I teach politics at a university in the UK. I'm interested in electoral systems, public opinion, and the politics of non-majoritarian institutions like courts and regulators.
ORCID: 0000-0002-8932-9405
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Reposted by Chris Hanretty
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Reposted by Chris Hanretty, Bonnie N. Field
I show that - contrary to claims that personalised electoral systems are good for participation - Open Lists have no effect on turnout relative to Closed Lists; in fact, they increase rates of voter error. 🗳️
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Reposted by Chris Hanretty
Reposted by Chris Hanretty
But rings hollow unless he addresses his own party's plan to change the rules to deny settlement/citizenship to people who came here in good faith and work/have families here.
www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-...
Reposted by Chris Hanretty
But rings hollow unless he addresses his own party's plan to change the rules to deny settlement/citizenship to people who came here in good faith and work/have families here.
www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-...
cup.org/4kltoyE
Reposted by Chris Hanretty, Jonathan Hopkin, Margot C. Finn
"If you’d asked Pickett in 2010 whether she’d have accepted this trade she’d presumably have jumped at it...But now, like most of the rest of us, she’s less than happy with the results."
www.theguardian.com/books/2026/f...
www.politico.eu/article/port...
Reposted by Chris Hanretty, Jonathan Birch, Richard Pettigrew
!["It is so easy to fail to imagine even relatively obvious possibilities that this fact can be easily exploited for humorous effect:"
Screenshot of tweet by MikeBenchCapon on May 8th 2021: "People think that if two people are facing each other then one of them's left is the other one's right, but that's only true if neither or both of them are upside down"
Main text continues: "This works as a joke because (sorry, as philosophers we have to explain this) as you read it the words ‘facing
each other’ prime you to expect that indeed, one person’s left is the other person’s right, and so when the author describes people as “thinking” this, you think ‘of course they think it – it’s true’. And then the humor
comes from obviousness in retrospect that this is not, in fact, generally true, but only true under the ordinary kind of circumstances that we imagine when we imagine two people facing one another.
The same thing, we know, has happened repeatedly in the recent history of metaethics. Before Mackie [1977], it was easy to define moral realism in contrast to noncognitivism..."](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:5bdrmuceq4ypcb2v7jlkxrh5/bafkreidkc5nqnv2j5o5vs3drbtpjbeyxgpb6v3xdktt5b7xrnn3fudl6li@jpeg)
Reposted by Chris Hanretty
