discuss the consequences of these public perceptions for the politics of redistribution.
Tuesday March 26, 2019 : Claire Durand (Université de Montréal). "L’évolution de la confiance institutionnelle dans le monde : Les défis méthodologiques de la comparaison" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- La présentation fera état des défis liés à la combinaison et à l’analyse de plus de 1300 sondages réalisés dans 143 pays depuis 1995. Ces sondages font partie de grands projets internationaux. Ils totalisent près de 2M de répondants s’étant prononcé sur plus de 20M de questions relatives à la confiance dans les institutions. Le but de la recherche est de décrire l’évolution de la confiance selon les régions du monde et de l’expliquer. Pour ce faire, plusieurs questions doivent être résolues puisque les questions relatives à la confiance varient selon les pays, les années et la forme même de la question et des choix de réponse. La présentation fera état des résultats des analyses de ces sondages au moyen de régressions locales et de modèles multiniveaux longitudinaux à quatre niveaux. Elle invitera ensuite à un débat sur les questions méthodologiques qu’il reste à résoudre pour compléter l’analyse et mieux refléter la complexité des données.
Tuesday March 19, 2019 : Alexie Labelle (Université de Montréal). "Why participate? An Intersectional Analysis of LGBTQ Activism of Color in Canada" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Alors que les mouvements LGBTQ au Canada, aux États-Unis et en Europe ont été l’objet de nombreuses études, l’engagement et la contribution des personnes racisées au sein de ces mouvements demeurent en revanche peu étudiés. Néanmoins, les personnes racisées se sont activement engagées au sein des mouvements LGBTQ, et ce, en dépit des processus de racialisation et d’exclusion qui ont teinté ces mouvements. Utilisant le Canada, et plus précisément la ville de Montréal, comme étude de cas, cette communication vise à mieux comprendre l’engagement des personnes racisées au sein du mouvement LGBTQ. La littérature sur l’engagement militant a mis en lumière certains processus structurels et identitaires qui peuvent expliquer l’engagement, tels que les réseaux, les liens sociaux, la disponibilité biographique, ainsi que l’identité collective. Ceci dit, je suis d’avis qu’avec l’accent mis sur la marginalisation et l’exclusion identitaire, un cadre théorique inspiré des approches intersectionnelles permet de mieux saisir pourquoi les personnes racisées s’engagent au sein du mouvement LGBTQ canadien. Les résultats, tirés d’entrevues semi-dirigées avec 17 activistes montréalais, montrent que la marginalisation vécue à l’intersection du genre, de la sexualité et de la race agit à titre de facteur mobilisateur, teintant ainsi les dimensions structurelles et identitaires de l’engagement de manière particulière.
Tuesday March 12, 2019 : Emmanuel Heisbourg (Université de Montréal). "Does Music Affect Perceptions of Candidate Traits?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- La littérature sur le comportement électoral a démontré que de nombreux électeurs choisissent des candidats en fonction de la perception de leurs traits de caractère. Des travaux antérieurs ont montré que la musique n’affectait pas ces perceptions. Nous soutenons toutefois que ces résultats sont dus au design expérimental. Pour cette raison, nous allons soumettre à un test supplémentaire le lien entre musique et perceptions des traits du candidat. Plus précisément, nous mènerons une expérience de laboratoire dans laquelle nous exposerons les participants à une séquence de trois clips de campagnes, avec ou sans la bande originale, et ensuite nous mesurerons leur perception de chaque candidat sur quatre dimensions : compétence, honnêteté, compassion et leadership. Nous analyserons également si l’idéologie politique modère ou non une telle relation.
Tuesday February 26, 2019 : Semih Cakir (Université de Montréal). “Being Torn between Parties and Voter Turnout." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- De plus en plus de publications examinent l’impact de facteurs psychologiques tels que l’ambivalence sur la participation électorale. Les chercheurs soulignent qu’être ambivalent envers les partis politiques est un facteur important pour expliquer la participation électorale. Les travaux antérieurs ont produit de faibles résultats sur l’impact de l’ambivalence sur la participation. De plus, l’attention portée sur le rôle de l’ambivalence pour expliquer le taux de participation est principalement limitée aux États-Unis. Dans cet article, Semih Cakir contribue à cette littérature en étudiant le lien entre ambivalence et taux de participation dans les systèmes à la fois présidentiels et parlementaires. Pour ce faire, il se sert des quatre premiers modules d’une étude comparative des systèmes électoraux, couvrant 52 pays et 154 élections. Il trouve que l’ambivalence réduit le taux de participation. De plus, il trouve que son impact est modéré par l’engagement partisan. Bien qu’ils soient attirés par deux partis (ou candidats), les électeurs partisans sont moins influencés par l’ambivalence et participent presque autant que les électeurs non ambivalents. Par contre, ceux qui n’ont pas d’attachement partisan ont moins de chances de voter que leurs homologues non ambivalents.
Tuesday February 19, 2019 : Philippe Mongrain (Université de Montréal). “To Trust, or Not to Trust: A Study of Canadians’ Confidence in the News Media”. Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Plusieurs auteurs se sont questionnés à savoir si la couverture médiatique des événements et des enjeux politiques était responsable d’une diminution de la confiance envers les institutions politiques et du désengagement des citoyens de la vie publique. En comparaison, peu de travaux (particulièrement au Canada) ont cherché à mettre en relief les déterminants de la confiance envers les médias. Dans cet article, nous examinons l'évolution de la confiance envers les médias au Canada ainsi que l’impact de divers facteurs individuels sur le niveau de confiance exprimé par des citoyens interviewés à l’occasion de six Études électorales canadiennes (ÉÉC) menées entre 1997 et 2015. Nous trouvons que la confiance générale à l’égard des institutions politiques et sociales est positivement associée à la confiance envers les médias, alors que le cynisme politique et la force de l'idéologie semblent avoir un effet dépréciateur sur la confiance exprimée à leur endroit. Avoir le français pour langue maternelle ressort aussi comme un facteur exerçant une influence positive sur le niveau de confiance des citoyens envers les médias.
Tuesday February 12, 2019 : Daniel Stockemer (University of Ottawa). “The gender gap in voter turnout: An artefact of errors in survey research?” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12:30h-13:30h, C-3141.
- Research on gender inequalities in voter turnout suffers from relying on self-reported voting figures. In this short article, we compare the gender gap in voter turnout between official electoral figures and survey data. Based on an analysis of 73 elections, we find that surveys are a poor proxy to determine whether women have lower turnout rates than men. In fact, due to higher over-reporting of turnout by men, surveys still report a gender gap in favor of men for most countries. However, official electoral figures reveal contrasting trends; that is, in most countries women are more likely to vote. We also find that suggested predictors for closing the gender gap, such as PR election systems and compulsory voting, have no bearing on turnout differences between women and men, when using official electoral statistics. This finding questions us not only to rethink the methods we use to determine the gender gap in turnout, but also its underlying theories.
Tuesday February 5, 2019 : Tom Mulcair. "The 2019 Campaign and Climate” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Tom Mulcair will share his thoughts and predictions for the upcoming Canadian federal campaign. Here are some questions he will cover: Polls have consistently shown that Canadians are concerned about the environment in general and Climate change in particular. Is that concern enough to move votes? Will the Conservatives successfully use their tried and true method of calling a price on carbon a tax on everything? Will the Liberals pull a rabbit out of their hat with some high profile environmentalists running as candidates? Will that be enough to have environmentally conscious Canadians forgive and forget four years of Liberal inaction or is Élizabeth May about to have her best result ever? How will these issues affect the 2019 campaign? And what ever happened with the Leap Manifesto, anyway?
Tuesday January 29, 2019 : Aengus Bridgman (McGill University). "Evaluating legislative influence in bicameral systems: Canadian Senate reform and lobbyist behaviour” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Measuring relative legislative influence is notoriously difficult. Perhaps nowhere is this more obvious than in bicameral systems with symmetrical and congruent legislative chambers. This paper evaluates the impact of significant changes to the Canadian bicameral legislature which offer a unique opportunity to understand the impact of rule changes and perceived power shifts on legislator and lobbyist behaviour. I leverage a panel dataset from the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada, which tracks every communication initiated by a lobbyist with designated public office holders, to assess the effects of these rules changes. I employ a difference-in-differences inspired design to compare Senators and their House of Commons peers and then distinct groups within the Senate who I find are differential recipients of increased lobbying attention. This paper evaluates existing theories on bicameralism and pushes the literature to more seriously examine non-constitutional refinements and the political behaviour of legislators and supporting players, offers a measure by which relative legislator influence can be measured in complex legislative environments, and contributes to the extant Canadian literature on the Senate, lobbyists, and the legislative process.
Tuesday January 15, 2019 : Carolina Plescia, André Blais, and John Hogstrom. "Process or Outcome? An Experimental Study on Voting Rules and Voter Satisfaction in Four Countries” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Taking advantage of a uniquely designed survey experiment, this paper investigates the impact of the input (type of vote choice and party supply) and the output (party performance and the conversion of votes into seats) of electoral rules on voter satisfaction in four countries, namely Austria, England, Ireland and Sweden. The results show that a higher number of parties has a positive effect on voter satisfaction while the type of vote choice has no effect. We also find that while the performance of the supported party exercises a substantive effect on voter satisfaction, the conversion of votes into seatshas a weaker impact. All in all, output factors play a larger effect on voter satisfaction compared to input factors. These findings have important implications for our understanding of the causal mechanisms linking electoral rules to voter satisfaction.
Tuesday December 11, 2018 : Jean-François Daoust. "Leaders’ evaluation, stereotypes and gender gap: Do women evaluate leaders differently and does it matter?” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Il est clairement établi dans la littérature que les femmes évaluent souvent de manière différente les chefs de partis politiques que les hommes, notamment sur des traits de personnalité (leadership, compétence, empathie, compassion, etc.). Une bonne description de ces différences est très utile, mais dans cette recherche, je vais plus loin en évaluant les conséquences de ces différences. Plus précisément, j’évalue l’effet de modération du sexe sur des déterminants du choix électoral liés aux leaders politiques. Les données du Canadian Election Study, American National Election Study et du British Election Study sont utilisées.
Tuesday December 4, 2018 : Laurie Beaudonnet (Université de Montréal). "La gauche et l’enjeu européen : analyse d’une évolution radicale" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Les travaux sur le positionnement des partis politiques envers l’intégration européen ne rendent compte, sur la dernière décennie, d’une évolution des partis de gauche radicale. En effet, l’opposition forte des premiers temps, sur des bases économiques, a peu à peu fait place à un soutien de principe doublé d’une critique sociale et d’une volonté de réforme, visible notamment dans les positions défendues par la Gauche Unie Européenne. Cette recherche présente l’argument d’un nouveau tournant << eurosceptique dur >> des partis de gauche radicale vis-à-vis du Projet européen, à la faveur notamment de la crise de la zone euro et des évolutions des électorats. Cette évolution s’explique par un facteur structurel (l’impossibilité d’une véritable opposition politique qualifiée (découlant de la structure même du système politique européen) et un facteur conjoncturel (la montée de l’euroscepticisme dans différents électorats constitue un facteur conjoncturel important, motivant les partis à se positionner stratégiquement sur l’enjeu européen). Après une présentation de l’argument théorique et de la stratégie de collecte de données, je présenterai les résultats du premier cas d’étude : le Font de Gauche, FDG, parti de gauche radicale française (France Insoumise depuis 2017). L’analyse empirique porte sur l’évolution du discours du FDG, entre 2009 et 2017, sur la base de l’analyse des discours et des programmes électoraux.
Tuesday November 27, 2018 : Henry Milner (Université de Montréal). "Les questions qui se posent si on pense à changer le mode de scrutin au Québec. Ce que j’ai appris de mes 35 ans d’implication en tant qu’expert/participant." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Un survol sur les expériences antérieures; …1984, 2007…
- L’ accord en 2017 de tous les partis sauf le PLQ sur l’adoption d’un système mixte-compensatoire; l’engagement du nouveau gouvernement Legault d’agir rapidement
- Le mixte compensatoire, logique derrière, et questions à resoluer selon les expériences en Allemagne, Nouvelle Zélande, et Ecosse
- Questions qui se posent toujours :
- Nombre de régions (circonscriptions d’exception ?)
- Proportion de députés des régions
- Formule d’hont ou Sainte-Lague
- Attribution des sièges régionaux: selon les resultats nationaux ou régionaux
- 1 vote ou 2
- Double candidatures
- Listes fixées ou …
- Le role et les droits des députés de liste
Tuesday November 20, 2018 : Aaron Erlich, Costin Ciobanu, Aengus Bridgman, Danielle Bohonos and Christopher Ross. "Losing elections for standing for your values? The (non-)electoral consequences of a court ruling on the niqab ban in Canada" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Immigration and integration-based concerns have heavily influenced politics across the developed world in recent years. While positions on race and immigration have generally been front and center during political contests, the 2015 Canadian federal election saw immigration and religious accommodation only emerge as an important issue towards the end of the campaign period. An unexpected, important court ruling five weeks before the election provided an exogenous shock to the campaign that increased the salience of the immigration/integration issue and, according to the media and pundits discourses, had a sizeable impact on support for the NDP, the only federal party to take a clear position against a niqab ban. We seek to identify the causal effect of this shock through two empirical strategies that distinguish the effect in Quebec from that in the other Canadian provinces. First, we leverage the rolling cross-section design of the 2015 Canadian Election Study and, in a difference-in-differences before- and after setting, we estimate the causal effect of the court decision; second, we also use synthetic control method to build a counterfactual of the NDP support had the court ruling not happened and compare it to the actual evolution of the party in the polls, all while controlling for other campaign shocks. Despite the post-election perception that the NDP stance hurt their support (particularly in Quebec), the preliminary findings rather point towards a null effect; the NDP vote intention collapses in the last two weeks of the campaign which suggests a strategic voting effect. Our paper contributes to the literature on campaign effects and to the religious symbols, race and immigration literature.
Tuesday November 13, 2018 : Susanne Garritzmann (University of Konstanz). "Education systems and turnout inequality in a cross-national perspective" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- Education-based inequality in turnout is increasing – with crucial implications for political representation and policy choice. A thorough understanding of the education-participation nexus is thus all the more important. However, existing research on education-based turnout inequality is characterized by a neglect of institutional differences in education systems: While macro-level turnout studies focus on non-educational institutions and their interactions with education, individual-level studies seem to assume that education has the same effect across countries. Combining the turnout literature with research on education systems from comparative political science, sociology and economics, I argue that institutional set-up of national education systems moderates the education-turnout nexus. More concretely, I argue that education system institutions that provide for a compensation effect to emerge – most importantly, school structures reducing socio-economic segregation and collective vocational education and training systems – help to reduce turnout inequality by fostering resources relevant for turnout among the disadvantaged. I investigate these arguments with data on adolescents’ turnout intentions from the International Civics and Citizenship Education Study and data on young adults’ reported turnout from the International Social Survey Programme.
Monday November 5, 2018 : Éric Montigny (Université Laval). "Démocratie interne et nouvelles stratégies: Les effets des réformes du financement politique au Québec et au Canada." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4145.
- En s’appuyant sur la théorie des partis de cartel (Katz et Mair. 1995), cette conférence présente les résultats d’une recherche menée auprès des partis évoluant tant à Québec qu’à Ottawa. L’adoption au Québec en 2012, du projet de loi no 2 est venue modifier considérablement les règles québécoises existantes en matière de financement des partis politiques. La part de financement étatique s’est grandement accrue. Empruntant le chemin inverse, le législation fédérale encadrant les des partis politiques aura réduit de façon marquée le financement étatique des partis politiques. Cela revient à dire que deux réformes de financement des partis ont simultanément été mise ne place avec des objectifs opposés et ce sur le même territoire. Dans un cas, avec l’augmentation annuelle versée par le DGEQ, le financement étatique des partis sera passé de 30% à 80% alors que dans l’autre, l’allocation annuelle versée aux partis aura été graduellement abolie. Ces changements ont eu des effets structurants majeur sur le fonctionnement des partis.
Tuesday October 30, 2018 : Aaron Erlich and Andrew McCormack (McGill University). “New Approaches to Spatial Visualization of Canadian Political Data.” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4019.
- In this talk, we present mapcan, an R package that provides convenient tools for plotting Canadian choropleth maps and choropleth alternatives. Standard choropleth maps tend to produce visually misleading evidence, overemphasizing larger geographical units by assigning them a stronger visual weight. This is particularly true in the Canadian case, where vast, sparsely populated geographic units in the north are given far stronger visual weights than units in southern urban centers with far denser populations. As a result, it is often the case that standard choropleth maps are either uninformative or misleading when it comes to visualizing statistics for Canadian geographic units (e.g. federal ridings, census districts, and provinces). In recent years, cartograms, tile grid maps, and hexagonal bin maps have become popular alternatives to this problem of area size bias. The goal of mapcan is to adapt these tools to the Canadian context and make them easy to implement with R and ggplot. The package includes tile grid, cartogram, and standard geographic data at different boundary levels (census divisions, federal ridings, Quebec provincial ridings, and provinces) as well as flexible functions that make it easy to plot these data. mapcan extends R-based mapping tools to the Canadian context, making it a valuable resource for anyone interested in visualizing Canadian data geographically.
Tuesday October 16, 2018 : Théodore McLauchlin (Université de Montréal). “When Violence Deters and When it Provokes: Evidence from Spain.” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4019.
- Armies frequently attempt to maintain control by monitoring soldiers and punishing them for disloyalty. But coercion is a double-edged sword. The difficulty is in assurance: convincing the agent that they will not be punished despite complying. In this paper, I provide quantitative evidence that widespread, ideologically-reinforced fears about the disloyalty of soldiers, particularly certain categories of soldiers, simultaneously incite the use of violence and limit its effectiveness by undermining assurance. In essence, members of a group that is constructed as disloyal by a prevailing ideology are likely to perceive violence against other group members as arbitrary. I trace how violence can undermine assurance and provoke defection using micro-level data on the officer corps in the Spanish Civil War (1936-39). With a prevailing view that officers were disloyal and with a failed military coup attempt that initiated the war, the officers who remained in government territory came under considerable suspicion, and many were executed. I find, in turn, that these executions provoked further defection, and I examine how they did so. I find in particular that officers reacted to violence in their immediate networks, groups formed by officers serving in the same corps and in the same province, particularly when that group had participated little in the coup attempt at the outset of the war and so violence against them appeared especially arbitrary.
Tuesday October 9, 2018 : Edana Beauvais. “The Gender Gap in Political Discussion Group.” Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4019.
- Although women and men enjoy formally equal political rights in today's democracies, there are ongoing gaps in the extent to which they make use of these rights, with women underrepresented in many political practices. The gender gap in democratic participation is problematic because gendered asymmetries in participation entail collective outcomes that are less attentive to women's needs, interests, and preferences. Existing studies consider gender gaps in voting behaviour and in certain forms of non-electoral politics such as boycotting,signing a petition, or joining a protest. However, almost no work considers gendered variation in discursive politics. Do women participate in small, face-to-face political discussion groups at the same rate as men? And does gender intersect with other identities - such as ethnicity - to impact attendance at political discussion groups? I use data from the Canadian Election Study 2015 Web Survey to answer these questions. I find that women are significantly less likely to attend small-group discussions than men, and that ethnicity intersects with gender in some important ways. However, I find no evidence that the impact of other social attributes - poverty or the presence of young children in the home - suppress women's participation in political discussion groups any more than men's.
Tuesday October 2, 2018 : Discussion sur les résultats des élections au Québec. Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12:15h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday September 18, 2018 : Christopher Rauh. "The Hard Problem of Prediction for Conflict Prevention" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4019.
- This article propose a forecasting method to predict the outbreak of armed conflict for prevention. Conflict history and ongoing violence are powerful predictors of conflict. This makes predicting the start of a conflict in a previously peaceful country extremely hard. But prevention relies on such a forecast. We use a topic model to generate summaries from the full text of 4.4 million newspaper articles to forecast conflict in these hard cases. The generated topics add to the forecasting power through both positive and negative associations at a timely rate. In contrast to other predictors used in the forecasting literature, which are often published with considerable lags of multiple years, modern topic models can be updated daily. Moreover, we show that supervised machine learning techniques, like random forests, are a useful part of forecasting models, despite limited data.
Tuesday September 11, 2018 : Damien Bol, André Blais, Maxime Coulombe, Jean-François Laslier, and Jean-Benoit Pilet. "Choosing an Electoral Rule Behind the Veil of Ignorance: Self-Interest or Common Good?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4019.
- Citizens are increasingly involved in the design of democratic institutions. If they support the institution that best serves their self-interest, the outcome inevitably advantages the largest group and disadvantages minorities. In this paper, we challenge this pessimistic view with an original lab experiment in France and Great Britain. In the first phase, experimental subjects experience elections under plurality and approval voting. In the second phase, they decide which rule they want to use for an extra election. The treatment is whether they do or do not have information to determine where their self-interest lies before deciding. We find that self-interest shapes people’s decision, but so does concern for the common good. The implications are: (1) people have consistent ‘value-driven preferences’ for electoral rules, and (2) putting them behind the veil of ignorance à la Rawlsleads to an outcome that reflects these values.
Tuesday June 12, 2018 : Jean-François Daoust, André Blais et Gabrielle Péloquin-Skulski (Université de Montréal). "What do voters do when they like a leader from another party?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4019.
- Pour plusieurs électeurs, leur leader préféré n'est pas celui de leur parti préféré. Ces électeurs ont des préférences "incongrues". Combien d'électeurs ont des préférences incongrues? Est-ce qu'ils se rangent du côté de leur parti ou du leader préféré? Et pourquoi? Nous répondons à ces questions avec les données du CSES qui comprend 89 élections à travers le monde.
Tuesday May 29, 2018: Guillem Riambau (Yale-NUS College). "Voting Behavior under Doubts of Ballot Secrecy." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4019.
- Ballot secrecy is a cornerstone of electoral democracy, since its real or perceived absence can make voters reluctant to express their true preferences when faced with individually-targeted incentives or punishments. Through original survey data from Singapore, we show that doubts over ballot secrecy can alter voting behavior even when the vote is secret and the (perceived) potential individual punishments are soft. We estimate that approximately 8% of the electorate votes for the dominant party despite a preference for the opposition. Estimating counterfactual results in an election free of doubts suggests important effects: the doubts provide the dominant party with a modest buffer against opposition challenges that can potentially sway competitive districts. As such, we highlight an essentially costless mechanism that relies on passive acceptance of the dominant party—rather than pronounced fear—through which single party dominance is buttressed. We also provide evidence of limitations of list experiments and recommendations to overcome such limitations.
Tuesday May 22, 2018: Alexandra Jabbour (Université de Montréal). "L'effort d'un État en matière de protection sociale a t-il un effet sur le vote économique?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4019.
- Le vote économique renvoie à une théorie simple : quand l'économie se porte bien, les électeurs supportent le Gouvernement sortant. Quand l'économie se porte mal, les électeurs sanctionnent le Gouvernement sortant. Partant de ce principe, une question simple peut être soulevée : les politiques publiques mises en place par les gouvernements peuvent-elles modifier la perception des électeurs quant à la situation économique de leur pays ? Plus précisément, une augmentation des dépenses sociales, directement perçues par les électeurs afin d'améliorer leur niveau de vie, sont-elles en mesure de modifier l'évaluation de la performance économique et ainsi favoriser la majorité sortante ? En étudiant l'effet modérateur des dépenses sociales, cette recherche vise à répondre à une question peu couverte par la littérature portant sur le vote économique.
Tuesday May 15, 2018: Richard Nadeau et Jean-François Daoust (Université de Montréal). "Thick and thin Forms of Political Support in Old and Mature Democracies." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, 12h-13h, C-4019.
- Un des résultats canoniques en science politique consiste au fait que les gagnants lors d'élections sont plus satisfaits avec la démocratie que les perdants. Or, nous revisitons ce résultat qui est modéré par le degré de maturité du régime. Ce "winner/loser" gap devient beaucoup moins important dans les démocraties plus modère. La relation inverse s'observe concernant le niveau d'efficacité politique : alors qu'elle détermine très peu la satisfaction envers la démocratie dans les démocraties plus récentes, elle est un prédicteur important dans les démocraties mature.
Tuesday May 8, 2018: Claire Durand et Paul Pelletier (Université de Montréal). "Peut-on regrouper les pays en fonction de l’évolution de leurs caractéristiques socio-politiques et économiques pour mieux comprendre la confiance envers le gouvernement?." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- Une précédente recherche a permis de découvrir que plus de 40% de la différence dans la confiance dans les institutions entre les pays d’Amérique Latine, d’Afrique et d’Asie s’expliquait par la région. Information intéressante, mais que signifie-t-elle? En soi, dire que la région explique les différences entre les pays n’est pas très informatif. La recherche présentée a visé à regrouper les pays (N=98) en fonction de l’évolution de 1990 à 2015 de diverses caractéristiques socio-politiques – population urbaine, diversité ethnique et religieuse, système politique – et économiques – revenu moyen par habitant, GINI avant et après impôt. Pour ce faire, on a utilisé la procédure de classification longitudinale K-Means longitudinal (KML), ce qui a permis de déterminer le nombre optimal de classes permettant de regrouper les pays selon les différentes caractéristiques. Nous avons appliqué la même procédure de classification à la confiance au gouvernement. Cette mesure provient d’un fichier de données constitué à partir de la combinaison des réponses à 756 sondages conduits dans 98 pays auprès de plus d’un million de répondants entre 1995 et 2016. Enfin, l’analyse des correspondances a permis de vérifier s’il y avait une relation entre les divers regroupements. Nous concluons que les caractéristiques socio-politiques sont liées à la confiance mais non les caractéristiques économiques. Nous validons cette information à l’aide d’analyses multi-niveaux longitudinales.
Tuesday May 1, 2018: André Blais et Jean-François Daoust (Université de Montréal). "Is Voting a Habit?." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- La thèse voulant que certains citoyens iraient voter par «habitude» est actuellement très populaire. Dans cette recherche, nous revisitons cette thèse et argumentons que l'existence d'électeurs qui vont souvent voter et l'existence d'abstentionnistes chroniques est plutôt dû à la stabilité dans le temps des attitudes politiques telles que l'intérêt pour la politique ou encore le fait de voir le vote comme un devoir.
Tuesday April 24, 2018: Maxime Coulombe (Université de Montréal). "La province de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard; une figure d’exception au Canada en matière de participation électorale." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- Il est connu que la participation électorale au Canada varie beaucoup entre le palier fédéral et provincial ainsi qu'entre les provinces. L’Île-du-Prince-Édouard maintien pour sa part une participation d'en moyenne 10 pt de pourcentage de plus que la moyenne nationale aux élections fédérales. Dans cette étude, je compare les données de scrutin des provinces pour les 20 dernières élections fédérales. Je précise ensuite mon analyse en comparant les circonscriptions électorales; en combinant les données de recensement et de scrutin entre 2000 et 2016.
Tuesday April 17, 2018: Valérie-Anne Mahéo. "Children's Political Socialization and Trickle-Up Influences: A Field Experiment on Civic Education". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- Turnout rates are low and declining in many Western democracies, especially among younger generations. Scholars and public institutions have thus paid increasing attention to the socialization of children, to understand where, when and how contemporary children learn democratic citizenship. Civic education programs are widely used in schools to stimulate the political development of children, but we still have relatively little causal evidence about the impact of these programs on children’s political attitudes and behaviors. Additionally, we have little evidence about children’s influence on their parents’ political opinions and behaviors, and whether school education programs can lead to trickle-up political socialization. Hence, in the context of the 2017 municipal elections, I used a randomized field experiment combined with a pre-post survey to assess the impact of a classroom civic education on students’ political development, and on trickle-up influences between children and their parents. Results show that the civic education program has positive effects on students’ and parents’ political knowledge, and that it stimulates trickle up socialization as parents in the treatment group voted at higher rates in the 2017 municipal election.
Tuesday April 10, 2018: Katrine Beauregard. "(Re)Framing Gender Quotas: Sexism and Support for Gender-Based Affirmative Action in Politics". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- Cette étude a pour but de voir comment la formulation de mesures visant à augmenter la présence de femmes en politique - soit la discrimination positive fondée sur le genre - influence le soutient en faveur de ces incitatifs. Si l’attitude des citoyens à l’égard des mesures législatives imposant des quotas en fonction du genre a fait l’objet de quelques études, nous en savons peu sur le soutien en faveur d’autres moyens favorisant une plus forte présence des femmes en politique.ous opérons une distinction entre un cadre positif, neutre et négatif et démontrons que les mesures définies en tant que cible reçoivent un soutien plus important que les quotas fondés sur le genre. De plus, les mesures positives telles que permettre aux femmes de bénéficier d’une formation supplémentaire ou encore l’effort des partis politiques visant à recruter plus de femmes candidates, sont davantage populaires que les mesures neutres telles que le recours au genre comme aspect décisif ou comme une considération parmi d’autres. Les études précédentes portant sur le soutien aux quotas fondés sur le genre se sont penchées sur les attitudes à l’égard de l'égalité entre les sexes et l’intervention gouvernementale comme moyen d'explication. Nous considérons que les attitudes à l’égard des femmes pour comprendre le support en faveur de différentes mesures de discrimination positive en politique sont ambivalentes. En utilisant des données originales tirées d’un sondage réalisé auprès de répondants australiens via une méthode d’échantillonnage probabiliste, nos résultats démontrent que les individus ayant un haut niveau de sexisme hostile sont plus à même de s’opposer à des mesures positives et négatives qui mettent l’accent sur des moyens spécifiquement dirigés vers les femmes. Cependant, les sexistes bienveillants sont quant à eux davantage enclins à supporter une discrimination positive en politique, et ce, peu importe la tonalité de la mesure.
Monday April 9, 2018: Irene Esteban. "A Revised Scale of the Measurement of Populist Attitudes". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- Despite the growing research attention on the topic of populism, less attention has been devoted to the study of populist attitudes among the citizenry. This study reports an overview of the measurement scales of this concept, aiming to bring more clarity to this field of study, and to serve as a guide to researchers who want to measure this concept accurately. To do so, first, we explore how populist attitudes have been measured in the literature until now, examining the historical development of the operationalization of populism, and the different dimensions it is composed of. We compare previously used indicators and the theoretical framework that inspired them. Second, we identify areas of agreement between scholars, and overlaps with other political attitudes. Third, we test the robustness of these measurements with methodological tools such as Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis, testing their validity and internal consistency. After, we propose which exact measurement of these attitudes is recommended to be used. Finally, we validate the measure proposed by means of voting behavior, testing whether populist attitudes correspond with the vote for a populist party. Cross-national data will be used for this purpose.
Tuesday April 3, 2018: Semih Çakir (Université de Montréal). "Polarized Partisanship in Turkey". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- La littérature démontre que la partisannerie, en diminuant la volatilité électorale, stabilise la politique. Les études récentes ont établi un lien de causalité entre la polarisation et la partisannerie; plus les partis politiques se distinguent, plus ils deviennent visibles aux yeux des électeurs et ainsi ces derniers s’identifient plus facilement avec un parti politique. Alors que plusieurs études ont été menées sur le concept d’identification partisane, peu d’entre elles ont analysé les implications de la polarisation sur la partisannerie. En utilisant les données de CSES Module 3 et 4, cette étude examine l’identification partisane dans un contexte très polarisé : la Turquie. Ce faisant, elle soulève certaines implications normatives de partisannerie à la lumière de la théorie démocratique. Nos résultats suggèrent que la Turquie, qui a été aux prises avec l’instabilité électorale pendant les décennies, a retrouvé la stabilité politique suite à un accroissement du niveau de partisannerie dans le pays. Néanmoins, cette recherche trouve également que la polarisation croissante a renforcé le biais partisan quant aux forces à court-terme.
Tuesday March 27, 2018: Christian Schimpf. "Making protest votes count: Investigating voter’s motivations to cast a protest vote in general elections". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- In this study, I argue that voters are more likely to cast a protest vote when they perceive their most preferred choice to lack ideological congruence and the competence to deliver on important policy issues. While much ink has been spilled on protest voting, there appears to be little consensus among scholars on what precisely this voting model entails. I argue that “protest voting” is best understood as a form of signaling. Voters can utilize their vote to voice their discontent and send a message by temporarily withdrawing their support from the option that they would choose if were they not dissatisfied. Broadly speaking, protest voting is a form of strategic voting because voters cast an insincere vote. However, protest voters are different from strategic voters as strictly, and typically, defined in the literature in that their primary goal is not to influence the immediate election outcome. Furthermore, protest voting differs from retrospective voting models in that voters withdraw their support temporarily with the goal of forcing change as opposed to voting for the best possible party/leader to represent them. Applying this concept, I study the conditions under which voters are willing to cast a protest vote in a comparative perspective, using survey data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) Project (Module 3), and in two case studies, the 2015 Canadian election and the 2013 Icelandic election.
Tuesday March 20, 2018: Eric Guntermann, Ruth Dassonneville and Peter Miller. "Compulsory Voting and Representation: Does Compulsory Voting Reduce Inequalities in Political Representation?". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- As turnout in many democracies is in decline, the scholarly and public interest in compulsory voting rules has increased. Compulsory voting is found to be one of the most effective ways to boost turnout. However, its secondary effects are more debated. On the one hand, research finds that inequalities in voting in terms of e.g., income are reduced in a context of compulsory voting (Singh, 2015). As such, compulsory voting rules make electoral participation more egalitarian and should - in this way - ensure that the interests of the less well-off are represented. However, compulsory voting is also found to come at a cost in terms of the ‘quality’ of voters’ choices. Research that has studied the prevalence of proximity voting in compulsory and non-compulsory voting countries finds that compulsory voting rules tend to weaken the impact of ideological proximity on the vote choice (Singh 2016; Dassonneville et al. forthcoming). The implication is that the compelled less well-off do not necessarily cast votes that are in line with their interests. As a consequence, while we know that compulsory voting rules reduce inequalities in electoral participation, we are less certain about its alleged impact on inequalities in political representation. In this paper, we shed light on this question by assessing the impact of compulsory voting rules on representation. We make use of the comparative data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES)-project, that includes survey data from compulsory and non-compulsory voting countries. As indicators of representation, we consider a traditional indicator of ideological congruence (Huber and Powell 1994) and indicators of whether a citizen’s preferred party enters government and how much citizens like governing parties compared to opposition parties - two measures of representation that were proposed by Blais et al. (2017). Our results testify of the egalitarian impact of compulsory voting rules. We find that compulsory voting not only reduces income inequalities in participation, but also income inequalities in representation.
Tuesday March 13, 2018: André Blais (Université de Montréal). "Conversation about a potential annual PhD Political Behaviour Colloquium." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
Tuesday February 27, 2018: Fernando Feitosa (Université de Montréal). "Le rôle des parents et des écoles dans le développement du sentiment de devoir civique de voter." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- Cette thèse de doctorat investiguera le rôle des parents et des écoles dans le développement du sentiment de devoir civique de voter chez les citoyens. Alors que des chercheurs ont trouvé une forte association entre les parents, les écoles et la participation électorale, on ignore si et dans quelle mesure ces agents de socialisation politique affectent la participation électorale à travers le sentiment de devoir civique de voter. Face à l'importance de cette attitude politique dans la décision de voter ou de s’abstenir lors d’une élection, cette thèse de doctorat comblera une lacune importante dans la littérature sur la participation électorale et sur la socialisation politique. Du côté pratique, cette thèse de doctorat montrera dans quelle mesure les parents et les écoles peuvent rétablir, par la voie normative, les niveaux de participation électorale des années 50 et 60 au Canada et ailleurs.
Tuesday February 20, 2018: Dieter Stiers. "Political Information and retrospective voting: Combining individual and contextual heterogeneity." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- Economic voting is one of the most widely investigated theories of voting behaviour, and previous research has indicated the importance in political information to enable voters to link their retrospective assessments of the government's performance to their vote. This study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the role of information in retrospective voting, by investigating both political information at the individual level, the clarity of the political context, and the interplay of these two sources of heterogeneity. Using the data of Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, I find that all voters use their retrospective assessments when casting their vote - although voters holding more political information do so to a larger extent. Second, voters do not vote retrospectively in the lowest-clarity context. Third, contrary to what was expected, there is a larger difference in retrospective voting between voters with different levels of political information in high-clarity contexts, while voters do not hold incumbent parties to account at the polls in low-clarity contexts - irrespective of their level of political information. These findings hold strong implications for the way elections work as a means of democratic accountability.
Tuesday February 6, 2018: Eric Guntermann and André Blais. "Expliquer le choix de vote dans une élection historique: l'élection régionale catalane de 2017." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- Notre objectif est d’expliquer le choix de vote des citoyens lors de l’élection qui s’est déroulée en Catalogne le 21 décembre 2017. Nous avons mené un sondage en ligne auprès d’un échantillon représentatif de la population catalane lors de la semaine précédant le scrutin. Pour les besoins de l’étude, nous avons considéré l’impact de variables démographiques, de variables attitudinales ainsi que de réactions aux évènements récents. Nos résultats démontrent que le choix électoral des Catalans est fortement expliqué par l’âge, la langue maternelle et le niveau d’éducation des répondants. L’idéologie, le soutien à l’indépendance et à un référendum, les réactions aux évènements récents ainsi que la perception de l’économie et de la corruption sont également des facteurs explicatifs du vote.
Tuesday January 30, 2018: Henry Milner. "Only in America? A Comparative Institutional Analysis of the Trump Phenomenon " Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- My past comparative work focused on Europe, but recent events have returned me to my original interest in the US. Very much is being written about Trump by journalists and pundits, but more political science analysis needed. There is a burgeoning literature on populism, but we need to include the US in the comparative analysis of populism. I outline what such an analysis should entail.
Tuesday January 23, 2018: Jean-Philippe Gauvin and Mike Medeiros. "Regional Federalism? Accounting for Differences in Canadian Federal Culture." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- Years ago, Elazar argued that successful federations are those whose people ‘think federal’. These lead to strong federal cultures that are characterized by support of the citizens for the institutions and functions of federalism. However, what drives federal culture? The ways in which federal systems are divided create an opportunity for the diversity of policies, parties and even opinions. These regional cleavages can have serious implications for citizens and the way they relate to the federal polity. For example, previous research in Canada has found evidence of uneven ‘culture of federalism’ throughout the country’s regions. In this paper, we use survey data to explore whether territorial factors are stronger determinants of federal culture than socio-demographic characteristics and ideology.
Tuesday January 16, 2018: Kristin Kanthak and Jonathan Woon. Presented by André Blais. "Women Don't Run? Election Aversion and Candidate Entry" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- To study gender differences in candidate emergence, we conduct a laboratory experiment in which we control the incentives potential candidates face, manipulate features of the electoral environment, and measure beliefs and preferences. We find that men and women are equally likely to volunteer when the representative is chosen randomly, but that women are less likely to become candidates when the representative is chosen by an election. This difference does not arise from disparities in abilities, risk aversion, or beliefs, but rather from the specific competitive and strategic context of campaigns and elections. Thus, we find evidence that women are election averse, whereas men are not. Election aversion persists with variations in the electoral environment, disappearing only when campaigns are both costless and completely truthful.
Tuesday November 28, 2017: Ruth Dassonneville, Fernando Feitosa, Marc Hooghe, Richard Lau and Dieter Stiers. "Le vote obligatoire, les électeurs réticents et le vote de proximité idéologique?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- D’après certains théoriciens, les démocraties devraient s’efforcer d’encourager une forte participation des électeurs, justifiant ainsi le recours au vote obligatoire, un des moyens les plus efficaces pour augmenter la participation. D’autres ont, a contrario, soutenu que cette obligation a pour conséquence d’affaiblir la qualité du vote. Nous étudions ces thèses en examinant l’impact du vote obligatoire sur le vote de proximité. Dans un premier temps, nous examinons le comportement électoral des individus de trois pays disposant d’une législation stricte en matière de vote obligatoire : l’Australie, la Belgique et le Brésil. Les sondages électoraux de ces pays comportent une question hypothétique concernant la probabilité de voter en l’absence de contrainte légale. Dans un second temps, nous étudions les effets du vote obligatoire en Suisse qui varie en fonction des cantons. Nos résultats soutiennent l’hypothèse de « l’électeur réticent » : contraindre les électeurs à voter tend à affaiblir l’impact des considérations de proximité sur le comportement électoral, bien que cet effet s’avère limité et seulement significatif dans la moitié des élections étudiées.
Tuesday November 21, 2017: André Blais. "At what age should citizens be allowed to vote?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- This is a project proposal.
Tuesday November 14, 2017: Eric Guntermann. "Issue Voting and the Representation of Policy Preferences" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- Recent studies have suggested that policy preferences have little if any impact on citizens’ vote choices. These authors generally conclude that citizens thus fail to lead government policy. In other words, the shortcomings of their political behavior prevent them from getting what they want from government. However, none of these studies have assessed whether voting on the basis of issue opinions actually increases the influence of citizens’ preferences on the implementation of policies. Using the Swedish National Election Studies data going back to 1956, we consider the extent to which governing parties gain and lose votes among supporters and opponents of a variety of policy proposals. We argue that governing parties are more likely to adopt policies that reflect public opinion when they gain votes because of citizens’ policy preferences. By combining the election studies data with an original dataset on policy implementation, we show that gains by governing parties lead to policy outcomes that are more reflective of public opinion.
Tuesday November 7, 2017: Airo Hino. "The Spiral of Silence and the Crescendo of Voices: Opinion Expression after Fukushima Nuclear Crisis" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- This paper examines the seminal spiral of silence hypothesis through a survey experiment conducted in Japan. While the existing studies either rely on hypothetical questions in surveys or experiments with selected samples, we tested the hypothesis with a real on-going issue in Japan regarding the future of nuclear power plants after the Fukushima crisis based on nationwide random samples. In our experiment, different stimuli of climates of opinion and survey modes were randomly assigned to respondents based on a computer assisted survey program. We hypothesized that respondents who are given an anti-nuclear climate of opinion are more likely to support the reduction of nuclear power plants and that this only holds in the CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interview) mode where their answer is known to interviewers and respondents are prone to project “socially desirable” answers. We expected that this also applies to respondents who are not given a climate of opinion and have to rely on their “quasi-statistical sense” in the midst of anti-nuclear atmosphere. Our results demonstrate the spiral of silence (and the crescendo of voicing a majority view) phenomenon for above groups of respondents and this was only confirmed in the CAPI mode while not in the CASI (Computer Assisted Self-administered Interview) mode where respondents complete the questionnaire in privacy by themselves.
Tuesday October 31, 2017: Thiago Barbosa. "Experimental evidence from Brazil and Canada" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- While the ill consequences of corruption are well documented and seem clear for both scholars and citizens, corrupt candidates are often not punished by voters. The paper tests three possible answers to this puzzle, through original survey experiments conducted in Brazil and Canada, while exploring the possible impact of contextual and cultural differences between them. First, we focus on how partisanship may condition attitudes towards corruption. Do voters judge the same offense in a different way if the politician accused of wrongdoing belongs to their preferred party? And if so, does political knowledge compensate for the partisan bias? Secondly, we want to test the implicit exchange hypothesis: Are the citizens more prone to turn a blind eye to corruption if the accused politician “gets things done”? Finally, we focus on the supply side and political disaffection to test if citizens keep voting on corrupt candidates because they feel the other options are just as corrupt.
Tuesday October 17, 2017: Grégoire Saint-Martin. "Représentation proportionnelle et participation électorale: l’hétérogénéité des populations importe-t-elle?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- Une multitude d’études ont examiné la relation entre la représentation proportionnelle (RP) et la participation électorale. La plupart de celles-ci ont conclu que la RP stimule la participation électorale et que cela pourrait être dû au fait que ce système électoral engendre une diminution des distorsions électorales, une augmentation du nombre de partis et une plus forte compétitivité. Si tel était bien le cas, aucune de ces études n’a cependant été en mesure d’expliquer pourquoi l’effet de la RP sur le taux de vote diffère selon la région du monde et qu’il est même parfois nul. Par cette recherche, nous tentons tout d’abord de démontrer que l’impact de la RP sur la participation électorale est grandement affecté par le degré d’hétérogénéité ethnique d’une population et que, dans un deuxième temps, la nature de cette interaction varie aussi en fonction du niveau de richesse et de santé démocratique des pays. Notre analyse empirique s’appuie sur un échantillon 709 élections s’étant tenues dans 95 pays.
Tuesday October 10, 2017: Eric Guntermann. "Accounting for Citizens’ Coalition Preferences: Party Evaluations vs Ideological Proximity" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- Research on coalition formation as well as on vote choice in the presence of coalitions has focused on the characteristics of potential coalitions, especially their ideological positions. Only recently, however, have scholars sought to account for citizens’ feelings about such pacts among parties. While these studies show that citizens’ evaluations of coalitions partly depend on ideological proximity and on their feelings towards the included parties, among other factors, they still fail to entirely explain why citizens like or dislike coalitions. In this paper, we argue that the key determinants of citizens’ attitudes towards coalitions are their evaluations of both included and excluded parties. Moreover, their attitudes towards both sets of parties matter considerably more than ideological proximity. We conclude that, when studying citizens’ orientations towards coalitions, scholars should consider how citizens feel about the various parties in addition to the policy outcomes citizens should expect from them.
Tuesday September 26, 2017: Claire Durand, Luis Patricio Pena Ibarra and Paul Pelletier. "Institutional Trust and Governance Outside the Western World, a 4-level Longitudinal Model" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- The paper will present the results of a study examining how institutional trust varies by institution, by country, by region of the world and over time. In order to examine this question, we analyse 635 surveys that have been combined, comprising 827,131 respondents and more than 9 million measures of institutional trust over 20 years. We use a 4-level model where measures (level 1) are nested within respondents (level 2), themselves nested in surveys conducted a given year (level 3) in a given country (level 4). The presentation will focus on the impact of governance -- as measured by the World Governance Index -- on trust and more specifically on trust in political institutions.
Tuesday October 3, 2017: Liran Harsgor. "(In)Security during Formative Years: Long-Term Cohort Effects on Political Attitudes" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- What are the long-term effects of terrorism on political attitudes? This paper examines the effect of terror attacks occurring during the period in which people come of age on their political attitudes later in life. Using public opinion surveys conducted among Israeli Jews between 1977 and 2015 and a dataset on terror casualties since the 1950s, the analysis shows that the number of terror casualties during a person’s formative years affects political attitudes later in life: the higher the level of terrorism, the more likely a person is to identify as rightwing and to support hawkish attitudes. The analysis highlights the role of the context in which terrorism takes place.
Tuesday September 19, 2017: Semra Sevi, Jean-François Daoust and André Blais. "What is a good representative?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room 12h-13h, C-4019.
- This is a project proposal. We are interested in citizens’ conception of what a good representative is. Is she one who defends the individual’s own opinion on an issue, who defends the constituents’ majority view, or who defends her party position? Sometimes these conceptions clash. When that happens, what should the good representative do ? We have developed a never before tested research design to determine which of these three conceptions citizens adhere to.
Tuesday September 12, 2017: Ruth Dassonneville, Marc Hooghe, Rick Lau and Mary Nugent. "Do Women Vote Correctly? A Comparative Analysis of Levels and Predictors of Proximity Voting among Men and Women" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4145. 12-13h.
- For the quality of democracy, and for realizing good representation, voters should choose parties or candidates based on their values and ideological positions. Reassuringly, voters’ choices indeed appear to be linked to their ideological opinions, as evident from a rich literature on proximity voting. Some groups of voters, however, seem to be ‘better’ at identifying and choosing ideologically proximate parties than others. Such differences in voters’ capacities to engage in proximity voting are highly consequential, as they affect how well different groups are represented. In this paper, we investigate differences in proximity voting between men and women. Previous work offers good reasons to suspect a gender gap in proximity voting, as women are generally found to have lower levels of political knowledge than men (Fortin-Rittberger, 2016; Fraile & Gomez, 2017) and to be less cognisant about parties’ left-right ideological positions (Aldrich et al., 2017). We make use of the data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems to analyse levels of left-right proximity voting among men and women, as well as gender differences in the determinants of proximity voting.
Tuesday September 5, 2017: Mathieu Turgeon. "Vote Buying, Undecided Voters, and their Effects on Polling Error in Brazil" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- Polls in Brazil do have well-known problems, such as accusations of bias and a lack of transparency in regards to sampling methods and a reliance on quotas, that could make them more likely to commit larger errors. We, however, argue that there are also systematic factors that make polling especially difficult in Brazil, namely, last-minute vote buying. Many of the effects of this vote buying, often known as the “boca de urna,” cannot be measured directly, but we argue that one should be able to see its effects in certain specific contexts. This vote buying, in fact, results in predictable biases that are detectable by looking at financial imbalances between candidates in a given race.
Wednesday May 17, 2017: Corinna Kröber. "Growing numbers, growing influence? A comparative study of policy congruence between parliaments and citizens of immigrant origin." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4145. 12-13h.
- A large set of research asks whether and how the presence of representatives belonging to excluded groups such as minorities of immigrant origin enhances policy responsiveness towards these groups. In this paper, I show that growing numbers of legislators with immigrant backgrounds can succeed in shifting the parliamentary agenda closer to the ideal points of citizens of immigrant descent, but only within two important boundaries: the absence of a negative critical mass and low party discipline. For this purpose, I analyze panel data from seven European Democracies between 2002 and 2014 using first-difference models. This approach goes beyond existing studies by providing a first cross-country comparison in the field, and, furthermore, by moving the focus from individual representatives’ attempts to promote the interests of citizens with immigrant backgrounds towards effectiveness of these endeavors.
Tuesday May 8, 2017: André Blais, Jean-François Daoust and Dieter Stiers. "Am I a loser? The classification of electoral winners and losers in Canada, Spain and Germany." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4145. 12-13h.
- Elections are based on political equality but creates inequality as they produce winners and losers. How should we classify electoral winner and loser? The literature offers three main answers: focusing on 1) votes, 2) seats or 3) cabinet. However, political scientists have no clue whether these classifications correspond to the subjective idea of voters, that is, whether they consider that they won or lost the election. In this presentation, we use a never-seen-before survey question to test which way we can identify who is a loser and who is a winner.
Tuesday April 25 2017: André Blais. "Un nouveau cours sur les expériences en science politique." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4145. 12-13h.
- Réflexions sur un nouveau cours qui sera offert l’an prochain.
Wednesday April 19 2017: Alexandra Remond. Independence Referendums: secession preventing or inducing? Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4145. 12-13h.
- The research uncovers the effects of independence referendums on secessionist dynamics. It uses a quantitative and qualitative mixed-method approach which includes the creation of a new dataset on secessionist movements and independence referendums from 1905 to 2014, and an in-depth study of the two Quebec independence referendums of 1980 and 1995, and the Montenegrin referendum on independence of 2006.
Tuesday April 18 2017: Remko Voogd. "The effect of elections and its outcomes on the development of political trust in Western Democracies: A multi-level study." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4145. 12-13h.
- This study investigates how elections and its outcomes affect the dynamics in political trust throughout the electoral cycle. The main concern is to establish how election outcome characteristics (volatility, government party seat shifting) affect to which extent the electoral process gives a boost to political trust, and to investigate how election outcomes affect the gap in political trust between winners and losers of the election. Combining data from seven waves of the European Social Survey with election level and party- election level outcome characteristics of elections, allows investigating this linkage in a multilevel design with individuals nested in 103 electoral periods from 30 European democracies. The main findings show that levels of political trust generally fluctuate throughout an electoral cycle with elections giving a boost to the levels of political trust. No main effect of seat volatility is found when comparing between electoral period levels of political trust within countries. When only looking at the period immediately after the elections, higher levels of seat volatility enlarge the boosting effect of elections on the levels of political trust. Differences between electoral winners and losers are mainly driven by incumbent support. But winning or losing in terms of one’s party gaining or losing seats at an election moderates the gap between incumbent based winners and losers with voters who voted for a gaining party that nevertheless did not end up in government reporting the lowest levels of political trust.
Thursday April 13 2017: Romain Lachat (Sciences Po Paris). "How party characteristics drive voters’ evaluation criteria." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- Spatial models of issue voting generally assume that citizens have a single “vote function”. A given voter is expected to evaluate all parties using the same issue criteria. The impact of issues can vary between citizens and contexts, but is normally considered to be constant across parties. This paper reassesses this central assumption, by suggesting that party characteristics influence the salience of issue considerations in voters’ evaluations. Voters should rely more strongly on issues which are frequently associated with a given party and for which its issue stances are better known. Our analysis of the 2014 European elections offer strong support for these hypotheses. These findings imply an important modification of standard proximity models of electoral competition and party choice.
Tuesday April 11 2017: Damien Bol and Jean-François Daoust. "The Spatial Dimension of Political Representation: Evidence from Canada."
Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4145. 12-13h.
- Being a deputy is a job, and as in all jobs, recruitment is affected by job conditions. In large countries such as Canada, the nature of the job is so different for deputies elected in a district close to the parliament and for those elected on the other side of the country that it needs to have an impact on political representation. In this project, we would like to evaluate the consequences of distances for deputies and constituents. What I’ll present is not even a 'work in progress’, it’s more ‘what comes before a work in progress’. I’ll try to convince you that our idea is rock solid, and that there are identification strategies we can use to isolate the effect of distances on political representation. I’ll also present some descriptive statistics.
Tuesday March 28 2017: André Blais and Mathieu Turgeon. "The impact of compulsory voting: Lessons from Brazil." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- Electoral participation in the democratic world is generally low with about one voter in three not casting a vote in a typical election. Concerned with low turnout, some countries have adopted laws making voting compulsory. How successful compulsory voting is in enhancing voter turnout? Using census and participation data from Brazil and building on a unique institutional design that imposes compulsory voting on some voters but not others, we estimate the impact of compulsory voting on turnout. The findings indicate that compulsory voting exerts a very strong effect on turnout, increasing it by about 20 percentage points. This finding carries important implications for policymakers concerned with the decline in turnout in contemporary democracies.
Tuesday Mach 21 2017: Pascal Doray-Demers. "The Politics of Fiscal Rules within the European Union. A dynamic analysis of fiscal rules stringency" & "Four Paths to Fiscal Rules: The Diverse Political Origins of Fiscal Rules Across the World." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- Fiscal Rules are a relatively new type of institutions controlling the government budgetary process. They set numerical targets on four government budget aggregates: Debt, Deficit, Expenditure, Revenues. Relatively rare until the 1990s, fiscal rules have spread rapidly around the world in the last 25 years. Surprisingly, there is very little research exploring why fiscal rules are created. Current explanation assumes that government bind their own hand to limit their ability to use budget deficits to increase their election prospects. This logic is counter-intuitive and unsatisfactory. Our research identifies and test a large set of potential mechanisms explaining diffusion of fiscal rules. Using quantitative and qualitative methods, we have identified the most likely mechanism explaining the spread of fiscal rules. This presentation combines the result of three papers on fiscal rules origins. The first part of the presentation uses the European setting to test mechanism from the economic and from the diffusion literature. The second part of the presentation first confirm previous result outside of the EU and explore the possibility that the creation mechanism of fiscal rules can affect their ability to influence government budgets.
Tuesday March 14 2017: André Blais and Jean-François Daoust. "Why is Messi more popular than Ronaldo?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- In 2016 Ronaldo was awarded the Ballon d’or and was proclaimed the FIFA best player of the year. Yet the fans were more inclined to think that Messi was the best player. In this study we investigate the reasons why the fans prefer Messi over Ronaldo.
Tuesday March 7 2017. Filip Kostelka. "Democratic Consolidation and Voter Turnout" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- Cette présentation met en cause la thèse existante selon laquelle la consolidation démocratique aurait un impact négatif sur la participation électorale. Elle explique pourquoi, dans certains cas, la participation dans les nouvelles démocraties décline, et comment ces déclins diffèrent des dynamiques observées dans les démocraties établies
Tuesday February 21 2017: Richard Nadeau, Vincent Arel-Bundock, Jean-François Daoust. "Satisfaction with democracy and the American Dream." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday February 14 2017: Valerie-Anne Maheo. "Parents-enfants : influences mutuelles? Une étude expérimentale sur l’éducation civique et la transmission des comportements politiques." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- Valérie-Anne présentera le projet expérimental qu'elle réalisera à l'automne 2017, dans le contexte des élections municipales. Avec ce projet de recherche elle évaluera l'effet d'une activité d'éducation civique sur les connaissances et attitudes politiques d'élèves du primaire. Elle testera également l'hypothèse de la socialisation inversée, et examinera ainsi si les enfants peuvent affecter les attitudes et comportements politiques de leurs parents.
Tuesday February 7 2017: Frédérick Bastien. "L'usage d'Internet et la participation politique des Canadiens avec un handicap." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- Bien que des études américaines aient montré que les personnes atteintes d'un handicap participent en moins grandes proportions aux élections, les données canadiennes ont jusqu'à présent indiqué une absence de différence par rapport aux autres citoyens. Toutefois, les personnes atteintes d'une incapacité sont moins nombreuses à faire usage d'Internet. Le développement de formes numériques de participation signifie-t-il l'apparition d'une nouvelle inégalité politique touchant les personnes handicapées?
Tuesday January 31 2017: Dieter Stiers. "Rewarding the incumbent or punishing the opposition? A new perspective on electoral accountability." Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- Retrospective voting is one of the most investigated theories of voting behaviour. However, previous studies towards this theory only focused on incumbent evaluations to matter for the party choice – neglecting performance evaluations to matter for opposition parties as well. This study argues that performance voting should be investigated at the level of political parties. The results indicate that satisfaction with the previously endorsed party influences the vote choice for incumbent and opposition parties alike.
Tuesday January 17 2017: Jean-François Laslier. "Multi-winner voting rules: an efficiency-equality dilemma" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- Multiwinner voting rules take as input preferences over candidates and return sets of candidates of fied size (k). They are models of actual electoral laws for parliamentary election when these laws are completely open and allow panache across parties. (In reality : such is almost never the case). Some rules use approval-type (instead of preference-type) input. We study 6 such rules and illustrate what they produce in simulations, using the EUclidean model, and on real data, using 84 political elections, each of whom has between 500 and 1000 voters and between 6 and 9 parties.
Tuesday January 10 2017: André Blais, Fernando Feitosa and Semra Sevi. "Was my decision to vote (or abstain) the right one?" Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- The study examines people’s assessments, ex post, of whether their decision to vote or to abstain in a given election was the right one. We use 23 surveys conducted in five different countries (Canada, France, Germany, Spain, and Switzerland) in national, supra-national, and sub-national elections between 2011 and 2015. We find that the great majority of those who voted were very satisfied with their decision to vote while non-voters were more doubtful about the wisdom of their decision to abstain. We also find that those who are interested in politics, who feel that they have a moral duty to vote in elections, and who feel close to a party are more prone to be satisfied with their decision to vote and to be dissatisfied if they chose to abstain.
Tuesday November 14th 2016: Guillem Riambau. "Who prefers a proportional system? Evidence from New Zealand". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- Much has been written about politicians’ preferences for electoral systems, yet little is known about the preferences of citizens, who ultimately legitimize them with their ballots. We use the 1993 binding electoral referendum in New Zealand in order to find out what drives citizens’ preferences for an electoral system. The referendum asked voters to choose between a single plurality system (First Past the Post) and a pure proportional one (Mixed Member Proportional). We construct a new dataset merging results from all nationwide polling stations, and benefit from the fact that a general election was held the very same day. We find that strategic self-interest was a key driver: voters preferred the system that most benefited their favorite party. Furthermore, despite the absence of malapportionment, we find that rural voters strongly preferred a plurality system. The data set allows us to recover preference intensities: individuals in rural areas, supporters of National (the conservative party), and Maori seemed to have had more at stake. Using post-electoral survey data from 1993, we can further show that liberal values also shape citizens’ preferences over and above partisan self-interest: people who held more progressive values were more likely to support a proportional system. Finally, we find that men, more educated citizens and religious minorities were more supportive of a proportional system. We provide a framework to rationalize these findings.
Tuesday November 8th 2016: Michael Lewis-Beck, Diana Mutz and Claire Durand. "Élection présidentielle américaine: Interprétations et attentes". Carrefour des arts et des sciences, salle C-3061. 15-18h.
Tuesday November 1st 2016: Isabelle Valois. "La confiance envers les institutions au Canada est-elle en diminution? Une analyse longitudinale". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- La confiance institutionnelle demeure un sujet d’intérêt et de préoccupation depuis près de 50 ans. Comme la confiance est souvent considérée comme un ingrédient essentiel au fonctionnement institutionnel et à la vitalité de la vie démocratique, plusieurs chercheurs, mobilisant des indicateurs de confiance institutionnelle, se sont alarmés d’une diminution de la confiance envers les institutions.Utilisant l’analyse multiniveau ainsi que de simples analyses descriptives des données, nous montrons que loin d’être en déclin la confiance institutionnelle demeure relativement stable ou est même à la hausse dans certains cas. Alors, que la religion se révèle être la seule institution qui présente un déclin constant de la confiance déclarée, les institutions politiques et le système de justice montre un déclin qui culmine au milieu des années 90 pour ensuite dépasser les niveaux de confiance du milieu des années 70.
Tuesday October 11th 2016: Laura French Bourgeois & Roxane de la Sablonnière. "Augmenter le taux de participation aux élections : une intervention centrée sur les normes sociales". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday October 18th 2016: Étienne Ollion. " Au-delà des big data. Les sciences sociales face à la multiplication des données numériques". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday October 25th 2016: No seminar.
Tuesday September 20th 2016: André Blais. "La définition du vote stratégique". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal, Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday Septembre 13th 2016: Catherine Lemarier-Saulnier. "Honnêteté, vision et féminité: comprendre l'évaluation de la performance politique des leaders par la méthode quasi-expérimentale". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019.12-13h.
Tuesday August 9th 2016: Jean-François Godbout. "Will André Blais be convinced? Explaining the Electoral Realignment of Catholics in Canada". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Monday August 1st 2016: Dr. Christoher Gandrud. "Return of the British Disease? Credible commitments after Brexit". Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- For much of the post-WW II period until the late-1980s Britain was described as the “sick man of Europe” suffering from a “British Disease”. The symptoms of the “disease” were low investment and low growth. An important component of this disease was fundamental to British institutions, namely Parliamentary sovereignty. This made it difficult for Britain to credibly commit to policies preferred by investors. Joiningthe European Economic Community, with its externally enforced constraints on policy-making, and the development of a cross-party economic ideological consensus allowed the UK to make more credible commitments to investors. The British Disease went into remission. The Brexit vote and related socio-demographic changes re-expose Parliamentary sovereignty’s credible commitment problems. Is Britain headed for a relapse of the British Disease?
Tuesday August 1st 2016: Vincent Arel-Bundock. “Return of the British Disease? Credible commitments after Brexit”. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- For much of the post-WW II period until the late-1980s Britain was described as the “sick man of Europe” suffering from a “British Disease”. The symptoms of the “disease” were low investment and low growth. An important component of this disease was fundamental to British institutions, namely Parliamentary sovereignty. This made it difficult for Britain to credibly commit to policies preferred by investors. Joining the European Economic Community, with its externally enforced constraints on policy-making, and the development of a cross-party economic ideological consensus allowed the UK to make more credible commitments to investors. The British Disease went into remission. The Brexit vote and related socio-demographic changes re-expose Parliamentary sovereignty’s credible commitment problems. Is Britain headed for a relapse of the British Disease?
Wednesday July 27th 2016: André Blais and Henry Milner will be making a parliamentary address next week.
Tuesday July 25th 2016: Ruth Dassonneville. "Nationalism and economic voting in Canada". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday July 12th 2016: André Blais. "Représentation politique: le choix d'un mode de scrutin", présentation d'un cours. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday April 26th 2016: Alexander Wuttke (University of Mannheim). "A Self-determination Theory of Political Motivation."Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- According to self-determination theory by Deci and Ryan, the degree by which an individual perceives him- or herself to be the volitional origin of a specific action is central to understanding human behavior and is the source of different kinds motivation. Despite its status as a standard theory of social science, self-determination theory has been largely neglected by political sciencists. Yet, it promises new insights into political behavior and offers a framework for synthesizing the plethora of assumed psychological mechanisms behind voting as civic duty and for explaining the interplay of social norms and political behavior more generally.
Tuesday April 12th 2016: Reijo Sund, Hannu Lahtinen, Hanna Wass, Mikko Mattila & Pekka Martikai."The effect of chronic diseases on turnout: a population-based register study". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- While poor self-rated health is known to decrease an individual's propensity to vote, disaggregation of the components of the health-turnout relationship has received only little attention in research so far. This study deepens the understanding of such relationship by examining the effects of chronic diseases on voting. The analyses are based on individual-level register-based dataset that contains an eleven percent random sample of the entire electorate in the 1999 Finnish parliamentary elections. With information on hospital discharge diagnoses, drug purchases and special reimbursements, we identify persons with chronic diseases (coronary heart disease, COPD and asthma, depression, cancer, psychosis, diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, rheumatic disease, epilepsy, arthrosis, alcoholism, dementia, atherosclerosis, Parkinson's disease, other degenerative brain diseases, multiple sclerosis and kidney disease) and medicine purchases (beta-blockers, benzodiazepines, lipid lowering medication and osteoporosis drugs). After adjusting for gender, age, education, occupational class and income, neurodegenerative brain diseases had the strongest negative relationship with voting. Also mental disorders had a negative effect whereas cancer, COPD and asthma increased voting probability. Vascular diseases decreased turnout but related medication had the opposite effect. The information produced by this study is an essential step in developing models that explain the link between health and turnout.
Tuesday April 5th 2016: Jan Eichhorn (University of Edinburgh), Daniel Kenealy (University of Edinburgh) and Christine Hübner (think tank d|part). "THE EU REFERENDUM: Views from the UK and the rest of the continent". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- On 23 June 2015 voters in the UK will decide in a unique referendum whether they want to remain part of the European Union or whether they want to leave it. A departure of the UK would be an unprecedented situation but in itself the process of the referendum and the associated negotiations will leave an imprint on policy and public debates addressing the European Union.
Tuesday March 15th 2016: André Blais (Université de Montréal). "What would PR change?". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday 1st March 2016: Alexander Wuttke (University of Mannheim). "Self-determination theory of political motivation". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- According to self-determination theory by Deci and Ryan, the degree by which an individual perceives him - or herself to be the volitional origin of a specific action is central to understanding human behavior and is the source of different kinds motivation. Despite its status as a standard theory of social science, self-determination theory has been largely neglected by political scientists. Yet, it promises new insights into political behavior and offers a framework for synthesizing the plethora of assumed psychological mechanisms behind voting as civic duty and for explaining the interplay of social norms and political behavior more generally.
Tuesday February 23rd 2016: Ruth Dassonneville (Université de Montréal). "Shifting Parties, Sophisticated Switchers. Are Voters Responding to Ideological Shifts by Political Parties?". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- The trend towards increasing electoral volatility has triggered a rich literature investigating which voters are most likely to switch parties in subsequent elections. Most of these studies, however, focus on explaining volatility by means of voters’ general political attitudes. As a consequence, less is known on the role that parties play in causing voters to switch parties. From a Downsian perspective on voting behaviour, we assume that changes in parties’ ideological positions should cause voters to switch parties from one election to another. The current paper addresses these shortcomings in the literature by bringing together literature on volatility and research on responsiveness to political parties. For doing so, we make use of the data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) project. The results presented in this paper show that parties’ ideological shifts are indeed causing voters to switch parties. Furthermore, we find political sophistication to facilitate this process. We also note, however, that if changes in party positions imply that parties change ranks along the left-right axis, voters’ responsiveness to these changes becomes a fairly general process that operates independently of voters’ level of political sophistication.
Tuesday February 9th 2016: Peter Söderlund (Åbo Akademi University). "Candidate-centred electoral systems and voter turnout". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- Previous studies have suggested that candidate-centredness can both stimulate and depress voter turnout. The main hypothesis in this study is that turnout is lower in candidate-centred electoral systems, primarily in open-list proportional representation systems with preference voting. Based on arguments in the literature, turnout should be lower because collective mobilisation efforts of parties are less efficient in candidate-centred systems and cognitive requirements on voters are higher. This study takes a cross-national comparative approach to assess how electoral systems that create incentives to cultivate a personal vote affect national-level voter turnout. Five types of electoral systems are distinguished: open-list PR, ordered-list PR, closed-list PR, majoritarian and mixed systems. Cross-sectional time-series data from 36 democracies (OECD and Central and Eastern European countries) between 1990 and 2014 are used to test the competing assumptions made about the impact of the personal vote on turnout. The results show that turnout is the lowest in candidate-centred open-list PR systems and the highest in party-centred closed- and ordered-list PR systems, while controlling for a host of contextual factors that have been linked to aggregate turnout. In addition, the finding that candidate-centredness is negatively related to turnout holds up even when taking into account district magnitude, electoral disproportionality and effective number of parties.
Tuesday January 19th 2016: Alexandre Blanchet (Université de Montréal). "The Impact of Political Sophistication, Personality Traits and Party Identification on the Perceptions of Media Bias Among Political Junkies in Quebec". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- Malgré des accusations de biais fusant de toute part et allant surtout dans le sens d'un biais favorisant les démocrates, la recherche sur les biais médiatiques conduite aux États-Unis conclut à l'inexistence de biais en général dans les médias américains. L'intérêt se tourne maintenant vers la perception des biais dans l'électorat et il appert que les conservateurs ont nettement plus tendance à percevoir de tels biais. On peut cependant se demander si cette tendance des conservateurs américains est spécifique aux États-Unis ou si le conservatisme en général mène à de telles perceptions. Par ailleurs, d'autres facteurs que l'identification partisane sont susceptibles d'affecter la perception de biais dans les médias, notamment le niveau de sophistication politique et les traits de personnalité. Utilisant des données uniques récoltées durant la campagne électorale fédérale canadienne de 2015 auprès d'un échantillon non représentatif de francophones, je présenterai les résultats préliminaires d'une étude destinée à évaluer la perception des biais dans les médias chez les mordus de politique. La présentation se concentrera sur l'impact des traits de personnalité, de la sophistication politique et de l'affiliation partisane provinciale et fédérale dans la perception des biais médiatiques.
Tuesday 23 November 2015: Jean-Michel Lavoie (Université de Montréal). "Inverting the freerider problem – Public goods as the root of turnout". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday 17 November 2015: André Blais (Université de Montréal). "The impact of visibility and punishment on turnout". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday 10 November 2015: Katherine V.R. Sullivan (Université de Montréal) and Jean-François Daoust (Université de Montréal). "Campaign-Specific Information: Great(?) Minds Think Alike." Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday 3 November 2015: Daniel Stockemer (University of Ottawa). "Voter Turnout: Introducing VEP Turnout into the Comparative Election Literature." Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday 18 August 2015: Carol Uhlaner (UC Irvine). "Descriptive Representation as a Mobilizer of Voter Participation: Evidence from the US States and from an Ethnic Enclave." Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday 11 August 2015: Eric Guntermann (with Henry Milner). "Education and the Generational Divide in Political Knowledge: A Comparative Analysis." Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday 4 August 2015: Eric Guntermann. "From Words to Time Series that are Ready for Analysis: A Bayesian Approach to Estimating Party Positions Over Time." Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday 28 July 2015: Jean-François Daoust (with Damien Bol). "Does strategic voting vary with partisan context?" . Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday 21 July 2015: Karima Bousbash. "To vote or to protest? Descriptive representation and young citizens' political repertoire". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
Tuesday 14 July 2015: Eric Guntermann (with André Blais). "Does the Composition of Government Better Reflect the Party Preferences of Citizens who are Better Off?" Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
June 30 2015: André Blais. "Turnout in multilevel systems". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
June 14 2015: Carol Galais (with André Blais). "Duty to vote: For the sake of democracy or for the love of the country?". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
June 12 2015: Alexandre Debs (with Nuno Monteiro). "An Economic Theory of War". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h. (Note this is a Friday, not a Tuesday as usually!).
June 9 2015: Ignacio Lago (with Santiago Lago). "An Economic explanation Of the Nationalization of Electoral Politics". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
May 12 2015: Roundtable: Alberta's stunning election results. With Stephen Carter, Zain Velji, Corey Hogan, Alison Smith. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
April 28 2015: Eric Guntermann. "Assessing Ideological Content In Party Preferences: Political Dimensionality in Five Democracies." . Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
April 21 2015: Anja Kilibarda. "Lifting the Veil on Attitudes Toward Ethnic Minorities in Quebec". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
April 14 2015: Frédérick Bastien. "What Citizens Know About Internet and Why It Matters? Internet Skills and Political Engagement in the Web 2.0 Era". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
March 17 2015: Damien Bol. "Which matters most: Party strategic entry or strategic voting? A laboratory experiment". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
March 10 2015: Laurie Beaudonnet. "Red Europe Versus No Europe? The Impact Of The Economic Crisis On Radical Left Voting". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
March 3 2015: Eric Guntermann. "Do Words Alone Contain Enough Information to Place Parties along a Political Dimension Over Time? Creating Time Series of Party Positions on Regional Nationalism in Spain". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
February 24 2015: André Blais. "The turnout decision: The proximate considerations". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
February 16, 2015: Carol Galais. "An experimental design on shame and duty to vote". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
February 3 2015: Jean François Daoust. "Élections provinciales au Canada : le rôle des médias sur l'apprentissage d'informations politiques durant les campagnes et la participation électorale". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
January 27 2015: Carol Galais. "Half a loaf is not better than no bread. Austerity-related grievances and emotions as triggers of protest in Spain". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
January 20 2015: André Blais. "Strategic voting". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
January 13 2015: Mathieu Turgeon. "Compulsory Voting: Results from a Natural Experiment". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
December 9 2014: Carol Galais. "Shame, Pride and the duty to vote in the lab. A research design". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
December 4 2014: Mathieu Turgeon. (U. Brasilia). "The Inhibition Survey Effect: Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action Policies Among Whites and Non-Whites in Brazil and The Survey List-Experiment" Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
December 2 2014: Martin Larsen. (U. of Copenhagen). "The economic vote and tenure in office". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
November 25 2014: Damien Bol. "Micro-foundations of the (non) nationalisation of local elections". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
November 4 2014: Marc Sanjaume. "Normative arguments in the Spanish territorial debate: federalism and secession". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
October 28 2014: Eric Guntermann. "Does the Composition of Government Better Reflect the Party Preferences of Citizens who are Better Off, More Educated, and More Informed?" (coauthored with André Blais). Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
October 24 2014: Stan Wiener. (U.Carleton). "On the Measurement of Electoral Competitiveness: with application to Canada, 1867 - 2011". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
October 21 2014: Damien Bol. "Causal inference". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
October 7 2014: Pau Alarcón. (CSIC/IESA). "The Wheat from the Chaff: From Citizen Proposals to Local Policies" (coauthored with Joan Font, Graham Smith and Carol Galais). Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
September 30 2014: Henry Milner. "The Scottish Referendum" (with E.Guntermann). Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
September 23 2014: Martin Larsen. (U. of Copenhagen): "Experimental evidence on benchmarking and interdependence: How voters use economic comparisons to elect competent politicians". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
August 20 2014: Amparo González-Ferrer. (CSIC). "Do citizenship regimes shape political incorporation? Evidence from four european cities". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
August 13 2014: José Fernández-Albertos. (CSIC). "Who votes for Podemos?". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
August 6 2014: Pau Alarcón. (CSIC). "New political earthquake in Spain. From the squares to the Parliament with Podemos ("We can")". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
July 30 2014: Ruth Dassonneville. (KU Leuven). "The current political situation in Belgium". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
June 18 2014: Ellen Quintelier. (KU Leuven). "Peers and political socialization". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
June 11 2014: Elina Lindgren. "The Swedish Feminist party". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
June 4 2014: Jean-François Daoust. "Strategic Voting in the Quebec 2012 Election". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
May 28 2014: Eric Guntermann. "Inequalities in the Representation of Citizens' Party Preferences Under Proportional and Non-Proportional Systems" (with André Blais). Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
May 17 2014: Carol Galais. "You Cheated on me. Causes and consequences of cheating in online surveys" (with Eva Anduiza). Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
May 7 2014: Mike Medeiros. "Feelings and Language: The Influence of Linguistic Vitality on Intergroup and Political Attitudes among Francophones in Canada". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
April 30 2014: Laurie Beaudonnet (with Raul Gomez Martinez, Derby University) "Red Europe Versus No Europe? The Impact Of The Economic Crisis On Radical Left Voting". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
April 23 2014: Patrick Fournier. "Explaining Information Effects Around the World". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
April 16 2014: Antonin Macé. "Voting with evaluations". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
March 19 2014: Laurie Beaudonnet. "Finding an alternative to the Comparative Party Manisfesto coding". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
March 12 2014: Elina Lindgren. (U. Gotenburg): "Do words matter? Effects of value-laden rhetoric on voters’ interpretation and evaluation of intentions with election pledges". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
March 5 2014: Peter Esaiasson. (U. Gotenburg): "Does compliance correlate with political support? – New evidence to a long-standing debate". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
February 26 2014: Alexandre Morin-Chassé. "Partisan Polarization on Climate Change and Global Warming: A Direct and a Conceptual Replication of Schuldt et al 2011". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-3134. 12-13h.
February 13-14h: André Blais & Simon Labbé-St.Vincent. "Une élection québécoise avec deux modes de scrutin". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-3134. 12-13h.
February 5 2014: André Blais. "Comment préparer un dossier de candidature pour un poste académique?". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
January 29 2014: Patrik Öhberg and Carol Galais. "The role of Socialization and family support in female MPs' political ambition. Evidence from Sweden and Spain". Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
January 22 2014: Damien Bol. "Electoral System and Number of Candidates: Candidate Entry under Plurality and Majority Runoff" (with André Blais and Jean-François Laslier). Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
December 18 2013: Patrik Öhberg and Elin Naurin. "When are politicians responsive to public opinion? Results from a scenario-based survey of 3600 Swedish politicians." Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
December 12 2013: Philipp Harfst. "The Costs of Electoral Fraud. Establishing the Link between Degrees and Types of Electoral Integrity and Satisfaction with Democracy" (co-authored with Jessica Fortin-Rittberger). Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
December 4 2013: Damien Bol. "The Effects of Electoral Systems on Personal Vote Strategies: A Field Experiment on German Legislators" (co-authored with Thomas Gwschend, Thomas Zittel, and Steffen Zittlau). C-4019. Pavilion Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h.
November 21 2013: Annika Fredén. "Coalitions, thresholds and coordination. A lab experimental study of strategic voting."C-4019. Pavilion Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h.
November 20 2013: Pavlos Vasilopoulos. "Anxiety and the Vote in the 2012 French Presidential Election". C-4019. Pavilion Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h.
November 13 2013: Eric Guntermann. "Does the composition of government reflect party preferences?" C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h.
October 30 2013: Philipp Harfst. "Quick update to the latest German Bundestag election." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
October 16 2013: Bernard Fournier. "À la recherche de nouveaux protocoles de recherche dans l’étude des mécanismes de socialisation politique". C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
October 9 2013: Alexandre Morin-Chassé. "Behavioral Genetics in the News: Empirical Evidence of a Disquieting Side Effect". C-4019. C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
October 2 2013: Eric Guntermann. "Making easy & better graphs on R". C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
September 25 2013: Alexandre Morin-Chassé. "Ideologically Motivated Reasoning in Response to Information about Genetics and Race”. The paper is coauthored by Alexandre Morin-Chasse (Montreal), Elizabeth Suhay (Lafayette College) and Toby Jayaratne (U of Michigan). C-4019. Pavilion Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h.
September 11 2013: Henry Milner. "Electoral Systems and political knowledge". C-4019. C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
July 10 2013: Annika Fredén. "Thresholds, coalition signals and strategic voting. A survey experimental study." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- This paper investigates whether parties’ coalition signals and thresholds affect voters’ tendency to vote strategically in proportional representation systems. Strategic voting for small parties at risk of falling below an electoral threshold is the focus, which is referred to as threshold insurance voting. Using a survey experimental design and a large number of respondents, coalition signals and opinion polls are varied whereas other factors are held constant. The results show that the small party gets significantly more votes when it is supposed to fall below the threshold, than when its representation in parliament is expected to be “safe”. The pattern is emphasized when coalition signals are clear. C-4019. Pavilion Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. 12h-13h.
May 30 2013: Laurie Beaudonnet. “Élisez-les tous, la République reconnaitra les siens”. Party preferences, electoral context and preferences for PR system in France. (With Martial Foucault). C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- This paper investigates voters’ preferences for PR in France, and a potential ‘National front’ (NF) effect, using the MEDW survey data for the 2012 French elections. We study individual and contextual determinants of preferences for PR in general, and related to the extreme right party in particular. The two regional samples (Ile de France and Provence-Alpes-Côte-d’Azur) offer a good variation in terms of the NF electoral success. .
May 23 2013: Mike Medeiros. "Alternatives for the Representation of National Groups in Parliament".(with Benjamin Forest). C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- The Fair Representation Act, passed in December 2011 adds 30 seats to the House of Commons: six each to Alberta and British Columbia, fifteen to Ontario, and three to Quebec. The Act sought to render political representation fairer, but its focus on regions and provinces eclipsed concerns about the representation of Canada's national minorities, Aboriginals and Francophones. This paper explores modifications to the electoral system that could provide Canada's national minorities with fairer representation in the Federal Parliament. We demonstrate, using 2006 Census data, that non-contiguous ridings, rather than major legal or constitutional reforms, could substantially increase the representation of national minorities.
May 22 2013: Ignacio Lago. "Turnout and fractionalization." (With Sandra Bermúdez, Marc Guinjoan and Pablo Simón). C-4019. C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- Using aggregated data from 22 countries and individual data from Catalonia and Madrid (Spain) and Quebec and Ontario (Canada), this paper shows that ethnolinguistic fractionalization lowers turnout and reveals the mechanism through which social heterogeneity lowers civic engagement. We conclude that cross-national studies of turnout suffer from a severe omitted variable bias as fractionalization has been largely ignored.
May 15 2013: Jean-François Laslier. "An In Situ experiment on evaluative voting”. C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- Under evaluative voting, the voter freely grades each candidate on a numerical scale, with the winning candidate being determined by the sum of her grades. We report on an experiment which used various evaluation scales, conducted during the first round of the 2012 French presidential election. We show that these rules favor candidates who attract the support of a large span of the electorate.
April 17 2013: Damien Bol. "Strategic candidate entry under plurality and majority runoff." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- In the literature, it makes no doubt that the type of electoral system in use to elect a president or a member of parliament has a decisive impact on the number of competing candidates (Duverger, 1951). However, a specific puzzle remains unsolved concerning the majority runoff: While theoretical models show that the structure of incentives of this precise electoral system should create two-candidate contests.
April 3 2013: Carol Galais. "Civic Duty and the Spanish Economic crisis". (With André Blais). C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- The paper contributes to the literature on the effects of the global financial crisis on political attitudes by focusing on the duty to vote, an element of democratic civic culture. We explore, through a four-wave panel survey, the effects of an economic crisis such as the Spanish one on feelings of civic duty.
March 27 2013: Martial Foucault. "Strategic Voting vs. Issue Voting. Evidence from the French 2012 election." (With Golder, Sona N.; Beaudonnet, Laurie and Bol, Damien). C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
March 20 2013: Damien Bol. "Negative Campaigning in Multi-party Systems: Assessing the Impact of Party Competition through the Swiss Natural Laboratory." (With Marian Bol). C-4019. C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- In this paper, we argue that the absence of a clear operationalization of the concept of a party winning an election in multi-party settings has led scholars to conclude that there is no competition-effect on negative campaigning in this context (Elmelund-Præstekær, 2010, Walter, van der Brug, & P. van Praag, forthcoming). To gain further and more detailed insight, this paper considers various operationalizations of party competition and applies them to the natural laboratory of Swiss politics, where government's appointments are not directly dependent on legislative electoral results. The data for this investigation was gathered within the framework of the Making Electoral Democracy Work project and includes party manifestos, newspaper ads, letters to the editor, and press coverage of about 15 party entities for a period spanning from three months before the 2011 cantonal elections in Zürich and Lucerne.
March 6 2013: Alexandre Morin-Chassé. “Framing genopolitics”. C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
February 27 2013: Ruth Dassonneville. ‘Mind the Gap! Political Sophistication and the Ideological Distance of Party Switching’. C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- The paper investigates the link between political sophistication and electoral volatility by taking into account the ideological distance bridged by volatile voters. It is hypothesized that political sophistication increases the probability of a switch to an ideologically close party but decreases the likelihood of switching to an ideologically distant party. The data used are from the second and third module of CSES and allow to look at the effects of both individual and contextual variables on electoral volatility.
December 12 2012: Laurie Beaudonnet. "Who's to blame? Responsibility allocation in multi-level systems of governance." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
January 23 2012: Éric Viladrich. "Catalogne, nouvel État d’Europe? C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
- De l’autonomie (1979) à l’autodétermination (2014?): Comment le courant majoritaire du catalanisme politique est passé de l'autonomisme au souverainisme en à peine dix ans? Quel rôle ont joué la société civile, la crise économique et la spécificité culturelle de la Catalogne dans ce processus? Quelles sont les perspectives à venir compte tenu du résultat des élections du 25 novembre dernier?".
November 28 2012: Patrik Öhberg. "A comparative analysis of MP’s, candidates and citizens' perceptions of election promises." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
November 14 2012: Damien Bol. "The diffusion of Electoral Systems across European countries since 1945." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
October 24 2012: Ludovic Rheault. A pragmatic methodological discussion on time series analysis. C-4137. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
September 26, 2012: David Lublin. (Professor, department of Government American University). "Dispersing Authority or Deepening Divisions." C-4145. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
August 29, 2012: Henry Milner. "Are Facebook democracy and representative democracy compatible? reflections on the political participation of the internet generation inspired by Quebec's student protest movement." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
August 1, 2012: Carol Galais and Irene Martín (UAM). "The Spanish Indignant movement and its impact on Spaniards’ electoral behavior." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
July 18, 2012: André Blais. "Comments on Brady’s APSA editorial about the use of graphs on political science". C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
July 11, 2012: Beatriz Rivera (visiting student UCM). "New parties online, Internet effects on party structures". C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
May 23, 2012: Irene Martín (visiting researcher, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid). "Interest in politics in Spain and Greece." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
May 9, 2012. Ludovic Rheault. "Utility Theory". Pavilion Lionel Groulx. C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
April 18, 2012: Mike Medeiros. "The Importance of Language: The Relationship between Linguistic Vitality and Ethnic Conflicts." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
April 4, 2012: Carol Galais. "Methodological Challenges for the Study of Local Participatory Experiences: Mixing Methods and Databases". C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
April 4, 2012: Maxime Héroux-Legault . "Assessing the psychological and mechanical impat of electoral rules. A quasi experiment." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
March 28, 2012: Aina Gallego. "Duty to vote in the household." Pavilion Lionel Groulx. C-4019. 13h-14h.
March 21, 2012: Delia Dumitrescu. "The Meaning of ‘Don’t Know."Pavilion Lionel Groulx. C-4019. 13h-14h.
March 14, 2012: Eric Guntermann. "Economic Voting and Nationalism: An Analysis of the 2011 Spanish General Election". Pavilion Lionel Groulx. C4045. 13-14h.
February 29, 2012: Damien Bol. "Fuzzy Sets Analysis." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
February 22, 2012: Damien Bol. "Preliminary presentation of PhD dissertation." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
February 15, 2012: Daniel Marcelino. "Automation processes for collecting data online." C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
February 8, 2012: André Blais. "To vote or not to vote".Pavilion Lionel Groulx. C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
February 1, 2012: Ludovic Rheault. "An introduction to LaTeX". Pavilion Lionel Groulx. C-4019. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-4019. 12-13h.
November 23, 2011: Stephen Quinlan (UCD School of Politics & International Relations, University College Dublin, Ireland, and International Council for Canadian Studies Research Fellow): "Do new modes and channels of engagement explain youth electoral participation today?". Pavillon Jean-Brillant, Université de Montréal. Room B-3295, 11h30-13h00
September 26, 2011: Dario Tuorto (University of Bologna): “Parents and Children in the Political Socialization: What Has Changed in Italy in 35 years”. 11H30-13H00
September 22, 2011: Paolo Bellucci (University of Siena): “European Identity: What it is and where it comes from”. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-9019, 11H30-13H00
September 15, 2011: Paolo Bellucci (University of Siena): “Leadership Effects in Italy: Personality traits or policy preferences?”. Pavillon Lionel Groulx, Université de Montréal. Room C-2059, 11H30-13H00
November 2010: Lindsey Zimmerman (Georgia State University): “YouTube persuasion during the primaries and presidential debates: Global discourse about the 2008 U.S. election”
September 2010: Yosef Bhatti & Kasper Møller Hansen (University of Copenhagen): "Voting is a social act".
- In this seminar, I will present the Citizens' Assembly for climate change that is currently at work in Paris and who is able to make proposals to limit carbon emissions to a sustainable level.
Recent studies have highlighted how descriptive and injunctive norms matter for turnout. We aim in this research to expand our understanding of these relationships in two ways. First, we use discussion network data from an original question module in the Austrian National Election Study. This allows us to test whether previous findings observed in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom regarding social norms hold in a different political context. Second, we use a different question to measure injunctive norms by asking respondents whether their political discussants would disapprove if they abstained.
Making Electoral Democracy Work Annual Meeting
May 31-June 3, 2017: Université de Montréal will host the last annual meeting of the MEDW project. During the three days of the meeting, members of The Chair will present final results of various ongoing research.
June 16-18, 2016: Université de Montréal hosted the second last annual meeting of the MEDW project. During the three days of the meeting, members of The Chair presented ongoing results of various ongoing research.
September 3-6, 2014: ECPR General Conference at the University of Glasgow.
August 27, 2014: Pre-APSA workshop in Washington DC. The purpose of the workshop was to present papers that use the data gathered within the Making Electoral Democracy Work project. The papers presented were located within the fields of political behaviour and comparative politics and addressed the main question of MEDW project that how the rules of the game (especially the electoral system) and the electoral context (especially the competitiveness and salience of the election) influence voters’ and parties’ behaviour.
May 31- June 1, 2013: McGill University hosted the annual meeting of the MEDW project.During the two days of the meeting, some members of The Chair presented early results of various ongoing research.
June 1-2, 2012: The Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona, Spain) hosted the annual meeting of the MEDW project. The meeting was efficiently organized by Professor Ignacio Lago and his research team. During the two days of the meeting, some members of The Chair presented early results of various ongoing research.
June 6-7 2011: The Chair hosted the first annual Making Electoral Democracy Work (MEDW) Meeting. The project, led by Professor André Blais, brings together a team of political scientists, economists and psychologists from Canada Europe and the United States. The aim of the project is the study of electoral mechanisms and their effects on the relationship between voters and parties across democracies. To learn more about this project click here.
May 31-June 3, 2017: Université de Montréal will host the last annual meeting of the MEDW project. During the three days of the meeting, members of The Chair will present final results of various ongoing research.
June 16-18, 2016: Université de Montréal hosted the second last annual meeting of the MEDW project. During the three days of the meeting, members of The Chair presented ongoing results of various ongoing research.
September 3-6, 2014: ECPR General Conference at the University of Glasgow.
August 27, 2014: Pre-APSA workshop in Washington DC. The purpose of the workshop was to present papers that use the data gathered within the Making Electoral Democracy Work project. The papers presented were located within the fields of political behaviour and comparative politics and addressed the main question of MEDW project that how the rules of the game (especially the electoral system) and the electoral context (especially the competitiveness and salience of the election) influence voters’ and parties’ behaviour.
May 31- June 1, 2013: McGill University hosted the annual meeting of the MEDW project.During the two days of the meeting, some members of The Chair presented early results of various ongoing research.
June 1-2, 2012: The Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona, Spain) hosted the annual meeting of the MEDW project. The meeting was efficiently organized by Professor Ignacio Lago and his research team. During the two days of the meeting, some members of The Chair presented early results of various ongoing research.
June 6-7 2011: The Chair hosted the first annual Making Electoral Democracy Work (MEDW) Meeting. The project, led by Professor André Blais, brings together a team of political scientists, economists and psychologists from Canada Europe and the United States. The aim of the project is the study of electoral mechanisms and their effects on the relationship between voters and parties across democracies. To learn more about this project click here.