Search

Research has consistently demonstrated that Black respondents are more likely than their White counterparts to overstate their plans or previous decisions to vote. We propose that by using a single question regarding turnout intention and candidate preference (rather than the typical approach of using two separate questions), survey researchers can reduce these racial asymmetries. The reason, we suggest, is that doing so encourages Black respondents to consider the turnout question through the lens of candidates and parties, rather than as a civic responsibility they have toward other Black Americans, which therefore mitigates the social desirability bias that leads to overestimation. We evaluate this argument using a survey experiment that randomly asks a control group of survey respondents to answer two voting questions—one about turnout and one about vote choice—and asks the other half of the sample, the treatment group, a single question that combines the two. Using original data from a nationally representative survey, we find that using the single turnout/preference question reduces the racial asymmetry in turnout overestimation substantially. We further observe that the decrease is concentrated among respondents with relatively high levels of campaign indifference and especially racial civic consciousness, a condition that is much more common among Black respondents than among White respondents. We believe these findings are particularly relevant to election scholars and campaign professionals, given their focus on understanding the thought processes of survey respondents and prospective voters, as well as improving the validity of self-reports in survey research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

That section membership in Legislative Studies and Presidential & Executive Politics has been persistently lacking in racial, ethnic, and gender diversity is no secret. Recent work by Powell, Schwindt-Bayer, and Sin, among others, has sought to bring attention to and increase the number of women scholars in the legislative studies section (LSS). In these introductory comments to the Special Issue, we draw a link between the demographic diversity of scholars and the research questions, topics, and approaches that the subfields consequently produce or overlook. This focus on what we are calling, "New Perspectives in Studies of American Governance," is one outcome of a collaboration between American University, Purdue University, and The William and Flora Hewlett to invite broader participation in panels, conferences, memberships, and meetings within historically homogenous subfield specific associational groups. In addition to presenting the results of a novel survey of more than 200 faculty respondents from political science departments across the country to better understand perspectives on diversity and inclusion in LSS, we also highlight the set of outstanding papers published in this issue that exemplify the broadened landscape we seek to encourage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Democratic policymaking requires compromise, but public support for it varies substantially. Scholars know relatively little about the psychology of such public attitudes. In this investigation, we consider the predictive capacities of humanitarianism (a commitment to helping those who are suffering) and egalitarianism (a commitment to treating people equally). Such altruistic values, we argue, foster concern for the common good and a cooperative vision of democratic policymaking — which, in turn, engender support for compromise. Moreover, we suggest that partisan differences in such values (with Democrats being more likely than Republicans to prioritize them, on average), help explain Democrats' disproportionate support for compromise. Data from two nationally representative studies are consistent with this theoretical perspective, offering novel insights into the roots of political compromise, the reach of core values as political determinants, and the dynamics of partisan asymmetry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]