ALESSANDRO NAI, FREDERICO FERREIRA DA SILVA, LOES AALDERING, KATJANA GATTERMANN, DIEGO GARZIA

LISA JANSSEN, EMMA TURKENBURG

JAKOB KASPER, GIJS SCHUMACHER, BERT N. BAKKER

KYUNG JOON HAN

Symbolic Leverage: Nominating (Non)veiled Women as an Electoral Competition Strategy in Polarized Turkey

There are increasing concerns about affective polarization between political groups in the US and elsewhere. While most work explaining affective polarization focuses on a combination of social and id...

In this article, we examine the deeper causes of a key group conflict during the COVID-19 pandemic: attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccination. Extending resear...

Political (as opposed to professional) election oversight is one area in which the U.S. scores extremely low in measures of election integrity. Meanwhile, rancorous political battles to determine acceptable election procedures and judge when tactics cross the line have become common events. Our work contributes to recent scholarship investigating whether voters prioritize democratic principles or strategically favor electoral procedures that provide partisan advantage. In two survey experiments, we confirm that Americans’ attitudes about antidemocratic election tactics reveal more about which team they are cheering for than they do about whether the tactics are fraudulent. The tendency to engage in partisan motivated reasoning occurs among all partisans, but there are subtle differences as to when citizens will engage in it. Partisan motivated reasoning is more common when actions cause harm and by the partisans that are harmed. Finally, Independents are more impartial, but less likely to call out improper tactics in the aggregate because they often fail to condemn actions by either party.