Volume 21, Issue 4

Reformers have offered many proposals for changing the Senate filibuster, ranging from modest adjustments to outright abolition. I draw on formal models of obstruction in legislatures to analyze the consequences of three such proposals: creating an opportunity to close debate with a simple majority vote after a sufficiently long floor debate, making it more onerous for the minority to sustain filibusters, and outright abolishing the filibuster. In each of these cases, the models offer a more complete understanding of the effects of these proposals.

Conspiracy theories have become an increasingly important part of the political realm especially in the United States. More than 30 % of citizens either strongly or somewhat believe in QAnon, the Birther or the Truther conspiracy to name a few of these theories. In this article, I provide an overview of conspiracy theory beliefs and evaluate the factors that make people more likely to believe in such theories. With the help of an original survey comprising 1000 residents in the US, I detect that there is not necessarily a conspirational mindset. While low education, a right-wing ideology seem to increase beliefs in conspiracy theories throughout the board, the effects of other indicators including populist attitudes, low self-esteem and age tend differ based on the conspiracy theory under investigation.

This paper examines electoral bias within US politics, including as it relates to malapportionment in the US Senate and Electoral College. Specifically, with the Republican Party gaining significant support in rural areas and the Democratic Party becoming concentrated in urban areas, there is concern that the US electoral system increases the probability that the Republican Party will win a much higher percent of Senate seats than its public support and repeatedly win the presidency without having won a plurality of votes, as was the case in 2000 and 2016. I explore this concern using a relatively new measure called the Directional Proportionality Index (DPIx). Applying it to the Electoral College since 1872 and the US Senate since 1918, this paper demonstrates that while there does exist a small pro-Republican bias in the Electoral College owing to malapportionment, the pro-Republican malapportionment bias in Senate races is far more substantial . However, as long as the percent vote for Democratic and Republican presidential candidates remains close due to partisan polarization, this small bias in the Electoral College is likely enough to lead to more cases whereby the Republican Party loses the popular vote but still wins control over the White House and the United States Congress.

Politically, the mid-term election of 2022 not only switched partisan control of one of the major branches of American national government but shifted party balance within that government as a whole. Yet analytically, this resulted from a shift in the House of Representatives so minute – 9 seats changed hands in a body of 435 members – that many of the usual tools for dissecting American elections had nothing to say. Which means at a minimum that analysis of this particular contest requires some larger, nested framework for its interpretation. This paper is an attempt to provide one such framework.

Much research has suggested that Republican candidates in U.S. presidential elections benefit from voter bias against non-White groups. The present study supplements this research by including in the analysis bias against Whites. Estimates from the American National Election Studies 2020 Time Series Study indicated that a nontrivial percentage of the U.S. population has a bias that disfavors Whites, with this bias more prevalent among Democrats than Republicans. Further analyses estimated the extent to which the type of voter racial bias that favors Republican presidential candidates offsets the type of voter racial bias that favors Democratic presidential candidates. Estimates for the 2020 U.S. presidential election indicated that the two-party vote share for Donald Trump was higher among voters who rated Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians/Asian-Americans equal to each other on 0-to-100 feeling thermometers than among the full population of two-party voters, suggesting that Donald Trump was disadvantaged on net by the electorate including racially biased voters. These results call into question research that has used an unrepresentative set of racial attitudes to suggest that, in recent U.S. presidential elections, only Republican candidates have benefitted from racial bias among the electorate.