Matching Items (24)
Description
Do fact-checks influence individuals' attitudes and evaluations of political candidates and campaign messages? This dissertation examines the influence of fact-checks on citizens' evaluations of political candidates. Using an original content analysis, I determine who conducts fact-checks of candidates for political office, who is being fact-checked, and how fact-checkers rate political candidates' level of truthfulness. Additionally, I employ three experiments to evaluate the impact of fact-checks source and message cues on voters' evaluations of candidates for political office.
ContributorsWintersieck, Amanda (Author) / Fridkin, Kim L (Thesis advisor) / Kenney, Patrick (Committee member) / Ramirez, Mark (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
Description
The 2016 election brought to light a political climate change in the United States and showed that questions scholars and pundits alike thought were answered perhaps had not been completely addressed. For some, the main question left unanswered was what would it take for a woman to become President of the United States? For others, the question of fear politics and the effects of social media were raised. Perhaps, the most intriguing was exactly who has influence over US elections? While these, and other, questions were asked in the context of the presidential election, they are also applicable to all political races. This dissertation examines how voter perceptions based on stereotypes and racial threat can affect Latina candidates’ prospects for election. Using an online experiment with 660 subjects and two elite interviews to test four hypotheses in order to determine whether or not racial resentment and stereotypes play a role in voter perceptions of Latina political candidates. The results show that racial resent and gender stereotypes play a role in voter perception of Latina political candidates. The results have theoretical and practical implications.
ContributorsHernandez, Samantha L. (Author) / Herrera, Richard (Thesis advisor) / Navarro, Sharon (Committee member) / Magaña, Lisa (Committee member) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
In 1985 Schotland made the observation that judicial campaigns were becoming “nosier, nastier, and costlier.” Because judicial campaigns are one of very few occasions in which individuals receive information about the bench (Schaffner and Diascro 2007), there is a possibility that such negativity in judicial elections could harm individual perceptions of the legitimacy of state supreme courts (Gibson 2008). This dissertation seeks to uncover the amount of negativity present in judicial campaigns, and to understand the effects of such negativity on perceptions of state courts’ specific and diffuse legitimacy.
To accomplish this goal I first conduct a content analysis of all televised judicial advertisements aired from 2005-2016. While other scholars have examined the use of attack advertisements in judicial elections (Hall 2014), my study is the first to consider ads airing before and after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling that removed spending limits for political groups. I find that neither the use of attack nor contrast advertisements appears to be increasing, though the sponsors of such ads have changed such that candidates and political parties air far fewer negative advertisements, but political groups air more negative ads than they did before Citizens United.
I then conduct a unique experiment to examine the effects of negativity on perceptions of specific and diffuse legitimacy. Unlike previous studies, I include a treatment group for contrast advertisements, which are advertisements containing elements of negativity about a target, as well as positive information about the target’s opponent. I find that, perceptions of the court’s diffuse legitimacy are only moderately influenced by exposure to negative ads. I do however find that contrast advertisements appear to depress perceptions of the court’s diffuse legitimacy by a significant amount for individuals with high knowledge of the courts.
To accomplish this goal I first conduct a content analysis of all televised judicial advertisements aired from 2005-2016. While other scholars have examined the use of attack advertisements in judicial elections (Hall 2014), my study is the first to consider ads airing before and after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling that removed spending limits for political groups. I find that neither the use of attack nor contrast advertisements appears to be increasing, though the sponsors of such ads have changed such that candidates and political parties air far fewer negative advertisements, but political groups air more negative ads than they did before Citizens United.
I then conduct a unique experiment to examine the effects of negativity on perceptions of specific and diffuse legitimacy. Unlike previous studies, I include a treatment group for contrast advertisements, which are advertisements containing elements of negativity about a target, as well as positive information about the target’s opponent. I find that, perceptions of the court’s diffuse legitimacy are only moderately influenced by exposure to negative ads. I do however find that contrast advertisements appear to depress perceptions of the court’s diffuse legitimacy by a significant amount for individuals with high knowledge of the courts.
ContributorsThompson, Joshua Robert (Author) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Thesis advisor) / Fridkin, Kim (Committee member) / Ramirez, Mark (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
Political polarization is the coalescence of political parties -- and the individuals of which parties are composed -- around opposing ends of the ideological spectrum. Political parties in the United States have always been divided, however, in recent years this division has only intensified. Recently, polarization has also wound its way to the Supreme Court and the nomination processes of justices to the Court. This paper examines how prevalent polarization in the Supreme Court nomination process has become by looking specifically at the failed nomination of Judge Merrick Garland and the confirmations of now-Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. This is accomplished by comparing the ideologies and qualifications of the three most recent nominees to those of previous nominees, as well as analysing the ideological composition of the Senate at the times of the individual nominations.
ContributorsJoss, Jacob (Author) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Thesis director) / Critchlow, Donald (Committee member) / Computer Science and Engineering Program (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05
Description
Even at the start of the twenty-first century, gender stereotypes continue to guide how people perceive men and women. Given the power of gender stereotypes, I expect that these stereotypes will constrain how women campaign for positions on state supreme courts. In particular, I expect that women candidates for state supreme court will try to revise potentially damaging stereotypes by detailing their possession of agentic traits, while men candidates for state supreme court will have more flexibility when describing their possession of particular traits. When discussing issues in their campaigns, I expect women to highlight issues that correspond to their stereotypical strengths (i.e., communal issues) since by stressing these issues, the candidates hope to prime issues that may benefit their candidacies. In contrast, I expect male candidates for state supreme court to be less constrained by persisting stereotypes and be equally likely to emphasize communal or competitive issues in their campaigns. To test my expectations, I conduct a content analysis of judicial campaign advertisements among the states holding elections for state supreme court. The evidence I find from my analysis strongly supports my hypothesis. This suggests that women are still confined by gender stereotypes when it comes to campaigning in judicial elections.
ContributorsKahn, Jennifer Gail (Author) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Thesis director) / Fridkin, Kim (Committee member) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05
Description
This thesis examines how the wording of proposed government policies can affect the level of public support that a given policy generates. By surveying 158 Phoenix residents, I tested the differing degrees of support that voters would have for a proposed city ordinance, which would stop Homeowners' Associations from restricting the use of native desert plants in residential landscaping. The ordinance was framed in the survey as a self-governance issue or a water conservation issue. I found that the message frames had little effect on the overall level of support for the ordinance, since most residents had moderate support for the policy. However, participants who were either residents of Homeowners' Associations that did not have native plant restrictions, or native residents of Arizona, demonstrated greater levels of support for the self-determination frame of the proposed ordinance. These findings have implications for policy makers who use targeted messages to establish pro-environmental policies at the local level.
ContributorsSmith, Mary Hannah (Author) / Darnall, Nicole (Thesis director) / Ramirez, Mark (Committee member) / Tetreault, Colin (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Sustainability (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2013-05
Description
This paper conducts an exploration of abortion legislation in Ireland through a Political Science lens. The existence of extremely harsh abortion laws in Ireland's constitution, with the procedure illegal except when the mother's life is at risk, appears to endure in juxtaposition with the country's status as progressive and highly developed with most other issues. Most notably, Ireland made history in 2015 as the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage by popular vote. This paper therefore aims to understand what factors have caused Ireland's abortion laws to perpetuate, and what the future of this legislation may be. This analysis is conducted by considering the following: Ireland in comparative perspective; the framework of abortion legislation; significant legal cases; the roles of the Catholic Church, interest groups, and public opinion; the referendum process in Ireland; and current and recent developments. The research and evaluation in this paper reveal that Ireland stands distinctly as an outlier among similar highly-developed European countries, even those with strong religious ties. Moreover, the Catholic Church continues to hold sway with abortion issues in the country due to widespread identification of Irish citizens as "culturally Catholic," exacerbated by the Church's majority control of the education system. Nevertheless, public opinion polls show a majority of the population support repealing the Eighth Amendment, the constitutional clause that severely restricts abortion access. However, this growing support for progress has not translated into real legal change because the referendum process must be initiated and majority-approved by Irish Parliament, which has been controlled by conservative parties for the last twenty years. Therefore, as the pro-choice movement continues surging in Ireland, the greatest hope seems to lie in the 2021 general election, during which abortion will likely play a larger role as a policy issue and young citizens witnessing this call to action will be newly eligible to vote.
ContributorsBerk, Gavriella Chava (Author) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Thesis director) / Hinojosa, Magda (Committee member) / Economics Program in CLAS (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
Suspect classification is a judicial process by which classes of people are determined as either suspect, quasi-suspect, or not suspect at all due to a combination of five factors: 1) minority status, 2) discrimination history, 3) political powerlessness, 4) an immutable trait, and 5) trait relevance as it relates to a discriminatory law in question. Laws that discriminate against a suspect class become immediately subject to strict scrutiny while most discriminatory laws only need to pass a rational basis test. Craig v. Boren (1976) established a precedent for the class of sex, which thereafter became subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny as a quasi-suspect class. With a more visible distinction between sex and gender today, this study seeks to determine whether gender rather than sex may become protected through heightened scrutiny by applying factors for suspect classification. In a call for heightened scrutiny for both gender and sex, this thesis argues that the suspect classification of both classes should include combinations of subclasses between gender, sex, and any other protected class. The central thesis employs a content analysis of case law, statutory law, and administrative law as it discriminates against classes of people with varying protection under the court system in the United States. In the question of whether courts should protect gender with suspect classification, the main argument calls for such action but if and only if an intersectional approach to protecting gender along with sex at a heightened level of judicial scrutiny is applied by individual judges on higher courts of review.
ContributorsTorres, Cristian Jesus (Author) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Thesis director) / Durfee, Alesha (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
Description
This paper analyzes how varying redistricting types—state legislature, advisory commissions, political appointee commissions, and independent commissions—correlate with margins of victory. The Princeton Gerrymandering Project’s statistical tests are used to classify state legislatures that have allegedly conducted partisan gerrymandering, and this study performs a pre-test post-test analysis via graphical and tabular interpretation of election data available from CQ Press’ Voting and Elections Collection. The use of GIS technology in the 2000’s combined with research to “sometimes pack but never crack” in the 2010’s and predictable voting behavior from party polarization has accelerated gerrymandering to unprecedented heights. Partisan redistricting results in landslide victories and less districts won overall for the opposing party.
Solutions to resolve gerrymandering are outlined, such as by voters lobbying state legislatures or issuing ballot initiatives, for the Supreme Court to establish gerrymandering criteria based upon statistical tests, or from changing House elections themselves, such as moving from a winner take all system to a proportional system, or having boundaries based on municipal and county boundaries as opposed to the one person one vote requirement. Independent commissions demonstrate promise in preventing gerrymandering as shown in Arizona, however a longer-term study in the future is necessary to validate its effectiveness on increasing the competitiveness of elections. Arizona has reduced margins of victories after switching redistricting authorities, however alternate “third-party” redistricting authorities—political appointee commissions and advisory commissions, are not very different than state legislatures due to political connections with these redistricting types. The purpose of this study is to examine an aspect of gerrymandering that is simple for voters to understand and decide for themselves which redistricting type is best for their state.
Solutions to resolve gerrymandering are outlined, such as by voters lobbying state legislatures or issuing ballot initiatives, for the Supreme Court to establish gerrymandering criteria based upon statistical tests, or from changing House elections themselves, such as moving from a winner take all system to a proportional system, or having boundaries based on municipal and county boundaries as opposed to the one person one vote requirement. Independent commissions demonstrate promise in preventing gerrymandering as shown in Arizona, however a longer-term study in the future is necessary to validate its effectiveness on increasing the competitiveness of elections. Arizona has reduced margins of victories after switching redistricting authorities, however alternate “third-party” redistricting authorities—political appointee commissions and advisory commissions, are not very different than state legislatures due to political connections with these redistricting types. The purpose of this study is to examine an aspect of gerrymandering that is simple for voters to understand and decide for themselves which redistricting type is best for their state.
ContributorsMills, Robert William (Author) / Woodall, Gina (Thesis director) / Ramirez, Mark (Committee member) / Department of Information Systems (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-12
Description
This study involves determining if different political symbols associated with ideological labels vary between the old and new terms. Specifically, the terms conservatism, liberalism, moderate, progressivism, and populism were used, where the first two are the old terms and the last two are the new terms. A survey was given to a representative sample of the United States, provided by SurveyMonkey, consisting of 205 respondents. Questions regarding favoritism/support for groups and political issues were asked to determine a trend of what each political ideology favors. Voting behavior was also evaluated to identify if there was a connection between self-identification of a political ideology or party and the frequency/type of elections that the individuals voted in. The hypothesis was that by adding progressivism to the liberalism category, the percentage of people who identify as these groups would be roughly equal to the percentage of people who identify as conservative, since the percentage of people who identify as conservative has been much greater than those who identify as liberal. The consensus was that the percentage of people who identified as liberal and progressive was greater than the percentage of those who identified as conservative. For example, the percentage of people who identified as conservative, moderate, liberal, and progressive was 25.9%, 31.7%, 27.3%, and 14.6%, respectively. Ultimately, after evaluating issue and symbolic preferences, progressivism is not just a term used in place of liberalism, but instead a whole new ideology that is different from other popular political ideologies. Considering voting behavior, there is no conclusive evidence that says that people who identify with one ideology vote more frequently or in a different election than people who identify with other ideologies.
ContributorsSypkens, Sasha T. (Author) / Ramirez, Mark (Thesis director) / Bustikova-Siroky, Lenka (Committee member) / Department of Physics (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12