Steffen Ganghof
@ganghof.bsky.social
Professor of Political Science | University of Potsdam
Will this be recorded?
October 23, 2025 at 12:53 PM
Will this be recorded?
Reposted by Steffen Ganghof
..sollte sich ernsthaft mit den Möglichkeiten flexibler Mehrheiten beschäftigen. Sie lindern das Demokratieproblem der Brandmauer und die Demokratiegefahr durch die AfD. Mehr dazu im Frühjahr 2026 in meinem Buch.
October 22, 2025 at 9:57 AM
..sollte sich ernsthaft mit den Möglichkeiten flexibler Mehrheiten beschäftigen. Sie lindern das Demokratieproblem der Brandmauer und die Demokratiegefahr durch die AfD. Mehr dazu im Frühjahr 2026 in meinem Buch.
I doubt that a few perc. points threshold matter for coordination. Parliamentary system is the problem bc it doesn't allow centrist voters to coordinate. Presidential elections with absolute majority rule show this nicely. (Parl. system plus disproportionality also killed Hungary's democracy.)
October 17, 2025 at 5:59 PM
I doubt that a few perc. points threshold matter for coordination. Parliamentary system is the problem bc it doesn't allow centrist voters to coordinate. Presidential elections with absolute majority rule show this nicely. (Parl. system plus disproportionality also killed Hungary's democracy.)
Important debate. Thanks! 2 points. 1) Low thresholds make it easier to split up parties. German democracy would probably benefit if a AfD breakaway party were successful. 2) Discussion is predicated on parl. system. Not including small parties in no-confidence procedure can mitigate tradeoffs.
October 17, 2025 at 5:05 PM
Important debate. Thanks! 2 points. 1) Low thresholds make it easier to split up parties. German democracy would probably benefit if a AfD breakaway party were successful. 2) Discussion is predicated on parl. system. Not including small parties in no-confidence procedure can mitigate tradeoffs.
Klar. Aber 1. hängt viel an d. Def. von "... Anliegen berücksichtigen". Deliberation = Verfahren, in deinem Thread klang es nach der Substanz der Kompromisse. 2. Von norm. Theorien zu emp. Hypothesen zu kommen ist tricky. 3. Etwas weniger Rawls & mehr Gaus würde d. Diskussion vllt. helfen :)
October 16, 2025 at 9:48 AM
Klar. Aber 1. hängt viel an d. Def. von "... Anliegen berücksichtigen". Deliberation = Verfahren, in deinem Thread klang es nach der Substanz der Kompromisse. 2. Von norm. Theorien zu emp. Hypothesen zu kommen ist tricky. 3. Etwas weniger Rawls & mehr Gaus würde d. Diskussion vllt. helfen :)
Was zu stabilen Kompromissen führt, und ob diese überhaupt noch möglich sind, ist eine rein empirische Frage. Insofern sehe ich die Relevanz der Demokratiekonzeption nicht recht. Rödder würde doch nicht bestreiten, dass die Akteure ihre Positionen moralisch begründen.
October 16, 2025 at 7:13 AM
Was zu stabilen Kompromissen führt, und ob diese überhaupt noch möglich sind, ist eine rein empirische Frage. Insofern sehe ich die Relevanz der Demokratiekonzeption nicht recht. Rödder würde doch nicht bestreiten, dass die Akteure ihre Positionen moralisch begründen.
In seinem Beispiel ging es doch gerade um die Kritik an der Verrechtlichung, also darum, dass das Gericht das gesellschaftlich Kluge nur machen konnte, nachdem es die Fiktion der (moralisch) richtigen Entscheidung aufgegeben hat. 1/
October 16, 2025 at 7:13 AM
In seinem Beispiel ging es doch gerade um die Kritik an der Verrechtlichung, also darum, dass das Gericht das gesellschaftlich Kluge nur machen konnte, nachdem es die Fiktion der (moralisch) richtigen Entscheidung aufgegeben hat. 1/
help to explain the effects in Australia - and the electoral system itself also probably helps to explain why Australia's policy is not more redistributive (as per the theories of Iversen/Soskice, Rodden and others). PR systems might face distinct questions.
October 14, 2025 at 3:57 PM
help to explain the effects in Australia - and the electoral system itself also probably helps to explain why Australia's policy is not more redistributive (as per the theories of Iversen/Soskice, Rodden and others). PR systems might face distinct questions.
Thanks, Kevin, that's helpful. I was mainly curious, as I have been thinking about this. Is MV desirable in the context of authoritarian populism? I don't think I know the recent literature well enough. And there is an obvious interaction with the electoral system. Majoritarianism in 1st chamber
October 14, 2025 at 3:57 PM
Thanks, Kevin, that's helpful. I was mainly curious, as I have been thinking about this. Is MV desirable in the context of authoritarian populism? I don't think I know the recent literature well enough. And there is an obvious interaction with the electoral system. Majoritarianism in 1st chamber
But isn't it a bit more complex now? Younger and low-income voters do not necessarily vote (center-)left. Based on the review papers I have seen, the literature does not seem to converge on the kind of result of Fowler 2013 QJPS. Which studies do you have in mind?
October 14, 2025 at 1:57 PM
But isn't it a bit more complex now? Younger and low-income voters do not necessarily vote (center-)left. Based on the review papers I have seen, the literature does not seem to converge on the kind of result of Fowler 2013 QJPS. Which studies do you have in mind?
Not your focus, but you might want to pair it, at least as recommended reading, with the recent Stewart/Sperling piece on IBE IN JOP. I for one find John D. Huber's points here very important, too: goodauthority.org/news/is-theo...
Is theory getting lost in the "identification revolution"?
The following is a guest post from Columbia University political scientist John Huber, and is a slightly modified version of […]
goodauthority.org
October 13, 2025 at 6:20 PM
Not your focus, but you might want to pair it, at least as recommended reading, with the recent Stewart/Sperling piece on IBE IN JOP. I for one find John D. Huber's points here very important, too: goodauthority.org/news/is-theo...