Not Another Politics Podcast

What if the recent crackdown on elite universities didn't start with Trump—but with Obama? In this episode, we trace a surprising through-line connecting Obama's Title IX enforcement to Trump's Title VI threats. Harvard Law Professor Jacob Gersen joins us to reveal how both presidents used informal bureaucratic tools to reshape higher education—often without Congress. What does this say about presidential power and academic freedom in America?Papers discussed:“The Sex Bureaucracy”: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2750143“The Six Bureaucracy”: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5199652

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

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

Led by the Trump administration and Elon Musk's DOGE, Americans are debating once again how our government should hire civil servants, but are we asking the right questions? In this episode, we dive into a compelling new study on the Pendleton Act, one of the most significant bureaucratic reforms in U.S. history, which introduced merit-based civil service exams to combat corruption and incompetence. But did it work?We speak with economist Santiago Perez about his paper “Civil Service Exams and Organizational Performance: Evidence From The Pendleton Act” and his surprising findings that while the reform did help hire more qualified and stable employees, it didn't clearly improve government efficiency. Also, what unintended consequences may have emerged, such as manipulation of salary thresholds and persistent power dynamics among political appointees.So, what can the Pendleton Act teach us about modern bureaucracy, accountability, and fairness? And could reintroducing merit-based exams actually fix today's polarized and politicized civil service—or make it even worse?

Infrastructure in the U.S. now costs dramatically more than in countries like Germany or Croatia—without clear signs of higher quality or better environmental outcomes. Why has infrastructure spending spiraled out of control? Could democracy itself—through litigation, regulations, and empowered citizen voices—be driving costs sky-high?George Washington University Professor of Public Policy Leah Brooks investigates why the U.S. pays so much more per mile of highway compared to other nations in her paper “Infrastructure Costs”. Brooks reveals shocking findings: from the late 1960s onward, the cost to build highways in America surged dramatically, not because of higher wages or materials, but because of legal battles, environmental reviews, and citizen demands.

In elections across democracies, we assume voters cast ballots for candidates whose policies align with their interests. But what happens when that's not the case? This week, we unpack a political puzzle from Japan: the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) keeps winning elections despite voters consistently rejecting their policies.Through groundbreaking research from Yale political scientist Shiro Kuriwaki, “Winning Elections with Unpopular Policies: Valence Advantage and Single-Party Dominance in Japan” we delve into why voters might choose candidates whose platforms they fundamentally disagree with. Is it trust, competence, or something more complicated?

What happens when a political outsider takes power and shakes up the system? In this episode, we look at a fascinating case study that reveals how leaders outside the establishment build loyalty, push their agendas, and change the political landscape.Political scientist Renard Sexton discusses his paper “Deadly Populism: How Local Political Outsiders Drive Duterte's War on Drugs In The Philippines”. It covers how local mayors chose to enforce (or resist) his policies, what they gained in return, and what this means for populism. Could Trump's second term follow a similar path? And do populist leaders deliberately push extreme policies to ensure loyalty?

There's a real-world experiment in governance happening that you've probably not heard about. It involves decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). These online collectives are trying to run billion-dollar enterprises using direct democracy and a controversial mechanism known as “liquid democracy”—where you can delegate your vote to anyone, at any time. Are these DAOs and blockchain experiments revolutionizing democracy—or just reinventing the wheel?Political scientist Andrew Hall (Stanford GSB), has been studying these systems to understand if delegated voting increases participation, improves decision-making, or simply creates new forms of power concentration. What happens when participation is low, and decisions are made by a few super-delegates? 

Conventional wisdom says that a strong economy helps incumbents, while a weak economy hurts them. But new research from University of Chicago economist Lubos Pastor titled “Political Cycles and Stock Returns” challenges this idea, suggesting that economic downturns actually push voters toward Democrats, while economic booms favor Republicans.If true, this theory could explain decades of presidential elections—and even the stock market's historic tendency to perform better under Democratic administrations. But does the data back it up?

Why does Congress feel more divided than ever? Are politicians genuinely becoming more extreme, or is something else at play? In this episode, we take on the polarization debate with a twist. Anthony Fowler sits down with University of Chicago political scientist Daniel Moskowitz to uncover new data that challenges conventional wisdom in his paper “Parsing Party Polarization In Congress”. Forget the usual finger-pointing at voters or roll-call votes—this research digs into a little-known survey that reveals the hidden dynamics driving Congress apart.

On our last episode we had a discussion about what voters care about when electing politicians…and we mentioned a prior episode where we discussed if something as seemingly arbitrary as looks factor into voter choice. Do more attractive politicians do better?We all know you're not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but if we're being honest we all do it on occasion anyway. Could it be that we also elect our politicians just based on how they look? Of course, there's the old idea of looking “presidential”, but how much power does that really have to sway an election?As we take some time off for the holidays, we thought it would be great to re-release that episode. We'll be back in a few weeks with brand new episodes! Thanks for listening!

Do politicians really understand what drives voters—or are they relying on flawed assumptions that could shape democracy in troubling ways?A groundbreaking new study by University of Calgary political scientist Jack Lucas, “Politicians' Theories of Voting Behavior,” reveals striking gaps between how politicians perceive voters and how voters see themselves. While politicians often hold a cynical, “democratic realist” view of voters, citizens are far more optimistic about their own behavior. But who's right—and does it even matter?

When it comes to defending democracy, are politicians or the public more committed to its principles—or are both equally willing to bend the rules for political gain?In his forthcoming book, Elitism vs. Populism, University of Texas at Dallas Political Scientist Curtis Bram challenges the idea that elites are the ultimate defenders of democracy. Through innovative experiments comparing everyday citizens with elected officials, Bram uncovers an uncomfortable truth: both groups are surprisingly similar when it comes to supporting anti-democratic policies—if it benefits their side. But what does this mean for the future of democracy? And can we trust anyone to uphold it?

Hello Not Another Politics Podcast Listeners. We took some time off in preparation for the Thanksgiving Holiday but given the incredible political events of the month we wanted to re-share an episode that we think is even more relevant today than when we recorded it. Why is populism on the rise across the globe? One story says this movement is driven by anti-elite and anti-establishment sentiment, that they just want to throw the bums out. Another says it's driven by identity politics, an anti-immigrant pro-nativist ideology. Both stories don't leave room for much hope. But what if there was another story that not only gives us some hope but supplies a clear solution.

Trump's back in the White House—how did it happen? This week, we break down what the political science literature has to tell us about why voters swung his way, what Kamala Harris's loss tells us about populism and political discontent, and what's next for American democracy. Plus, co-host Will Howell makes a big announcement!

When it comes to online discourse, do Americans really value free speech—or are they more comfortable with censorship than expected?A surprising new paper from University of Rochester Political Scientist Jamie Druckman, “Illusory Interparty Disagreement: Partisans Agree On What Hate Speech To Censor But Do Not Know It” reveals a surprising alignment between Democrats and Republicans on what kinds of speech should be silenced. But is this unity a good thing, or does it hint at a creeping authoritarianism?

In the wake of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, claims of widespread voter fraud have fueled political controversies and public distrust. But how credible are these claims?In this episode, we sit down with political scientist Justin Grimmer to discuss his new paper “An Evaluation of Fraud Claims from the 2020 Trump Election Contests” which systematically debunks over 1,000 fraud allegations from the 2020 election. Grimmer and his co-author comb through the data, analyzing everything from accusations of underage voting to machine vote-switching. Are these claims grounded in reality, or are they just a tool for sowing doubt? Tune in as we dive into the data, the myths, and the facts about the integrity of American elections.

Ever thought about how your college degree might sway your political leanings? Voters with and without college degrees drifting apart, especially on issues like economics, social values, and foreign policy, but what's driving this shift, and how are party positions influencing voters across different education levels?A new paper from University of Pennsylvania's William Marble, “What Explains Educational Realignment? An Issue Voting Framework for Analyzing Electoral Coalitions” gives some surprising answers to these questions and challenges the assumptions we often hear in the media.

We talk about it every election cycle…how can we get higher voter turnout? As part of the Center for Effective Government's primer series focusing on the scholarship covering the pros and cons of different government reforms, University of Chicago Policy Professor Christopher Berry examined whether changing the timing of elections can result in higher turnout.But he also explored a much more contentious and complex question. Does higher voter turnout result in better policies? Is it possible that a higher turnout often results in less knowledgeable voters pushing elections in a direction that results in worse outcomes?

In a recent paper by Washington University political scientist Michael Olson, he documents a very strange phenomenon. It seems that when legislators join committees, they're voting record becomes less aligned with their constituents' political preferences. The question is…why?Could it be that being on a committee means they're just better informed about what good policy really would be, or could it be that they're nefariously colluding with their colleagues? We explore all these possibilities and more on this episode.

Since Biden's debate performance, America's political elite have been engaged in a debate. How much does a President really matter for effective government? If his administration seems to work fine, how much of an affect can a President have? At the same time, we important Supreme Court decisions that seem to be giving more power to Presidents which makes finding answers to these questions even more pressing.Well, there is one famous political scientist who explored these questions long ago in one of the most well-known texts in the field “President Power and the Modern Presidents” by Richard Neustadt. It's a book that sat bedside for several Presidents in the White House. It was meant to inform them about how they ought to exercise power and where they might actually be able to find power in a system that was stacked against them. It's worth taking stock of his argument and trying to make sense of both its elements and the extent to which it speaks to this president political moment.

Have you ever made a 311 call? This is a service provided by many cities that allows citizens to call in things like potholes, graffiti, fallen trees, ect. There is an assumption that many people have that requests made by white and more affluent neighborhoods probably get responded to faster. But is that accurate? In a recent paper, “Unequal Responsiveness in City Service Delivery: Evidence from 24 Million 311 Calls” Stanford Postdoctoral Fellow Derek Holliday uses a large an unique dataset to find some surprising answers. But what are the implications of these findings, and are they positive or concerning results?

Hello Not Another Politics Podcast listeners. We're taking some much needed time off as the school year comes to a close; but with the elections right around the corner we still wanted to share some incredibly relevant and important political science research.Every Presidential election, we talk about “getting out the vote”. But what really works in terms of getting people to go to the polls? We speak to one political scientist who has conducted more studies into “get out the vote” campaigns than any other. Professor Donald Green from Columbia University shares his research about what works in terms of getting out the vote, and how we expect things to be different this years due to COVID-19.And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don't make money off this show, it's a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible…but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again!

Hello Not Another Politics Podcast listeners. We're taking some much needed time off as the school year comes to a close; but with the elections right around the corner we still wanted to share some incredibly relevant and important political science research. This week we're resharing an episode all about October Surprises that has some counter intuitive insights that could become important during this election year. And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don't make money off this show, it's a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible, but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again!

The Supreme Court is supposed to be our non-political branch of government, making decisions solely on the constitutional soundness of laws. But in recent years it appears as though the Court has taken a shift to the right, most notably in the Dobbs decision in 2022. Which raises a question: does the public still the view the Court as legitimate?Those are the questions explored in a new paper from UPenn political scientist Matthew Levendusky in a paper titled “Has the Supreme Court become just another political branch? Public perceptions of court approval and legitimacy in a post-Dobbs world”. 

If the media is to be believed, the US public has a tenuous at best grasp on accurate political news. They're either consuming disinformation and fake news on social media or following biasedly inaccurate news outlets. Either journalistic truth is as good as dead or we're living in separate informational universes. But is this too alarmist, could the real story be more nuanced?That's what Columbia professor of economics Andrea Prat finds in his recent paper “Is Journalistic Truth Dead? Measuring How Informed Voters Are About Political News”. But what are we to make of these results, and how do we square them with claims of political polarization?

There is a fact of our political discourse so agreed upon that nobody thinks to question it: affective polarization…democrats and republicans disliking each other...has been getting worse, much worse. But what if that belief is actually based on polls measuring the wrong thing?That's the argument made by Northwestern Political Scientist James Druckman in his paper “What Do We Measure When We Measure Affective Polarization?”

How do we know if our democracy is healthy? For political scientist, the answer often comes down to things we can measure like responsiveness to voter's wishes. But is that really the right thing to measure?There are two camps in this debate. The empiricists want to focus on what and how we can measure things like the health of our democracy, often focusing on indicators like responsiveness, while the normative theorists want to focus on what we even mean…and what we should mean…by democratic health.If you've listened to our show before, you can probably guess that we fall more into the empiricists camp, but we wanted to bring on someone who could challenge our assumptions.Andrew Sabl is a political scientist from the University of Toronto and the author of “The Two Cultures of Democratic Theory: Responsiveness, Democratic Quality, and the Empirical-Normative Divide” in which he argues that the empiricists need to pay more attention to what they're measuring and why.

When it comes to our federal bureaucracy, there are two schools of thought. One says that an insulated group of career bureaucrats have created a deep state that corrupts the performance of government. The other says that our bureaucracy is dysfunctional because there is too much turnover or positions left vacant. Both rest on an underlying feature of our democracy: many of the positions in the federal bureaucracy are appointed by the President and approved by Congress. But, could having less politically selected appointments give us a more functional government?In this episode, we're doing things a bit different. The Center for Effective Government at the University of Chicago, headed by our very own William Howell, has developed a series of primers that each focus on the available scholarship about the pros and cons of a particular governmental reform. Each primer is written by a scholar who has also done research in that area. On this episode, we speak with David Lewis from Vanderbilt University who wrote a primer on this question: should we have more politically appointed bureaucrats or less?

There is a long running debate in political science: do we get better judges by letting the public vote in elections or by giving our leaders the power to appoint them? One side says that judges should be insulated from the influence of politics involved in elections, focusing entirely on the rule of law. The other side says that our judges should be accountable to the public for the decisions they make in office. Who is right?In this episode, we're doing things a bit different. The Center for Effective Government at the University of Chicago, headed by our very own William Howell, has developed a series of primers that each focus on the available scholarship about the pros and cons of a particular governmental reform. Each primer is written by a scholar  who has also done research in that area. On this episode, we speak with Sanford Gordon from the Politics Department at NYU who wrote a primer on this question: is it better to elect or appoint judges?

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

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

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

When we talk about policy choices around redistribution there is an assumption so obvious that most people never question it. That politicians are more responsive to the desires of the rich, and that policy preferences of the poor don't hold as much sway. But what if that assumption was wrong?In a recent paper by Boston University Economist Raymond Fisman titled “Whose Preference Matter For Redistribution: Cross-Country Evidence” uses cross-sectional data from 93 countries to see how much a government redistributes lines up with how much redistribution citizens of different socioeconomic statuses actually want. The findings are surprising.

Hello listeners! Our team took some end of the year time off, but we know your holiday travel wouldn't be complete without some in-depth political science research. So, we're release some episodes we think are going to be very relevant as we move into an election year. And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don't make money off this show, it's a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible…but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again and please enjoy the holidays.

Hello listeners! Our team took some end of the year time off, but we know your holiday travel wouldn't be complete without some in-depth political science research. So, we're release some episodes we think are going to be very relevant as we move into an election year. And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don't make money off this show, it's a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible…but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again and please enjoy the holidays.

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

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

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

When political commentators talk about polarization, they often mean a partisan ideological divide: the left vs the right, republicans vs democrats, progressives vs conservatives. But what if there is a different dichotomy driving our political disagreements that is orthogonal to ideological differences? That's what University of Miami political scientist Joseph Uscinski argues in a recent paper, “American Politics in Two Dimensions: Partisan and Ideological Identities versus Anti-Establishment Orientations. Using two national surveys from 2019 and 2020, he shows that anti-establishment and anti-elite sentiments may be more of a driving force in our politics than partisan ideology. Paper link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajps.12616

If there is one thing the right and left seem to agree on it's that money distorts our politics. It allows the rich to shape policy, choose who gets elected, and escape consequences. But what if this common belief isn't as true as you think?On our second live episode, we look back to famous paper in the political science literature, “Why Is There so Little Money in U.S. Politics?” by Stephen Ansolabehere, John Figueiredo and James Snyder. Their provocative paper asks an often-overlooked question: if political money is so effective, why isn't there more of it?This episode was recorded live at the University of Chicago Podcast Network Festival.

One of Donald Trump's 2024 campaign promises is to upend the modern civil service through an executive order called “Schedule F”. Democrats and Republicans have been fighting over this administrative state since its conception, but why is this area of government so divisive and what power does it really hold?The history of the civil services' origins is one that holds many lessons about the rise of presidential power, the fall of the party system, and the polarization of politics. And there is no better expert on these topics than University of Virginia political scientist, Sidney Milkis. His 1993 book “The President and the Parties” is one of those books that seems to always be relevant but, with increased conservative focus on the administrative state, it is especially worth revisiting today.

It's one of the most common refrains in political discourse today: social media is the source of polarization. It's a difficult proposition to empirically study because companies like Meta and X don't share their data publicly. Until now.In a landmark series of papers, three in Science and one in Nature, Princeton political scientists Andy Guess and a massive team of researchers were given unique access by Meta to study how the platform and algorithms affected users' attitudes and behaviors during the 2020 election. The findings are surprising and fascinating, even as the project itself raises intriguing questions about how to conduct research on a company in partnership with that very same company.

There is no political topic that can get people's blood boiling quite like partisan gerrymandering. Many even go so far as to call it an afront to our democracy. But what do we know about how effective it is and what the data shows about its outcomes?In a new paper, “Widespread Partisan Gerrymandering Mostly Cancels Nationally, But Reduces Electoral Competition” Princeton political scientist, Kosuke Imai, uses a novel methodological approach to try and document the effect of partisan gerrymandering. What he finds is surprising and may lead people who participate in it to re-think whether it's worth the effort.Link to paper: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2217322120

The assumption in political science has always been that electing challengers can lead to a downturn in performance. It takes time to do all the hiring involved in establishing a new government, and there is always a learning curve about processes and procedures. But a surprising new paper shows the opposite might be true.In “Electoral Turnovers”, Boston University economist Benjamin Marx uses a vast new data set to show that ousting the incumbent always seems to lead to improved performance, especially economic performance.Paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4039485

The common refrain in political coverage today says that each side of the isle is living in an information bubble. There is a partisan knowledge gap between the facts Democrats know and the facts Republicans know. May believe this gap could be the downfall of our democracy. But what if that gap isn't as large as we think?In a new paper by independent researcher, Gaurav Sood, titled “A Gap In Our Understanding? Reconsidering the Evidence for Partisan Knowledge Gaps” he finds that the way we study knowledge gaps is flawed, and that differences in factual knowledge may not be as high as supposed.Paper Link: https://www.gsood.com/research/papers/partisan_gap.pdf

There's a long tradition in political science of using voter rationality to test the health of our democracy. But could this myopia be misguided? Are there any situations where irrational and uninformed voters could actually generate a healthier democracy?We're taking a short summer break to catch up on some incredible episodes we have in the works. But in the meantime, we're going to re-share some of our prior conversations that we think are the most vital and fascinating. Thanks for listening and we'll see you soon with new episodes of Not Another Politics Podcast.

Partisan misinformation. Many people think it comes from the news people watch. When it comes to cable news, Fox and CNN have pretty partisan viewers. So, what would happen if Fox viewers tuned into CNN for a month? Would they suddenly adopt different views more aligned with CNN?We're taking a short summer break to catch up on some incredible episodes we have in the works. But in the meantime, we're going to re-share some of our prior conversations that we think are the most vital and fascinating. Thanks for listening and we'll see you soon with new episodes of Not Another Politics Podcast.

As the Supreme Court debates whether to end affirmative action, concerns about the power of implicit racial bias to shape who gets ahead in America are as salient as ever. But what do we know about the extent and power of this racism to drive voting decisions? Is there a scientific way to measure it?In a new paper “Disfavor or Favor? Assessing the Valence of White Americans' Racial Attitudes” political scientist Tim Ryan provides a new framework for how perceived racial attitudes line up with voting. It takes on the faults of our existing racial bias literature and provides striking evidence about how to characterize white American's racial attitudes. Ryan is a professor at The University of North Caroline at Chapel Hill. You can find the paper at this link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3701331 

We've become deeply familiar with stimulus checks in the last few years, but what isn't clear is what affect these transfers may have on elections. Could stimulus checks be enough for citizens to change their votes to the party handing out the money and if so, is this a way for politicians to buy votes?Northwestern Professor of economics Silvia Vannutelli explores these questions in a paper titled “The Political Economy of Stimulus Transfers”. She looks at stimulus payments in Italy in 2014 and uncovers some surprising findings. Not only did these transfers appear to “purchase” some votes, but the effect seem to persist into the future.

We all know you're not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but if we're being honest we all do it on occasion anyway. Could it be that we also elect our politicians just based on how they look? Of course, there's the old idea of looking “presidential”, but how much power does that really have to sway an election?A famous paper by University of Chicago behavioral scientist Alexander Todorov provides us with some surprising insights. Just by flashing two faces of competing politicians for mere seconds, participants were able to accurately judge the outcomes of elections based on how competent they thought the politicians looked. It's a curious finding that raises more questions than it answers, and we dig into both on this episode.