SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " polarization " 143 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Shaky political science: using "simulated" elections over real-world elections
[Dear DSOS readers – this article is the latest in our “Shaky Political Science” series. In our 38 page report, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting,” released in early December, we examined over 40 studies focused on ranked choice voting. We found that many of these studies suffered from puzzling research methodologies, poorly constructed surveys, unrealistic simulated elections, cherry picked data, and faulty analyses that often were contradicted by results from real-world elections (a link to our full paper is here). Here are links to the first three articles in our series: the first one summarizing the overall results of our report, the second one analyzing a study co-authored by University of Minnesota academic Larry Jacobs, which was one of the most error-prone of all the research we reviewed in our report, and a third article showing an admirable example of two political scientists holding two other political scientists accountable for their flawed, sloppy research]. In this fourth article in our “Shaky Political Science” series, we shine a spotlight on seven studies that were web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group (the ERRG is an ad hoc committee headed by New America’s Political Reform Program and joined by the American Enterprise Institute, the Unite America Institute and Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law). This research consortium has been led by Lee Drutman, senior fellow with New America’s Political Reform Program. These seven studies are simply not credible from any objective standard about how political “science” is supposed to illuminate our understanding of either ranked choice voting or politics in general. The feature that six of these seven studies have in common is that they all used surveys – artificial, simulated elections -- to attempt to say something cogent or interesting about ranked choice voting (RCV) elections. None of them used real world data from actual RCV elections – either the 1000+ elections in the US or the many thousands of elections from places like Australia, Ireland and elsewhere where RCV has been used for 100 years. While a few of these studies conclude with some mixed positives about RCV, our analysis here is content neutral. The idea that, with a political reform like RCV, you can ask respondents in a mock, artificial election to vote with that method, with only the barest of explanation about how RCV works or its likely impacts (i.e. no spoiler candidates, majority winners, voters liberated to pick their favorite candidates, coalition-building), and then ask them their thoughts/reactions about voting in that system, with fake candidates and no real campaigning, no real exposure to an actual election or actual candidates, rests on some very puzzling assumptions. The findings of these seven studies actually are contradicted by the findings from many other studies based on real-world RCV elections. These New America studies also failed to list the real-world RCV studies in their own citations, instead including those studies that reinforced their conclusions. The seven studies featured in this article were chosen because they form a cohesive cohort which precisely illustrates one of the main points of our research paper, namely that using surveys, i.e. artificial elections, or mathematical/theoretical models, instead of real-world data, is in fact “shaky political science.” Below are summaries of our analysis of five of the seven New America studies. You can read our complete analysis of all seven studies at our paper, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting.” Choosing to “Vote As Usual” by Andre Blais, Carolina Plescia, and Semra Sevi. New America. (Blais et al., 2021). This study, web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group, used two surveys in which respondents completed ballots for simulated elections using plurality, approval, RCV and point (Score) voting. In both cases the authors provided the respondents with only minimal explanation of each method. For example, the entire explanation for RCV was “For this vote, rank the candidates from your first to your last choice (you do not need to rank them all). This is called the ranked vote.” That’s it. The study did not provide any context or explanation to survey respondents about why she/he might want to rank multiple candidates. Participants were not even told that ballots would be tabulated using an “instant” runoff, not to mention any description of RCVs ability to eliminate the spoiler effect or liberate voters to rank their favorite candidates without fear of helping the “greater evil” candidate to win. That’s like taking an iPhone back in time to 1970 and asking someone if they like it better than their rotary phone without explaining how it works. Their first survey targeted states that held 2020 Super Tuesday Democratic primaries and used the real candidates’ names in the survey; the second survey used fictitious candidates. In other words, they surveyed respondents who had only ever participated in plurality elections, had no history or background with using RCV or any of the other methods, had no clue about its likely impacts, and did not communicate how the alternative methods would be counted, and then asked them: “How satisfied are you with using each system?” Predictably, the winner was plurality elections, the system used for president, Congress, gubernatorial and state legislative elections – in other words, the method they have been using, year after year, all their voting lives. With so little explanation of RCV and its impacts, this study is simply not credible in discovering anything useful about real-world RCV elections. It merely shows that a basic voter education campaign is needed when adopting a new election system. Additionally, the result contradicts many other post-election surveys following real RCV elections, asking opinions from voters who had just participated in a RCV election, that showed a great deal of satisfaction with RCV (see details on that in Studies 22-25 in our paper, as well as the four studies cited in the review for Study 28). Share Other studies on “satisfaction” and “understanding” make similar mistakes, in terms of basing their surveys on inadequate explanation to respondents and lack of education about context. How could any survey ever hope to measure accurately, in essence simulate a real-world election, without actual campaigning candidates, the media writing about those candidates, organizations endorsing candidates and voters being inundated with crucial information? More than anything, what these “studies” based on surveys show is that if you ask voters about something they don’t know very much about, and fail to adequately educate them, their responses will unsurprisingly reflect their confusion. Equally puzzling is that New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group, headed by political scientist Lee Drutman, found this to be a credible enough study that they not only published it but highlighted it in Drutman’s own discussion of research related to ranked choice voting. This pattern was repeated in study after study featured by New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group. For example in Ranked-Choice Voting and Political Expression: Voter Guides Narrow the Gap between Informed and Uninformed Citizens by Cheryl Boudreau, Jonathan Colner, and Scott MacKenzie, the researchers based their analysis on a survey which found that respondents who were asked to vote in a simulated RCV election, with minimal explanation of RCV or how it works, displayed less evidence of being informed about how to use RCV effectively, with the least informed voters ranking fewer candidates. As pointed out under the study above, in a real election voters are informed by a wide variety of methods, including public education by the election administration, by interested political groups, the media, and the candidates themselves who benefit from voters being aware of how to vote in the new system. In Support for Ranked-Choice Voting across Race and Partisanship by Joseph Anthony, David C. Kimball, Jack Santucci and Jamil Scott, the researchers used respondents from different parties and races voting in simulated plurality and RCV elections, who indicated their satisfaction with each voting method. Instead of using real world election results, the authors fell back on the easy, armchair and less reliable academic research methodology of making up mock elections. As with the other studies, little explanation was given of how RCV works or what its implications might be (electing majority winners or eliminating spoilers, for example). Unsurprisingly, this study found that respondents were not very satisfied with RCV. However, when the authors added an explanation that RCV has a tendency to elect more women and people of color, they found that this greater explanation increased the preference for RCV. The more voters were familiar with it, and the more they understood potential positive impacts – surprise! -- the more they were open to switching away from the status quo. Of note, the results from this study are thoroughly contradicted by a number of other studies whose data was obtained from real RCV elections with real voters. Those studies show a great deal of satisfaction with RCV. More “fake election” research An interesting wrinkle on this “research by fake elections” approach, which only served to illustrate how unreliable such “research” can become, was taken in Ranked-Choice Voting, Runoff, and Democracy: Insights from Maine and Other U.S. States by Joseph Cerrone and Cynthia McClintock_,_ also web-hosted and funded by New America’s ERRG. It gets high marks for creativity, but an eye-roll for thinking this could possibly add anything meaningful to our understanding of real world RCV elections. This study tried to determine whether RCV, plurality or two-round runoff elections provided greater voter satisfaction and acceptance of election results. To determine that, the authors conducted a survey asking if voters were satisfied with a fictional newspaper report of an election, with three different versions given to respondents – plurality, runoff and RCV, with variations of Republican/Democrat winners and variations of “come-from-behind” winners,” i.e. candidates not initially in first place but who win the “runoff.” Again, a minimal explanation of RCV or how it works was given, and the survey showed that respondents had the greatest unfamiliarity with RCV than the other methods. The unsurprising result? Respondents were much more satisfied with “come-from-behind” victories in a traditional two-round runoff election than in RCV, even though RCV is also a runoff system but with a single round of counting. Interestingly, the dissatisfaction with RCV disappeared for those who were more familiar with RCV. In fact, among those respondents who were “very familiar” with RCV, they were equally satisfied with RCV, runoff and plurality. Surprise, surprise. Again, what this study revealed, more than anything, is not only the inadequacy of the explanation for RCV given by the authors of this study, but the failure of the research format itself, thinking that such an artificial mock election could somehow simulate what actually happens in the real world in a real RCV election. Those four studies reviewed above are fitting examples of inadequate and shaky political “science.” Other studies reviewed in our paper from the New America/Electoral Reform Research Group cohort which also used mock elections included: Ranked-Choice Voting is an Acquired Taste by Joseph Anthony and David C. Kimball. New America. (Anthony et al., 2021). Ranked-Choice Voting is No Refuge for Extreme Candidates by Melissa Baker. New America. (Baker, 2021). Also included in this New America cohort is Does Ranked-Choice Voting Reduce Racial Polarization? by Yuki Atsusaka and Theodore Landsman, which actually did use real-world election results data but applied an odd and unconventional methodology to the data which relied on shaky assumptions and non-real-world scenarios that were too divorced from reality. To determine levels of “racially polarized voting,” the researchers imagined “ethnic parties,” by which they mean political parties for each ethnic group, which was especially odd since the election data they were using came from nonpartisan RCV races. But then they made an even odder assumption, namely that since race and ethnic characteristics of studied voters were not available, the authors tried to infer that information based on who voters selected and the racial make-up of voters in each district. This amounted to little more than vague and ambiguous guesswork dressed up with a bunch of mathematical equations used to give it a veneer of scientific appearance. Indeed, it seemed to assume racial polarization in order to prove racial polarization. Based on this questionable methodology, the authors concluded that RCV doesn’t reduce racial polarization. But the premise of this study missed an obvious reality: since RCV incentivizes more candidates to run and can result in more diverse fields of candidates, one would expect more racially-polarized voting in voters’ top rankings, not less, because more voters would have someone on that ballot who represents their racial or ethnic identity and more freedom to vote for their real first choice. By encouraging more diverse candidates and eliminating the spoiler effect, RCV facilitates voting for a favorite candidate of your own race and then selecting a second choice with the best likelihood of winning. The real measure is what voters do with their additional rankings – do they consider other candidates and vote “for the best of the rest”? This study didn’t tell us anything useful about that. But readily available data shows this is common in real RCV elections, and candidates act on this knowledge by engaging with voters outside their racial group. So the authors of this study failed to consider or account for what actually happens in real-world elections, and their conclusions are tainted by this failure. New America has contributed a great deal over the past 2.5 decades to our understanding of many policy areas, including politics and political reform (full disclosure: Steven Hill, one of the authors of this article and of the “Shaky Political Science” research paper and series, is a former senior fellow and former director of New America’s political reform program, 2005-2010). So it was especially disappointing that New America funded and published such a large batch of dubious studies about ranked choice voting. The stated praiseworthy goal of its Electoral Reform Research Group was to inspire new academic research about ranked choice voting that would shed light and help the public better understand the impacts of RCV. Instead, the ERRG research did just the opposite. It produced dubious research that created more confusion and misinformation. In so doing, New America’s political reform program contributed to “shaky political science.” Steven Hill and Paul Haughey Share Upgrade to $5 subscription Thanks for reading DemocracySOS, a reader-supported digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. Subscribe for only $5 per month to receive full benefits and to support our work. Subscribe
When the CEO Becomes the Brand
Research suggests that Elon Musk’s political stance appears to have reshaped how different groups perceive Tesla. Overall sales trends hint at trouble. The company’s growth stalled in 2024, and deliveries fell 8.5% in 2025. But those headline numbers hide what is happening beneath the surface. When the data is broken down by political orientation and by changes in views of Musk, a more complicated pattern emerges. Among right-leaning respondents and those whose opinion of Musk has improved, Tesla’s brand appeal is significantly higher and willingness to pay exceeds that for many competing brands, including Ford, Chevrolet, and Rivian. Among left-leaning consumers and those whose view of Musk has worsened, the opposite is true: Preference and willingness to pay for Tesla drop sharply. The outcome is not a uniform decline but a polarization of demand. Some consumers appear to feel alienated, while others feel more aligned with the brand. This raises an important strategic question of whether companies can influence purchasing decisions across these divided segments by strengthening the underlying value proposition.
The State of Education Politics Today
What does partisan polarization mean for schooling and higher education?
OPINION: Gen Z’s political frustrations are causing an analog counterculture
Gen Z’s frustrations with political polarization and life in the digital world have led to a new counterculture. In seeking to divert from the mainstream, they have popularized rock music, tangible media, and analog systems. This pattern is as old as time, though its most unique aspect is the technological regression in the effort to be more present.
Why Do Deliberative Discussions Reduce Affective Polarization? Evidence from a Deliberation Experiment in Honduras - April 7, 2026
Deliberative democracy advocates argue that deliberation can strengthen democracy in part by reducing partisan hostility and affective polarization. Yet - Why Do Deliberative Discussions Reduce Affective Polarization? Evidence from a Deliberation Experiment in Honduras April 7, 2026
KU researcher proposes strategies for political depolarization in, outside classroom
In two recent publications, a University of Kansas communication studies researcher prescribes constructive approaches to political polarization both in the classroom and in society more broadly.
Pete Buttigieg Calls For a Politics of ‘Belonging’
A Kennedy School panel discusses polarization and the uncertain future of American democracy.
Dignity across the divide: Braver Angels ambassador calls for love in politics at IU event
John Wood Jr. discussed political polarization ahead of the U.S. semiquincentennial.
Center for Politics hosts former Attorney General Jason Miyares
During the event, Miyares reflected on the state of American democracy, warning about rising political polarization while urging attendees to take an active role in sustaining civic institutions ahead of the nation’s 250th anniversary.
Scientists just found a way to store massive data using light in 3 dimensions
A new holographic storage technique uses light in three dimensions to dramatically increase how much data can be stored. It encodes information throughout a material using amplitude, phase, and polarization, rather than just on a surface. An AI model then reconstructs the data from light patterns, simplifying the process. This could pave the way for faster, denser, and more efficient data storage systems.
OPINION: One simple way to heal American politics: Run more union members
Candidates who come from the Labor Movement are exactly what many Americans crave By JARED ABBOTT Jared Abbott and DUSTIN GUASTELLA American politics feels hopelessly broken. Extreme political polarization, enormous amounts of Political Action Committee (PAC) money sloshing around during elections, and the increasing power of the rich make it seem like nothing, and no...
Partisanship and science
I recently participated in a symposium of the Denver-based Institute for Science & Policy, during which I had a “fireside chat” with Tony Mills of the American Enterprise Institute. Mills has written extensively on the politicization of science, and the two of us had a very enjoyable hour-long conversation on the topic. You can watch it below. The main questions we dealt with are why there is such a vast partisan gap in trust of science, and to what extent this is a unique moment. Mills helpfully brings a good deal of data to the discussion, as he did in this useful piece at Issues in Science & Technology. Tusk depends on reader support. To support this work, please become a paid subscriber. Subscribe Note this graph, drawing on a range of survey data to demonstrate partisan attitudes toward science since 1970s. As it demonstrates, there’s been a very sharp partisan divergence in confidence in science during the Trump Era, starting prior to the Covid pandemic. At least in part, we can attribute this to a rise in populist anti-science rhetoric embraced by Trump, his appointees, and those in his media orbit. But as the graph also shows, the partisan divide has existed in the past, and it’s not always in the same direction. The largest divergence in party views toward science prior to 2016 was in the 1970s, when liberals equated scientific achievement with the military-industrial complex and thus trusted it less. That era of scientific mistrust is often overlooked. Indeed, as Mills notes, the Moon landings (1969-72), which today are considered one of the last great moments of national unity, were experienced nothing like that at the time. There was sharp debate back then over whether the Apollo missions were worth the vast expenditures when the country had so much else to deal with. It’s outside the dataset, and we don’t have the partisanship lens for it, but the 1950s was another deeply anti-science decade, with critics of intellectuals and college professors alleging their ties to communism and their lack of commitment to basic American moral beliefs. This was the subject of Richard Hofstadter’s 1962 book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, in which he quotes religious leaders like Franklin Graham: [In place of the Bible] we substituted reason, rationalism, mind culture, science worship, the working power of government, Freudianism, naturalism, humanism, behaviorism, positivism, materialism, and idealism. [This is the work of] so-called intellectuals. Thousands of these “intellectuals” have publicly stated that morality is relative—that there is no norm or absolute standard.… This fervor was heavily whipped up by Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wisconsin), although it’s clear that not all his fellow Republicans were on board with his red-baiting. What ended that era? The simple answer is the 1957 launch of Sputnik. Americans became afraid that they were losing to Soviet scientists, and suddenly university researchers and government projects were awash with funding. In our conversation, I asked Mills about the possibility of us having a Sputnik moment again that would rally the American public in favor of science today. Mills argued that the COVID-19 pandemic was essentially a Sputnik moment — a terrifying threat to all Americans that required scientific advances to address. But thanks in part to political polarization and the populist and conspiratorial leanings of Donald Trump, we got the opposite of a unifying moment. Many Americans turned against science, despite science actually stepping up in that moment. As we discussed in the chat, it’s not clear what scientists could or should be doing in this moment to increase faith in their work. As Mills notes, one of the chief complaints against scientists and professors is that they’ve become too political; scholars becoming even more political might not help them achieve their goals. This (mainly Republican-driven) anti-science era will end, of course, but it’s not clear what event will bring that about. Share
A strange twist in the universe’s oldest light may be bigger than we thought
Scientists studying a mysterious effect called cosmic birefringence—a subtle twist in the polarization of the universe’s oldest light—have developed a new way to reduce uncertainty in how it’s measured. This faint rotation in the cosmic microwave background could point to entirely new physics, including hidden particles such as axions and clues about dark matter or dark energy.
Elections 2026 Press Kit
Northwestern University faculty are available to discuss 2026 election topics including redistricting, voter behavior, campaign strategy, election law, misinformation, polarization and political history.
Why authentic leadership matters more than ever
Mission-driven leaders are facing unprecedented pressure as economic uncertainty, political polarization, rapid technological change and growing public scrutiny reshape how organizations operate, Harvard Business Review writes. A recent analysis highlights how these overlapping forces are turning routine decisions into tests of values, strategy and credibility. Research based on surveys and discussions with nonprofit and social […]
Unlike in Past Conflicts, Most Americans Oppose Iran Attacks
While the public has historically backed military intervention initially in international conflicts, deep polarization has left the latest strikes against Iran with record-low support.
Can deliberation save democracy?
By Vince Bzdek In September 2019, 523 Americans traveled to Dallas, Texas, for an experiment called “America in One Room.” The gathering was designed to test a theory: Could representative citizens deliberate productively even in an era of intense polarization? The event took place soon after the presidential primary and it focused on policy proposals […]
Can deliberation save democracy?
By Vince Bzdek In September 2019, 523 Americans traveled to Dallas, Texas, for an experiment called “America in One Room.” The gathering was designed to test a theory: Could representative citizens deliberate productively even in an era of intense polarization? The event took place soon after the presidential primary and it focused on policy proposals […]
Class: Is Civil Discourse Still Possible in Politics?
Americans are struggling to talk across political divides, but a class at Kalamazoo College recently became a laboratory for civil discourse.
South Korea's Juristocracy Moment Reflects a Deeper Political Divide
In South Korea, deep ideological polarization turns courts into arbiters of power, making judicial rulings a key driver of political legitimacy.
Rethinking Strategy in a Hyperpolitical World
In an era of intensifying polarization, the boundary between business and politics has effectively vanished, rendering political and ethical dynamics as no longer peripheral risks but central strategic variables. This interview with Martin Reeves, author and managing director and senior partner at Boston Consulting Group, examines how leaders who embed pragmatic political thinking into their strategy will be better positioned to safeguard long-term value.
Rethinking Strategy in a Hyperpolitical World
In an era of intensifying polarization, the boundary between business and politics has effectively vanished, rendering political and ethical dynamics as no longer peripheral risks but central strategic variables. This interview with Martin Reeves, author and managing director and senior partner at Boston Consulting Group, examines how leaders who embed pragmatic political thinking into their strategy will be better positioned to safeguard long-term value.
Political Candidates and the Troubling Chill Factor
Whether it’s political polarization, ruthless social media or federal interference, this is a particularly tough time to be in elected office in a city or a state.
How UGA political science spaces combat polarization
While national headlines warn of worsening political polarization, University of Georgia students and faculty say their classrooms feel thoughtful, not broken.
Political analyst weighs in on State of the Union importance, Trump's priorities
The State of the Union matters less than in previous years because of polarization and low viewership, said political analyst Larry Sabato.
Double-phase metasurface operators for all-optical image processing
Light: Science & Applications - We propose metasurface operators leveraging double-phase encoding and polarization multiplexing enable compact, all-optical analog computing for high-resolution...
Explainer: How the State of the Union became a stage for political confrontation
What began as a spare presidential report to the U.S. Congress has hardened into a prime-time pressure chamber shaped by an era of fierce polarization, with the State of the Union speech now unfolding as a long night of choreographed tension and open confrontation - a moment for presidents to wrest narrative from turmoil and craft the defining images of their time in power.
Dueling Protests at South Korean Ex-Leader’s Sentencing Highlight Political Rift
As a judge reprimanded former President Yoon Suk Yeol for amplifying political tribalism, demonstrators from warring camps blared slogans outside the courtroom.
GCU students put their passion into politics at statehouse
It can be tough working in government and politics with the polarization and rancor around it these days. But Kady Binsbacher sees it as a […]
Talking politics with family: We won't make it if we don't 'put our hearts and heads together'
This episode of One Small Step reflects on how political polarization can strain family relationships and how trying to build connections across political lines can help repair that divide.
Back to Future in the Eastern Mediterranean: Polarization Once Again?
Without doubt, by this alignment Israel, Greece and Greek Cypriots attempt to provoke Ankara in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Political polarization in Pittsburgh communities is rooted in economic neglect − not extremism
Voters in places like Aliquippa and Braddock aren’t becoming more radical; they’re responding to decades of disinvestment and institutional failure.
The biggest accelerant of our political tribalism
In years past, my go-to word in describing our political condition was “polarization.” I used it endlessly and still do on occasion. But as time has moved on, and the divide has only grown in depth and toxicity, polarization no longer seems to fully capture the magnitude of what has overtaken us. In its place, […]
The only thing limiting Taylor Swift’s popularity is partisan polarization
Although she’s the world’s reigning pop star, attitudes toward Swift are split markedly along both partisan and gender lines.
Top U.S. Catholic cardinals urge Trump administration to use moral compass in foreign policy
In a joint statement, Cardinals Blase Cupich of Chicago, Robert McElroy of Washington and Joseph Tobin of Newark, N.J., warned that without a moral vision, the current debate over Washington's foreign policy was mired in “polarization, partisanship, and narrow economic and social interests.”
Analysis: South Dakotans, power and national politics
SDPB's Dakota Political Junkies discuss how polarization impacts the ability to craft effective policy
Putting political divisiveness aside is key to Maryland’s future success
Lawmakers will face tremendous challenges when they convene next week, but partisan posturing should not be one of them, writes Karl Bickel, who says it's time to abandon polarization and rediscover the lost, but essential, art of compromise.
Democrats look primed to win the House but a wave may be harder
Gerrymandering and longer-term trends in polarization have left fewer competitive House seats in next year’s midterm elections.
Israeli tech CEO calls on US govt to 'limit' First Amendment,' take control of social media to prevent 'lies'
Tech CEO Shlomo Kramer advocated government regulation of free speech during a CNBC interview, claiming First Amendment limitations necessary to prevent polarization and "lies."
A Political Scientist’s ‘Altar Call’: PW Talks with Ryan Burge
In The Vanishing Church (Brazos), the Washington University professor, who examines American religion through data, frets over Christians’ deep polarization, urging believers to find a church where differences, diversity, and doubts are welcomed.
More local officials than ever see political polarization as harmful nationally, survey finds
The survey findings, shared exclusively with NBC News, also point to which local institutions help reduce political strife.
GSPM director to confront enrollment challenges in shifting political, higher education landscape
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, a former member of Congress and university official, said she is aiming modernize the school and increase enrollment amid declines and heightened political polarization.
Future Focus: Vaccine Politics, EU Hiring, and Campbell’s Crisis
From vaccine polarization to EU hiring challenges and a Campbell PR crisis, here’s what business leaders need to know now.