Podcast appearances and mentions of Anthony Fowler

El 18 de abril de 2005, el mundo observaba con atención el cónclave que seguiría a la muerte de Juan Pablo II. En medio de esa expectación, un todavía desconocido escritor, Juan Gómez-Jurado, viaja a Roma, escribe y publica su primera novela, Espía de Dios (Editorial Planeta, 2006), un thriller que entrelaza asesinatos rituales, secretos vaticanos y una carrera contrarreloj para evitar una conspiración en el corazón de la Iglesia. La novela, protagonizada por la psiquiatra criminalista Paola Dicanti y el padre Anthony Fowler, se convirtió en un éxito internacional, traducida a más de 40 idiomas. Hoy, poco más de 20 años después, un cónclave ha vuelto a generar expectación y nos hemos preguntado ¿qué pasa puertas adentro? ¿Habrá conspiraciones como las que hemos leído en otras novelas? Conversamos con Juan Gómez-Jurado sobre la génesis de esta obra, sus influencias literarias y cinematográficas, y cómo ha sido eso de regalar su primera novela hasta que hubo fumata blanca.Con Don Víctor, exploramos representaciones papales en el cómic, desde las sátiras más mordaces hasta las intrigas más oscuras, También, como siempre, acompañaremos la charla con una selección musical que resonará hasta en la Santa Sede!Escuchar audio

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.

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? 

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.

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.

The whole world knows the outcome of the recent US election. Many are shocked that Americans chose the leader they chose. What data offered a glimpse into the concerns of everyday Americans that could have predicted the outcome? And, was the data that political scientists studied selective or transparent?To better understand what drives public opinion and political reasoning, Harvesting Happiness Podcast host Lisa Cypers Kamen speaks with Anthony Fowler, a professor at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago where he conducts quantitative research on elections and politics. Anthony deconstructs public opinion and political data to offer a quantitative analysis on the reasoning behind why people think, and vote, the way they do.This episode is a special edition of the Good Citizens Election Season Survival Guide designed to help restore common sense and sanity in a crazy world…Like what you're hearing?WANT MORE SOUND IDEAS FOR DEEPER THINKING? Check out More Mental Fitness by Harvesting Happiness bonus content available exclusively on Substack and Medium.

The whole world knows the outcome of the recent US election. Many are shocked that Americans chose the leader they chose. What data offered a glimpse into the concerns of everyday Americans that could have predicted the outcome? And, was the data that political scientists studied selective or transparent?To better understand what drives public opinion and political reasoning, Harvesting Happiness Podcast host Lisa Cypers Kamen speaks with Anthony Fowler, a professor at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago where he conducts quantitative research on elections and politics. Anthony deconstructs public opinion and political data to offer a quantitative analysis on the reasoning behind why people think, and vote, the way they do.This episode is a special edition of the Good Citizens Election Season Survival Guide designed to help restore common sense and sanity in a crazy world…Like what you're hearing?WANT MORE SOUND IDEAS FOR DEEPER THINKING? Check out More Mental Fitness by Harvesting Happiness bonus content available exclusively on Substack and Medium.

This episode features Dr. Michael Anthony Fowler, Assistant Professor of Art History in the Department of Art and Design at East Tennessee State University. In addition to his work in the classroom, Dr. Fowler is an active collaborator on several international archeological projects and serves as the chair of Johnson City's Public Art Committee. In this episode, he shares how these experiences impact his teaching, as well as some interesting observations and insights about incorporating hands-on learning and interdisciplinary approaches in his classes.

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?

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?

Professor Anthony Fowler, from the Harris School of Public Policy, researches econometric methods for causal inference to questions in political science, with particular emphasis on elections and political representation. In this episode, he describes how he switched from being a biology student to being fascinated by the political world. He also talks about the importance as an academic to disagree, challenge, and question opinions and research so to build a stronger political science research community.  Professor Fowler talks about his career path and how he became a University of Chicago professor.

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?

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

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.

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

Tad is joined by inker and illustrator Anthony Fowler Jr!Consider becoming a patron!Support the show

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

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.  

When citizens directly appeal to their government, are their concerns ignored or taken seriously? It's an important question for understanding norms around accountability, especially in authoritarian regimes. To find some answers, University of Chicago Professor of Public Policy Shaoda Wang helped develop a clever field experiment evaluating how Chinese regulators respond to citizen appeals about companies violating pollution standards. The experiment is fascinating on its own, but it also provides a wealth of data about the effectiveness of citizen appeals, how corporations respond when complaints are public or private, and even the incentives companies follow when it comes to adhering to pollution standards. 

In the runup to the 2020 election, the academic journal Nature made the unprecedented decision to endorse Joe Biden for President. During an era when trust in science has never seemed more crucial, this decision led many to wonder if explicitly political statements increase or decrease public trust in science.Luckily, one PhD graduate from the Stanford School of Business designed a well-crafted experiment to find an answer. Using the Nature endorsement as a test case, Floyd Zhang wrote a paper that helps us explore the effects of public trust when scientific journals make endorsements.

Paper link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3273001

Paper link: https://ideas.repec.org/a/now/jnlpip/113.00000063.html 

The popular narrative these days is that democracies around the globe are backsliding. If we turn to countries like Hungary, Poland, and Venezuela, this threat certainly is true — authoritarian dictators have contributed to democratic decline. But what does the global picture reveal? Does the claim hold true? A new paper by Anne Meng and Andrew Little investigates this question, by analyzing more objective indicators such as incumbent performance in elections.Anne Meng is an associate professor in the Department of Politics at the University of Virginia. Link to paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4327307 

With nine candidates running in the Chicago mayoral election, it is widely assumed there will be a runoff election, which is all too common in municipal elections here. Some argue that moving to a ranked choice voting system could help prevent runoffs and make voting more democratic. Reset hears from advocates Andrew Szilva and Alisa Kaplan about why they want to see ranked choice voting instituted in Chicago and Illinois. Then we'll hear from FairVote research analyst Rachel Hutchinson about how the system has worked in other cities and states and from a professor of public policy, Anthony Fowler, about the positives and drawbacks of the system.

On this show, we focus a lot on ideological polarization but it's important to remember that politics is about more than ideology or even policy victories. It's about distribution and redistribution of goods and services in return for party support, votes. This view of politics is called clientelism, and it often goes overlooked.One of the landmark papers on clientelism is from Tariq Thatchil, a political scientist at The University of Pennsylvania. It won the award for best paper in the APSR in 2018, and it's called “How Clients Select Brokers, Competition and Choice in India's Slums”. Their investigation prompts a re-thinking of the dynamics of clientelism and perhaps even holds some lessons for how to re-think the ideological view of politics as well.https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5310a4d8e4b05a56d51f81c8/t/5b4cbc711ae6cf1a9051724e/1531755638231/Auerbach_Thachil_APSR.pdf

Do polarized politics leave anyone left in the middle? Anthony Fowler finds that most Americans' political views fall between the opinions of Democratic and Republican elites. And that's not because they don't understand politics in the same way. Most Americans' views fall into the ideological continuum from left to right; they're just somewhere in the middle. These moderates matter for election outcomes. While they participate a bit less, they are the consequential swing voters. Fowler also finds that selecting candidates on policy grounds could matter more to voters than the power of partisan identity. We may not be giving voters enough credit.

Paper: https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/doi/10.1162/rest_a_01160/109262/Cross-Country-Trends-in-Affective-Polarization?redirectedFrom=fulltext

We took some time off to enjoy the holiday with our families, but in the wake of the 2024 mid-terms, we're going to re-share this crucial episode and relevant episode. When it comes to polarization, most people in American politics blame the voters. But much of the political science data suggests most voters are actually moderates. So, where are all the moderate politicians? In a new book, “Who Wants To Run?: How The Devaluing of Political Office Drives Polarization”, Stanford political scientist Andrew Hall argues that the reason we don't have more moderate politicians is actually quite simple…there just aren't any incentives for them to run.

This episode was recorded live at the NASPAA conference in Chicago. With the midterms upon us, we decided to look back at a piece of landmark scholarship that may be able to tell us something about the dynamics of personal interactions between representatives and their constituencies. It's by political scientist Richard Fenno called “U.S. House Members in Their Constituencies: An Exploration”. We often assume that voters cast their ballots based on ideology and policy, but it could it be more personal than that? Fennon took a novel approach to answering that question that he calls “soaking and poking”. We explore what his discoveries can tell us about our current elections and how representatives think about their interactions with their constituents. Paper: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1960097#metadata_info_tab_contents

One theme on our show is trying to make sense of why elites appear to be so polarized when the larger public is more moderate. We almost always study these trends in the U.S. but could we look to another country for insight? A country like the UK perhaps? In her paper “Has The British Public Depolarized Along with Political Elites?” University of Oxford political scientist Jane Green measures the differences between elite and public polarization during the eighties and nineties when the parties actually depolarized. Did elite depolarization lead to public depolarization, and what lessons do this data hold for the US?

There might not be a more controversial political hack than members of Congress being legally allowed to trade stocks. Infamously, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, one of the wealthiest members of Congress, has been regularly accused of insider trading. Recently the House of Representatives has introduced a bill that would prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, and children, from trading stocks. Although the bill has stalled, it's renewed a really important lingering question: are members of Congress actually advanced investors, and how much are they benefiting from inside information? In a 2014 paper by University of Chicago's Andy Eggers and Stanford University's Jens Hainmueller titled, Political Capital: Corporate Connections and Stock Investments in the U.S. Congress, they look at a wide data set of investments made by hundreds of members of Congress between 2004 and 2008, to see whether or not they're getting an unfair advantage. The results may surprise you.

For years, political scholars and pundits have claimed that primary elections are exacerbating polarization and with the 2022 midterm elections approaching this year has been no different. With many extremist candidates on both sides of the aisle, it certainly feels like this claim should be true, but does the political science back that up? To find an answer we turn to Harvard political scientist James Snyder and his 2010 paper “Primary Elections and Partisan Polarization in the U.S. Congress”. The findings are surprising and may have some key insights for how we should think about primary elections in the U.S.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been an era of misinformation. From social media to cable news, the spread of false or misleading information about COVID vaccines has been rampant. Some social media platforms have moved more aggressively by trying to flag misleading posts with disclaimers. Can fact-checking reduce the spread of misinformation? And perhaps more importantly, can fact-checks change people's minds about getting vaccinated? In a new study, George Washington University political scientist Ethan Porter decided to look at COVID-19 misinformation spanning across ten countries, from Brazil to Nigeria, to the United States. He and his co-authors evaluated factual corrections in these ten countries to see whether or not they changed people's beliefs and whether they got vaccinated.

In our hyper-polarized climate, it is often said that partisans determine their policy positions not based on thought and reason but on opposition to the other party. If I'm a Republican and I hear that Nancy Pelosi supports a particular policy, I'll reflexively take the opposite stance. There is a literature in political science that suggests this is the case, but could it be wrong? In a new paper, “Updating amidst Disagreement: New Experimental Evidence on Partisan Cues”, our very own Will Howell and Anthony Fowler demonstrate that more robust research designs leads to a completely different conclusion. The American public may be more open to deliberative policy positions than we think; they just need to be given the option.

The midterm elections are fast approaching, and with rampant inflation one of the main concerns for Democrats is the state of the economy. It's commonly accepted that some voters cast their ballots solely on the price of gas and bread, but does the science back that up? There is a classic paper by political scientist Gerald Kramer from 1971 that can help us answer that question. It systematically evaluates the relationship between changes in the various dimensions of the economy and two party vote share over the better part of a century. On this episode, we discuss that paper, what it can tell us about the Democrat's chances in the 2022 midterms, and if the possible effects of the Inflation Reduction Act.

Nearly a decade ago, the Supreme Court effectively removed the "preclearance" process in its Shelby County v. Holder decision. That process had been implemented for decades as part of the Voting Rights Act and required places with a history of racial discrimination to get approval from the Justice Department before changing their voting procedures. When the Shelby decision came down, voting rights advocates and mobilization groups panicked. There were widespread fears that this decision would dramatically reduce voter participation in communities of color. Did they? The University of Rochester's Mayya Komisarchik and Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Ariel White sought to answer that question in their recent paper, "Throwing Away the Umbrella: Minority Voting after the Supreme Court's Shelby Decision." In this episode, we speak to Komisarchik about the impacts of the Shelby decision and whether our fears about countermobilization and voter suppression tactics have held true.

Advocates for the striking down of Roe by the Supreme Court say this will improve our politics by allowing people's preferences to be better represented at the State level. But do State and local governments accurately match the preferences of their citizens when responding to their demands? It's a difficult question to answer, but one paper by NYU political scientist Julia Payson, “Locally controlled minimum wages are no closer to public preferences” provides a possible answer by way of locally set minimum wages. When local governments increase their minimum wages, do they accurately match local preferences? The answer is surprising, and has implications for policies beyond just minimum wage.

There's long been a belief that the Supreme Court rarely departs from precedent. But as the court appears to intend to strike down Roe, we're wondering what the data tell us about how consistent the Supreme Court has been at honoring precedent. And, is the Supreme Court more likely to depart from precedent in constitutional cases than other types? To break it all down, we spoke to Washington University law professor Lee Epstein, about her 2015 paper, "The Decision To Depart (or Not) From Constitutional Precedent: An Empirical Study of the Roberts Court", co-authored by William M. Landes and Adam Liptak.