Search

Much speculation exists regarding how social media impacts the health of democracies. However, minimal scholarly research empirically examines the effect social media has on democracy across multiple states and regions. Thus, this article analyses the effect social media and disinformation transmitted over social media have on democracy. The findings from a cross-national, time-series analysis of 158 states from 2000–2019 indicate that different types of social media usage have varying effects on democracy. General social media consumption, the presence of diverse political viewpoints on social media, and the use of social media in political campaigns bolster democracy. However, social media disinformation, online political polarization, and the use of social media to organize offline violence reduce overall levels of democracy. In addition, a mediation analysis is conducted to identify the precise linkages between social media disinformation and democracy and indicates that government and political party disinformation impact democracy by weakening key democratic norms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines the electoral consequences for ideologically right-leaning political parties in the wake of terrorist attacks by employing an original dataset that captures political party vote shares and multiple terrorist indicators. Our analysis extends the partisan voting hypothesis to 56 democracies from multiple regions and levels of development between 1975–2014. Specifically, we find that the origins of terrorist perpetrators, the severity of terrorist attacks, and the frequency of terrorist incidents decrease right-party vote shares in legislative contests when incorporating standard controls. All told, these findings reinforce political psychological reasoning that contends terrorist attacks impact citizens' emotions and voting calculations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

European far-right parties have enjoyed mixed success in the past few years. The primary elements in many of these parties' policy platforms centre on security, terrorism, and foreign persons. Naturally, these platforms are designed to attract electoral support that these actors can parlay into governing positions. Our study offers an important test to ascertain how voters respond to terrorist attacks with respect to centre- and far-right parties. We contend that far-right parties are to likely benefit from terrorist attacks more than centre-right parties. The results from more than 30 European countries, spanning 1975–2013, affirm our hypothesis. The implications for partisanship, governance, and terrorism are explored in this paper as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars have found that terrorism can influence political behavior in democracies by affecting citizens' emotions such as anxiety and fear. However, researchers have yet to examine how terrorism affects vote choice cross‐nationally. The few studies that have investigated terrorism's effect on vote choice have only examined single states through case study analysis. While informative, researchers lack an understanding regarding how terrorism influences vote choice cross‐nationally based on the nature of terrorist attacks and the ideology of political parties. Thus, using a unique dataset that incorporates political party ideology, this study examines the effect the number and severity of terrorist attacks have on vote choice in legislative elections in 56 democracies from multiple regions and levels of development from 1975 to 2014. Preliminary results indicate that terrorist attacks are critical events that significantly affect vote choice in the democratic states included in this analysis. Our analysis indicates that center parties are more likely to increase their vote shares following terrorist attacks compared with right and leftist parties. In addition, contrary to the assumption that terrorism benefits rightist parties, rightist parties appear to suffer the most electorally following both international and domestic attacks whereas leftist parties lose support following domestic attacks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In democracies with stable party systems, voters can more easily trace policy decisions from parties and representatives within the government to specific policy outcomes. Consequently, party system stability (PSS) has been reportedly linked to a variety of factors including economic conditions, democratic performance, political institutions, and socioeconomic cleavages. While informative, these lessons offer precious little insight into other factors that can destabilize a party system. In this work, we surmise that terrorist attacks have important implications for two commonly used measures of PSS. The results of a pooled, cross-sectional time series analysis confirm our hypothesis: deadly attacks proximate to elections destabilize party systems, even when controlling for multiple standard controls. In addition, the level of democratic consolidation within states also influences the degree that fatal terrorist attacks affect party system stability. These findings are based on terrorism data collected from the Global Terrorism Database and from PSS data compiled by the authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study of interstate conflict has yielded a voluminous literature to date, yet much of the recent work has only just begun to underscore the importance of domestic factors in predicting conflict initiation in democracies. In short, some of these studies find that when electoral accountability is greater—measured in a variety of ways—interstate conflict becomes less likely. Despite this burgeoning literature, scholars have spent far less time analysing the role linkage institutions, such as stable party systems, have played in foreign policy discussions. To address this gap, we argue that in more stable party systems conflict initiation becomes less likely due to the greater accountability present in these systems. This conjecture is supported by the results of a time-series cross-sectional analysis of 48 democracies from 1978 to 2000 that uses multiple measures of conflict initiation and party system stability. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

While elections are viewed as the lynchpin of modern democracies, few works have adequately assessed the role played by political parties in mobilizing voters. Much of the extant work has relied on the number of parties in a party system to estimate the impact on voter turnout; not surprisingly, the voluminous literature on voter turnout has arrived at a theoretical impasse regarding the relationship between party systems and voter turnout. We argue that in order to better understand the relationship between party systems and voter turnout, researchers should consider other relevant party system measures. In particular, several scholars have surmised that party system stability holds numerous implications for democracies, but there has yet to be an empirical analysis of this claim. In this study, we anticipate that lower volatility and replacement rates – both indicating more stable party systems – should have a positive impact on aggregate turnout. Even when including several control variables, the results of our cross-sectional time-series analyses confirm our hypotheses. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]